HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUD_NMFS_WA_State_Appendix_Checklist.pdfAPPENDIX A:
ESA Guidance and No Effect Design Criteria
Consultation Guidance for Washington State
Prepared in collaboration with National Marine Fisheries Service.
For use in Washington State only
For Responsible Entities under 24 CFR Part 58, & 24 CFR Part 50
General requirements Legislation Responsible Agency
Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act The Endangered NMFS and USFWS (the
(ESA) mandates that actions that are authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies do not
Species Act of 1973;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et
Services)
jeopardize the continued existence of plants and
animals that are listed, or result in the adverse
modification or destruction of designated
critical habitat.
seq.
Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Magnuson-Stevens NMFS only
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Fishery Conservation
requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA and Management Act
Fisheries on any action that they authorize, fund,
or undertake that may adversely affect essential
fish habitat (EFH).
Purpose
The purpose of this checklist is to assist HUD and HUD’s responsible entities (REs) in
meeting their obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for both Services, and the
MSA with NMFS where necessary. The checklist is designed to help you determine whether a
proposed project will have an effect on federally-listed species, designated critical habitat, or
essential fish habitat, and the process to follow based on those effect determinations.
Appendices page-1
ESA Section 7 Consultation Requirements
The ESA directs all Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to conserve species listed as
threatened or endangered (ESA Section 2(c)(1)), and to consult with the Services to ensure that
their actions will not jeopardize listed species, or adversely modify habitat designated as critical
for listed species.
The Services share responsibility for assisting federal agencies in implementing the ESA. The
USFWS trust resources under the ESA include birds, amphibians, plants, insects, terrestrial
reptiles, terrestrial mammals, most freshwater fish, and a few marine mammals and their critical
habitats. NMFS ESA trust resources are the remainder of listed marine mammals, sea turtles,
marine fish, anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead and their critical habitats.
ESA Effects Determinations
First - Before Federal agencies (or REs) consult with the Services, they make a preliminary
analysis of the likely direct and indirect effects of project activities and whether listed species
and/or habitat will experience those effects. If yes, then the action “May Affect” and the Federal
agency (or in this case, HUD or its RE) must consult, either formally or informally (guidance is
below). If no species or critical habitat could be affected either positively or negatively, even
temporarily, then a“No Effect” call may be reached.
To make this determination correctly, remember that the effects of the action (direct and indirect)
are not limited to the immediate area involved in the action (“footprint” or project area). Instead,
the effects of the action encompass all of the action’s direct and indirect effects to the physical,
chemical, and biological environment.
⚫ Direct effects include, but are not limited to, sound, visual disturbance
(e.g., lighting), and turbidity from disturbed land during construction.
⚫ Indirect effects occur later in time (typically related to operation and
maintenance) and may include, but are not limited to, air emissions, storm or process
water discharges, and sources of sound and visual disturbance (e.g., lighting).
If other actions are caused by the proposed action (e.g., site access and staging, sourcing of
materials, disposal of wastes, increased vehicle traffic), they must also be considered. Some
actions may indirectly affect the pattern or rate of land use conversion or development, and those
indirect effects must also be considered.
No Effect: There must be no connection between the effects of the action and any trust
resources. This is a very high bar to meet, and very few actions that would take place in or near
habitats that are occupied by listed species and/or have been designated as critical habitat would
have truly no effect. However, if an agency does determine that an action would have no effect,
the agency would document that determination in their project files, along with its supporting
rationale, and no consultation with the Services is required. The Action agency or the RE are
solely responsible for this determination and cannot defer responsibility to an external party. The
Services rarely issue any correspondence for a no effect determination, except when there is
strong disagreement about that determination.
Appendices page-2
Second - If an RE determines that an action in Western Washington may affect trust resources, it
should proceed with consultation under the HUD Programmatic Consultation for Washington
State by submitting documents showing the activity falls within this programmatic, to HUD-
wa.wcr@noaa.gov. This means that if effects exceed the “no effect” threshold but are “not
likely to adversely affect” or are “likely to adversely affect, consultation can proceed via the
inbox and this programmatic.
In Eastern Washington, submit to:CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov
“Not likely to adversely affect.” When effects on species or critical habitat are expected to be
insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial. The thresholds for reaching an NLAA
determination are:
✔ Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on the best
available scientific and commercial data, and judgment, a person would not
expect discountable effects to occur.
✔ Insignificant effects relate to the magnitude of the impact and should never
reach the scale where “take” occurs. “Take” is defined to include “harass,” and
“harm.” Harm can occur if habitat is altered in a manner that diminishes
important species behavior, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to the
degree that it injures even a single individual of the species. Harass includes
activities that alter an individual’s behavior in a manner that increases the
likelihood of it being injured. Based on best judgment, a person would not be
able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects.
✔ Wholly beneficial effects is very narrowly construed, and cannot be interpreted
to mean “better than before,” and cannot involve an analysis of net effects. All
effects must be positive. If any adverse effect occurs, then the project is not
wholly beneficial.
“Likely to adversely affect.” If the expected effects of an action and its associated activities
exceed any of the thresholds above, for even one individual or any feature of critical habitat,
then the action is likely to adversely affect that trust resource. In the case of uncertainty, the
benefit of the doubt must be given in favor of protecting the trust resources. IF the project is in
Western Washington, submit your request for consultation under this programmatic at HUD-
wa.wcr@noaa.gov. In Eastern Washington, submit to
CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov
Part A of this document explains all the steps necessary to determine if ESA consultation
with NMFS is required.8
8 Conference opinions are optional for effects on proposed critical habitat and proposed species,
and candidate species. Reinitiation of consultation may be required if a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated subsequent to the action.
Appendices page-3
Part A: Procedures for ESA Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service
Step 1: Obtain Species List and Determine Critical Habitat
You must obtain a species list for the entire action area of your project. The action area
encompasses all areas where the physical, chemical, or biological effects of the project and activities
associated with the project will occur, not just effects within the construction footprint. Note that
project effects include those from the presence, operation, and maintenance of the project, not
merely construction effects. Examples include effects such as noise, air pollution, water quality,
stormwater discharge, artificial lighting, and visual disturbances.
For NMFS species and designated critical habitat go to:
List of ESA Species on the West Coast: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species -
directory/threatened-
endangered?species_title=&field_species_categories_vocab_target_id=All&field_species_sta tu
s _value=All&field_region_vocab_target_id=1000001126
Species Maps & GIS Data:
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/maps_data/Species_Maps_Data.html
Critical Habitat Maps & GIS Data:
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/maps_data/endangered_species_act_critical_habitat.html
ESA Species & Critical Habitat Mapper Web Application:
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7514c715b8594
944a6e468dd25aaacc9
Determining Effect Level
Question 1: No ESA-listed species, or designated critical habitat covered by National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) currently (November 2019) fall within Ferry, Lincoln, Pend
Oreille, Stevens, or Spokane Counties. Is the project located within one of these counties?
☐ YES, the construction footprint and action area are within one of these
counties. No listed species or critical habitat is present in these counties. If the
action area does not extend into another county where listed species and critical
habitat are present, there is No Effect and no need to consult with NMFS.
(Consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service may still be necessary.)
◻ Record your determination of No Effect on species or habitats covered by NMFS, and
maintain this documentation in your Environmental Review Record.
◻ Include a statement to your determination explaining that your project is not located
within one of the counties covered by NMFS.
◻ CONSULTATION UNDER MSA MAY STILL BE NECESSARY, SEE PART C.
☐ NO, the construction footprint or action area is located outside these counties. Continue to
Step 2
Appendices page-4
X
Step 2: Determine Effect
Use the guidance below and Table A to help you determine whether the project qualifies for
a “no effect” determination. The guidance provides separate sections for USFWS and NMFS
to emphasize the need to consider both. However, the process and standards are similar.
No Effect: If the project is within the geographic range of species and/or critical habitat
but project effects will not overlap with or reach listed species or critical habitat at all, the
no exposure will occur. A “no effect” may be determined and no consultation is required.
Document the basis of the “no effect” on listed species and critical habitat for HUD’s
records. This satisfies HUDs and the RE’s obligation to ensure actions it authorizes, funds, or
carries out do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify
designated critical habitat.
Question 2: Is the project listed in Table A, and does it meet all parameters and conditions?
☐ YES, the project is listed in Table A and it meets all parameters and
conditions. No effects are likely to reach species or critical habitat. Therefore,
there is No Effect and no need to consult with NMFS. (Consultation with Fish
and Wildlife Service may still be necessary.)
◻ Record your determination of No Effect on species or habitats covered by NMFS, and
maintain this documentation in your Environmental Review Record.
◻ Include a statement to your determination explaining that your project meets all
parameters and conditions in Table A.
☐ NO, the project is not listed in Table A, or does not meet all parameters and
conditions. Continue to Question 3.
Question 3: Would the project effects overlap with federally-listed species or designated
critical habitat covered by NMFS?
Consider all effects (direct and indirect, from construction, operation, and maintenance) of the
project within the action area. The action area encompasses all the effects of the project,
including those that occur beyond the boundaries of the property (such as noise, air pollution,
water quality, stormwater discharge, visual disturbance).
☐ NO, the project and all effects will not reach areas where listed or species are
present, nor reach designated critical habitat covered by NMFS. Therefore, the
project will have No Effect on ESA-listed species, or designated critical habitat.
◻ Record your determination of No Effect on species or habitats covered by NMFS and
maintain this documentation in your Environmental Review Record.
◻ Include a statement explaining how you determined that your project’s effects do
not
Appendices page-5
X
overlap with species or habitat covered by NMFS.
☐ YES, project effects may overlap with ESA-listed species or designated critical
habitat covered by NMFS. Therefore, your project may affect species and habitat..
Table A Potential No Effect Categories and Required Criteria
Potential No Effect Activity Category with required performance criteria
Purchase building or property:
• No change to existing structures.
• No new impervious surface area constructed.i
• No modification to existing stormwater collection or drainage patterns.
Landscaping, including adding sprinkler systems
• Does not result in fill of jurisdictional waters or the nation or waters of the state,
except if proposed for the purposes of species habitat restoration or enhancement..
• Does not remove -riparian9 vegetation or trees within 150 feet of an aquatic resource. 10
• Any new plantings shall be comprised of native species approved by the
local jurisdiction. No planting of invasive species is permitted.
• No use of pesticides, herbicides within 150 feet of an aquatic resource, or 24
hours prior to heavy storm events.
• Outside lighting must not illuminate aquatic resources occupied by listed species.
• Does not increase hardscape area unless an equal area of impervious surface area
is converted to pervious surface..
• Directs sprinkler spray away from pollution generating impervious surfaces.11
Interior rehabilitation
• Applies only to existing structures.
• Access and staging, and source sites, have been assessed as part of the proposed
action. The sites are located at least 150 feet away from any aquatic resources and
include BMPs to prevent discharge of contaminants entering waterbodies or
stormwater systems (e.g., filter fabrics in catch basins, sediment traps, etc.).No
plantings of invasive species.
• Disposal sites are approved for materials to be received. Waste materials are recycled or
otherwise disposed of in an EPA approved sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site.
9 Riparian zones are the areas bordering rivers and other bodies of surface water. They include the floodplain as
well as the riparian buffers adjacent to the floodplain. Riparian zones are visually defined by a greenbelt with a
characteristic suite of plants that are adapted to and depend on the shallow water table.
10 An aquatic resource, for the purposes of this opinion, includes: streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, wetlands,
estuaries, bays, or other tidally influenced marine areas.
11 A pollution generating surface, as used in this opinion, is a surface upon which motorized vehicles travel.
Examples include, but are not limited to: parking lots, driveways, and roads.
Appendices page-6
X
Potential No Effect Activity Category with required performance criteria
Any exterior repair or improvement that will not increase post-construction runoff
• Does not increase amount of impervious surface area.
• Does not replace existing roof with new hot tar roofing methods, torch down roofing
method, treated wood, copper, or galvanized metal.12
• Does not replace existing siding with galvanized sheeting.
• Does not install, repair, or replace exterior artificial lighting on properties adjacent to
aquatic resources that support ESA-listed species.
• Disposal sites are approved for materials to be received. Waste materials are recycled
or otherwise disposed of in an approved sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site.
• Exterior repair or improvements to an existing structure located within a Special Flood
Hazard Area (100 year floodplain), does not increase structure footprint/does not
reduce the amount of flood storage capacity, or remove native riparian vegetation.
• Access and staging, and source sites have been assessed as part of the proposed
action. The sites are located at least 150 feet away from the aquatic resource and
include BMPs to prevent discharge of contaminants from entering waterbodies or
stormwater systems (e.g., filter fabrics in catch basins, sediment traps, etc.).
*2* Species under FWS jurisdiction include some that occur in the previously disturbed and built
environment; HUD and its responsible entities must evaluate potential effects to all of the FWS
species that occur, or potentially occur, in the action area; contact the nearest FWS Field Office
with any related questions.
Part B - Initiating Section 7 Consultation
To initiate informal or formal consultation with NMFS west of the Cascades submit electronic
materials to HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov This is a general email inbox that is monitored by NMFS
for consultation requests. East of the Cascades, submit requests to
CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov
National Marine Fisheries Service
For General Questions:
⚫ Eastern Washington (509) 962-8911x802
⚫ North Puget Sound (206) 526-4505
⚫ Central Puget Sound (360) 753 -6054
⚫ Coastal Washington/Lower Columbia River (360) 534-9306
12 Galvanized flashing, gutters, or fasteners may be utilized as part of roofing systems, so long as they are
coated or painted to prevent exposure to precipitation.
Appendices page-7
Part C: Essential Fish Habitat Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service
Essential fish habitat (EFH) means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of essential
fish habitat, “Necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the
managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem.
MSA Consultation Requirements:
Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or
proposed actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The MSA (section 3)
defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity.” For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH: “Waters” include
aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by
fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; “substrate”
includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological
communities; “necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the
managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity” covers a species’ full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10).
The MSA requires Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) to designate EFH for each
life stage of the species that are managed under their fishery management plans (FMP). In
Washington, EFH is described and identified in the FMPS for four fisheries managed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC):
• Pacific Coast salmon (chinook salmon, coho salmon, and Puget Sound pink
salmon)(PFMC 2014);
• Pacific Coast groundfish (e.g., rockfishes, flatfishes, cods) (PFMC 2016);
• coastal pelagic species (e.g., northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, market squid)
(PFMC 1998); and
• Highly migratory species (e.g., tunas and sharks)(PFMC 2007).
In addition to designating EFH, the PFMC has designated “habitat areas of particular concern”, or
HAPCs, for both salmon and groundfishes (Table 2, see PFMC 2014 and PFMC 2016 for detailed
descriptions of the HAPCs). HAPCs are specific areas or habitat types within EFH that of high
ecological importance, sensitive to human-induced degradation, the extent to which they are
under stress from human activities, or are rare. Although the designation as a HAPCs confers no
specific regulatory protection on those habitats, it does highlight those habitats as priority areas
for conservation and management. During the EFH consultation process, adverse effects on
HAPCs should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny.
Appendices page-8
Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) in the salmon and groundfish fishery management
plans (FMPs)
FMP Pacific Coast Groundfish Pacific Coast Salmon
HAPC
Estuaries Complex channels and floodplains
Rocky reefs Thermal refugia
Canopy kelp Spawning habitat
Seagrasses Estuaries
Areas of Interest Marine and estuarine submerged
aquatic vegetation
MSA Effects Determination
As with ESA consultation, the federal agency must make a preliminary analysis of direct and
indirect effects of project activities and whether EFH may be adversely affected. If no EFH
would be adversely affected, then a “No Adverse Affect” call may be reached. If any adverse
effect could occur, then Federal agency (or here the RE) must make a preliminary effect
determination of “May Adversely Affect.”
Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality or quantity of EFH, and may include direct
or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration of the waters or substrate and loss of (or
injury to) benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if
such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result
from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-
wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. [50 CFR
600.810(a)].
Step 1: Determine whether EFH and HAPCs are present.
Obtain a list of EFH and HAPC present in the entire action area of your project.
For NMFS West Coast Region EFH information go to:
EFH and HAPC Map: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.html
EFH and HAPC descriptions for each species:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/habitat-conservation/essential-fish-habitat-west-coast
General HAPC information: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/habitat-
conservation/habitat-areas-particular-concern-west-coast
Question 1: Does the area affected by the action overlap with EFH
☐ NO, the construction footprint project and action area do not overlap with.
The project will Not Adversely Affect EFH or HAPCs. There is no need to
consult with NMFS.
☐ YES, the construction footprint or action area overlaps with EFH. Continue
to Question 2
Appendices page-9
X
Question 2: Is the project listed in Table A, and does it meet all parameters and conditions?
☐ YES, the project is listed in Table A and it meets all parameters and
conditions. The project will Not Adversely Affect EFH or HAPCs. There is no
need to consult with NMFS.
☐ NO, the project is not listed in Table A, or does not meet all parameters and
conditions. Continue to Step 2.
Step 2: Determine Effect Exposure.
Question 3: Would the project result in adverse effects (as defined above) to EFH?
☐ NO, the project will not result in adverse effects. The project will Not
Adversely Affect EFH. There is no need to consult with NMFS.
☐ YES, the project may result in adverse effects. EFH consultation
is required.
◻ Please send a request for EFH consultation and an EFH Assessment. The EFH
Assessment may be incorporated into Biological Assessments, Biological
Evaluations, NEPA documents, etc. prepared for the project. The level of detail in the
assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the
potential adverse effects of the action. The EFH Assessment must include the
following information [50 CFR 600.920€(3):
o Description of the action.
o An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the
managed species. Special attention should be given to any HAPCs that may
be adversely affected.
o HUD’s conclusion regarding the effects of the actions on EFH
o Proposed mitigation, if applicable. This includes measures to avoid, minimize,
mitigate or otherwise offset the adverse effects of the action on EFH.
If appropriate, the assessment should also include [50 CFR 600.920(e)4)]:
o the results of on-site inspections to evaluate the habitat and site-specific
effects of the action
o the views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected
o a review of pertinent literature and related information
o an analysis of alternatives to the action.
For technical questions about EFH contact:
John Stadler - West Coast EFH Coordinator
john.stadler@noaa.gov
(360) 534-9328
Appendices page-10
X
X
Appendices page-11
Appendix B
Materials and Landscape Design Criteria
To Satisfy Programmatic Terms and Conditions for Increased use of LID
ROOF AND GUTTERS: Based on information in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s
“Roofing Materials Assessment: Investigation of Toxic Chemicals in Roof Runoff from
Constructed Panels in 2013 and 2014” – Publication Number 14-03-033, the following criteria
are the applicable minimization measures for roofing and gutters:
• No use of copper roofing or treated wood shingle roofing.
• Galvanized metals in roofing or gutters must be painted to prevent rain from introducing
zinc into the runoff. If paint begins to flake or peel, paint must be refreshed.
• Composite (3-tab) roofing without moss inhibitor is preferred for Single Family and
Duplexes.
• Multifamily or commercial style buildings with rooftop HVAC equipment shall
place such HVAC equipment under a roofed structure to prevent rain from
introducing zinc into the runoff.
HARDSCAPE: Based on information in Brattebo and Booth, 2003 (“Long-term stormwater
quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems” Water Research 37:4369-
4376) and in Fassman and Blackbourn 2010 (“Urban Runoff Mitigation by a Permeable
Pavement System over Impermeable Soils” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering) and in Drake et
al, 2014 (“Stormwater quality of spring-summer-fall effluent from three partial infiltration
permeable pavement systems and conventional asphalt pavement” Journal of Environmental
Management 139:69-79) and in Alizadehtazi et al 2016 (“Comparison of Observed Infiltration
Rates of Different Permeable Urban Surfaces Using a Cornell Sprinkle Infiltrometer” J. of
Hydrol. Eng. 06016003-1), the following criteria are the applicable minimization measures for
hardscape areas:
Driveways, parking pads (above ground), sidewalks and patios shall incorporate pervious
materials to the maximum extent. Appropriate pervious materials are:
• Pervious Concrete
• Permeable interlocking concrete pavers
• Porous Asphalt
4.
0. ONSITE STORMWATER TREATMENT – Roof runoff: Based on information in
Skaloud 2016 (“Stormwater treatment through planter boxes for contaminants
originating from metal roofs at the Annacis Island Warehouse” University of British
Columbia. Open Collections, Undergraduate Research.), and in downspout rain filter
boxes should be incorporated into landscaping and building design to reduce metals
and depositional contaminants from leaving the site in stormwater runoff. Downspout
rain box types include:
5.
• Grattix Box
• Splash Boxx
Appendices page-12
• Downspout dispersal to grass is an alternative to rainboxes
• Green roofs or eco-roofs are an acceptable alternative to downspout treatment and
retention.
ONSITE STORMWATER TREATMENT – Roads, driveways, and parking lots (above
ground) runoff: Based on information in Hinmann and Washington Dep’t of Ecology
2013 (“Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington; A guide for Design, Maintenance,
and Installation”), where the proposal includes access roads, or open air parking for more
than 4 vehicles, biofiltration should be incorporated into landscaping design to reduce
contaminants from leaving the site in stormwater runoff. Options for biofiltration include:
• Bioretention cells
• Tree box filters
• Rain gardens
• Bioswales
Where site constraints and building design cannot accommodate LID approaches, refer to
Appendix C.
Additional Low-Impact Development (LID) Resource Documents are available at
Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences,
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/low-impact-development-
technologies?r=landscape sitesecurity
Hinman, C. 2005. Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. A
Report for the Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State University,
Pierce County Extension. Olympia, Washington. (January)
National Association of Home Builders. 2003. The Practice of LID Development. A Report
for HUD and the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing. 2003.
Washington, D.C. (July)
Transportation Research Board. 2006. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 565. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff
Control. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Low-Impact Development (LID): A Literature Review. Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. (October)
U.S. EPA. Best Practices for the Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Green Infrastructure.
Website. Accessed 2/13/2020 https://www.epa.gov/water-research/best-practices-
design-operation-and-maintenance-green-infrastructure
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2011. Technical Guidance Manual for Evaluating
Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies: Technology Assessment Protocol –
Ecology (TAPE). Lacey, Washington.
Appendices page-13
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. Water Quality Program. Lacey, Washington.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW
.htm
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern
Washington. Water Quality Program. Lacey, Washington.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMEW/2019SWMMEW.
htm
Washington State Department of Ecology Low Impact Development Technical Guidance for
Western Washington. 2012. Lacey, Washington.
https://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/LID/20121221_LIDmanual_FINAL_secure.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology Low Impact Development Guidance for Eastern
Washington. 2013. Lacey, Washington.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1310036.html
Appendices page-14
Appendix C
NMFS Stormwater Criteria for HUD Projects in Washington
for use when site constraints prevent use of LID
The following administrative elements and design criteria comprise the actions required of HUD
and/or Responsible Entities to comply with the Terms and Conditions detailed in Section 2.9.4 of
the Opinion.
1. HUD Environmental Review. To demonstrate compliance with ESA requirements for
consultation with NMFS in Washington, the environmental review for a HUD project
must include:
a. An effects determination.
i. Projects that meet the relevant criteria in Appendix A and Table A qualify
as having no effect and require no further consultation.
ii. Projects that cannot infiltrate 100 percent of the design storm (based on
the applicable Washington State Stormwater Manual) on-site are “likely to
adversely affect” (LAA) ESA-listed species and critical habitat.
b. Projects that are “likely to adversely affect” ESA-listed species and critical
habitats must also develop and carry out a post-construction stormwater
management plan (PCSMP) as described below. These plans must be
reviewed and approved by NMFS.
2. NMFS Review and Approval Process. To request NMFS review and approval of a
PCSMP, HUD or the RE must submit the proposed stormwater management plan and the
Action Notification Form (as described in Appendix F, Part 1 and Part 2) at least 20 days
before the anticipated completion of the environmental review for the subject project.
3. Stormwater Management Plan. A PCSMP must include the following information:
a. All plans, drawings, and the Stormwater Information Form (Appendix B) must be
signed by a licensed, professional engineer.
b. A site map for the project that identifies all:
i. Impervious areas;
ii. Low-impact development (LID) practices by type and capacity;
iii. Manufactured stormwater treatment technologies by type and capacity;
iv. Other structural source control practices by type and capacity (e.g., special
practices for known or suspected contaminated sites); and
v. All runoff discharge points and conveyance paths to the nearest receiving
water.
c. A description of how those LID and other practices will manage all precipitation
on-site up to the design storm, and provide adequate treatment for runoff that will
be discharged from the site.
d. A description of the proposed maintenance activities and schedule for the
treatment facilities including the party responsible maintenance and
contact information for the responsible party.
Appendices page-15
e. The name, email address, telephone number of a person responsible for designing
the stormwater management facilities so that NMFS may contact that person if
additional information is necessary.
4. Stormwater Management Practices. Post-construction stormwater management
consists of low impact development practices (LID) (water balance) that emphasize the
use of on-site features to increase evapotranspiration and infiltration that will improve
water quality and reduce hydromodification (i.e., alteration of the natural flow of water
through the watershed). Examples of LID practices include:
a. Minimize impervious area
i. Share parking spaces
ii. Minimize pavement widths
iii. Minimize front setbacks
iv. Share driveways
v. Minimize building footprint
vi. Minimize roadway cross sections
vii. Minimize new pavement
b. Limit disturbance
i. Construction sequencing
ii. Conserve soils with best drainage
iii. Cluster development
iv. Tree protection
v. Minimal foundation
c. Landscape and hardscape areas
i. Restored soils
ii. Tree planting
iii. De-pave existing pavement
iv. Contained stormwater planters
v. Vegetated roof
vi. Porous pavement
vii. Infiltration garden
viii. Soakage trench
ix. Drywell
x. Water quality conveyance swale
xi. Vegetated filter strips
xii. Downspout disconnection
xiii. Lined rain garden, LID swale, Stormwater planter
5. Design Storm. All stormwater treatment practices and facilities that result in off-site
conveyance must be designed to accept and provide water quality treatment for the
design storm, as through the use of the Western Washington Hydrology Model
(WWHM)13 or equivalent continuous flow model.
13 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Stormwater-
permittee-guidance-resources/Stormwater-manuals/Western-Washington-Hydrology-Model
Appendices page-16
6. Conveyance. When conveyance is necessary to discharge treated stormwater directly into
surface water or a wetland, the following requirements apply:
a. Maintain natural drainage patterns.
b. To the maximum extent feasible, ensure that water quality treatment for the HUD
funded project is completed before commingling with offsite runoff during
conveyance.
c. Prevent erosion of the flow path from the project to the receiving water and, if
necessary, provide a discharge facility made entirely of manufactured elements
(e.g., pipes, ditches, discharge facility protection) that extends at least to ordinary
high water.
7. Action Completion Report. HUD or the RE must submit the Project Completion Report
(Appendix D, Part 3) within 60-days of end of construction. The Project Completion
Report should include all information necessary to document that the project was
constructed in compliance with the provisions of this opinion, including such materials as
final plans or as-built drawings.
8. Failure to Report May Trigger Reinitiation. NMFS may recommend reinitiation of this
consultation if HUD or the RE fails to provide all applicable notifications and completion
reports or fails to attend quarterly and annual meetings, as specified.
Appendices page-17
APPENDIX D: Action Notification Form and Email for Program Compliance
For Use with the HUD Programmatic Opinion
July 21, 2020
Use of the HUD Programmatic E-mail Box
Use the HUD programmatic e-mail box at HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov or east of the Cascades,
submit requests to: HUD-CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov to request that NMFS
review and approve the post-construction stormwater management plan (PCSMP) for a HUD
funded project, to withdraw a request for review, and to submit the project completion forms.
The mailbox will send you an automatic reply after receipt of any message, but you will not
receive any other communication from the programmatic e-mail box. Please direct all other
communications or questions to the appropriate NMFS biologist or branch chief.
Please only submit one request for review, withdrawal, or completion report per e-mail.
Please remember to attach all supporting information, including:
E-mail Title
In the subject line of the email (see below for requirements), clearly the type of action you are
requesting (i.e., Action Notification, Withdrawal, etc.), Project Name, Applicant (HUD Office or
Responsible Entity) Name, County, and Waterway (to which the project will discharge).
Use caution when entering the necessary information in the subject line. If these titling
conventions are not used, NMFS will not accept the e-mail.
Examples:
Action Notification: HUD Project Name, Housing & Community Development,
King County, Tolt River
Withdrawal: HUD Project Name, City of Tacoma, Pierce County, Puyallup River
Project Completion: HUD Project Name, Housing & Community Development, Thurston
County, Nisqually River
Action Notification and Stormwater Information Forms
HUD or the RE must submit an Action Notification Form, a complete Stormwater Information
Form, and a complete PCSMP to the HUD programmatic e-mailbox to request that NMFS
review and approve the PCSMP for a HUD project. Within 7 calendar days, NMFS will tell the
requestor which staff person was assigned to complete the review, and within 30 calendar days
NMFS will determine whether the proposed stormwater plan is approved or not.
Appendices page - 18
If asked, the consultation biologist will provide an estimate of the time necessary to complete the
review based on the complexity of the proposed action and work load considerations at the time
of the request.
NMFS may delay its review if the Action Notification Form, the Stormwater Information Form,
or the PCSMP is incomplete or unsatisfactory. Please contact NMFS early during the
development phase of a project if you have any questions about how these guidelines may affect
your project.
Withdrawing a Request for Review
If it is necessary to withdraw a request for review, submit a separate email with the word
WITHRAWN at the beginning of the e-mail subject line, but otherwise follow the email titling
conventions as described above. State the reason for the withdrawal in the email. If HUD or an
RE re-submits a request for NMFS review that has been previously withdrawn, NMFS will
process the resubmittal as if it was a new action notification.
Action Completion Report. HUD or the RE must submit the Action Completion Form to
NMFS within 60 days of finishing construction of the stormwater management facilities for a
HUD project. Failure to submit the action completion form may result in NMFS recommending
reinitiation of this consultation.
Appendices page - 19
Action Notification Form
HUD Programmatic Opinion
Submit this form to NMFS 20 days prior to the anticipated completion of the project’s
environmental review. Submit by email to: HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov or east of the Cascades,
submit requests to: HUD-CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov
DATE OF REQUEST NMFS TRACKING # WCR- 2020-00512
Project Name
Consultation Type ☐ ESA ONLY ☐ EFH ONLY ☐ BOTH ESA & EFH
HUD Office/Responsible Entity HUD /
Name:
Phone:
Email:
6th Field HUC & Name
Latitude & Longitude
(in signed degrees format: DDD.dddd)
Proposed Construction Period: Start Date: End Date:
Appendices page - 20
NMFS Species & Critical Habitat Present in Action Area
ESA-listed species occurring in the action area
Snake/Columbia River System Snake/Columbia River System con’t Puget Sound Region
❑ Snake River spring/ summer Chinook
❑ Snake River fall chinook
❑ SR Spring/ summer-run Chinook
❑ SR sockeye
❑ Upper Col R. Spring/ summer-run Chinook
❑ Upper Col R. Steelhead
❑ Mid Col R. Steelhead
❑ Lower Col R. Chinook
❑ Col R. Chum
❑ Lower Col R. Steelhead
❑ Upper Wil. R. Chinook
❑ Upper Wil. R. Steelhead
❑ Green Sturgeon
❑ Eulachon
❑ SRKW
❑ Humpback Whales
❑ Lower Col R. Coho
❑ SRKW
❑ Humpback Whales
❑ Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
❑ Puget Sound Steelhead
❑ Hood Canal Summer run Chum
❑ Yelloweye Rockfish
❑ Bocaccio Rockfish
EFH Species occurring in the action area
❑ Pacific Salmon, Chinook ❑ Coastal Pelagics
❑ Pacific Salmon, coho ❑ Groundfish
Project Description
Appendices page - 21
Add more rows or attach additional pages, as necessary
ESA-listed species occurring in the action area
Appendices page - 22
Stormwater Information Form
HUD Programmatic Opinion
If you are submitting a project that includes a stormwater plan for review, please fill out the following
cover sheet to be included with any stormwater management plan and any other supporting materials.
Submit this form with the Action Implementation Form to NMFS at HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov or east
of the Cascades, submit requests to: HUD-CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov
PROJECT INFORMATION NMFS TRACKING
(NUMBER PROVIDED
# WCR-
BY NMFS)
Name of Project
Street Address of Project
Lat/Long of Project Location (DDD.dddd)
Type of project
(i.e., single family residential, multi family
residential, associated infrastructure, etc.)
Nearest receiving water occupied by ESA-
listed species or designated critical habitat
Have you contacted anyone at NMFS? 0 Yes 0 No If Yes, Who:
Applicant/Consultant name
Applicant/Consultant email
SUMMARY OF DESIGN ELEMENTS
1
Design storm as calculated by continuous flow model
https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- _____ Inches
______ cfs assistance/Stormwater-permittee-guidance-resources/Stormwater-
manuals/Western-Washington-Hydrology-Model#latest
2
Is the design storm fully treated
https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- 0 Yes 0 No assistance/Stormwater-permittee-guidance-resources/Stormwater-
manuals/Western-Washington-Hydrology-Model
Appendices page - 23
Name:
Email:
Phone:
STORMWATER DESIGNER AND/OR ENGINEER CONTACT INFORMATION
PROJECT INFORMATION NMFS TRACKING # WCR-
(NUMBER PROVIDED BY NMFS)
SUMMARY OF DESIGN ELEMENTS (CONTINUED)
3
Total contributing impervious area including all contiguous surface
(e.g. roads, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, roofs, and similar surfaces) _____ Acres
Proposed new impervious area _____ Acres
Existing impervious area _____ Acres
Acres of total impervious area x design storm = ft3 to _______ be treated
4 Peak discharge of design storm ______ cfs
5 Total stormwater to be treated _______ ft3 ______ cfs
7
Have you treated all stormwater to the design storm within the contributing
impervious area?
If no, why not, and how will you offset the effects from remaining stormwater?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Appendices page - 24
10-year storm ______ cfs
10-year storm
11
______ cfs
______ cfs Post-development runoff rate Water quality
(i.e., after proposed developments) design storm
WATER QUALITY
8
Low Impact Development (LID) methods incorporated?
(e.g. site layout, vegetation and soil protection, reforestation, integrated management practices
such as amended soils, bioretention, permeable pavement, rainwater collection, tree retention)
Please describe:
How much of total stormwater is treated using LID
☐ Yes ☐ No
%
ft3
WATER QUALITY (CONTINUED)
9
Treatment train, including pretreatment and bioretention methods used to treat water quality
Why this treatment train was chosen for the project site
Page in stormwater plan where more details can be found
WATER QUANTITY
10
Does the project discharge directly into a major water body*?
If yes, detention not required
*Columbia River, large lakes, ocean (verify with
NOAA) ☐ Yes ☐ No
Appendices page - 25
Pre-development runoff rate
(i.e., before human-induced changes to the unimproved property)
Water quality
design storm ______ cfs
WATER QUALITY
Post-development runoff rate must be less than or equal to pre-development runoff rate
12
Methods used to treat water quantity
Page in stormwater plan where more details can be found
MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PLAN
13
Have you included a stormwater maintenance plan with a description
of the onsite stormwater system, inspection schedule and process,
maintenance activities, legal and financial responsibility, and inspection
and maintenance logs?
Page in stormwater plan where plan can be found
☐ Yes ☐
No*
*NOAA review cannot be complete
without a main-tenance and inspection
plan.
14
Contact information for the party/parties that will be legally responsible for performing the
inspections and maintenance or the stormwater facilities:
Name
Responsibility
Phone
Email
Name
Responsibility
Phone
Email
Appendices page - 26
MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PLAN
Name
Responsibility
Phone
Email
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
Appendices page - 27
Action Completion Report
Submit this form within 60 days of completing all work to NMFS at HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov or
east of the Cascades, submit requests to: HUD-CRBO.ConsultationRequest.WCR@noaa.gov
DATE OF NOTIFICATION
NMFS TRACKING # WCR-
(NUMBER PROVIDED BY NMFS)
Project Name
HUD Office/Responsible Entity /
Responsible Entity Contact
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Construction Completion Date
Please include the following:
An explanation of the stormwater system as built or installed by the construction contractor, including any on-
1 site changes from the original plans.
Add more rows, as necessary
2 Photographs of the constructed stormwater facility, including photos of the outfall structure,
vegetation, facility location relative to other site features, etc.
3 A map showing the stormwater facility’s location(s)
4 As built design drawings for the stormwater facility and site stormwater collection system
(PDF versions only please. No CAD files)
i Impervious surface includes hardscape, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, and roofing.
Appendices page -28