Agenda packet, regular meeting — Ukiah City Council, July 17, 2024 (part 5 of 10)

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Excavated Ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear-concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Xerofluvents 0-2% slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of the year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil , Or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Entire ditch bottom is not even. This datapoint is taken in a portion that ponds water to a few inches for extended times due to uneven bottom surface.

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 100% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:___3 ft x 6 ft__________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Festuca perennis 50 D FAC

2. Rumex conglomeratus 40 D FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Geranium dissectum 1 UPL

4. Persicaria sp. (at least FACW) 1 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Galium aparine 1 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 93 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks: Plot is in bottom of ditch only.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 786 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 4
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Loam
6-10 10YR 3/2 45 10YR 3/6 15 C M Clay loam
10YR 4/3 40
10-14 10YR 3/2 100 Loam
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic.

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible-Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, if available:

Remarks: Fines deposited several inches high on plant stems indicating ponding.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 787 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Excavated ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear-concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 50% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:____3 ft x 6 ft._________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Festuca perennis 75 D FAC

2. Bromus hordeaceus 25 D FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Rumex conglomeratus 1 FACW

4. Elymus triticoides 3 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 104 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks: Plot is in bottom of ditch only.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 788 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 5
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/2 100 Clay loam
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 789 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 6 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Excavated Ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear-concave Slope (%): ≈0 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Entire ditch bottom is not even. This datapoint taken in a location where ditch appears to drain well. This datapoint also in lower section of ditch subject to more likely inundation from Russian River.

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 100% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:_____3 ft x 6 ft________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Festuca perennis 35 D FAC

2. Rumex conglomeratus 25 D FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Geranium dissectum 1 UPL

4. Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 61 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks: Plot in bottom of ditch only.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 790 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 6
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/3 100 Clay loam
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks: Fines deposited several inches high on plant stems indicating ponding.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 791 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 7 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex-none Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 0% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:____3 ft radius_________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Avena fatua 25 D UPL

2. Hirschfeldia incana 7 UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Centaurea solstitialis 30 D UPL

4. Bromus diandrus 7 UPL Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Hypericum perforatum 8 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Bromus hordeaceus 10 FACU Dominance Test is >50%

7. Trifolium hirtum 5 UPL Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 92 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 792 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 7
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/3 100 Loam Gravelly
>8 Gravel
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 793 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 8 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): ≈0 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 0% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:____6 ft radius_________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Avena fatua 60 D UPL

2. Centaurea solstitialis 20 UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Vicia villosa 20 UPL

4. Eschscholzia californica 5 UPL Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Bromus hordeaceus 15 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 120 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 794 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 8
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 Loam Gravelly
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 795 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 9 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Noine Slope (%): ≈0 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 33% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:___6 ft radius_) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. Baccharis pilularis 35 D UPL

2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover: 35
FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:___ 6 ft radius __________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Plantago lanceolata 30 D FAC

2. Bromus hordeaceus 15 FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Bromus madritensis 10 UPL

4. Centaurea solstitialis 30 D UPL Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Bromus diandrus 5 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 90 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 796 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 9
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 Loam Gravelly
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Old electric wire dug up.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 797 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 10 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 33% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:_____ 6 ft radius________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Bromus hordeaceus 30 D FACU

2. Centaurea solstitialis 10 UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Bromus diandrus 12 UPL

4. Festuca bromoides 15 D FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Festuca perennis 15 D FAC Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 798 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 10
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 Loam
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 799 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 11 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave-convex Slope (%): ≈0 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 0% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:_____________) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. 2. OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover:

FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:____3 ft radius_________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Aegilops sp. 60 D UPL

2. Artemisia douglasiana 5 FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Vicia villosa 30 D UPL

4. Bromus diandrus 5 UPL Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Geranium dissectum 2 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Bromus hordeaceus 4 FACU Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 106 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 800 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 11
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 Loam
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 801 of 1534 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Routine Wetland Determination
(September 2008 V2.0 COE Arid West Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration City/County: Ukiah/Mendocino Sampling Date: 22 May 2019 Applicant/Owner: City of Ukiah State: CA Sampling Point: 12 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): ≈0 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: See Report Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Russian loam 0-2% slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of the year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil , Or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum: ((Plot size:_____________) Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant Species

2. That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)

3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Total Cover:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or
FAC: 50% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:___6 ft radius__) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

1. Rubus armeniacus 30 D FAC

2. Baccharis pilularis 20 D UPL OBL Species: x 1 =

3. 4. FACW Species x 2 =

5. FAC Species x 3 =
Total Cover: 50
FACU Species x 4 =
Herb Stratum: (Plot size:_6 ft radius____________)
UPL Species x 5 =

1. Conium maculatum 45 D FACW

2. Festuca bromoides 35 D FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. Hirschfeldia incana 10 UPL

4. Plantago lanceolata 5 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =

5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

6. Dominance Test is >50%

7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Total Cover: 95 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1(Explain) 1 Indicators of Hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present.

Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:_____________)

1. Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No

2. Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 802 of 1534 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 12
Profile Description: (Describe the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
Inches Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/6 100 Sandy loam Very gravelly
>8 Gravel
1Type : C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Datapoint is in an area of old spoils piles consisting of asphalt and concrete.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Page 803 of 1534 ends

Page 804 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
B-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary  Subject to Revision

Page 805 of 1534 ends

Appendix X. Plants Recorded
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-1 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019

PLANTS RECORDED AT DATA POINTS
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status
Apiaceae
Conium maculatum Poison hemlock FACW
Asteraceae
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort FAC
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush UPL
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle UPL
Sonchus asper subsp. asper Prickly sow thistle FACU
Brassicaceae
Hirschfeldia incana Summer mustard UPL
Raphanus sp. Radish UPL
Cyperaceae
Eleocharis macrostachya Common spikerush OBL
Fabaceae
Trifolium hirtum Rose clover UPL
Vicia villosa Hairy vetch UPL
Geraniaceae
Geranium dissectum Cut leaved geranium UPL
Hypericaceae
Hypericum perforatum Klamath weed FACU
Onograceae
Epilobium ciliatum Willowherb FACW
Papaveraceae
Eschscholzia californica California poppy NL
Plantaginaceae
Plantago lanceolata English plantain FAC
Poaceae
Aegilops sp. Goat grass UPL
Avena fatua Wild oat UPL
Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass UPL
Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess FACU
Bromus madritensis Foxtail chess UPL
Elymus triticoides Beardless wild-rye FAC
Festuca bromoides Brome fescue FACU
Festuca perennis Rye grass FAC
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC Polygonaceae
Persicaria sp. Smartweed At least FACW
Rumex conglomeratus Dock FACW

Page 806 of 1534 ends

Appendix B. Plant Species Observed
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-2 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019

PLANTS RECORDED AT DATA POINTS
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status
Rosaceae
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FAC
Rubiaceae
Galium aparine Goose grass FACU
SOURCE: ESA, 2019

Page 807 of 1534 ends

Page 808 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
C-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary  Subject to Revision

Page 809 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-1 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
Photograph 1
View west along a dirt road near the center of the study area.

Photograph 2
View west of the pit with seasonal wetland 1 in the bottom.

Page 810 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-2 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
Photograph 3
View west of SW-1 in the bottom of the pit. The shovel is at data point 1.

Photograph 4
View west in the gully. The shovel is at data point 3.

Page 811 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-3 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
Photograph 5
View east of the gully. The Russian River is in the trees in the background. When the river floods, high water flows away from the river, through this gully, and into the pit containing SW-1. At this spot the occasional flood water is eroding into the dirt road.

Photograph 6
View north of data point 10 at the shovel.

Page 812 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-4 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
Photograph 7
View east along the ditch of SW-2. The shovel is at data point 4.

Photograph 8
View east along the ditch. The shovel is at data point 5. At this point the bottom of the ditch is an upland.

Page 813 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-5 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
Photograph 9
View south. The shovel is at data point 9.

Photograph 10
View south. The shovel is at data point 11.

Page 814 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-6 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
Photograph 11
View east. The shovel is at data point 12. This part of the study area consists mostly of old spoils piles, largely asphalt and concrete, covered with Himalayan blackberry.

Page 815 of 1534 ends

Appendix D. Study Area Photographs
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project D-7 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report June 2019
This page intentionally left blank

Page 816 of 1534 ends

Page 817 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
D-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary  Subject to Revision

Page 818 of 1534 ends

Waters_Name State Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Seasonal Wetland 1 CALIFORNIA PEM Area 0.14 ACRE EXCLDB4V 39.14377300 -123.18271300 Seasonal Wetland 2 CALIFORNIA PEM Area 0.038 ACRE EXCLDB3I 39.14305500 -123.18315700

Page 819 of 1534 ends

Page 820 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
D-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary  Subject to Revision

Page 821 of 1534 ends

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü
123°11'15.99"W
39°8'48.54"N
123°10'38.53"W
39°8'20.64"N

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 6/17/2019 at 5:21:07 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.

Page 822 of 1534 ends

Page 823 of 1534 ends

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
E-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary  Subject to Revision

Page 824 of 1534 ends

Page 825 of 1534 ends

Page 826 of 1534 ends

RIVERSIDE PARK REGENERATION PROJECT
Habitat Assessment
City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California
Prepared for December 2019
City of Ukiah
Appendix 3

Page 827 of 1534 ends

Page 828 of 1534 ends

RIVERSIDE PARK REGENERATION PROJECT
Habitat Assessment
City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California
Prepared for December 2019
City of Ukiah

550 Kearny Street
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900
esassoc.com
Bend
Camarillo
Delray Beach
Destin
Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
D181242.00

Page 829 of 1534 ends

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Page 830 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project iii ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Riverside Park Regeneration Project
Habitat Assessment
Page
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................1-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Background and Purpose ..................................................................................1-1

1.2 Property Location...............................................................................................1-1

1.3 Regulatory Context............................................................................................1-4 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................2-1 Methods ..............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Study Area.........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Survey Methodology ..........................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Survey Dates and Surveying Personnel .................................................2-1

2.3 Review of Background Information....................................................................2-1 Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................3-1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats................................3-1

3.1.1 Non-Native Annual Grassland.................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Riparian Woodland .................................................................................3-4

3.1.3 Seasonal Wetland...................................................................................3-7

3.2 Special-Status Species....................................................................................3-10

3.2.1 Special-Status Plants............................................................................3-12

3.2.2 State Listed Wildlife Species.................................................................3-12

3.2.3 Non-Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species ..........................................3-13

3.3 Critical Habitat for Listed Wildlife Species .......................................................3-15

3.4 Tree Protection ................................................................................................3-15 Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................4-1 Avoidance Measures and Restoration Benefits ..............................................................4-1

4.1 Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Sensitive Natural Communities............4-1

4.2 Special-Status Plants.........................................................................................4-2

4.3 Special-Status Wildlife.......................................................................................4-2

4.4 Tree Protection ..................................................................................................4-4 Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................5-1 References and Report Preparation.................................................................................5-1

5.1 References ........................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Document Preparation.......................................................................................5-4

Page 831 of 1534 ends

Table of Contents
Page
Riverside Park Regeneration Project iv ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Appendices
Appendix A. Regulatory Context
Appendix B. Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Appendix C. Plants Observed in the Study Area
Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Location........................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 Study Area...................................................................................................1-3 Figure 3-1 Vegetation Communities in the Study Area .................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Typical Non-native Annual Grassland Habitat in the Study Area.................3-3 Figure 3-3 Typical Riparian Woodland Habitat in the Study Area .................................3-6 Figure 3-4 Seasonal Wetland 1 (top) and Erosional Gully (bottom) within the Study Area...................................................................................................3-8 Figure 3-5 Seasonal Wetland 2 (Ephemeral Ditch) within the Study Area....................3-9 Figure 3-6 Special-Status Species Occurrences within 5 Miles of the Study Area .....3-11 Tables
Table B-1 Special-Status Wildlife and Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area.............................................................................................B-1 Table C-1 Ukiah Riverside Park Plant Species Observed........................................... C-1

Page 832 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project ES-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Park Regeneration Project
Habitat Assessment
This memorandum summarizes the findings of a biological resource reconnaissance survey that was performed in support of the proposed Riverside Park Regeneration Project (the Project) located in the City of Ukiah (City), California. The City is examining the potential use of an 8.6- acre area of Riverside Park, in the eastern portion of the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California, for the second phase of a small habitat restoration project located adjacent to the Russian River riparian corridor. The intent and scope of this report is to characterize biological resources in the Study Area, which includes the entire 8.6-acre area, and provide guidance of regulatory implications associated with potential impacts to sensitive resources, where present.

In 2012, the City was successful in facilitating the development of Riverside Park Phase 1 which restored approximately 5 acres of combined riverbank and top of bank, removed invasive exotic plant species, and constructed trails, river access, and picnic areas. The Project is considered Phase 2 of restoring the southern portion of Riverside Park.

Vegetation communities and wildlife habitat in the Study Area include non-native annual grassland, riparian woodland, and seasonal wetland. Except for the seasonal wetlands and small portion of Russian River riparian community, no other sensitive vegetation communities are located in the Study Area, or in the nearby vicinity, that could be adversely affected by site restoration. No special-status plant species were observed within the Study Area during the 2019 reconnaissancelevel survey; and based on the historical use of the site, none are expected to occur there. Thus, site restoration would not result in impacts to special-status plant species.

The Study Area provides potential nesting habitat for tree- and ground-nesting birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.

One state-listed wildlife species was identified to have a moderate potential to occur near the Study Area: the state-candidate threatened foothill yellow legged frog. White-tailed kite, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) fully protected species, also has a moderate potential to occur. The following CDFW species of special concern have a moderate to high potential to occur in the Study Area: osprey, western pond turtle, and pallid bat. Protective measures are presented to account for the potential presence of these species.

The Russian River, adjacent to the Study Area, provides habitat for three federally listed salmonid species: Chinook salmon (federal threatened), Coho salmon (federal/state endangered) and

Page 833 of 1534 ends

Executive Summary
Riverside Park Regeneration Project ES-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
steelhead trout (federal threatened). Russian River tule perch, a CDFW species of special concern, could use the reach of the Russian River near the Study Area as well. Because no riverine habitat exists in the Study Area, these species are not further discussed.

Page 834 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 1
Introduction

1.1 Background and Purpose
The City of Ukiah (City) is undertaking design of the Riverside Floodplain Regeneration Project (Project) to restore a multi-benefit floodplain within an approximately 8.6-acre area located in Riverside Park in Ukiah, California. The Project proposes to restore habitat, improve flood and stormwater drainage, improve groundwater recharge and water quality, and provide an enhanced park experience.

This report presents the findings of vegetation, wildlife, and wetland surveys conducted to identify the potential presence and distribution of common and special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and state- and federally regulated waters and wetlands in the 8.6-acre Project area in which Project activities are proposed (the Study Area). The intent and scope of this document is to characterize biological resources on the subject parcel and characterize biological resources constraints that may affect the use of the site, and provide guidance on regulatory implications associated with potential impacts to sensitive resources.

1.2 Property Location
The Study Area is located near 1151 East Gobbi Street in the City of Ukiah, in Mendocino County, mapped in a California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series quadrangle corresponding to Township 15 north, Range 12 west of the Rancho Yokaya land grant. The approximate centroid of the Study Area is 39º 08′ 36.94″ North, 123º 10′ 58.17″ West, as shown in Figure 1-1. Topography is flat with the exceptions of spoils piles and excavations related to past gravel mining activities and/or construction or operations of a wastewater treatment plant formerly located on the site. Elevation ranges from approximately 570 to 587 feet. The Study Area lies within the floodplain of the Russian River (FEMA 2019), and is shown in Figure 1-2.

Land uses surrounding the Study Area predominantly consist of agricultural uses and open space associated with the Russian River, but also include rural residential and limited recreational uses.

In the more immediate surroundings, the Study Area is adjacent to community baseball fields, and a BMX track to the north; the Russian River riparian corridor to the east; and undeveloped non-native annual grasslands and agricultural fields to the south.

Page 835 of 1534 ends

Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig1_1_RegionalLocation_topo.aprx, ballen 10/7/2019 SOURCE: USGS, 1978; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 1-1
Regional Location
N
0 3,000
Feet
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Study Area
Riverside Park
Study Area

Page 836 of 1534 ends

Gobbi Street
Recreation Road
u
R
ssian
River
Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig1_2_WD_StudyArea.aprx, ballen 10/7/2019 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe,Oct. 2017; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 1-2
Study Area
N
0 400
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Study Area

Page 837 of 1534 ends

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.3 Regulatory Context
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1-4 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision

1.3 Regulatory Context
Biological resources in the Study Area may fall under the jurisdiction of various regulatory agencies and be subject to their regulations. In general, the greatest legal protections are provided for plant and wildlife species that are formally listed by the federal or state government. The following regulations and agencies are commonly associated with projects that have the potential to affect biological resources:
• Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 401 and 404
• California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
• California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3511 • Native Plant Protection Act
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program • Porter Cologne Water Quality Act
• County of Mendocino General Plan
• City of Ukiah General Plan
• Ukiah Valley Area Plan
These regulations are presented and discussed in Appendix A, Regulatory Context.

Page 838 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 2
Methods

2.1 Study Area
The term “Study Area” in this report is used as the starting point to define the biological survey area; however, in practical terms biological resources have varied sensitivities to disturbance and it may be necessary to analyze somewhat larger areas for many species; thus an area up to 250 feet beyond the Study Area was considered in this assessment.

2.2 Survey Methodology

2.2.1 Survey Dates and Surveying Personnel
ESA biologist Elizabeth Hill conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the Study Area on May 22, 2019. The survey was conducted to characterize vegetation communities and assess habitat quality and the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur.

ESA used the background species information to inform the biological reconnaissance survey of the Study Area. The survey was conducted on May 22, 2019, between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.; weather conditions were clear and sunny with light wind. During the assessment, all areas accessible within the Study Area were surveyed to ensure a thorough characterization of on-site biological resources. Representative photographs were taken of the Study Area (Figures 3-2 through 3-5).

2.3 Review of Background Information
Existing biological and ecological data were available for the Study Area from previous ESA studies. The main documents consulted in preparation of this report include:
• Environmental Science Associates, 2019. Riverside Park Regeneration Project, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for Melton Design Group, May, 2019.
• Russian River Independent Science Review Panel. Russian River Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan. Mendocino County Resources Conservation District. June 2012.

Prior to performing the 2019 reconnaissance-level survey, ESA reviewed publicly available data and subscription-based biological resource data. ESA assessed the degree to which the Project

Page 839 of 1534 ends

Chapter 2 Methods

2.3 Review of Background Information
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
may encounter special-status plant and wildlife species by completing a background data review and habitat assessment survey of the Study Area. ESA biologists reviewed the May 2019 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants to understand the reported distribution of sensitive plant and wildlife species within a nine-quadrangle search area (CDFW 2019; CNPS 2019). In addition, an Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) species list was requested and obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This list identifies plant and animals that are either threatened, endangered, or candidate species, as well as any critical habitat with some potential to occur near the Study Area (USFWS 2019). This background review, when combined with the field survey described below, was used to assess the potential for species presence in the Study Area. A description of these species and an assessment of their potential to occur in the Study Area is provided in Appendix B, Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area.

Additional data sources that assisted in this analysis include:
• Topographic maps (Ukiah and surrounding eight quadrangles); • Historic and current aerial imagery; and
• California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database.

Page 840 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Setting
This chapter describes vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, and special-status plant and wildlife species in the Study Area.

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife
Habitats
Vegetation communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area and are defined by species composition and relative abundance. Three vegetation communities were identified within the Study Area: non-native annual grassland, riparian woodland, and seasonal wetland. Of these, the two latter categories are recognized by CDFW as sensitive natural communities. The natural community classification presented herein is based on field observations, and the standard List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB (Holland 1986). Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types; wildlife habitats were classified and evaluated using A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). The distribution of vegetation communities in the Study Area is presented in Figure 3-1.

3.1.1 Non-Native Annual Grassland
Description
Non-native annual grassland habitat is the largest community in the Study Area, and is dominated by introduced grasses and forbs. This vegetation community also occurs in fields located south of the Study Area. The area occupied by this plant community has experienced substantial ground disturbance in the past as a result of former gravel mining and treatment facility operations.

Topography is mostly level except for artificial excavations and spoils piles, the latter providing substrate for mounds of established non-native shrubs in the northern portion of the Study Area.

Common annual species documented in this plant community include slender wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordaceous), rip-gut brome (B. diandrus), vetch (Vicia villosa), wild radish (Raphanus sp.), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum) and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). These species form a mosaic across the Study Area with large patches dominated by grasses or filaree. Other common species found in the northern end of the Study Area include non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and native shrubs including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Photos of Study Area grasslands are provided in Figure 3-2. Non-native annual grasslands in the Study Area are unlikely to support special-status plants due to the historical industrial land use of the site.

Page 841 of 1534 ends

SW-1
SW-2
Stormwater
Culvert Outfall
SOURCE: DigitalGlobe, Oct. 2017; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 3-1
Habitat Types
N
0 100
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Study Area
Old Spoils Piles
Overhead Utility Line (~50’
above ground)
Erosional Gully
Tree Species
Boxelder maple
Coast live oak
Cottonwood
N. California black walnut
Sandbar willow
Valley oak
Arroyo willow (multi-stem)
Honey locust (non-native)
Vegetation Communities
Upland Vegetation
Non-native Annual Grassland
Non-native Shrubs
Native and Non-native Shrubs
Native Trees
Riparian Woodland
Vegetation Communities (cont.)
Seasonal Wetlands (Potential Waters of
the State andU.S.)
SW-1: Water Filled Depression
(0.140 ac.)
SW-2: Ephemeral Ditch/
Stormwater Control Feature
(0.038 ac.)
1 inch = 100 feet
Delineation conducted by Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill (ESA).

Map prepared by Brad Allen (ESA) on Oct 7, 2019
&
&

Page 842 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-3 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Riverside Park Regeneration Project
SOURCE: ESA, photo date: May 22, 2019
Figure 3-2
Typical Non-native Annual Grassland Habitat in the Study Area

Page 843 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-4 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Wildlife Habitat Relationships with Non-native Annual Grassland Annual grassland provides little cover for wildlife, yet numerous species forage, and several species breed in this habitat. Grasslands attract reptiles and amphibians such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). Bird species that nest in grasslands include California quail (Callipepla californica), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), a CDFW species of special concern, western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Birds that commonly forage in grasslands include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and California towhee (Melozone crissalis). Common small mammals expected in the non-native annual grassland community include western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), California vole (Microtus californicus), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). These small mammals are primary prey sources for raptors that forage in the area.

Non-native grasslands are also important foraging grounds for aerial and ground-foraging insect eaters such as Myotis bat species and pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus). Larger mammal species such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), coyote (Canis latrans), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may use the grasslands in the Study Area. The grasslands covering remnant spoils piles have historically provided a den for bobcat (Lynx rufus) (Audubon Society et al. 2018).

3.1.2 Riparian Woodland
Description
The 0.57 acres of riparian woodland community, located within the south eastern portion of the Study Area, comprises a dense, multi-layered canopy that is directly dependent on the fluvial geomorphic processes of the Russian River (MCRCD 2012). In the state’s coastal range, where the Study Area is located, riparian woodland communities typically occur as narrow, often dense groves of broad-leaved, winter deciduous trees ranging in height. The transition between the riparian woodland community found in the Study Area and adjacent non-riparian vegetation is clearly delineated. Riparian tree species such as California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California black walnut (Jugulans californica), California boxelder (Acer negundo), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) intergrade into non-native annual grassland in the eastern portion of the Study Area. Representative photos of riparian woodlands are provided in Figure 3-3.

Wildlife Habitat Relationship
As with all riparian habitats, the riparian woodland community in and adjacent to the Study Area is considered to have high value for many wildlife species (Thomas 1979; Marcot 1979; Sands 1977). Such areas provide water, thermal cover, migration corridors and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities (Thomas 1979). Bird species associated with riparian woodland habitat documented from the Study Area include osprey (Pandion haliaetus), a CDFW Watch-List species, belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina),

Page 844 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-5 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
and western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) (EBird 2019). Other wildlife species documented in the Russian

Page 845 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-6 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Riverside Park Regeneration Project
SOURCE: ESA, photo date: May 22, 2019
Figure 3-3
Typical Riparian Woodland Habitat in the Study Area

Page 846 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-7 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
River riparian woodland community and nearby tributaries include the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). All of these species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the Study Area.

3.1.3 Seasonal Wetland
An area is a wetland if: (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. The Project’s May 2019 aquatic resources delineation (ESA 2019) identified 0.178 acres of aquatic resources within the Study Area, consisting of two seasonal wetlands.

Description
Seasonal wetland (SW) 1 is located in the bottom of an artificially excavated pit dug for the purpose of gravel extraction at the former wastewater treatment facility that once operated in the Study Area.

This seasonally water-filled depression has hydrophytic vegetation dominated by rye grass (Festuca perennis) and dock (Rumex sp.). A few willows (Salix sp.) and cottonwoods (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) grow along the margin of this feature (Figure 3-4 [top]). Soils were clearly disturbed from previous activities in the Study Area. The SW-1 pit was dug in the floodplain of the Russian River and the area surrounding the pit is uplands. Surface water runoff from uplands and flood events of the Russian River are the hydrologic sources for this feature. When the water surface elevation of the River reaches approximately 589 feet, water will flow through an eroded gully, away from the river, and into the pit (Figure 3-4 [bottom]). The bottom of the pit is approximately 574 feet in elevation.

The sides of the gully are eroding into an old ruderal road, and sediment consisting of gravel and sand is splayed into the bottom of the pit. There is no splay of sediment on the river-side of the gully.

There is no clear, natural line on the side of the gully indicating an ordinary high water mark. Water will only flow through the gully during flood events. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (33 CFR 328.3(b)(4)(v)) excludes as waters of the U.S pits excavated in dry land for obtaining gravel that fill with water. As such, SW-1 is not considered waters of the U.S. (ESA 2019); although it would likely be considered waters of the State based on its characteristics discussed above. SW-1 meets the 3.c. definition of waters of the State (SWQCB 2019) as it is considered a wetland that is “the result from historic human activity and are not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape.” SW-2 is located in the bottom of an artificially excavated ditch (Figure 3-5). This ephemeral ditch begins at a culvert outfall that discharges stormwater during rainfall events. The ditch outfalls into the Russian River, although the ditch loses a distinctive bottom and sides near the River. The bottom of the ditch is not uniformly sloped, and the western end of it does not fully drain and may retain water up to several inches deep. This feature has hydrophytic vegetation and soils similar to the seasonally water-filled depression discussed above. 33 CFR 328.3(b)(3)(i) excludes ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary as waters of the U.S.

Although SW-2 is not considered waters of the U.S. (ESA 2019), it would likely be considered waters of the State based on its characteristics discussed above. SW-2 meets the 3.c. definition of waters of the State for the same reason SW-1 meets the definition (SWQCB 2019).

Page 847 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-8 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Riverside Park Regeneration Project
SOURCE: ESA, photo dates: May 16, 2019 (top), and May 22, 2019 (bottom) Figure 3-4
Seasonal Wetland 1 (top) and Erosional Gully (bottom) within the Study Area

Page 848 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-9 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Riverside Park Regeneration Project
SOURCE: ESA, photo dates: May 22, 2019 (top), and May 16, 2019 (bottom) Figure 3-5
Seasonal Wetland 2 (Ephemeral Ditch) within the Study Area

Page 849 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.2 Special-Status Species
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-10 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Wildlife Habitat Relationships with Seasonal Wetlands
Wetlands are among the most productive wildlife habitats in Mendocino County as they provide food, cover, and water for a variety of birds, reptiles, mammals, and amphibians (PMC 2009).

Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), cedar waxing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and yellow warbler are commonly associated with the seasonal wetland habitat and have all been documented foraging in the Study Area (eBird 2019). Other commonly occurring wildlife associated with seasonal wetlands in the Ukiah Valley include California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophylus), Sierran tree frog (Pseudacris sierra), and common garter snake. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) may feed in seasonal wetlands, seeking forbs and palatable grasses (PMC 2009).

3.2 Special-Status Species
Several species known to occur on or in the vicinity of Study Area are protected pursuant to federal and/or state endangered species laws, or have been designated as species of special concern by CDFW. Species recognized under these terms are collectively referred to as “specialstatus species.” A list of special-status species with potential to occur in or near Study Area was compiled from a nine-quadrangle search of the CNDDB (CDFW 2019), a nine-quadrangle search on the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2019), a search from the USFWS IPaC database (USFWS 2019) of the Study Area, and biological literature of the region for the following 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles:
• Laughlin Range • Redwood Valley • Potter Valley
• Orrs Springs • Ukiah • Cow Mountain
• Boonville • Elledge Peak • Purdy’s Garden
From the full list of species, each was then individually assessed based on habitat requirements and distribution relative to vegetation communities that occur in and around the Study Area. A comprehensive list of special-status plant and wildlife species that were considered in the analysis is provided in Appendix B. Those species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Study Area are described below in greater detail. See Figure 3-6 for a map of CNDDB special-status species occurrences within 5 miles of the Study Area. Special-status wildlife species for which a moderate or high potential to occur was identified within the Study Area include white-tailed kite, foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, osprey, and pallid bat.

A historical occurrence of red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), a CDFW species of special concern, is documented by CDFW in the riparian corridor 0.40 miles north of the Study Area.

Although red-bellied newts may migrate a mile or more to and from breeding streams, this species has a low potential to occur within the Study Area due to a lack of rapid streams with rocky substrates for breeding and larval development near the Study Area. Also, the Study Area’s riparian community is small in size, offering limited movement habitat for this species. The West

Page 850 of 1534 ends

Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\03_MXDs_Projects\Fig3-7_CNDDB_Map.aprx, ballen 10/7/2019 SOURCE: USDA, 2016; CNDDB, 2019; ESA, 2019
Figure 3-6
Occurrences of Special-Status Species
within 5 Miles of the Project Study Area
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
red-bellied newt
Raiche's manzanita
Toren's grimmia
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
Raiche's manzanita
Raiche's manzanita
Mendocino bush-mallow
western pond turtle
foothill yellow-legged frog
North American porcupine
western pond turtle
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
red-bellied newt
Burke's goldfields
Baker's navarretia
Raiche's manzanita
Baker's meadowfoam
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
foothill yellow-legged frog
N
0 1.5
Miles
Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency
Study Area
Study Area Buffer (5 mi.)
CNDDB Occurrences
(as labeled)

Page 851 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.2 Special-Status Species
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-12 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
coast DPS1 fisher (Pekania pennanti), a state threatened and CDFW species of special concern, is unlikely to occur in the Study Area due to the lack of late successional coniferous forests with large diameter trees with cavities; the nearest most-recent occurrence of the fisher to the Study Area is approximately 12 miles north of the Study Area. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) has historically occurred approximately 11 miles north of the Study Area although the Study Area does not offer the required roosting habitat of cave-like structures (Pierson et al. 1999). Hence, the likelihood of encountering these species in the Study Area is considered low and it is not further discussed in this report.

3.2.1 Special-Status Plants
No federal- or state-listed plant species were identified during the biological reconnaissance survey of the Study Area in May 2019. The nearest documented CNDDB plant species to the Study Area is Baker’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes bakeri), a California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 species, observed approximately 1.4 miles southwest nearly 30 years ago. This species occurrence is presumed to be extirpated due to mowing activities associated with nearby development.

Based on the principal habitat type in the Study Area, vegetation is mostly dominated by nonnative annual grassland species, no special-status plants are expected to occur in the Study Area due to the substantial soil disturbance in the past. A list of plant species documented during the May 22, 2019, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report is provided in Appendix C, Plants Observed in the Study Area.

3.2.2 State Listed Wildlife Species
Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)
Foothill yellow-legged frog is a candidate state threatened species and CDFW species of special concern.

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are small to medium–sized frogs with granular skin. They have a historical range from the Willamette River drainage in Oregon to at least the San Gabriel River drainage in Los Angeles County, California, in the foothill mountain streams east of the SierraCascade crest from sea level to 1,940 meters (Hemphill 1952; Nussbaum et al. 1983; Stebbins 2003). Extirpations in the northern and southern portions of the species’ range have resulted in a reduction in its current range from its historical extent; it appears to have disappeared from previously occupied sites south of Monterey County and in the southern Sierra Nevada (Hayes et al. 2016; Jennings and Hayes 1994; USFS 2011). Foothill yellow-legged frogs inhabit partially shaded, rocky perennial streams and rivers at low to moderate elevations across a range of vegetation types including chaparral, oak woodland, mixed coniferous forest, riparian sycamore and cottonwood forest, and wet meadows (Hayes and Jennings 1998; Nussbaum et al. 1983; Stebbins 1985). They have also been observed using isolated pools, vegetated backwaters, and 1 Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A distinct population segment is the smallest division of a taxonomic species permitted to be protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Page 852 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.2 Special-Status Species
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-13 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
streams lacking a rocky, cobble substrate (Ashton et al. 1998; Fitch 1938; Hayes and Jennings 1988). Post-metamorphic frogs (i.e., juveniles and adults) may overwinter in refugia from high winter flows such as small tributary streams, seeps, springs, and clumps of woody debris or vegetation (Bourque 2008; Gonsolin 2010; Rombough 2006; Van Wagner 1996). Females are known to move greater distances than males, with a maximum observed distance of approximately 4.3 miles (Bourque 2008). Breeding habitat is typically associated with low gradient stream reaches at depositional features like lateral point bars and pool tail-outs, and egg masses are usually deposited on the downstream side of rocky substrates in shallow slow moving water near the stream margin (Bondi et al. 2013; Kupferberg 1996; Wheeler and Welsh 2008).

The nearest occurrence of foothill yellow-legged frog to the Study Area is approximately

0.5 miles south of the Study Area along Mill Creek, a tributary connecting to the east bank of the Russian River, documented in 2016. The Russian River immediately east of the Study Area contains aquatic habitat to support this species; however, the species is more commonly found along tributary streams with less dense canopy cover than that found in the vicinity of the Study Area. Seasonal foothill yellow-legged frog movements away from aquatic habitat into upland territory, such as the Study Area, could occur as a behavioral response to avoid high discharge events or as a movement into an overwintering site (Hayes et al. 2016).

3.2.3 Non-Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata)
Western pond turtle is a CDFW species of special concern.

Western pond turtles are commonly found in ponds, lakes, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with rocky or muddy substrates surrounded by aquatic vegetation. These watercourses usually are within woodlands, grasslands, and open forests, between sea level and 6,000-foot elevation. Turtles bask on logs or other objects when water temperatures are lower than air temperatures. Nest sites are most often situated on south or west-facing slopes, are sparsely vegetated with short grasses or forbs, and are scraped in sands or hard-packed, dry, silt or clay soils. Most oviposition occurs during May and June, although some individuals may deposit eggs as early as late April and as late as early August (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Nests are located at upland sites, often up to 0.25 miles from an aquatic site (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Stebbins 2003; Zeiner et al. 1988–1990).

The western pond turtle is uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitat throughout California, west of the Sierra-Cascade crest and absent from desert regions, except in the Mojave Desert along the Mojave River and its tributaries. The species’ elevation range extends from near sea level to 4,690 feet. A western pond turtle was observed basking on large woody debris in 2002 along the Russian River 1.3 miles north of the Study Area, which is considered the nearest documented occurrence of the species to the Study Area. The Russian River riparian woodland community within and immediately east of the Study Area contains necessary aquatic and terrestrial habitat to support dispersal of the species. Although, basking sites may be more commonly found on rocks above the water surface in the channel or on the river bank. As such,

Page 853 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.2 Special-Status Species
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-14 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
there are limited basking sites within the Study Area’s riparian woodland community due to dense vegetations, western pond turtles are known to travel into upland areas as far as approximately 300 feet seeking out sites. The seasonal wetlands and annual grasslands of the Study Area offer western pond turtle terrestrial habitat supporting both nesting and overwintering activities.

White-Tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
The white-tailed kite is a state fully protected species under Fish and Game Code.

White-tailed kite is a medium-sized raptor that is a yearlong resident in coastal and valley lowlands in California. White-tailed kites breed from February to October, peaking from May to August (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species nests near the top of dense oaks, willows, or other large trees. The trees within the annual grassland and riparian woodland plant communities in and adjacent to the Study Area provide nesting habitat for this species. No white-tailed kites were observed during the biological reconnaissance survey; however, this species has been observed from the Study Area (Audubon Society 2018). The generally accepted nesting season extends from February 1 through August 31. This species has the potential to nest within the Study Area during the nesting season.

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Osprey is a CDFW Watch-List species.

Osprey breeds in northern California from Cascade Ranges to Lake Tahoe, and along the coast south to Marin County. Regular breeding sites include Shasta Lake, Eagle Lake, Lake Almanor, other inland lakes and reservoirs, and northwest river systems. Osprey are associated strictly with large, fish-bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine within mixed conifer habitats and prey mostly on fish and a few mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. The species uses large trees, snags, and dead-topped trees in open forest habitats for cover and nesting, and requires tall open-branched “pilot trees” nearby for landing before approaching the nest, and for use by young for flight practice (Zeiner et al. 1988). Osprey nest on a platform of sticks at the top of large snags, dead-topped trees, on cliffs, or human made structures; and occasionally on the ground. Location of the nests are typically within 240 feet of fish-producing water, but may nest up to one-mile from a water body (Airola and Shubert 1981). Osprey travel up to approximately 6 miles from nest to fishing areas (Garber 1972; French and Koplin 1977). Mature trees and utility poles in the Study Area could provide suitable nesting habitat for osprey.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
Pallid bat is a CDFW species of special concern and a Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) High Priority species. The WBWG is composed of agencies, organizations, and individuals interested in bat research, management, and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. CDFW tracks bat species that are least Low-Medium Priority in California.

Page 854 of 1534 ends

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting

3.3 Critical Habitat for Listed Wildlife Species
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-15 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Pallid bat occurs throughout California except in parts of the high Sierra and the northwestern corner of the state (Zeiner et al. 1990). Pallid bat inhabits a variety of habitats, such as grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests; however, this species is most abundant in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Pallid bats roost alone, in small groups, or gregariously (WBWG 2005). Roosts include caves, crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, mines, trees, and various manmade structures (e.g., bridges, barns, porches), that generally have unobstructed entrances/exists and are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators. Year-to-year and night-to-night roost reuse is common; however, bats may switch day roosts on a daily and seasonal basis. No pallid bats were observed during the biological reconnaissance survey; however, this species has the potential to roost in hollows and crevices of mature trees in the Study Area’s annual grassland and riparian woodland habitats.

3.3 Critical Habitat for Listed Wildlife Species
The USFWS defines the term critical habitat in the federal ESA as a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The Study Area is not within designated critical habitat for any listed wildlife species.

3.4 Tree Protection
The City of Ukiah General Plan Growth Management Program (adopted by the City Council December 6, 1995, and amended June 16, 2004) and the City of Ukiah Community Forest Management Plan (adopted by the City Council on November 3, 1993) contain the City’s policies on the protection of trees. The City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines (City of Ukiah, 2014a) provides policy guidelines for the preservation, maintenance and enhancement of the urban forest in parks and other areas maintained by the staff and contractors of the City of Ukiah.

The City’s tree replacement guidelines (City of Ukiah, 2014a) state that at least one tree shall be planted for every tree that is removed from City property. Replacement tree species shall be selected so that overall mature canopy volume will be maintained or increased. It is preferable to plant the replacement tree in close proximity to the original tree’s location. The replacement tree may be located elsewhere, if local conditions contributed to the previous tree’s failure. New locations should be found on the same site or in the same neighborhood at a location of similar or greater value. Preference shall be given for planting native trees whenever feasible.

No tree documented in the Study Area has been recognized as a City of Ukiah “landmark tree” as defined by the Landmark Tree Program Guidelines and Policies (City of Ukiah, 2014b).

Page 855 of 1534 ends

Page 856 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project 4-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 4
Avoidance Measures and Restoration Benefits
The Project’s enhancement of 8.6 acres of Riverside Park intends to avoid impacts to the regulated biological resources with the potential to occur in the Study Area. The following discussion highlights avoidance measures for sensitive biological resources that could be implemented during Project implementation. The Project could provide benefits to sensitive natural communities and wildlife through the conversion of non-native annual grassland habitat into riparian woodland and seasonal wetland communities.

4.1 Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Sensitive
Natural Communities
As discussed above, the conservation of sensitive natural communities is integral to maintaining biological diversity. Modification to two sensitive communities found in the Study Area, riparian woodland and seasonal wetland, would potentially require permits from regulatory agencies, and may require measures to avoid or reduce temporary impacts to these resources. No additional surveys are warranted for sensitive natural communities.

Riparian Woodland. The southeastern boundary of the Study Area overlaps with a riparian woodland community (0.57 acre) subject to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. This community extends into the larger riparian corridor beyond the Study Area surrounding the Russian River. Work within or affecting this community, even if beneficial as a result of enhancement actions, may require a Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.

Seasonal Wetlands. As discussed above, the aquatic resources delineation conducted in support of the Project (ESA 2019) identified 0.178 acre of aquatic resources within the Study Area, consisting of two seasonal wetlands. The delineation concluded these features are not waters of the U.S. under the 2015 CWA rule; however, that determination has not been verified by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The repeal of the 2015 CWA rule and replacement with the previous CWA rule will become effective on or about November 16, 2019. Regardless of the federal status, the seasonal wetlands are considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW and may be waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Impacts to this community, even if beneficial, as a result of enhancement may require a Waste Discharge Permit from the RWQCB through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. CDFW also has the ability to enforce certain water quality provisions in state law. Please refer to Appendix A for further detail on the regulatory jurisdiction related to the Project.

Page 857 of 1534 ends

Chapter 4 Avoidance Measures and Restoration Benefits

4.2 Special-Status Plants
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 4-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Potential impacts to seasonal wetlands during construction could be avoided with the following measure:

Avoidance Measure 1: High visibility and silt fencing should be erected at the edge of the construction footprint if work is anticipated to occur within 50 feet of seasonal wetlands and riparian woodland that are proposed for avoidance. A biological monitor should be present during the fence installation and during any initial grading or vegetation clearing activities within 50 feet of seasonal wetlands and riparian woodland that are proposed for avoidance, to verify fences are in place and vegetation clearing is limited to that necessary for construction.

4.2 Special-Status Plants
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, the Study Area does not support special-status plants. A complete list of plant species observed during the preliminary aquatic resources delineation is presented in Appendix C. This inventory was performed in May, a time when most plant species are identifiable. Although no special-status plant survey has been completed of the Study Area, the area has been exposed to substantial ground disturbance in the past as a result of the former treatment facility. No further action is needed to avoid special-status plants in the Study Area.

4.3 Special-Status Wildlife
Foothill Yellow Legged Frog. The aquatic resources in the Study Area do not support primary foothill yellow-legged frog breeding, loafing or rearing habitat. As such, focused surveys have not been performed and are not warranted for this species. During elevated flows in the river, there are opportunities for occasional long distance movements (up to 165 feet) into Study Area grasslands by foothill yellow-legged frogs potentially present in the Russian River (CDFW, 2000). If foothill yellow-legged frogs are present in the Study Area at the time of construction, ground-disturbing activities would pose a potential threat to this species; however, because this is largely an aquatic species, its movements would generally be restricted to the river corridor and would not include the Study Area. Further, the typical summer construction season does not overlap with high flows more commonly occurring in the winter.

Western Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle is known to occur east of the Study Area within the Russian River riparian corridor, and could seasonally traverse the site during the breeding season while in search of egg deposition areas. Western pond turtle could benefit from elements of the Project that restore habitat and improve floodwater and stormwater drainage. During construction, the following avoidance measures are recommended:

Avoidance Measure 2: A worker education and awareness program should be provided to all on-site personnel by a qualified biologist before the commencement of materials staging or ground disturbing activities. The biologist should explain to construction workers how best to avoid impacts to western pond turtle and should include topics on species identification, life history, descriptions, and habitat requirements during various life stages. Handouts, illustrations, photographs, and project mapping showing areas where minimization and avoidance measures can be included as part of this education program. The crew members should sign a sign-in sheet documenting that they received the training.

Page 858 of 1534 ends

Chapter 4 Avoidance Measures and Restoration Benefits

4.3 Special-Status Wildlife
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 4-3 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Avoidance Measure 3: All vegetation removal and initial grading activities associated with construction activities should be conducted under the supervision of a qualified biologist.

Should any western pond turtles be detected in the vicinity of the project footprint, the biological monitor would relocate any western pond turtles found within the construction footprint to suitable habitat away from the construction zone, but within the study area. A letter report documenting the biological monitoring should be submitted to the client within 14 days following the final monitoring event.

Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats. The Study Area offers minimal elevated raptor nesting habitat as it lacks a substantial amount of mature trees. The few tall mature trees and utility poles within the Study Area provide perches for raptors, including white-tailed kite and osprey, seeking prey in the annual grasslands below. Mature trees offering crevices and cavities may provide habitat for bat roosting. Preservation of existing mature trees, and the planting of new native trees could support raptors and other birds as well as common and special status bats, including pallid bat.

The enhancement of dense groundcover would support the presence of several common groundnesting bird species roosting, nesting, and protection from predators, including California quail.

The following measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats:

Avoidance Measure 4: Vegetation clearing operations, including pruning or removal of trees and shrubs, should be completed between September 1 and January 31, if feasible. If vegetation removal begins during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey prior to vegetation removal. The preconstruction survey should be conducted within 14 days prior to commencement of grounddisturbing activities. If the pre-construction survey finds no active nests, then no additional measures are recommended. If construction does not commence within 14 days of the preconstruction survey, or halts for more than 14 days, an additional pre-construction survey is recommended.

If any active nests are located, an appropriate buffer zone should be established around the nests, as determined by the project biologist. The biologist should mark and maintain the buffer zone until the nest is no longer active. Buffer zones are typically 250 feet for a bird-ofprey nest and 100 feet for other bird nests. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist should monitor nests weekly during construction to evaluate potential nesting disturbance by construction activities. Guidance from the CDFW is recommended if establishing the typical buffer zone is impracticable.

Avoidance Measure 5: Prior to the removal of suitable trees (larger than 24 inches in DBH), a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey for special-status bats within 14 days prior to the start of their removal. If no special-status bats are detected roosting, then a letter report documenting the results of the survey should be provided to the applicant for their records, and no additional measures are recommended. If tree removal does not commence within 14 days of the pre-construction survey, or halts for more than 14 days, a new survey is recommended.

If bats are found in trees or structures proposed for removal, a minimum 10-foot avoidance buffer should be established around the roost/maternity until it is no longer occupied. High visibility construction fencing should be installed around the buffer and should remain in place until the tree or structure is no longer occupied by bats. The trees or structures should not be removed until a biologist has determined that the roost is no longer occupied by the bats.

Page 859 of 1534 ends

Chapter 4 Avoidance Measures and Restoration Benefits

4.4 Tree Protection
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 4-4 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Common Wildlife. As discussed above, the Study Area has experienced substantial ground disturbance in the past as a result of the former treatment facility; topography is mostly level except for artificial excavations and spoils piles. Removing the remnant debris from old industrial practices could benefit target communities supporting native vegetation and sensitive wildlife.

However, the preservation and further sheltering of the historical bobcat den in a small portion of the remnant debris could be a unique opportunity.

4.4 Tree Protection
Should removal of any onsite trees be proposed as part of the project, a Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, consistent with City of Ukiah General Plan Growth Management Program and the City of Ukiah Community Forest Management Plan, would be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to Project construction. All requirements and restrictions within those documents would be complied with, including the incorporation of replacement trees for trees removed.

Guidance on tree removal activities and tree replacement provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the City of Ukiah’s Tree Management Guidelines (City of Ukiah, 2014a) would be followed. The following recommended avoidance measures are adopted from those guidelines:

Avoidance Measure 6: At least one native tree shall be planted for every tree that is removed from City property. Replacement tree species shall be selected so that overall mature canopy volume will be maintained or increased.

Avoidance Measure 7: Prior to commencement of construction activities, tree protection fencing should be placed around all protected trees proposed to be preserved onsite. The fencing should be installed a minimum of 1 foot beyond the driplines of the protected trees and should remain intact until construction has been completed. Fencing may include, but is not limited to, chain-link fencing or high-visibility construction fencing.

Page 860 of 1534 ends

Chapter 4 Avoidance Measures and Restoration Benefits

4.4 Tree Protection
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 4-5 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
This page intentionally left blank

Page 861 of 1534 ends

Page 862 of 1534 ends

Riverside Park Regeneration Project 5-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 5
References and Report Preparation

5.1 References
Airola, D. A., and N. Shubert. 1981. Reproductive success, nest site selection, and management of ospreys at Lake Almanor, California. Cal-Neva Wildlife Trans. 1981:79–85.

Audubon Society. 2018. Places to Bird in Inland Mendocino County. Peregrine Audubon Society.

Last revised August 18, 2018.
———. 2019. Making A Good Home for Grasshopper Sparrows. Audubon Pacific Flyway.

Accessed online: https://ca.audubon.org/making-good-home-grasshopper-sparrows.

Ashton, D.T., A.J. Lind, and K.E. Schlick. 1998. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) Natural History. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA.

Bondi, C.A., S.M. Yarnell, and A.J. Lind. 2013. Transferability of Habitat Suitability Criteria for a Stream Breeding Frog (Rana boylii) in the Sierra Nevada, California. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8(1):88–103.

Bourque, R.M. 2008. Spatial Ecology of an Inland Population of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) in Tehama County, California. Master's Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search for the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Ukiah, Laughlin Range, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Cow Mountain, Purdys Gardens, Elledge Peak, Boonville, Orrs Springs topographic quadrangles; information accessed May 20, 2019. ———. 2018. California Natural Community List. CNDDB. October 15, 2018. ———. 2000. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog.

Written by: S. Morey. January, 2000.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2018. CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California data request for the Ukiah, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle, and surrounding 8 quadrangles.

City of Ukiah. 1995. Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program. Open Space and Conservation. Adopted 1995.
———. 2014a. Tree Management Guidelines and Policies for the Operation and Maintenance of City Property. Adopted 12/1/10 and revised 11/19/14. November 11, 2014.

Page 863 of 1534 ends

Chapter 5 References and Report Preparation

5.1 References
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 5-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
———. 2014b. Landmark Tree Program Guidelines and Policies. November 14, 2014.

County of Mendocino. 2009. Mendocino County General Plan. August 2009. ———. 2011. Ukiah Valley Area Plan. Adopted August 2, 2011.

Environmental Science Associates, 2019. Riverside Park Regeneration Project, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for Melton Design Group, May, 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center; Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Accessed June 2019. Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.

Fitch, H.S. 1938. Rana boylii in Oregon. Copeia 3:148.

French, J. M., and J. R. Koplin. 1977. Distribution, abundance, and breeding status of ospreys in northwestern California. Pages 223-240 in J. C.Ogden, ed. north American Osprey Research Conf. U.S. Natl. Park Serv. Trans. and Proc. Series 2. 258 pp.

Garber, D. P. 1972. Osprey study, Lassen and Plumas counties, California, 1970–71. Calif. Dep.

Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Br. Admin. Rep. 72-1. 33 pp.

Gonsolin, T.E. 2010. Ecology of Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs in Upper Coyote Creek, Santa Clara County, CA. Master’s Thesis. San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

Hayes, M.P., C.A. Wheeler, A.J. Lind, G.A. Green, and D.C. Macfarlane (Technical Coordinators). 2016. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment in California.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-248. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat Correlates of Distribution of the California Redlegged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii):

Implications for Management. pp. 144–158 In: Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166 R.C. Szaro, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton (Technical Coordinators). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Hemphill, D.V. 1952. The Vertebrate Fauna of the Boreal Areas of the Southern Yolla Bolly Mountains, California. PhD Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvalis.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, Final Report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and Geomorphic Factors Affecting Conservation of a RiverBreeding Frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6(4):1322–1344.

Marcot, B. G., ed. 1979. Introduction Vol. I. California wildlife/habitat relationships program north coast/ cascades zone. USDA, For. Serv., Six Rivers Nat’l. Forest, Eureka, Calif.

Page 864 of 1534 ends

Chapter 5 References and Report Preparation

5.1 References
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 5-3 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, ed. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections, Sacramento, CA, 165 pp.

Mendocino County Resource Conservation District (MCRCD). 2012. Russian River Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan. June 2012.NatureServe, 2017. NatureServe Explorer.

National and Subnational Conservation Status Definitions. Accessed online:
https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/102016-JFWM-079/suppl_file/10.3996102016- jfwm-079.s7.pdf. February 26, 2017.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. West Coast Region, California. Intersection of USGS

7.5” Topographic Quadrangles with NOAA Fisheries ESA Listed Species, Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and MMPA Species Data within California. Ukiah Quadrangle.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians & Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

PMC, 2009. The County of Mendocino General Plan. August, 2009.

Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C. E. Harris, B.L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L.

Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

Reese, D. and Welsh, H. 1997. Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys marmorata: Implications for Management. USDA Forest Service. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. An International Conference, pp. 352–357, held 1997 by the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society.

Rombough, C.J. 2006. Wintering Habitat Use by Juvenile Foothill Yellow-Legged Frogs (Rana boylii): The Importance of Seeps. Northwestern Naturalist 87:159.

Russian River Independent Science Review Panel (RRISRP), 2016. Conceptual Model of Watershed Hydrology, Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions and Stream Ecology for the Russian River Watershed.

RRISRP, 2002. Russian River Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan. Mendocino County Resources Conservation District. June 2012.

Sands, A., ed. 1977. Riparian forests in California, their ecology and conservation. University of California, Davis, Inst. Of Ecol. Publ. No. 15.

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

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
———. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third edition Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 533 pp.

Page 865 of 1534 ends

Chapter 5 References and Report Preparation

5.2 Document Preparation
Riverside Park Regeneration Project 5-4 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Stebbins, R.C., and S.M. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California.

Revised Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Thomas, J.W., tech ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Dept. of Agric., For. Serv. Handbook No. 553.

Van Wagner, T.J. 1996. Selected Life-history and Ecological Aspects of a Population of Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs (Rana boylii) from Clear Creek, Nevada County, California. Master's Thesis. California State University, Chico, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Ecological Subregions of California report.

Section and Subsection Descriptions. Compiled by S. Miles and C. Goudey. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region San Francisco, CA.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) Ecology, River Regulation, and Conservation. Pacific Southwest Research Station. Available at:
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/wildlife/herp/rana_boylii/index.shtml.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Species list generated May 20, 2019, via: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2005. Western Bat Working Group Species Accounts for all bats. http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/allbats.pdf.

Wheeler, C.A., and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2008. Mating Strategy and Breeding Patterson of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):128–142.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer (compiling editors). 1988. California’s Wildlife, Volume I, Amphibians and Reptiles, California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988–1990. California's Wildlife, Volumes I–III, California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

5.2 Document Preparation
Prepared by: Elizabeth Hill, Biologist
Brian Pittman, CWB
Environmental Science Associates
1425 N. McDowell Blvd., Suite 200
Petaluma, CA 94928

Page 866 of 1534 ends

Appendix A
Regulatory Context

Page 867 of 1534 ends

Page 868 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Regulatory Context
Riverside Park Regeneration Project A-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Federal
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the FESA (16 U.S. Code [USC] 153 et seq.), the MBTA (16 USC 703–711), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668). These regulations are described below.

Federal Endangered Species Act. Under the FESA, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have joint authority to list a species as threatened or endangered (16 USC § 1533(c)). Two federal agencies oversee the FESA: the USFWS has jurisdiction over plants, wildlife, and resident fish, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over anadromous fish and marine fish and mammals. Section 7 of the FESA mandates that federal agencies consult with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure that federal agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species. The FESA prohibits the “take”2 of any fish or wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered, including the destruction of habitat that could hinder species recovery.

Section 10 requires the issuance of an “incidental take” permit before any public or private action may be taken that could take an endangered or threatened species. The permit requires preparation and implementation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that would offset the take of individuals that may occur, incidental to implementation of a proposed Project, by providing for the protection of the affected species.

Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, a federal agency reviewing a Project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species may be present in the Project area and whether the proposed action will have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC § 1536(3), (4)). No federal actions apply to the Study Area.

Critical Habitat. The USFWS designates critical habitat for listed species under FESA. Critical habitat designations are specific areas within the geographic region that are occupied by a listed species that are determined to be critical to its survival and recovery in accordance with FESA.

Federal entities issuing permits or acting as a lead agency must show that their actions do not negatively affect the critical habitat to the extent that it impedes the recovery of the species. The Study Area is not within designated critical habitat.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§703–711)
The MBTA is the domestic law that affirms and implements a commitment by the U.S. to four international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Unless and except as permitted by regulations, the MBTA makes it 2 Take is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.

Page 869 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Regulatory Context
Riverside Park Regeneration Project A-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to intentionally pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds anywhere in the United States. The law also applies to the intentional disturbance and removal of nests occupied by migratory birds or their eggs during the breeding season. On December 22, 2017, U.S. Department of the Interior redefined “incidental take” under the MBTA such that, “the MBTA's prohibition on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same applies only to direct and affirmative purposeful actions that reduce migratory birds, their eggs, or their nests, by killing or capturing, to human control.”3 Thus, the federal MBTA definition of “take” does not prohibit or penalize the incidental take of migratory birds that results from actions that are performed without motivation to harm birds. This interpretation differs from the prior federal interpretation of “take”, which prohibited all incidental take of migratory birds, whether intentional or incidental.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, enforced by the USFWS, makes it illegal to import, export, take (which includes molest or disturb), sell, purchase, or barter any bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) or parts thereof. This Act would apply to the Study Area if bald eagles or golden eagles are present in or in the vicinity of the Study Area.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act, Section 404. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers CWA Section 404. Section 404 regulates activities in wetlands and “other waters of the United States.” Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the United States” that are defined in the CFR (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) as:

1. All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands. (Wetlands are defined by the federal government [33 CFR 328.3(b), 1991] as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions).

3. All other waters—such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds—the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. This includes any waters with the following current or potential uses:
• That are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes,
• From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce, or
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017. “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take.” Office of the Solicitor, Memorandum (M-37050) to Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, and Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Department, December 22, 2017.

Page 870 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Regulatory Context
Riverside Park Regeneration Project A-3 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
• That are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition.

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4).

6. Territorial seas.

7. Wetlands next to waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (6).

8. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding the Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (328.3[a][8] added 58 CFR 45035, August 25, 1993).

According to the unverified Aquatic Resources Delineation (ESA, 2019), regulatory waters under the jurisdiction of the Corps do not occur in the Study Area.

State
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly identified as the California Department of Fish and Game, administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources under the Fish and Game Code (FGC), such as CESA (FGC Section 2050, et seq.), Fully Protected Species (FGC Section 3511), Native Plant Protection Act (FGC Sections 1900 to 1913) and Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement Program (FGC Sections 1600 to 1616). These regulations are described below.

California Endangered Species Act. In 1984, the State of California implemented CESA, which prohibits the take of State-listed endangered and threatened species; although, habitat destruction is not included in the State’s definition of take. Section 2090 requires State agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species.

The CDFW administers the act and authorizes take through California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 agreements (except for designated “fully protected species,” see below). Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA protections apply to candidate species that have been petitioned for listing, such as foothill yellow-legged frog.

Regarding listed rare and endangered plant species, CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act (see below).

California State Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 Under these sections of the FGC, the Project operator is not allowed to conduct activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds of prey; the taking or possessing of any migratory nongame bird; the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or nongame birds; or the taking of any nongame bird pursuant to FGC Section 3800. FGC §3513 adopts the federal Department of the Interior take provisions under the

Page 871 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Regulatory Context
Riverside Park Regeneration Project A-4 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
MBTA.4 Several common and special status birds have the potential to nest in the Study Area and are protected by the FGC.

Lake or Streambed Alteration Program. The CDFW regulates activities that would interfere with the natural flow of, or substantially alter, the channel, bed, or bank of a lake, river, or stream.

Section 1602 of FGC requires notification of the CDFW for lake or stream alteration activities. If, after notification is complete, the CDFW determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource, the CDFW has authority to issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1603 of the FGC. Requirements to protect the integrity of biological resources and water quality, such as the riparian woodland community and seasonal wetlands found in the Study Area, are often conditions of Streambed Alteration Agreements.

These may include avoidance or minimization of heavy equipment use within stream zones, limitations on work periods to avoid impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources, and measures to restore degraded sites or compensate for permanent habitat losses.

Species of Special Concern. CDFW maintains lists for candidate-endangered species and candidate-threatened species. California candidate species are afforded the same level of protection as listed species. California also designates species of special concern, which are species of limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. These species do not have the same legal protection as listed species or fully protected species, but may be added to official lists in the future. CDFW intends the species of special concern list to be a management tool for consideration in future land use decisions. Foothill yellow legged frog, a CDFW species of special concern, has the potential to disperse through the Study Area.

State Water Resources Control Board
Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), regulates waters of the State through the California Clean Water Act (i.e., Porter-Cologne Act). If the Corps determines wetlands or other waters to be isolated waters and not subject to regulation under the federal CWA, the RWQCB may choose to exert jurisdiction over these waters under the Porter-Cologne Act as waters of the State. The two seasonal wetlands (SW-1 and SW-2) within the Study Area are considered sensitive natural communities and waters of the State: a water-filled depression (0.14 acres) and an ephemeral ditch that conveys stormwater (0.038 acres). Seasonal wetlands in the Study Area qualify as waters of the State falling under the RWQCB jurisdiction. Impacts to this community, even if beneficial, as a result of enhancement may require a Waste Discharge Permit from the RWQCB through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. CDFW also has the ability to enforce certain water quality provisions in state law. 4 State Assembly Bill 2627, introduced in February 2018, would amend Section 3513 of Fish and Game Code relating to migratory birds. The bill would amend California law to clarify that the State of California may issue orders, rules, or regulations that are more protective of migratory nongame birds than the rules or policies set forth by the Department of the Interior. AB 2627 would not, in itself, restore incidental take protection to migratory nongame birds in California.

Page 872 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Regulatory Context
Riverside Park Regeneration Project A-5 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
Local
City of Ukiah General Plan
The City of Ukiah values natural resources and open space for their significance to the heritage, identity, and quality of life of the community. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan focuses on the protection and enhancement of limited natural resources within the city. The following goals are relevant to the Project:

Goal OC-7: Ensure the health and viability of the Russian River and its tributaries.

Goal OC-22: Conserve and replenish valley oaks in the Valley.

Goal OC-23: Native plant landscaping shall be encouraged.

Ukiah Valley Area Plan
The Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) represents a commitment to a comprehensive and long range inter-jurisdictional planning document that represents the vision and foresight of the people who live and work in the Ukiah Valley. The Plan is an element of the Mendocino County General Plan governing land use and development on the unincorporated lands in the Ukiah Valley. The following goals are relevant to the Project:

Goal OC-1: Maintain and enhance the area’s natural resources by balancing protection, conservation, replenishment and sustainable use.

Goal OC-2: Conserve open space, hillsides, and indigenous habitats for the enjoyment of future generations.

Page 873 of 1534 ends

Page 874 of 1534 ends

Appendix B
Special-Status Species
Considered in the Study Area

Page 875 of 1534 ends

Page 876 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence

WILDLIFE
Reptiles
Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation.

Micro: Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat for egg-laying.

Moderate: There are no accessible water
features located in or near the Study Area
that would support this species.

Amphibians
Foothill
yellow-legged frog
Rana boylii Fed: none
CA: Candidate
Threatened
General: Pacific Coast drainages and lower western slopes of Sierra Nevada mountains in a variety of habitats such as (valleyfoothill hardwood, valley-hardwood conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and wet meadows.)
Micro: Permanent water source such as rivers and streams with a rocky substrate.

Moderate: Nearest recent occurrence
along Mill Creek, less than 0.5 miles south
of the Study Area. Historically documented
along the Russian River within Ukiah
Valley. Several occurrences in region all
along tributary streams to Russian River.

California
red-legged frog
Rana draytonii Fed: FT
CA: SSC
General: lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation.

Micro: Requires 11–20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to aestivation habitat.

Absent: Study Area outside known range.

Red-bellied newt Taricha rivularis Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: Abundant in most of the ranges where they are found:

Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt and Lake counties.

Micro: Primarily inhabit redwood forests. Requires rapid permanent streams with rocky substrate within proximity to redwood forest for breeding.

Low: Lack of nearby redwood forests from
the Study Area precludes its presence.

Birds
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi Fed: none
CA: WL
Nests in dense oak and riparian woodland. Low (nesting): Limited suitable nesting habitat in the Study Area.

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Fed: none
CA: none
Nests in coniferous ad mixed forests. Low (nesting): Lack of dense coniferous stands in the Study Area.

Sharp-shinned
hawk
Accipiter striatus Fed: none
CA: WL
Nests in dense oak and riparian woodland. Low (nesting): Limited suitable nesting habitat in the Study Area.

Page 877 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Fed: none
CA: ST
General: highly colonial species, most numerous in central valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California.

Micro: requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony.

Low (nesting colony): There is no
suitable nesting habitat in the Study Area.

Site contains potential for suitable habitat.

Grasshopper
sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: Dense, dry and well-drained native grassland with mix of grasses and forbs.

Micro: Scattered shrubs for singing perches, and nests in a slight depression on the ground built out of grasses and forbs at the base of a clump of grass. Requires breeding sites of at least 30 contiguous acres, and prefers native grass sites greater than 100 acres (Audubon Society, 2019).

Low (nesting): Low-quality suitable
nesting habitat is present in the grasslands
of the Study Area; however, size of habitat
in Study Area limits breeding opportunities.

Historical breeding sites not known to
Ukiah region. Could forage or fly through
the Study Area.

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Fed: BGEPA
CA: SFP
General: Nests on cliffs or tall trees, breeding from late Jan–Aug. with a peak from Mar–July. Preferred foraging habitat is annual grasslands that support small mammals such as rabbits and ground squirrels.

Low (nesting): Potential foraging habitat
for golden eagle occurs in annual
grasslands in the Study Area. Nesting
habitat is not available in the Study Area.

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Fed: none
CA: ST
General: Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch.

Micro: Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.

Low (nesting): Swainson’s hawk breeding
sites have not been documented in the
Study Area; however, species is known to
occur over Ukiah Waste Water Treatment
Plant (Audubon Society, 2018),
approximately 2 miles south of Study Area.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nest and forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain cienagas.

Micro: nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas.

Low (nesting): Suitable foraging habitat is
present in the grasslands of the Study
Area; however, nesting sites are not
documented in project vicinity. Study Area
lacks abundance marsh vegetation for
nesting habitat.

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Fed: none
CA: SFP
General: Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks, and rivers or marshes next to deciduous woodland.

Micro: Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching.

Moderate: Annual grasslands provide
suitable foraging habitat. Limited perches
in the Study Area for this species.

American peregrine
falcon
Falco peregrinus
anatum
Fed: FD, BCC
CA: SFP
General: Nests near wetlands, lakes, rivers or other water on high cliffs, banks, dunes and mounds.

Micro: Breeds and feeds near water. Nest is a scrape on a depression or ledge in an open site. Will use human-made structures or tree snags, or old raptor nests.

Low (nesting): No suitable nesting habitat
for this species in the Study Area;
however, species has been documented in
the vicinity of Study Area (eBird, 2019).

Page 878 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-3 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Fed: FD
CA: SE, SFP
General: Large bodies of water, or free flowing rivers abundant with fish. Requires adjacent snags and perches near water source for nesting and foraging.

Micro: Dense old-growth, dominate trees with open branch work, and less than 40% canopy for nesting.

Low: There is no suitable habitat in the
Study Area to support nesting or foraging
of this species; however, species has been
documented in vicinity of Study Area
(eBird, 2019).

Yellow-breasted
chat
Icteria virens Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: Inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy shrubs near watercourses.

Micro: Nests in low, dense riparian, consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages and nests within 10 feet of ground.

Low: Known to occur in the region;
however, nesting sites have not been
documented recently in Mendocino south
of Willits.

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Fed: none
CA: WL
General: Ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger streams. Moderate (nesting): Known nesting site documented along the Russian River
within 10 miles of the Study Area. Known
to migrate through Study Area (eBird,
2019).

Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia Fed: BCC
CA: SSC
General: Frequents riparian and wooded habitats.

Micro: Frequently found nesting and foraging in willow shrubs and thickets, and in other riparian plants including cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders.

Low (nesting): Species may migrate
through site (eBird, 2019); however, no
nesting sites have been documented in the
9-quad radius of Study Area.

Northern spotted
owl
Strix occidentalis
caurina
Fed: FT
CA: ST
General: Old growth forests; uses same site for years.

Micro: Tree hollows, broken tree tops, or crevices in cliffs or caves.

Low: Species may migrate through Study
Area; nearest known breeding site is
approximately 7 miles east of the Study
Area in rural forested territory.

Mammals
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: A wide variety of habitats is occupied, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. The species is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.

Micro: Roosts in buildings, caves, tree hollows, crevices, mines, and bridges.

Moderate: Nearest occurrence 8 miles
northeast of the Study Area. Tree hollows
and crevices in Study Area could provide
suitable roosting habitat.

Sonoma tree vole Arborimus pomo Fed: none
CA: none
General: Along north coast of Sonoma north to Oregon border, generally within fog belt.

Micro: Old-growth and other forests, mainly Douglas fir, redwood, and montane hardwood-conifer habitats.

Low: Lack of suitable habitat in Study
Area.

Page 879 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-4 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence Townsend’s
big-eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Fed: none
CA: SSC
General: Found in all habitats except subalpine and alpine habitats, and may be found at any season throughout its range.

Micro: Roost in caves, mines, and tunnels with minimal disturbance but can also be found in abandoned open buildings or other human-made structures. Conspicuous rooster, sensitive to disturbance.

Low: There are no CNDDB occurrences
reported within 10 miles of the Study Area.

There is no suitable habitat in the Study
Area.

North American
porcupine
Erethizon dorsatum Fed: none
CA: none
General: Wooded areas throughout the state. Low: Lack of suitable habitat.

Fisher – West
Coast DPS
Pekania pennanti Fed: none
CA: ST, SSC
General: Late successional coniferous or mixed forests.

Micro: Relatively large diameter trees, high canopy closure, large trees (hardwood and conifer) with cavities, and large down wood.

Low: Lack of late successional coniferous
forests with large diameter trees with
cavities. Nearest most-recent occurrence
of the fisher to the Study Area is
approximately 12 miles north of the Study
Area.

PLANTS
Raiche’s manzanita Arctostaphylos
stanfordiana ssp.
raichei
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest.

Micro: Rocky, serpentine sites. Slopes and ridges. Found in elevations 1,591–3,510 feet.

Blooming: Feb–April.

Low: Commonly found on slopes in region,
which are not present in Study Area. Not
identified during botanical survey.

Sonoma sunshine Blennosperma bakeri Fed: FE
CA: SE
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Vernal pools. Found in elevations 32–950 feet.

Blooming: March–May.

Low: Micro habitat not found in Study
Area. Not identified during botanical
survey.

Bristly sedge Carex comosa Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 2B.1
General: Marshes and swamps, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Lake margins, wet places. Found at elevations between -16 (Delta Island) and 3,313 feet.

Blooming: May–Sept.

Low: Micro habitat not found in Study
Area. Not identified during botanical
survey.

Rincon Ridge
ceanothus
Ceanothus confusus Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Micro: Known from volcanic or serpentine soils, dry shrubby slopes.

Found at elevations ranging from 492 to 4,199 feet.

Blooming: Feb–June.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

Page 880 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-5 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence Roderick’s fritillary Fritillaria roderickii Fed: none
CA: SE
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Found at elevations ranging from 65 to 2,001 feet. Micro:

Grassy slopes, mesas
Blooming: Mar–May.

Low: Commonly found on slopes in region,
which are not present in Study Area. Not
identified during botanical survey.

Boggs lake hedgehyssop
Gratiola heterosepala Fed: none
CA: SE
CRPR: 1B.2
General: Marshes and swamps.

Micro: clay; found at elevations ranging from 13 to 7,906 feet.

Blooming: Apr–Aug.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

Glandular western
flax
Hesperolinon
adenophyllyum
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
General: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Serpentine soils; generally found in serpentine chaparral; found at elevations ranging from: 1,394 to 4,412 feet.

Blooming: May–Aug.

Low: Study Area’s elevation is out of
species’ range. Not identified during
botanical survey.

Bolander’s horkelia Horkelia bolanderi Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
General: Lower montane coniferous forest, chaparral, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Grassy margins of vernal pools and meadows 455 to 2,805 feet.

Blooming: (May)Jun–Aug.

Low: Micro habitat not found in Study
Area. Not identified during botanical
survey.

Burke’s goldfields Lasthenia burkei Fed: FE
CA: CE
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Vernal pools, meadows and seeps.

Micro: Most often in vernal pools and swales. 49 to 1,902 feet.

Blooming: Apr –Jun.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

Colusa layia Layia septentrionalis Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
General: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Found at elevations ranging from 49 to 3,608 feet.

Blooming: Apr–May.

Low: Commonly found on slopes in region,
which are not present in Study Area. Not
identified during botanical survey.

Baker’s meadow Limnanthes bakeri Fed: none
CA: rare
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps, vernal pools.

Micro: Seasonally moist or saturated sites within grassland; also in swales, roadside ditches & margins of freshwater marshy areas.

Found at elevations ranging from 574 to 3,001 feet.

Blooming: Apr–May.

Low: Likely extirpated in region.

Page 881 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-6 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence Mendocino bushmallow
Malacothamnus
mendocinensis
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1A
General: Chaparral.

Micro: Open, roadside banks; found at elevations ranging from 1,394 to 1,886 feet.

Blooming: May–June.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

Baker’s navarretia Navarretia
leucocephala ssp.
bakeri
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, lower montane coniferous forest.

Found at elevations ranging from 3 to 5,511 feet.

Micro: Vernal pools and swales; adobe or alkaline soils.

Blooming: Apr–Jul.

Low: Nearest local occurrence is in
proximity to Lake Mendocino. Threatened
by presence of non-native plants in Study
Area. Not identified during botanical
survey.

White-flowered rein
orchid
Piperia candida Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
General: North Coast coniferous forest, lower montane coniferous forest, broad-leafed upland forest.

Micro: Sometimes on serpentine. Forest duff, mossy banks, rock outcrops, and muskeg. Found at elevations ranging from 20 to 5,298 feet.

Blooming: April–Jul.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

Mayacamas
popcornflower
Plagiobothrys
lithocaryus
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1A
General: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Moist sites; found at elevations ranging from 984 to 1,476 feet.

Blooming: April–May.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

North Coast
semaphore grass
Pleuropogon
hooverianus
Fed: none
CA: ST
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Broad-leafed upland forest, meadows and seeps, north coast coniferous forest.

Micro: Wet grassy, usually shady areas, sometimes freshwater marsh; associated with forest environments. Found at elevations ranging from 147 to 3,805 feet.

Blooming: Apr–Jun.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

Hoffman’s bristly
jewelflower
Streptanthus
glandulosus ssp.
hoffmanii
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.3
General: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Micro: Moist, steep rocky banks, in serpentine and non-serpentine soil. Found at elevations ranging from 60 to 2,509 feet.

Blooming: Apr–Jun.

Low: Micro habitat not found in Study
Area. Not identified during botanical
survey.

Page 882 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-7 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE B-1

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Likelihood of Occurrence Beaked tracyina Tracyina rostrata Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
General: Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, chaparral.

Micro: Open grassy meadows usually within oak woodland and grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 492 to 2,591 feet.

Blooming: Apr–Jul.

Low: Disturbed soils of Study Area not
suitable for species. Not identified during
botanical survey.

Santa Cruz clover Trifolium
buckwestiorum
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.1
General: Coastal prairie, broad-leafed upland forest, cismontane woodland. Found at elevations ranging from 98 to 2,641 feet.

Micro: Moist grassland. Gravelly margins.

Blooming: Apr–Oct.

Low: No suitable habitat in Study Area.

Not identified during botanical survey.

NOTES:
n/a = not applicable; DPS = distinct population segment; CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; NOAA Fisheries = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES:

Plant and Wildlife that were included in this table generally have a CRPR of 1 or 2, and were either observed within the Study Area by a ESA biologist, or contained within the query of the (1) CNDDB; (2) USFWS Endangered Species List; and/or (3) CNPS Online Inventory.

STATUS CODES:

Federal (USFWS or NOAA Fisheries):

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government
FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government
FPE = Proposed for Listing as Endangered
FPT = Proposed for Listing as Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted Species
FC = Candidate for Federal listing
State (CDFW):

SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
ST = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) SSC = California species of special concern
SC = California Candidate for listing as Endangered
SFP = California fully protected species
WL = Watch list
California Rare Plant Rank:

Rank 1A = Plants believed extinct;
Rank 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or
endangered in California and elsewhere.

Unless otherwise noted, Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California is derived from habitat requirements provided by the CNDDB. Blooming period for plant species is derived from the CNPS Online Inventory.

LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE EVALUATIONS:

A rating of “present” indicates that the species has been observed in the Study Area; “high” potential indicates that this species is expected to occur on site or occurs locally to the area; “moderate” indicates that suitable habitat exists in the Study Area; “low” potential indicates that the Study Area is outside of the species’ described range or suitable habitat is absent.

Page 883 of 1534 ends

Appendix A Special-Status Species Considered in the Study Area Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-8 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
This page intentionally left blank

Page 884 of 1534 ends

Appendix C
Plants Observed in the
Study Area

Page 885 of 1534 ends

Page 886 of 1534 ends

Appendix C Plants Observed in the Study Area
Riverside Park Regeneration Project C-1 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE C-1

UKIAH RIVERSIDE PARK PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue elderberry
Alismataceae Alisma sp. Water plantain
Apiaceae Anthriscus caucalis Bur-chervil
Conium maculatum Poison hemlock
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel
Torilis arvensis Hedge parsley
Apocynaceae Vinca major Greater periwinkle
Asteraceae Artemesia douglasiana Mugwort
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce
Logfia gallica
Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed
Silybum marianum Milk thistle
Soliva sessilis Field burrweed
Sonchus sp. Sow’s ear
Tragopogon sp. Goat’s beard
Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra Black mustard
Hirschfeldia incana Summer mustard
Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed
Lepidium sp.

Raphanus sp. Wild radish
Caprifoliaceae Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus Snowberry Caryophyllaceae Cerastium glomeratum Sticky mouse-ear chickweed Spergularia sp. Sand-spurrey
Cyperaceae Carex barbarae Whiteroot sedge
Eleocharis macrostachya Spikerush
Cucurbitaceae Marah sp. Wild cucumber
Fabaceae Lupinus sp. Lupine
Medicago polymorpha Burclover
Trifolium glomeratum Clustered clover
Trifolium hirtum Rose clover
Vicia villosa Vetch
Fagaceae Quercus lobata Valley oak
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Filaree
Erodium moschatum Filaree
Geranium dissectum Geranium

Page 887 of 1534 ends

Appendix C Plants Observed in the Study Area
Riverside Park Regeneration Project C-2 ESA / 181242
Habitat Assessment December 2019
Preliminary − Subject to Revision
TABLE C-1

UKIAH RIVERSIDE PARK PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Hypericaceae Hypericum perforatum Klamath weed
Juglandaceae Juglans hindsii Northern California black walnut Onagraceae Epilobium brachycarpum Willowherb
Epilobium ciliatum Fringed willowherb
Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy
Plantaginaceae Plantago coronopus
Plantago lanceolata English plantain
Poaceae Aegilops sp. Goat grass
Avena fatua Wild oat
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome
Bromus madritensis Foxtail brome
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head
Elymus triticoides Creeping wild-rye
Festuca bromoides Brome fescue
Festuca perennis Rye grass
Hordeum marinum spp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Hare barley
Polygonaceae Persicaria sp. Smartweed
Rumex conglomeratus Dock
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Pteridaceae Pentagramma triangularis Golden back fern
Rosaceae Prunus sp. Horticultural fruit tree
Rosa californica California rose
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rubiaceae Galium aparine Goose grass
Galium murale Tiny bedstraw
Galium parisense Wall bedstraw
Salicaceae Salix exigua Sandbar willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Sapindaceae Acer negundo Box elder
Solanaceae Nicotiana sp. Wild tobacco
Vitaceae Vitis californica California wild grape

Page 888 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022
Ms. Michelle Irace, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
Sent via email: [email protected]
Subject: Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
Proposed Ukiah Riverside Park
Ukiah, California
Dear Ms. Irace:

Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted a soil investigation at the proposed Ukiah Riverside Park in Ukiah, California, on behalf of the City of Ukiah and in accordance with our proposal dated March 2, 2022. The property is predominantly undeveloped land that the City is considering developing as a park with wetlands. The purpose of the soil sampling and analysis is to inform the project design.

Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
According to a 1999 Phase I environmental site assessment, the property was previously used for sewage treatment ponds from the 1930s to 1958, a trap shooting range (Ukiah Rod & Gun Club) from at least 1968 to 1978, and a former police shooting range from 1968 to 1978 (Dannatt 1999). A large pit in the central portion of the property was used to mine gravel from approximately 1981 until 1986. Since 1986, the pit area has been filled in with concrete, asphalt, street sweepings, and brush by a variety of agencies within the City and County (Public Works, Utilities, and County Roads). In addition, unauthorized dumping of household debris has also occurred on the southern portion of the property.

Using the information acquired from the 1999 Phase I assessment, historical aerial photographs, and topographic maps, ESA collected and chemically analyzed four shallow soil samples on March 23, 2022, at the locations show on Figure 1. Samples S-1, S-2, and S-3 are located within the footprint of the former sewage treatment ponds. Sample S-4 is located in the area of the former trap shooting range and former police shooting range.

The samples were collected at about 6 inches below the ground surface using a shovel and trowel. The soil samples were sealed in their sampling containers, labeled with a unique identification number, placed in an ice chest with ice for preservation, and delivered on the same day to McCampbell Analytical Laboratory, a statecertified analytical laboratory, along with chain-of-custody documentation. The soil samples were analyzed for the following chemicals using the cited methods:
 Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil by EPA Method 8015Bm  Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B  Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270C  Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8081A/8082  CAM 17 metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, total mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc) by EPA Method 6020

Page 889 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
Analytical Results and Screening Criteria
The laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix A. The chemical results are tabulated on Tables 1, 2, and 3. Only those chemicals with at least one detection above laboratory detection limits are listed; chemicals with no results above laboratory detections limits are not listed and are concluded to be below all screening criteria.

The metals results are first compared to background levels from published studies to identify those chemicals that are present at naturally occurring background levels. General background levels are available from the Kearney Foundation: Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils, dated March 1996.

Only those metals that exceed background levels are evaluated further.

All results are compared to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs) to assess whether onsite soils would be considered a hazardous waste if disposed of at an offsite landfill permitted to accept the waste.

All results are compared to the 2019 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB 2019). ESLs are screening levels used by regulatory agencies throughout the state to assess whether further investigation and possibly cleanup is needed at sites where hazardous materials are suspected to have been spilled. ESLs are risk-based levels based on both human health and ecological habitat, which can provide comparative guidance as to whether a given chemical is present in soil at levels that might pose risks to construction workers, the public, or the environment.

All results are compared to the 2000 RWQCB Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, dated May 2000. Beneficial reuse screening criteria are ecological acceptance criteria used by the San Francisco RWQCB to assess whether fill would be acceptable for use in restoring wetlands and levees on the margins of San Francisco Bay. The screening criteria include surface and foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria. Surface beneficial reuse screening criteria are more stringent and apply to the top 3 feet of materials. Foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria are less stringent and apply to material buried under 3 feet of surface beneficial reuse material. Although the Riverside Park project would not import fill materials, the screening criteria provide a useful comparison to assess whether the onsite materials would be acceptable in a wetlands environment.

Discussion
Hazardous Waste Levels
None of the reported concentrations of chemicals in soil exceeded their respective TTLCs, for those chemicals that have listed TTLC values. Based on the analytical results, the soil would not be considered hazardous waste and could be accepted at any Class III non-hazardous waste landfill, if offsite disposal is considered. Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide the comparison of chemical results to TTLCs.

Page 890 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds, and Petroleum Hydrocarbons The results for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons are tabulated on Table 1. None of the reported concentrations exceeded any screening criteria. These suites of chemicals are more volatile; the low to non-detectable results do not indicate a respiratory risk to construction workers or the public.

The low to non-detectable results for these chemicals also indicate no risk to the environment.

Metals
The results for metals are tabulated on Table 2. Lead and selenium were the only metals detected above background levels and only at the location of Sample S-2. The concentration of selenium in Sample S-2 did not exceed the ESL or surface or foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria, indicating that the soil in this location does not pose a risk to construction workers, the public, or the environment relative to selenium.

The concentration of lead at the location of Sample S-2 exceeded both the ESL and the surface beneficial reuse criteria. If the soil at this location were excavated and mixed with soil from the rest of the property during grading, the average concentration would be 63.25 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which would still exceed both the ESL and the surface beneficial reuse criteria. From the perspective of beneficial reuse and protection of the environment, the soil at the location of Sample S-2 would qualify for use as foundation material, meaning that if this area where covered with soil that meets surface beneficial reuse screening criteria, the covered soil would not be expected to pose a risk to people or the environment.

Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs
The results for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs are tabulated on Table 3. PCBs were not detected above laboratory detection limits and are concluded to be below all screening criteria.

The pesticides chlordane (both a-chlordane and g-chlordane) and DDT and its degradation products of DDD and DDE the only organochlorine pesticides detected above laboratory detection limits and only at the locations of Samples S-1 and S-2.

The concentration of a-chlordane and g-chlordane at the location of Sample S-2 exceeded the ESL and both the surface and foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria. This indicates that soil in the area of Sample S-2 would pose a risk to construction workers, the public, and the environment.

To assess the average chlordane concentration that would result from grading and mixing soil throughout the property, the average concentrations of all four samples are included on Table 3, using the reported detection limit for those results reported at below detection limits. If mixed through grading of the property, the average concentrations of a-chlordane and g-chlordane would be 0.0057 mg/kg and 0.0048 mg/kg, respectively. The average concentrations would be below the chlordane ESL of 0.00853 mg/kg, but would still exceed both the surface and foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria of 0.0023 mg/kg and 0.0048 mg/kg, respectively. This indicates that mixing soil from the area of Sample S-2 with soil throughout the property would still pose a risk to the environment.

Page 891 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022

Page 4 ends

Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
The concentrations of DDT at the locations of Samples S-1 and S-2 exceeded the ESL and both the surface and foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria. In addition, the average DDT concentration of 0.0448 mg/kg would still exceed the ESL of 0.0011 mg/kg and the surface beneficial reuse screening criteria of 0.007 mg/kg, but not the foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria of 0.0461 mg/kg. This indicates that soil in the area of Samples S-1 and S-2 would pose a risk to construction workers, the public, and the environment unless removed or covered with three feet of clean fill.

Summary
The areas around Samples S-3 and S-4 do not have chemical concentrations that would restrict the reuse of soil, indicating that soil in the southern portion of the property would have no restrictions on its use. The areas around Samples S-3 and S-4 in the northern portion of the property have chemical concentrations that would restrict the reuse of soil. The concentrations of chlordane and DDT in soil at the area around Sample S-2, and to a lesser extent Sample S-1, indicate soil in these local areas are unsuitable for use as a public park and as an aquatic habitat in their present condition. Options for addressing this condition could include the following:
 Move or dispose of the soil: If soil in the area around Samples S-1 and S-2 is to be graded and moved, the soil could be excavated and disposed of at any Class III non-hazardous waste landfill. Alternately, the excavated soil could be placed in other onsite areas, provided the soil is covered with three feet of clean soil to isolate the contaminated soil from the public and the environment. It is unknown whether chlordane and/or DDT are present in the surrounding or deeper soil at concentrations that exceed screening criteria. To further characterize the extent and depth in the area around Samples S-1 and S-2, additional samples could be collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides.  Cover the soil: Alternately, the project design could be modified to cover the area around Samples S-1 and S-2 with three feet of clean fill to isolate the contaminated soil from the public and the environment.

At your convenience, we can further discuss the results and explore options for addressing this condition. We thank you for the opportunity to provide environmental consulting assistance. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely,
Michael G. Burns, PG, CEG, CHG
Geologist

Page 892 of 1534 ends

___________ 
0 200 Feet North
Proposed Ukiah Riverside Park 201801242.01
Source: Image adapted from GoogleEarth 2021 Figure 1 – Soil Sample Locations Russian
River
Proposed
Wetland
Areas
General
Extent of
Proposed
Park
Extent
Approximate
extent of former
treatment ponds

Page 893 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022

Page 6 ends

Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF VOLATILE AND SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

AND PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS SAMPLING RESULTS
Chemical S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 TTLC ESLs
Surface
Reuse
Material
Foundation
Reuse
Material
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Carbon Disulfide 0.0018 (J) < 0.0011 0.0019 (J) 0.0011 (J) ne ne ne ne 4-Isopropyl toluene < 0.0019 < 0.0019 < 0.0019 0.0026 (J) ne ne ne ne Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.032 (J) 0.071 (J) 0.0014 (J) 0.081 (J) ne 0.11 0.371 1.6 Benzo (b) fluoranthene < 0.052 < 0.10 0.0025 (J) < 0.10 (J) ne 1.1 0.371 ne Benzo (g.h.i) perylene 0.037 (J) 0.077 (J) 0.0022 (J) 0.090 (J) ne 2.5 0.310 ne Benzo (k) fluoranthene < 0.040 < 0.080 < 0.0010 0.043 (J) ne 2.8 0.258 ne Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
Phthalate 0.23 (J) < 0.38 0.0054 (J) < 0.19 ne 0.8 ne ne Chrysene < 0.027 < 0.054 0.0015 (J) 0.059 (J) ne 2.2 0.289 2.8 Dibenzofuran < 0.0037 < 0.0074 0.00028 (J) < 0.0037 ne ne ne ne Fluoranthene < 0.032 < 0.063 0.0013 (J) 0.10 ne 0.69 0.514 5.1 1-Methylnaphthalene < 0.013 < 0.026 0.0011 (J) < 0.013 ne ne 0.0121 ne 2-Methylnaphthalene < 0.019 < 0.038 0.0019 < 0.019 ne 0.88 ne ne Phenanthrene < 0.027 < 0.054 0.0042 0.041 (J) ne 7.8 0.237 1.5 Pyrene < 0.025 < 0.050 0.0014 0.072 (J) ne 45 0.665 2.6 Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
Gasoline < 0.55 < 0.55 < 0.55 < 0.55 ne 100 ne ne
Diesel 2.1 2.4 1.1 (J) 1.6 (J) ne 260 ne ne
Motor Oil 40 67 < 4.6 18 ne 1,600 ne ne
Notes:

All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million (J) = Estimated concentration below the reporting limit ne = screening level not established for this chemical
TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentrations, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, 66261.24 ESL = San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level, 2019 version Beneficial reuse criteria from RWQCB Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May 2000

Page 894 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022

Page 7 ends

Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF METALS SAMPLING RESULTS
Chemical S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 TTLC Background ESL
Surface
Reuse
Material
Foundation
Reuse
Material
Antimony 0.33 (J) 0.80 0.45 (J) 1.6 500 0.15 – 1.95 11 ne ne Arsenic 3.8 6.4 5.4 7.1 500 0.6 – 11 0.067 15.3 70
Barium 130 180 160 210 10,000 133 – 1,400 390 ne ne
Beryllium 0.38 (J) 0.37 (J) 0.46 (J) 0.62 75 0.25 – 2.7 5.0 ne ne Cadmium 0.12 (J) 0.58 0.11 (J) 0.15 (J) 100 0.05 – 1.7 1.9 0.33 9.6 Chromium 47 49 69 82 2,500 23 – 1,579 160 112 370
Cobalt 10 10 13 15 8,000 2.7 – 46.9 23
Copper 21 51 23 42 2,500 9.1 – 96.4 180 68.1 270
Lead 21 140 25 67 1,000 12.4 – 97.1 32 43.2 218
Mercury 0.077 0.12 < 0.038 0.14 20 0.10 – 0.90 13 0.43 0.70 Molybdenum 0.27 (J) 0.52 0.30 (J) 0.88 3,500 0.1 – 9.6 6.9 ne ne Nickel 63 60 87 110 2,000 9 – 509 86 112 120
Selenium < 0.32 0.58 < 0.32 < 0.32 100 0.015 – 0.43 2.5 0.64 ne Silver 0.14 (J) 0.19 (J) 0.15 (J) 0.51 500 0.80 25 0.58 3.7 Thallium < 0.072 < 0.072 <0.072 0.12 (J) 700 5.3 – 36.2 0.78 ne ne Vanadium 40 40 54 59 2,400 39 – 288 18 ne ne
Zinc 65 270 60 97 5,000 88 – 236 340 158 180
TABLE 3, SUMMARY OF ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs SAMPLING RESULTS Chemical S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4
Average

TTLC ESL
Surface
Reuse
Material
Foundation
Reuse
Material
a-Chlordane < 0.0043 0.010 (J) < 0.0043 < 0.0043 0.0057 2.5 0.00853 0.0023 0.0048 g-Chlordane < 0.0034 0.0089 (J) < 0.0034 < 0.0034 0.0048 2.5 0.00853 0.0023 0.0048 DDD < 0.0041 0.0082 (J) < 0.0041 < 0.0041 0.0051 1.0 2.7   DDE 0.0047 (J) 0.065 0.00043 (J) < 0.0029 0.0182 1.0 0.33   DDT 0.0064 (J) 0.083 < 0.0039 < 0.0039 0.0243 1.0 0.0011   Sum of DDTs 0.0131 0.1562 0.00443 0.0055 0.0448   0.007 0.0461 PCBs < 0.32 < 0.32 < 0.32 < 0.32 0.32 50 0.23 0.0227 0.18 Notes for Tables 2 and 3:

All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in yellow highlight exceed one or more background or screening levels (J) = Estimated concentration below the reporting limit ne = not established
TTLC = Total Threshold Limit Concentrations, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, 66261.24 ESL = San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level, 2019 version Reuse criteria = RWQCB Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May 2000 Averages use the detection limit for non-detect results

Page 895 of 1534 ends

April 14, 2022

Page 8 ends

Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
Appendix A
Laboratory Analytical Report

Page 896 of 1534 ends

WorkOrder:

Report Created for: Environmental Science Associates
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
Project Contact: Michael Burns
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Project P.O.: D181242.01
Project Received: 03/23/2022
Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 03/30/2022 by:

Yen Cao
2203E13
The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in a case narrative.

Analytical Report
1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CA ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033 ORELAP
Project Manager
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
"When Quality Counts"

Page 897 of 1534 ends

Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
WorkOrder: 2203E13
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation
%D Serial Dilution Percent Difference
95% Interval 95% Confident Interval
CPT Consumer Product Testing not NELAP Accredited
DF Dilution Factor
DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water
DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test (Serial Dilution)
DUP Duplicate
EDL Estimated Detection Limit
ERS External reference sample. Second source calibration verification.

ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor
LCS Laboratory Control Sample
LQL Lowest Quantitation Level
MB Method Blank
MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit
ML Minimum Level of Quantitation
MS Matrix Spike
MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate
NA Not Applicable
ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL
NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount.

PDS Post Digestion Spike
PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate
PF Prep Factor
RD Relative Difference
RL Reporting Limit (The RL is the lowest calibration standard in a multipoint calibration.) RPD Relative Percent Deviation
RRT Relative Retention Time
SPK Val Spike Value
SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure
ST Sorbent Tube
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
TZA TimeZone Net Adjustment for sample collected outside of MAI's UTC.

WET (STLC) Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration)

Page 898 of 1534 ends

P Agreement between quantitative confirmation results exceed method recommended limits.

S Surrogate recovery outside accepted recovery limits.
a3 Sample diluted due to high organic content interfering with quantitative/or qualitative analysis. a4 Reporting limits raised due to the sample's matrix prohibiting a full volume extraction. c1 Surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. e2 Diesel range compounds are detected; no recognizable pattern. e7 Oil range compounds are detected.

Quality Control Qualifiers
F2 LCS/LCSD recovery and/or RPD/RSD is out of acceptance criteria.

F5 LCS/LCSD recovery is outside of acceptance limits; however, the data is acceptable based upon the TNI allowable marginal exceedances.

Page 899 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides + PCBs
S-1 2203E13-001A Soil 03/23/2022 09:00 GC23 03282242.d 241888 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0039 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
a-BHC ND 0.0049 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
b-BHC ND 0.0027 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
d-BHC ND 0.0033 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
g-BHC ND 0.0033 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.12 0.25 10 03/28/2022 22:28
a-Chlordane ND 0.0043 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
g-Chlordane ND 0.0034 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
p,p-DDD ND 0.0041 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
p,p-DDE 0.0047 J 0.0029 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
p,p-DDT 0.0064 J 0.0039 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Dieldrin ND 0.0038 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Endosulfan I ND 0.0035 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Endosulfan II ND 0.0033 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0040 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Endrin ND 0.0038 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0044 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Endrin ketone ND 0.0029 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Heptachlor ND 0.0030 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.0030 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0070 0.10 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0052 0.20 10 03/28/2022 22:28 Methoxychlor ND 0.0045 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Toxaphene ND 0.33 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1016 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1221 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1232 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1242 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1248 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1254 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Aroclor1260 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
PCBs, total ND NA 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:28
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CN Analytical Comments: a3
Decachlorobiphenyl 96 60-130 03/28/2022 22:28
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 900 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides + PCBs
S-2 2203E13-002A Soil 03/23/2022 09:34 GC23 03282243.d 241888 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0078 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
a-BHC ND 0.0098 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
b-BHC ND 0.0054 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
d-BHC ND 0.0066 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
g-BHC ND 0.0066 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.24 0.50 20 03/28/2022 22:43
a-Chlordane 0.010 J 0.0086 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
g-Chlordane 0.0089 J 0.0068 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
p,p-DDD 0.0082 J 0.0082 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
p,p-DDE 0.065 0.0058 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
p,p-DDT 0.083 0.0078 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Dieldrin ND 0.0076 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Endosulfan I ND 0.0070 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Endosulfan II ND 0.0066 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0080 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Endrin ND 0.0076 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0088 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Endrin ketone ND 0.0058 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Heptachlor ND 0.0060 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.0060 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.014 0.20 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.010 0.40 20 03/28/2022 22:43 Methoxychlor ND 0.0090 0.020 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Toxaphene ND 0.66 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1016 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1221 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1232 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1242 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1248 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1254 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Aroclor1260 ND 0.64 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
PCBs, total ND NA 1.0 20 03/28/2022 22:43
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CN Analytical Comments: a3
Decachlorobiphenyl 106 60-130 03/28/2022 22:43
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 901 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides + PCBs
S-3 2203E13-003A Soil 03/23/2022 09:13 GC22 03252225.D 241888 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00039 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
a-BHC ND 0.00049 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
b-BHC ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
d-BHC ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
g-BHC ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.012 0.025 1 03/25/2022 15:15 a-Chlordane ND 0.00043 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
g-Chlordane ND 0.00034 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
p,p-DDD ND 0.00041 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
p,p-DDE 0.00043 JP 0.00029 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
p,p-DDT ND 0.00039 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Dieldrin ND 0.00038 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Endosulfan I ND 0.00035 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Endosulfan II ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00040 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15 Endrin ND 0.00038 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00044 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Endrin ketone ND 0.00029 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Heptachlor ND 0.00030 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00030 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00070 0.010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00052 0.020 1 03/25/2022 15:15 Methoxychlor ND 0.00045 0.0010 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Toxaphene ND 0.033 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1016 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1221 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1232 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1242 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1248 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1254 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Aroclor1260 ND 0.032 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
PCBs, total ND NA 0.050 1 03/25/2022 15:15
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 113 60-130 03/25/2022 15:15
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 902 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides + PCBs
S-4 2203E13-004A Soil 03/23/2022 09:24 GC23 03282244.d 241888 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0039 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
a-BHC ND 0.0049 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
b-BHC ND 0.0027 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
d-BHC ND 0.0033 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
g-BHC ND 0.0033 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.12 0.25 10 03/28/2022 22:59
a-Chlordane ND 0.0043 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
g-Chlordane ND 0.0034 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
p,p-DDD ND 0.0041 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
p,p-DDE ND 0.0029 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
p,p-DDT ND 0.0039 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Dieldrin ND 0.0038 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Endosulfan I ND 0.0035 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Endosulfan II ND 0.0033 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0040 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Endrin ND 0.0038 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0044 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Endrin ketone ND 0.0029 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Heptachlor ND 0.0030 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.0030 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0070 0.10 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0052 0.20 10 03/28/2022 22:59 Methoxychlor ND 0.0045 0.010 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Toxaphene ND 0.33 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1016 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1221 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1232 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1242 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1248 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1254 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Aroclor1260 ND 0.32 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
PCBs, total ND NA 0.50 10 03/28/2022 22:59
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CN Analytical Comments: a3
Decachlorobiphenyl 92 60-130 03/28/2022 22:59
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 903 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-1 2203E13-001A Soil 03/23/2022 09:00 GC45 03252243.D 241831 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 1 03/26/2022 16:11
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 1 03/26/2022 16:11
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Carbon Disulfide 0.0018 J 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 904 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-1 2203E13-001A Soil 03/23/2022 09:00 GC45 03252243.D 241831 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 1 03/26/2022 16:11
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11 Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 16:11
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
Xylenes, Total ND NA 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:11
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 905 of 1534 ends

Page 906 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-2 2203E13-002A Soil 03/23/2022 09:34 GC45 03252244.D 241831 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 1 03/26/2022 16:51
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 1 03/26/2022 16:51
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Carbon Disulfide ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 907 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-2 2203E13-002A Soil 03/23/2022 09:34 GC45 03252244.D 241831 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 1 03/26/2022 16:51
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51 Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 16:51
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
Xylenes, Total ND NA 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 16:51
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 908 of 1534 ends

Page 909 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-3 2203E13-003A Soil 03/23/2022 09:13 GC45 03252245.D 241831 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 1 03/26/2022 17:31
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 1 03/26/2022 17:31
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Carbon Disulfide 0.0019 J 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 910 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-3 2203E13-003A Soil 03/23/2022 09:13 GC45 03252245.D 241831 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 1 03/26/2022 17:31
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31 Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 1 03/26/2022 17:31
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
Xylenes, Total ND NA 0.0050 1 03/26/2022 17:31
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 911 of 1534 ends

Page 912 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-4 2203E13-004A Soil 03/23/2022 09:24 GC16 03282222.D 241887 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 1 03/28/2022 23:38
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 1 03/28/2022 23:38
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Carbon Disulfide 0.0011 J 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 913 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
S-4 2203E13-004A Soil 03/23/2022 09:24 GC16 03282222.D 241887 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
4-Isopropyl toluene 0.0026 J 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 1 03/28/2022 23:38
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38 Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 1 03/28/2022 23:38
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
Xylenes, Total ND NA 0.0050 1 03/28/2022 23:38
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 914 of 1534 ends

Page 915 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-1 2203E13-001A Soil 03/23/2022 09:00 GC21 03252216.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.014 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Acenaphthylene ND 0.011 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Acetochlor ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Anthracene ND 0.023 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Benzidine ND 14 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.032 J 0.028 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.052 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.037 J 0.036 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.040 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Benzyl Alcohol ND 22 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1,1-Biphenyl ND 0.12 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) Methane ND 1.2 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Bis (2-chloroethyl) Ether ND 0.014 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) Ether ND 0.050 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate ND 3.4 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.23 J 0.19 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 1.6 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Butylbenzyl Phthalate ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
4-Chloroaniline ND 0.037 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 2.5 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2-Chloronaphthalene ND 1.6 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2-Chlorophenol ND 0.096 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 2.6 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Chrysene ND 0.027 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.044 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Dibenzofuran ND 0.0037 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Di-n-butyl Phthalate ND 0.18 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 2.1 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.7 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 2.0 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND 0.10 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 0.050 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Diethyl Phthalate ND 0.16 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Dimethyl Phthalate ND 0.076 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND 16 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 916 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-1 2203E13-001A Soil 03/23/2022 09:00 GC21 03252216.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 4.4 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 2.5 5.0 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Di-n-octyl Phthalate ND 8.0 20 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 1.5 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Fluoranthene ND 0.032 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Fluorene ND 0.040 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.048 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0076 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 21 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Hexachloroethane ND 0.10 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Isophorone ND 2.8 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.013 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.019 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ND 2.4 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol) ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14 Naphthalene ND 0.13 0.25 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2-Nitroaniline ND 12 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
3-Nitroaniline ND 9.6 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
4-Nitroaniline ND 11 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Nitrobenzene ND 2.2 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2-Nitrophenol ND 12 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
4-Nitrophenol ND 14 50 5 03/25/2022 22:14
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 1.2 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ND 3.2 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Pentachlorophenol ND 1.2 2.5 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Phenanthrene ND 0.027 0.052 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Phenol ND 0.072 0.20 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Pyrene ND 0.025 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
Pyridine ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 3.2 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 0.024 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 0.023 0.10 5 03/25/2022 22:14
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 917 of 1534 ends

Page 918 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-2 2203E13-002A Soil 03/23/2022 09:34 GC21 03252217.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.028 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Acenaphthylene ND 0.022 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Acetochlor ND 3.5 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Anthracene ND 0.046 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Benzidine ND 29 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.29 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.071 J 0.056 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.10 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.077 J 0.071 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.080 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Benzyl Alcohol ND 44 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
1,1-Biphenyl ND 0.23 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) Methane ND 2.4 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Bis (2-chloroethyl) Ether ND 0.029 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) Ether ND 0.10 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate ND 6.8 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate ND 0.38 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 3.2 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Butylbenzyl Phthalate ND 0.29 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
4-Chloroaniline ND 0.074 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 5.0 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2-Chloronaphthalene ND 3.3 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2-Chlorophenol ND 0.19 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 5.3 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Chrysene ND 0.054 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.088 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Dibenzofuran ND 0.0074 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Di-n-butyl Phthalate ND 0.35 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 4.2 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.4 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 3.9 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND 0.21 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 0.10 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Diethyl Phthalate ND 0.32 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 3.5 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Dimethyl Phthalate ND 0.15 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND 33 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 919 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-2 2203E13-002A Soil 03/23/2022 09:34 GC21 03252217.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 8.8 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.29 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 5.0 10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Di-n-octyl Phthalate ND 16 40 10 03/25/2022 22:41
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 3.0 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Fluoranthene ND 0.063 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Fluorene ND 0.080 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.096 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.015 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 42 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Hexachloroethane ND 0.21 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.28 1.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Isophorone ND 5.5 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.026 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.038 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ND 4.8 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 3 & 4-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol) ND 3.7 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Naphthalene ND 0.25 0.50 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2-Nitroaniline ND 25 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
3-Nitroaniline ND 19 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
4-Nitroaniline ND 22 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Nitrobenzene ND 4.4 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2-Nitrophenol ND 25 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
4-Nitrophenol ND 28 100 10 03/25/2022 22:41
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 2.3 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ND 6.3 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 Pentachlorophenol ND 2.3 5.0 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Phenanthrene ND 0.054 0.10 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Phenol ND 0.14 0.40 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Pyrene ND 0.050 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
Pyridine ND 3.7 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 6.3 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 3.7 20 10 03/25/2022 22:41
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 0.047 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 0.046 0.20 10 03/25/2022 22:41 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 920 of 1534 ends

Page 921 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-3 2203E13-003A Soil 03/23/2022 09:13 GC21 03252218.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.00035 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Acenaphthylene ND 0.00028 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Acetochlor ND 0.044 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Anthracene ND 0.00057 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Benzidine ND 0.36 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.0036 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Benzo (a) pyrene 0.0014 J 0.00070 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.0025 J 0.0013 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.0022 J 0.00089 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.0010 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Benzyl Alcohol ND 0.55 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
1,1-Biphenyl ND 0.0029 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) Methane ND 0.030 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Bis (2-chloroethyl) Ether ND 0.00036 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) Ether ND 0.0012 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate ND 0.085 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 0.0054 J 0.0047 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 0.040 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Butylbenzyl Phthalate ND 0.0036 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 4-Chloroaniline ND 0.00092 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 0.062 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 2-Chloronaphthalene ND 0.041 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2-Chlorophenol ND 0.0024 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 0.066 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Chrysene 0.0015 J 0.00067 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.0011 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Dibenzofuran 0.00028 J 0.000093 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Di-n-butyl Phthalate ND 0.0044 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.053 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.042 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.049 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND 0.0026 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 0.0012 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Diethyl Phthalate ND 0.0040 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 0.044 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Dimethyl Phthalate ND 0.0019 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND 0.41 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 922 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-3 2203E13-003A Soil 03/23/2022 09:13 GC21 03252218.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 0.11 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.0036 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.062 0.12 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Di-n-octyl Phthalate ND 0.20 0.50 1 03/25/2022 23:08
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 0.038 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Fluoranthene 0.0013 J 0.00079 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Fluorene ND 0.0010 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.00019 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.52 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Hexachloroethane ND 0.0026 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.0035 0.013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Isophorone ND 0.069 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0011 J 0.00033 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0019 0.00048 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08 2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ND 0.060 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 3 & 4-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol) ND 0.046 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Naphthalene ND 0.0031 0.0062 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2-Nitroaniline ND 0.31 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
3-Nitroaniline ND 0.24 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
4-Nitroaniline ND 0.28 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Nitrobenzene ND 0.055 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2-Nitrophenol ND 0.31 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
4-Nitrophenol ND 0.35 1.2 1 03/25/2022 23:08
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 0.029 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ND 0.079 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 Pentachlorophenol ND 0.029 0.062 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Phenanthrene 0.0042 0.00068 0.0013 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Phenol ND 0.0018 0.0050 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Pyrene 0.0014 J 0.00063 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08
Pyridine ND 0.046 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 0.079 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.046 0.25 1 03/25/2022 23:08 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 0.00059 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 0.00057 0.0025 1 03/25/2022 23:08 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 923 of 1534 ends

Page 924 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-4 2203E13-004A Soil 03/23/2022 09:24 GC21 03252219.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.014 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Acenaphthylene ND 0.011 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Acetochlor ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Anthracene ND 0.023 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Benzidine ND 14 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.081 J 0.028 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.10 J 0.052 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.090 J 0.036 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0.043 J 0.040 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Benzyl Alcohol ND 22 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1,1-Biphenyl ND 0.12 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) Methane ND 1.2 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Bis (2-chloroethyl) Ether ND 0.014 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) Ether ND 0.050 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate ND 3.4 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate ND 0.19 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 1.6 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Butylbenzyl Phthalate ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
4-Chloroaniline ND 0.037 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 2.5 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2-Chloronaphthalene ND 1.6 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2-Chlorophenol ND 0.096 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether ND 2.6 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Chrysene 0.059 J 0.027 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.044 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Dibenzofuran ND 0.0037 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Di-n-butyl Phthalate ND 0.18 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 2.1 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.7 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 2.0 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine ND 0.10 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 0.050 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Diethyl Phthalate ND 0.16 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Dimethyl Phthalate ND 0.076 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol ND 16 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 925 of 1534 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Received: 03/23/2022 12:14
Date Prepared: 03/25/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: mg/Kg
Semi-Volatile Organics
S-4 2203E13-004A Soil 03/23/2022 09:24 GC21 03252219.D 242025 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 4.4 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 2.5 5.0 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Di-n-octyl Phthalate ND 8.0 20 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 1.5 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Fluoranthene 0.10 0.032 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Fluorene ND 0.040 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.048 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0076 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 21 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Hexachloroethane ND 0.10 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.14 0.52 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Isophorone ND 2.8 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.013 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.019 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) ND 2.4 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol) ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34 Naphthalene ND 0.13 0.25 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2-Nitroaniline ND 12 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
3-Nitroaniline ND 9.6 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
4-Nitroaniline ND 11 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Nitrobenzene ND 2.2 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2-Nitrophenol ND 12 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
4-Nitrophenol ND 14 50 5 03/25/2022 23:34
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 1.2 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ND 3.2 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Pentachlorophenol ND 1.2 2.5 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Phenanthrene 0.041 J 0.027 0.052 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Phenol ND 0.072 0.20 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Pyrene 0.072 J 0.025 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
Pyridine ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 3.2 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1.8 10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 0.024 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 0.023 0.10 5 03/25/2022 23:34
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 926 of 1534 ends

Page 927 of 1534 ends

Page 928 of 1534 ends

Page 929 of 1534 ends

Page 930 of 1534 ends

Page 931 of 1534 ends

Page 932 of 1534 ends

Page 933 of 1534 ends

Page 934 of 1534 ends

Page 935 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/25/2022 - 03/29/2022
Date Prepared: 03/23/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241888
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241888
2203E13-004AMS/MSD
Instrument: GC22, GC23, GC40
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Summary Report for SW8081A/8082
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Aldrin ND 0.00039 0.0010 - - -
a-BHC ND 0.00049 0.0010 - - -
b-BHC ND 0.00027 0.0010 - - -
d-BHC ND 0.00033 0.0010 - - -
g-BHC ND 0.00033 0.0010 - - -
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.012 0.025 - - -
a-Chlordane ND 0.00043 0.0010 - - -
g-Chlordane ND 0.00034 0.0010 - - -
p,p-DDD ND 0.00041 0.0010 - - -
p,p-DDE ND 0.00029 0.0010 - - -
p,p-DDT ND 0.00039 0.0010 - - -
Dieldrin ND 0.00038 0.0010 - - -
Endosulfan I ND 0.00035 0.0010 - - -
Endosulfan II ND 0.00033 0.0010 - - -
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00040 0.0010 - - -
Endrin ND 0.00038 0.0010 - - -
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00044 0.0010 - - -
Endrin ketone ND 0.00029 0.0010 - - -
Heptachlor ND 0.00030 0.0010 - - -
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00030 0.0010 - - -
Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00070 0.010 - - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00052 0.020 - - -
Methoxychlor ND 0.00045 0.0010 - - -
Toxaphene ND 0.033 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1016 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1221 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1232 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1242 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1248 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1254 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Aroclor1260 ND 0.032 0.050 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl 0.055 0.05 110 70-130
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 936 of 1534 ends

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Aldrin 0.055 0.053 0.050 110 106 70-130 3.68 20
a-BHC 0.051 0.050 0.050 102 101 70-130 1.33 20
b-BHC 0.050 0.048 0.050 100 97 70-130 3.08 20
d-BHC 0.056 0.054 0.050 113 108 70-130 4.19 20
g-BHC 0.054 0.053 0.050 107 105 70-130 2.08 20
a-Chlordane 0.053 0.051 0.050 107 101 70-130 5.37 20
g-Chlordane 0.054 0.052 0.050 109 103 70-130 5.21 20
p,p-DDD 0.058 0.054 0.050 117 108 70-130 7.41 20
p,p-DDE 0.055 0.051 0.050 110 103 70-130 6.65 20
p,p-DDT 0.050 0.047 0.050 101 93 70-130 7.76 20
Dieldrin 0.055 0.052 0.050 109 103 70-130 5.84 20
Endosulfan I 0.053 0.050 0.050 106 100 70-130 5.32 20
Endosulfan II 0.052 0.049 0.050 105 98 70-130 6.22 20
Endosulfan sulfate 0.057 0.053 0.050 114 106 70-130 6.91 20 Endrin 0.058 0.055 0.050 117 110 70-130 6.12 20
Endrin aldehyde 0.049 0.046 0.050 98 92 70-130 6.08 20
Endrin ketone 0.053 0.049 0.050 105 98 70-130 6.44 20
Heptachlor 0.056 0.054 0.050 111 107 70-130 3.61 20
Heptachlor epoxide 0.052 0.051 0.050 105 102 70-130 3.12 20 Hexachlorobenzene 0.048 0.047 0.050 95 94 70-130 1.76 20 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.033 0.035 0.050 65 71 50-130 8.02 20 Methoxychlor 0.050 0.046 0.050 100 92 70-130 8.08 20
Aroclor1016 0.15 0.15 0.15 97 99 70-130 1.66 20
Aroclor1260 0.16 0.16 0.15 106 107 70-130 0.849 20
Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl 0.058 0.054 0.050 116 107 70-130 7.63 20 Analyte MS
Result
MSD
Result
SPK
Val
SPKRef
Val
MS
%REC
MSD
%REC
MS/MSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
MS
DF
Aldrin 10 0.040 0.038 0.050 ND<0.010 80 77 60-130 3.73 20 a-BHC 10 0.042 0.041 0.050 ND<0.010 85 82 60-130 3.09 20 b-BHC 10 0.042 0.038 0.050 ND<0.010 84 76 60-130 9.70 20 d-BHC 10 0.044 0.041 0.050 ND<0.010 88 82 60-130 6.28 20 g-BHC 10 0.038 0.036 0.050 ND<0.010 75 73 60-130 2.91 20 a-Chlordane 10 0.042 0.040 0.050 ND<0.010 83 80 60-130 4.19 20 g-Chlordane 10 0.041 0.039 0.050 ND<0.010 81 78 60-130 3.79 20 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 937 of 1534 ends

RPD RPD
Limit
MS
DF
p,p-DDD 10 0.043 0.040 0.050 ND<0.010 85 79 60-130 7.89 20 p,p-DDE 10 0.046 0.043 0.050 ND<0.010 93 85 60-130 8.39 20 p,p-DDT 10 0.044 0.040 0.050 ND<0.010 88 81 60-130 8.66 20 Dieldrin 10 0.042 0.040 0.050 ND<0.010 84 80 60-130 4.70 20 Endosulfan I 10 0.038 0.036 0.050 ND<0.010 76 72 60-130 4.82 20 Endosulfan II 10 0.041 0.038 0.050 ND<0.010 81 76 60-130 6.04 20 Endosulfan sulfate 10 0.043 0.039 0.050 ND<0.010 85 79 60-130 7.82 20 Endrin 10 0.043 0.041 0.050 ND<0.010 87 83 60-130 4.94 20 Endrin aldehyde 10 0.034 0.032 0.050 ND<0.010 68 65 60-130 4.28 20 Endrin ketone 10 0.034 0.033 0.050 ND<0.010 69 65 60-130 5.31 20 Heptachlor 10 0.044 0.043 0.050 ND<0.010 89 85 60-130 4.12 20 Heptachlor epoxide 10 0.041 0.039 0.050 ND<0.010 81 77 60-130 4.68 20 Hexachlorobenzene 10 0.045 0.044 0.050 ND<0.10 90 87 60-130 3.39 20 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10 0.031 0.034 0.050 ND<0.20 62 67 50-130 7.49 20 Methoxychlor 10 0.048 0.044 0.050 ND<0.010 95 89 60-130 7.12 20 Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl 10 0.051 0.047 0.050 101 94 60-130 7.60 20 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 938 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/22/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241831
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241831
Instrument: GC16, GC18
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 - - -
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 - - -
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 - - -
Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 - - -
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 - - -
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 - - -
n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 - - -
Carbon Disulfide ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 - - -
Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 - - -
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 - - -
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 - - -
Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 - - -
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 - - -
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 939 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/22/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241831
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241831
Instrument: GC16, GC18
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 - - -
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 - - -
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 - - -
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 - - -
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 - - -
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 - - -
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 - - -
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 - - -
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 - - -
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 - - -
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 - - -
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 940 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/22/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241831
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241831
Instrument: GC16, GC18
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.14 0.125 109 70-140
Toluene-d8 0.15 0.125 118 70-140
4-BFB 0.013 0.0125 104 70-140
Benzene-d6 0.12 0.1 116 70-140
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.11 0.1 112 70-140
1,2-DCB-d4 0.093 0.1 93 70-140
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 941 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/22/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241831
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241831
Instrument: GC16, GC18
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Acetone 0.51 0.51 0.40 127 126 60-140 0.0937 20
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 0.016 0.016 0.020 78 80 50-140 1.70 20 Benzene 0.017 0.018 0.020 85 89 60-140 4.44 20
Bromobenzene 0.021 0.020 0.020 105 100 60-140 4.99 20
Bromochloromethane 0.018 0.018 0.020 88 90 60-140 1.83 20 Bromodichloromethane 0.017 0.017 0.020 84 87 60-140 2.80 20 Bromoform 0.014 0.013 0.020 68 66 40-140 3.56 20
Bromomethane 0.017 0.017 0.020 83 86 30-140 3.35 20
2-Butanone (MEK) 0.050 0.049 0.080 62 61 50-140 1.36 20 t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) 0.073 0.074 0.080 91 93 50-140 2.09 20 n-Butyl benzene 0.026 0.026 0.020 129 130 60-150 0.548 20 sec-Butyl benzene 0.024 0.024 0.020 118 119 60-150 1.13 20 tert-Butyl benzene 0.022 0.023 0.020 112 117 60-140 4.90 20 Carbon Disulfide 0.019 0.018 0.020 93 92 50-140 0.335 20 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.017 0.018 0.020 86 90 60-140 3.59 20 Chlorobenzene 0.019 0.018 0.020 95 92 60-140 3.21 20
Chloroethane 0.016 0.017 0.020 78 83 50-140 5.38 20
Chloroform 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 93 60-140 4.38 20
Chloromethane 0.011 0.011 0.020 57 56 20-140 0.987 20
2-Chlorotoluene 0.023 0.022 0.020 117 108 60-140 7.83 20 4-Chlorotoluene 0.021 0.021 0.020 106 104 60-140 1.22 20 Dibromochloromethane 0.016 0.015 0.020 80 77 50-140 4.61 20 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.0076 0.0069 0.0080 94 87 30-140 8.47 20 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.019 0.018 0.020 95 91 40-140 4.07 20 Dibromomethane 0.018 0.018 0.020 88 88 60-140 0.795 20
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.017 0.017 0.020 85 85 60-140 0.676 20 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.021 0.021 0.020 103 103 60-140 0.160 20 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.019 0.020 0.020 94 99 60-140 5.05 20 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0099 0.0095 0.020 49 47 10-140 4.04 20 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.018 0.019 0.020 88 94 60-140 6.10 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.017 0.018 0.020 86 89 60-140 2.95 20 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.015 0.016 0.020 77 80 60-140 4.57 20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.016 0.017 0.020 82 86 60-140 4.72 20 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.016 0.017 0.020 79 85 60-140 7.58 20 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.017 0.018 0.020 85 89 60-140 3.98 20 1,3-Dichloropropane 0.018 0.018 0.020 91 88 60-140 3.86 20 2,2-Dichloropropane 0.018 0.019 0.020 89 93 60-140 4.75 20 1,1-Dichloropropene 0.018 0.019 0.020 90 93 60-140 3.29 20 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 942 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/22/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241831
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241831
Instrument: GC16, GC18
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.019 0.018 0.020 93 90 60-140 3.31 20 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.018 0.017 0.020 88 83 60-140 5.23 20 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) 0.017 0.017 0.020 83 87 60-140 5.43 20 Ethylbenzene 0.019 0.018 0.020 93 92 60-140 1.09 20
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) 0.016 0.017 0.020 81 86 60-140 4.97 20 Freon 113 0.016 0.017 0.020 78 84 50-140 7.00 20
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.026 0.028 0.020 132 140 60-140 6.09 20 Hexachloroethane 0.021 0.021 0.020 103 104 60-140 0.979 20 2-Hexanone 0.018 0.017 0.020 92 83 40-140 9.70 20
Isopropylbenzene 0.024 0.024 0.020 119 118 60-140 0.977 20 4-Isopropyl toluene 0.023 0.024 0.020 116 118 60-150 1.65 20 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 81 50-140 3.35 20 Methylene chloride 0.019 0.020 0.020 97 102 60-140 4.34 20 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.018 0.017 0.020 90 83 50-140 8.01 20 Naphthalene 0.012 0.011 0.020 59 54 30-140 9.34 20
n-Propyl benzene 0.025 0.024 0.020 125 119 60-140 4.94 20 Styrene 0.015 0.016 0.020 77 80 60-140 3.46 20
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.018 0.017 0.020 90 87 60-140 3.87 20 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.018 0.017 0.020 90 85 40-140 5.66 20 Tetrachloroethene 0.020 0.020 0.020 101 98 60-140 3.21 20 Toluene 0.018 0.017 0.020 89 87 60-140 2.01 20
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.014 0.016 0.020 70 78 40-140 9.89 20 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.018 0.017 0.020 92 85 50-140 7.41 20 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.017 0.018 0.020 87 92 60-140 5.59 20 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.018 0.017 0.020 88 85 60-140 3.33 20 Trichloroethene 0.019 0.019 0.020 93 96 60-140 3.17 20
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.016 0.017 0.020 82 85 50-140 3.63 20 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.021 0.020 0.020 103 99 60-130 3.70 20 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.021 0.021 0.020 107 106 30-140 0.803 20 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.022 0.022 0.020 112 112 60-140 0.687 20 Vinyl Chloride 0.013 0.014 0.020 66 70 30-140 4.83 20
m,p-Xylene 0.036 0.036 0.040 90 91 60-140 1.00 20
o-Xylene 0.018 0.018 0.020 88 88 60-140 0.490 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 943 of 1534 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Environmental Science Associates
Project: D181242.01; Ukiah Riverside Park
Date Analyzed: 03/24/2022 - 03/28/2022
Date Prepared: 03/22/2022
WorkOrder: 2203E13
BatchID: 241831
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-241831
Instrument: GC16, GC18
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.13 0.14 0.12 107 111 70-140 3.38 20 Toluene-d8 0.15 0.15 0.12 119 117 70-140 2.13 20
4-BFB 0.013 0.013 0.012 107 107 70-140 0.597 20
Benzene-d6 0.11 0.11 0.10 106 111 70-140 4.91 20
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.11 0.11 0.10 107 107 70-140 0.113 20 1,2-DCB-d4 0.092 0.092 0.10 92 92 70-140 0.693 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 944 of 1534 ends

Ukiah City CouncilJuly 17, 2024

Ukiah City Council
July 17, 2024