CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template 7-21 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
• Check laboratory QA/QC results.
EPA establishes QA/QC checks and acceptable criteria for laboratory analyses. These data are typically reported along with the sample results. The QSP or QSP Delegates shall evaluate the reported QA/QC data to check for contamination (method, field, and equipment blanks), precision (laboratory matrix spike duplicates), and accuracy (matrix spikes and laboratory control samples). When QA/QC checks are outside acceptable ranges, the laboratory must flag the data, and usually provides an explanation of the potential impact to the sample results. • Check the data set for outlier values and, accordingly, confirm results and re-analyze samples where appropriate.
Sample re-analysis should only be undertaken when it appears that some part of the QA/QC resulted in a value out of the accepted range. Sample results may not be discounted unless the analytical laboratory identifies the required QA/QC criteria were not met and confirms this in writing.
Field data including inspections and observations must be verified as soon as the field logs are received, typically at the end of the sampling event. Field data verification shall include:
• Check field logs to make sure all required measurements were completed and appropriately documented;
• Check reported values that appear out of the typical range or inconsistent; Follow-up immediately to identify potential reporting or equipment problems, if appropriate, recalibrate equipment after sampling;
• Verify equipment calibrations;
• Review observations noted on the field logs; and
• Review notations of any errors and actions taken to correct the equipment or recording errors.
7.12 Records Retention
All records of stormwater monitoring information and copies of reports (including Annual Reports) must be retained for a period of at least three years from date of submittal or longer if required by the Regional Water Board. Results of visual monitoring, field measurements, and laboratory analyses must be kept in the SWPPP along with CoCs, and other documentation related to the monitoring. Records are to be kept onsite while construction is ongoing. Records to be retained include:
• The date, place, and time of inspections, sampling, visual observations, and/or measurements, including precipitation;
• The individual(s) who performed the inspections, sampling, visual observation, and/or field measurements;
• The date and approximate time of field measurements and laboratory analyses; • The individual(s) who performed the laboratory analyses; • A summary of all analytical results, the method detection limits and reporting limits, and the analytical techniques or methods used;
• Rain gauge readings from site inspections;
• QA/QC records and results;
• Calibration records;
• Visual observation and sample collection exception records; • The records of any corrective actions and follow-up activities that resulted from analytical results, visual observations, or inspections; • [NAL Exceedance Report].
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template 8-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Section 8 References
CASQA 2023. Stormwater BMP Handbook: Construction. Available online at: www.casqa.org Environmental Science Associates, 2020. Draft Hydrologic Analysis for the Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project. November 2, 2022.
Environmental Science Associates, 2022. Soil Sampling Results Report, Proposed Ukiah Riverside Park, Ukiah, California. June 5, 2022.
Melton Design Group, 2023. Project Plans for the Construction of: Riverside Park Regeneration, 1281 East Gobbi Street, Ukiah, CA 95482. August 18.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2022. Order 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002: Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbing Activities. Available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction/general_pe rmit_reissuance.html.
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template A-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix A: Site Maps and Drawings
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template B-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix B: Permit Registration Documents
Permit Registration Documents included in this Appendix:
Location in
SWPPP
Permit Registration Document (in addition to a copy of
the SWPPP)
Appendix B Notice of Intent
Appendix B Risk Level Determination
Appendix B Certification
N/A Post-Construction Requirements, if applicable
N/A Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator, if applicable Appendix B Copy of Annual Fee Receipt
N/A ATS Design Documents, if applicable
N/A Passive Treatment Design Documents, if applicable
Appendix A Site Maps and Drawings, see Appendix A
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template C-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix C: SWPPP Amendment QSD
Certifications
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template C-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
SWPPP Amendment
No.
Project Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project
Project Number:
Qualified SWPPP Developer’s Certification of the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Amendment
“This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and its appendices were prepared under my direction to meet the requirements of the 2022 CGP (SWRCB Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ). I certify that I am a Qualified SWPPP Developer in good standing as of the date signed below.” QSD’s Signature Date
QSD Name QSD Certificate Number
Title and Affiliation Telephone
Address Email
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template D-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix D: Submitted Changes of Information
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template D-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Log of Updated PRDs
The 2022 CGP allows for the reduction or increase of the total acreage when a portion of the project is complete and/or conditions for termination of coverage have been met; when ownership of a portion of the project is purchased by a different entity; or when new acreage is added to the project.
A Change of Information (COI) shall be filed electronically within the timeframe shown in the table below. The SWPPP shall be modified appropriately, with revisions and amendments recorded in the SWPPP Amendment Log at the front of the SWPPP. COIs submitted electronically via SMARTS can be found in this Appendix.
Reason for Filing COI Timeline for Filing COI
Reduction or increase in total disturbed area Within 30 days of the reduction or increase Updating site specific BMPs Within 14 days of design change Change construction start or end date At least 14 days prior to the date to be changed
Post-construction plans updated or approved
by the municipal stormwater permittee
Within 14 days of approval
This appendix includes all of the following updated PRDs (check all that apply):
☐ Change of Information;
☐ Revised Site Map;
☐ Revised Risk Assessment;
☐ New landowner’s information (name, address, phone number, email address); and ☐ New signed certification statement.
Signature of [Authorized Representative of] Legally
Responsible Person or Duly Authorized
Representative
Date
Name of [Authorized Representative of] Legally
Responsible Person or Duly Authorized
Representative
Telephone Number
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template E-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix E: Construction Schedule
June 1, 2024, through October 14, 2024
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template F-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix F: Construction Activities, Materials
Used, and Associated Pollutants
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template F-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Table F.1 Pollutant Source Assessment Form
Phase Activity Associated Materials or
Pollutants Pollutant Category (1)
Demolition and PreDevelopment Site Preparation Phase
Excavation & removal of
concrete debris
Fuels, oils & grease from
equipment
Sediment; oil and grease
Excavation & removal of
contaminated soil
Fuels, oils & grease from
equipment
Pesticides; sediment; oil
and grease
Grading and Land Development
Grading and excavation to
rework topography
Fuels, oils & grease from
equipment
Sediment; oil and grease
Streets and Utilities Phase
Installation of irrigation
system
Fuels, oils & grease from
equipment
Sediment; oil and grease
Vertical Construction Phase
None
Final Landscaping and Site Stabilization Phase
Planting of vegetation Fuels, oils & grease from
equipment
Sediment; oil and grease
(1) Categories per CASQA BMP Handbook (i.e., Sediment, Nutrients, Bacteria and Viruses, Oil and Grease, Metals, Synthetic Organics, Pesticides, Gross Pollutants, and Vector Production)
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template G-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix G: CASQA Stormwater BMP Handbook:
Construction Fact Sheets
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template H-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix H: BMP Inspection Form
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template H-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
BMP INSPECTION REPORT
Date and Time of Inspection: Date Report Written:
Inspection Type:
(Circle one)
Weekly
Complete
Parts I,II,III
and VII
Pre-Qualifying
Precipitation
Event (QPE)
Complete Parts
I,II,III,IV and VII
During QPE
Complete Parts
I, II, III, V, and
VII
Post-QPE
Complete Parts
I,II,III,VI and VII
Inactive
Project
Complete
Parts I,II,III
and VII
Part I. General Information
Site Information
Construction Site Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project Construction stage and
completed activities:
Approximate area
of site that is exposed:
Photos Taken:
(Circle one) Yes No
Photo Reference IDs:
Weather
Estimate storm beginning:
(date and time)
Estimate storm duration:
(hours)
Estimate time since last storm:
(days or hours)
Rain gauge reading and location:
(in)
Is a “Qualifying Precipitation Event” predicted or did one occur (i.e., any weather pattern with a 50% chance of
0.5” or more within a 24-hr period when 0.5” has been forecast and continues on subsequent 24-hour periods when 0.25” of precipitation or more is forecast)? (Y/N) If yes, summarize forecast:
Exception Documentation (explanation required if inspection could not be conducted). Visual inspections are not required outside of business hours or during dangerous weather conditions such as electrical storms, flooding, and high winds above 40 miles per hour.
Inspector Information
Inspector Name: Inspector Title:
Inspector Certification: Date:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template H-3 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Part II. BMP Observations. Describe deficiencies in Part III.
Minimum BMPs for Risk Level __2___ Sites
Adequately
designed,
implemented
and effective
(yes, no, N/A)
Action
Required
(yes/no)
Action Implemented
(Date)
Good Housekeeping for Construction Materials
Inventory of products (excluding materials designed to be outdoors)
Stockpiled construction materials not actively in use are covered and bermed
All chemicals are stored in watertight containers with
appropriate secondary containment, or in a completely
enclosed storage shed
Construction materials are minimally exposed to precipitation BMPs preventing the off-site tracking of materials are
implemented and properly effective
Good Housekeeping for Waste Management
Wash/rinse water and materials are prevented from being disposed into the storm drain system
Portable toilets are contained to prevent discharges of waste Sanitation facilities are clean and with no apparent for leaks and spills
Equipment is in place to cover waste disposal containers at the end of business day and during rain events
Discharges from waste disposal containers are prevented from discharging to the storm drain system / receiving water Stockpiled waste material is securely protected from wind and rain if not actively in use
Procedures are in place for addressing hazardous and nonhazardous spills Appropriate spill response personnel are assigned and trained Equipment and materials for cleanup of spills is available onsite
Washout areas (e.g., concrete) are contained appropriately to prevent discharge or infiltration into the underlying soil Good Housekeeping for Vehicle Storage and Maintenance
Measures are in place to prevent oil, grease, or fuel from leaking into the ground, storm drains, or surface waters All equipment or vehicles are fueled, maintained, and stored in a designated area with appropriate BMPs
Vehicle and equipment leaks are cleaned immediately and disposed of properly
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template H-4 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Part II. BMP Observations Continued. Describe deficiencies in Part III.
Minimum BMPs for Risk Level ___2__ Sites
Adequately
designed,
implemented and
effective
(yes, no, N/A)
Action
Required
(yes/no)
Action Implemented
(Date)
Good Housekeeping for Landscape Materials
Stockpiled landscape materials such as mulches and topsoil are contained and covered when not actively in use
Erodible landscape material has not been applied 2 days before a forecasted rain event or during an event
Erodible landscape materials are applied at quantities and rates in accordance with manufacturer recommendations
Bagged erodible landscape materials are stored on pallets and covered
Good Housekeeping for Air Deposition of Site Materials
Good housekeeping measures are implemented onsite to
control the air deposition of site materials and from site operations
Non-Stormwater Management
Non-Stormwater discharges are properly controlled
Vehicles are washed in a manner to prevent non-stormwater discharges to surface waters or drainage systems
Streets are cleaned in a manner to prevent unauthorized nonstormwater discharges to surface waters or drainage systems.
Erosion Controls
Wind erosion controls are effectively implemented
Effective soil cover is provided for disturbed areas inactive (i.e., not scheduled to be disturbed for 14 days) as well as finished slopes, open space, utility backfill, and completed lots The use of plastic materials is limited in cases when a more sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative exists.
Sediment Controls
Perimeter controls are established and effective at controlling erosion and sediment discharges from the site
Entrances and exits are stabilized to control erosion and sediment discharges from the site
Sediment basins are properly maintained
Inspect immediate access roads prior to forecasted
precipitation
Linear sediment control along toe of slope, face of slope an at grade breaks (Risk Level 2 & 3 Only)
Limit construction activity to and from site to entrances and exits that employ effective controls to prevent offsite tracking (Risk Level 2 & 3 Only)
Ensure all storm, drain inlets and perimeter controls, runoff control BMPs and pollutants controls at entrances and exits
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template H-5 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
are maintained and protected from activities the reduce their effectiveness (Risk Level 2 & 3 Only)
Run-On and Run-Off Controls
Run-on to the site is effectively managed and directed away from all disturbed areas.
Other
Are the project SWPPP and BMP plan up to date, available onsite and being properly implemented?
Is the posting of the project’s unique WDID number, waiver identification number, and site and project contact information publicly accessible?
Part III. Descriptions of BMP Deficiencies
Deficiency
Repairs Implemented:
Note - Repairs must begin within 72 hours of identification and, complete repairs as soon as possible.
Start Date Action
1. 2.
3. 4.
Part IV. Additional Pre-QPE Observations. Note the presence or absence of floating and suspended materials, sheen, discoloration, turbidity, odors, and source(s) of pollutants(s).
Yes, No, N/A
Do stormwater storage and containment areas have adequate freeboard? If no, complete Part III.
Are drainage areas free of spills, leaks, or uncontrolled pollutant sources? If no, complete Part VII and describe below.
Notes:
Are stormwater storage and containment areas free of leaks? If no, complete Parts III and/or VII and describe below.
Notes:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template H-6 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Part V. Additional During-QPE Observations. If BMPs cannot be inspected during inclement weather, list the results of visual inspections at all relevant outfalls, discharge points, and downstream locations. Note odors or visible sheen on the surface of discharges. Complete Part VII (Corrective Actions) as needed.
Outfall, Discharge Point, or Other Downstream Location
Location Description
Location Description
Location Description
Location Description
Part VI. Additional Post-QPE Observations. Visually observe (inspect) stormwater discharges at all discharge locations within 96 hours after each qualifying precipitation event, and observe (inspect) the discharge of stored or contained stormwater that is derived from and discharged subsequent to a qualifying precipitation event producing precipitation of ½ inch or more at the time of discharge. Complete Part VII (Corrective Actions) as needed.
Discharge Location, Storage or
Containment Area
Visual Observation
Part VII. Additional Corrective Actions Required. Identify additional corrective actions not included with BMP Deficiencies (Part III) above. Note if SWPPP change is required.
Required Actions Implementation Date
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template I-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix I: Training Forms
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template I-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Contractor Personnel Training Log
Stormwater Management Training Log and Documentation
Project Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project
WDID #:
Stormwater Management Topic: (check as appropriate)
☐ Good Housekeeping BMPs ☐ Erosion Control BMPs
☐ Sediment Control BMPs ☐ Tracking Control
☐ Non-Stormwater Management BMPs ☐ Waste Management & Pollution Control BMPs ☐ BMP Implementation Activities ☐ Advanced BMPs
☐ Identification of QSPs and QSP Delegates
Training Objective:
Date: _ Instructor:
Training Length (hours):
Attendee Roster (Attach additional forms if necessary)
Name Company Phone
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template I-3 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
QSP Delegate Training Log
Stormwater Management Training Log and Documentation
Project Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project
WDID #:
QSP Delegate Name:
Delegated Responsibilities:
☐ Stormwater Visual Inspections
☐ Sampling
☐ BMP Inspections
☐ BMP Maintenance and Repair
Foundational Training
Topic Date Completed QSP Trainer
☐ Roles and Responsibilities
☐ Forecast Information
☐ Documentation and Reporting Procedures
Site-Specific Training
Topic Date Completed QSP Trainer
☐ Visual Inspections
☐ Sample Collection Procedures
☐ Sample Reporting Procedures
☐ BMP Implementation
As needed, attach proof of external training (e.g., course completion certificates, credentials for the QSP Delegate).
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template J-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix J: Responsible Parties
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template J-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Identification of QSP and QSP Delegates
Project Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project
WDID #:
The following are QSPs and QSP Delegates associated with this project Name of Personnel(1) QSP Number, or
state “Delegate”
Company Date
(1) If additional QSPs or QSP Delegates are required on the job site add additional lines
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template K-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix K: Contractors and Subcontractors
Contractor Name:
Title:
Contractor Company:
Address
Phone Number:
Phone Number (24/7)
[Add additional rows, if
needed]
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template L-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix L: Calculations
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template M-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix M: Weather Reports
The discharger must obtain the precipitation forecast information from the National Weather Service Forecast Office (http://forecast.weather.gov ). A printed copy with the date and time of printing should be retained in this Appendix.
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template N-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix N: Monitoring Records
Place completed BMP Inspection Forms, photographic documentation, Effluent Sampling, Receiving Water, and Dewatering Field Logs, Monitoring Exceptions, NAL Exceedance Reports, and Receiving Water Monitoring Trigger Exceptions in this appendix.
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix O: Example Storm Event Monitoring
Forms
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-2 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Rain Gauge Log Sheet
Construction Site Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project WDID #:
Date
(mm/dd/yy)
Time
(24-hr) Initials Rainfall Depth
(Inches) Notes:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-3 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Risk Level 1, 2, 3
Visual Inspection Field Log Sheet
Date and Time of Inspection: Report Date:
Inspection Type: □ Weekly □ Pre Qualifying
Precipitation
Event (QPE)
□ During QPE □ Post QPE □ Dewatering
Discharge
Site Information
Construction Site Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project Construction stage and
completed activities:
Approximate area
of exposed site:
Weather and Observations
Date Rain Predicted to Occur: Predicted % chance of precipitation (PoP):
Predicted quantity of precipitation (QPF):
Estimate storm beginning:
(date and time)
Estimate storm
duration:_________
(hours)
Estimate time since last
storm: ________
(days or hours)
Rain gauge
reading: _______
(inches)
Observations: If yes identify location
Odors Yes □ No □
Floating material Yes □ No □
Suspended Material Yes □ No □
Sheen Yes □ No □
Discolorations Yes □ No □
Turbidity Yes □ No □
Site Inspections
Outfalls or BMPs Evaluated Deficiencies Noted
(add additional sheets or attached detailed BMP Inspection Checklists) Photos Taken: Yes □ No □ Photo Reference IDs:
Corrective Actions Identified (note if SWPPP/REAP change is needed) Inspector Information
Inspector Name: Inspector Title:
Signature: Date:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-4 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Risk Level 1, 2, 3
Effluent Sampling Field Log Sheets
Construction Site Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project Date: Time Start:
Sampler:
Sampling Event Type: □ Stormwater □ Dewatering
Discharge
□ Non-visible pollutant
Field Meter Calibration
pH Meter ID No./Desc.:
Calibration Date/Time:
Turbidity Meter ID No./Desc.:
Calibration Date/Time:
Field pH and Turbidity Measurements
Discharge Location Description pH Turbidity Time
Grab Samples Collected
Discharge Location Description Sample Type Time
Additional Sampling Notes:
Time End:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-5 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Risk Level 3
Receiving Water Sampling Field Log Sheets
Construction Site Name: Riverside Park Regeneration Project Date: Time Start:
Sampler:
Receiving Water Description and Observations
Receiving Water Name/ID:
Observations:
Odors Yes □ No □
Floating material Yes □ No □
Suspended Material Yes □ No □
Sheen Yes □ No □
Discolorations Yes □ No □
Turbidity Yes □ No □
Field Meter Calibration
pH Meter ID No./Desc.:
Calibration Date/Time:
Turbidity Meter ID No./Desc.:
Calibration Date/Time:
Field pH and Turbidity Measurements
Upstream Location
Type Result Time Notes
pH
Turbidity
Downstream Location
Type Result Time Notes
pH
Turbidity
Additional Sampling Notes:
Time End:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-6 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
NAL Exceedance Evaluation Summary Report Page __ of __
Project Name Riverside Park Regeneration Project
Project WDID
Project Location 1281 East Gobbi Street, Ukiah
Date of Exceedance
Type of Exceedance
NAL ☐ pH ☐ Turbidity
☐ Other (specify)
Measurement or
Analytical Method
☐ Field meter
(Sensitivity: )
☐ Lab method (specify)
(Minimum Level: )
(MDL: )
Calculated Daily
Average
☐ pH pH units
☐ Turbidity NTU
Rain Gauge
Measurement inches
Visual Observations
on Day of
Exceedance
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-7 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
NAL Exceedance Evaluation Summary Report Page __ of __
Description of BMPs
in Place at Time of
Event
Initial Assessment
of Cause
Corrective Actions
Taken (deployed
after exceedance)
Additional
Corrective Actions
Proposed
Report Completed
By
(Print Name, Title)
Signature
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template O-8 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DATE: Lab ID:
DESTINATION LAB:
REQUESTED
ANALYSIS Notes:
ATTN:
ADDRESS:
Office Phone:
Cell Phone:
SAMPLED BY:
Contact:
Project Name
Client Sample ID Sample Sample Sample Container
Date Time Matrix # Type Pres.
SENDER COMMENTS:
RELINQUISHED
BY
Signature:
Print:
Company:
Date: TIME:
LABORATORY COMMENTS: RECEIVED BY
Signature:
Print:
Company:
Date: TIME:
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template P-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix P: Field Meter Instructions
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template Q-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix Q: Supplemental Information
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template R-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix R: Active Treatment System and
Passive Treatment Plans
No ATS or passive treatment systems will be used.
CASQA Traditional SWPPP Template S-1 March 2024
for the 2022 CGP
Appendix S: Construction General Permit
Copies of the Construction Stormwater General Permit may be downloaded from the State Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml.
Appendix B
|
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project i ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Page
Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Location...................................................................................................................1
1.3 Responsible Parties ................................................................................................4
1.4 Directions to Site.....................................................................................................4 Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................7 Methods ....................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Pre-field Review......................................................................................................7
2.2 Field Survey Methods .............................................................................................7
2.3 Mapping and Acreage Calculations........................................................................8
2.4 Limitations ...............................................................................................................8 Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................................................9 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................................9
3.1 2015 Clean Water Rule...........................................................................................9
3.2 Traditional Navigable Water..................................................................................12
3.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................13
3.4 Ephemeral, Intermittent, and Perennial Streams..................................................12 Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................13 Setting.....................................................................................................................................13
4.1 Soils.......................................................................................................................13
4.2 Hydrology ..............................................................................................................15
4.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................15 Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................16 Results ....................................................................................................................................16
5.1 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................16
5.2 Clean Water Rule Analysis ...................................................................................18
5.3 Conclusions...........................................................................................................19 Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................21 References..............................................................................................................................21
Table of Contents
Page
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project ii ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
Appendices
A. Wetland Determination Data Forms
B. Plants Recorded at Data Points
C. Photographs
D. Aquatic Resources Spreadsheet
E. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
F. City of Ukiah 1999 Memorandum
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Study Area..................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Soils..........................................................................................................................14 Figure 4 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................17 List of Tables
Table 1 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................................16 Table 2 Application of the 2015 Clean Water Rule to Aquatic Resources.............................19
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 1 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This report has been prepared to document the results and conclusions of an aquatic resources delineation field survey conducted for the Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project (Project).
The Project is located in the City of Ukiah near the Russian River (Figure 1). The study area comprises phase 2 of Riverside Park. Phase 1 was constructed in approximately 2011. The study area was once the location of a City wastewater treatment facility, but has not been used for that purpose in decades. On behalf of Melton Design Group and the City of Ukiah, Environmental Science Associates (ESA) investigated the extent of aquatic resources in the study area that potentially meet the criteria for waters of the U.S.
This report documents the boundaries of the aquatic features within the study area using field data and the best professional judgment of ESA investigators. All conclusions presented should be considered preliminary and subject to change pending review and verification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this investigation is to describe and delineate all potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. within the study area that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Information from this report may be used in preparing permit applications for future actions proposed in the study area.
1.2 Location
The approximately 8.6-acre study area is located at 1151 East Gobbi Street in the City of Ukiah, in Mendocino County. The study area is near phase 1 of Riverside Park, baseball fields, and a BMX track. The study area is on an unsectioned portion of the Ukiah, 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. Topography is flat except spoils piles and excavations related to the old wastewater treatment plant. Elevation ranges from approximately 570–587 feet.
The study area is in the floodplain of the Russian River (FEMA, 2019). An aerial photograph map of the study area is provided in Figure 2.
Gobbi Street
Recreation Road
uR ssianRiver
Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig1_RegionalLocation_topo.aprx, ballen 6/20/2019 SOURCE: USGS, 1978; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 1
Regional Location
N
0 2,000
Feet
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Study Area
Riverside Park
Study Area
Gobbi Street
Recreation Road
u
R
s
s
ia
n
River
Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig2_WD_StudyArea.aprx, ballen 6/17/2019 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe,Oct. 2017; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 2
Study Area
N
0 300
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Study Area
1. Introduction
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 4 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
1.3 Responsible Parties
The owner is:
City of Ukiah
Department of Community Services
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482-5400
The point of contact for this report is:
Mr. Chuck Hughes, Senior Biologist/Botanist
Environmental Science Associates
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 564-4500
[email protected]
1.4 Directions to Site
Directions to the site from San Francisco:
Take Highway 101 north about 110 miles.
Take the Gobbi Street exit (exit 548b).
Travel east on Gobbi Street for about 0.7 mile.
Ukiah Riverside Park is at the gate at the east end of Gobbi Street.
1. Introduction
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 5 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
This page intentionally left blank
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 7 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 2
Methods
2.1 Pre-field Review
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the following background tasks were performed:
Review of current and historic Ukiah, California U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic maps (USGS, 2019);
Review of current and historic aerial photography (Google, Inc., 2019); Review of the online soil survey (NRCS, 2019a) for information about soils and geomorphology;
Review of the National Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2019b) to determine if any soil mapping unit components are considered hydric;
Review of the National Wetlands Inventory (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2019); Review of the San Francisco USACE District Navigable Waterways (USACE, 1971); and Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (FEMA, 2019).
2.2 Field Survey Methods
The fieldwork was conducted by ESA biologists Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill on May 22, 2019. The delineation used the “Routine Determination Method” as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), hereafter called the “1987 Manual.” The 1987 Manual was used in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2008), hereafter called the “Arid West Supplement.” For areas where the 1987 Manual and the Arid West Supplement differ, the Arid West Supplement was followed. In addition, the Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) delineation for non-perennial streams in the western mountains, valleys, and coast region of the United States (USACE, 2014) was used to identify the lateral limits of streams.
The Arid West Supplement is applicable for use at the site because the study area experiences hot, dry summers typical of a Mediterranean climate, and the surrounding landscape in the bottom of the valley is dominated by oaks (USACE, 2008). The study area is very near the boundary between the Arid West Region (LRR C) and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
2. Methods
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 8 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
(LRR A). The Arid West Supplement was used for this delineation based on landscape, site conditions, vegetation, and climate. The Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region OHWM guide was used for delineating the boundaries of other waters because that guide is more applicable than the Arid West OHWM Guide in the region of the study area.
Three positive parameters must normally be present for an area to be considered a wetland: 1) a dominance of wetland vegetation, 2) presence of hydric soils, and 3) presence of wetland hydrology. ESA assessed presence or absence of positive indicators for wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology per the 1987 Manual and Arid West Supplement. Data points were recorded on Arid West wetland determination data forms (Appendix A).
At each data point, a visual assessment of the plant cover by species was made. Dominant species were assessed using the “50/20” rule per the Arid West Supplement. Plants were identified to species using The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al., 2012). The Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al., 2016) was used to determine the wetland indicator status of all plants. Soils at each data point were characterized by color, texture, organic matter accumulation, and the presence or absence of hydric soil indicators.
Color was described using the Munsell Soil Color Book (Munsell Color, 2015). Presence of wetland hydrology was determined at each data point by presence of one or more of the primary and/or secondary indicators, per the Arid West Supplement.
For “other waters of the U.S.” to be considered jurisdictional, these features must exhibit a defined bed and bank and an OHWM.
2.3 Mapping and Acreage Calculations
All features, including data points, wetland boundaries, and OHWMs were recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Trimble GeoXT) with real-time differential correction and an instrument-rated mapping accuracy of +/- 1 meter. Boundaries of wetlands were demarcated in the field using GPS by walking the margin of the wetland and taking points at set intervals.
In the office, data from data points and wetland/waters boundaries were downloaded from the GPS unit and mapped using GIS software on an overlay of both topography and geo-referenced aerial photography. GPS-determined wetland/waters boundaries and data points were visually confirmed. Acreage of wetland and waters polygons, and the length of linear features were determined using ArcGIS.
2.4 Limitations
No problems or limitations were encountered.
3. Regulatory Setting
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 9 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 3
Regulatory Setting
3.1 2015 Clean Water Rule
In 2015, the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Clean Water Rule detailing the process for determining Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. The rule is currently in effect in California and 21 other states. The 2015 Clean Water Rule includes a detailed process for determining which areas may be subject to jurisdiction under the CWA, and defines features that are and are not waters of the U.S. Some features may need a significant nexus test to determine if they are a waters of the U.S.
The significant nexus test includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. The significant nexus test would take into account physical indicators of flow (evidence of an ordinary high water mark [OHWM]), if a hydrologic connection to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) exists, and if the aquatic functions of the water body have a significant effect (more than speculative or insubstantial) on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. A significant nexus test includes similarly situated waters in the region. The USACE and EPA will apply the significant nexus standard to assess the flow characteristics and functions of a potential WOTUS to determine if it significantly affects the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the downstream TNW.
2015 Clean Water Rule Summary
The term “waters of the U.S.” is defined at 33 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 328.3(a) as:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (3) The territorial seas;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section; (5) All tributaries, as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section;
(6) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, including wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters; (7) All waters in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (a)(6), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.
(i) Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest. (ii) Carolina bays and Delmarva bays. Carolina bays and Delmarva bays are ponded, depressional wetlands that occur along the Atlantic coastal plain.
3. Regulatory Setting
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 10 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
(iii) Pocosins. Pocosins are evergreen shrub and tree dominated wetlands found predominantly along the Central Atlantic coastal plain.
(iv) Western vernal pools. Western vernal pools are seasonal wetlands located in parts of California and associated with topographic depression, soils with poor drainage, mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. (v) Texas coastal prairie wetlands. Texas coastal prairie wetlands are freshwater wetlands that occur as a mosaic of depressions, ridges, intermound flats, and mima mound wetlands located along the Texas Gulf Coast.
(8) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. For waters determined to have a significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis.
If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (a)(6), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required. 33 CFR 328.3(b) says:
The following are not ‘‘waters of the United States’’ even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(4) through (8) of this section.
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
(2) 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 Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
(3) The following ditches:
(i) Ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary. (ii) Ditches with intermittent flow that are not a relocated tributary, excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands. (iii) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(4) The following features:
(i) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land should application of water to that area cease; (ii) Artificial, constructed lakes and ponds created in dry land such as farm and stock watering ponds, irrigation ponds, settling basins, fields flooded for rice growing, log cleaning ponds, or cooling ponds; (iii) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools created in dry land; (iv) Small ornamental waters created in dry land;
(v) Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to mining or construction activity, including pits excavated for obtaining fill, sand, or gravel that fill with water; (vi) Erosional features, including gullies, rills, and other ephemeral features that do not meet the definition of tributary, non-wetland swales, and lawfully constructed grassed waterways; and (vii) Puddles.
(5) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems. (6) Stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater that are created in dry land. (7) Wastewater recycling structures constructed in dry land; detention and retention basins built for wastewater recycling; groundwater recharge basins; percolation ponds built for wastewater recycling; and water distributary structures built for wastewater recycling.
The following terms are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(c):
(1) Adjacent. The term adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, including waters separated by constructed dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like. For purposes of adjacency, an open water such as a pond or lake includes any wetlands within or abutting its ordinary high water mark. Adjacency is not limited to waters located laterally to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. Adjacent waters also include all waters that connect
3. Regulatory Setting
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 11 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
segments of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) or are located at the head of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section and are bordering, contiguous, or neighboring such water. Waters being used for established normal farming, ranching, and silviculture activities (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)) are not adjacent.
(2) Neighboring. The term neighboring means:
(i) All waters located within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. The entire water is neighboring if a portion is located within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark;
(ii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section and not more than 1,500 feet from the ordinary high water mark of such water. The entire water is neighboring if a portion is located within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark and within the 100- year floodplain;
(iii) All waters located within 1,500 feet of the high tide line of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section, and all waters within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes. The entire water is neighboring if a portion is located within 1,500 feet of the high tide line or within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes.
(3) Tributary and tributaries. The terms tributary and tributaries each mean a water that contributes flow, either directly or through another water (including an impoundment identified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section), to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section that is characterized by the presence of the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark. These physical indicators demonstrate there is volume, frequency, and duration of flow sufficient to create a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark, and thus to qualify as a tributary. A tributary can be a natural, man-altered, or man-made water and includes waters such as rivers, streams, canals, and ditches not excluded under paragraph (b) of this section. A water that otherwise qualifies as a tributary under this definition does not lose its status as a tributary if, for any length, there are one or more constructed breaks (such as bridges, culverts, pipes, or dams), or one or more natural breaks (such as wetlands along the run of a stream, debris piles, boulder fields, or a stream that flows underground) so long as a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark can be identified upstream of the break. A water that otherwise qualifies as a tributary under this definition does not lose its status as a tributary if it contributes flow through a water of the United States that does not meet the definition of tributary or through a non-jurisdictional water to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (4) Wetlands. The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(5) Significant nexus. The term significant nexus means that a water, including wetlands, either alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. The term ‘‘in the region’’ means the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. For an effect to be significant, it must be more than speculative or insubstantial. Waters are similarly situated when they function alike and are sufficiently close to function together in affecting downstream waters.
For purposes of determining whether or not a water has a significant nexus, the water’s effect on downstream paragraph (a)(1) through (3) waters shall be assessed by evaluating the aquatic functions identified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section. A water has a significant nexus when any single function or combination of functions performed by the water, alone or together with similarly situated waters in the region, contributes significantly to the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the nearest water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. Functions relevant to the significant nexus evaluation are the following:
(i) Sediment trapping,
(ii) Nutrient recycling,
(iii) Pollutant trapping, transformation, filtering, and transport, (iv) Retention and attenuation of flood waters,
(v) Runoff storage,
(vi) Contribution of flow,
(vii) Export of organic matter,
(viii)Export of food resources, and
(ix) Provision of life cycle dependent aquatic habitat (such as foraging, feeding, nesting, breeding, spawning, or use as a nursery area) for species located in a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(6) Ordinary high water mark. The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank,
3. Regulatory Setting
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 12 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. (7) High tide line. The term high tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
The limits of jurisdiction are identified in 33 CFR 328.4 as:
(a) Territorial Seas. The limit of jurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline in a seaward direction a distance of three nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12) (b) Tidal Waters of the United States. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters:
(1) Extends to the high tide line, or
(2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Non-Tidal Waters of the United States. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters:
(1) In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or (2) When adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands.
(3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland.
3.2 Traditional Navigable Water
Navigable waters of the United States are defined in 33 CFR § 329.4 as “…those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.” Traditional navigable waters include all of the “navigable waters of the United States” as defined in 33 CFR § Part 329.4 as well as by numerous decision of the federal courts; those water bodies the USACE has determined are a navigable water of the U.S. pursuant to 33. CFR § 329.14; plus all other waters that are navigable-in-fact. The definition of “navigable-in-fact” comes from a long line of court cases originating with Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1870).
3.3 Ephemeral, Intermittent, and Perennial Streams
An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round.
Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow. An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year (82 Federal Register 1860).
4. Setting
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 13 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 4
Setting
4.1 Study Area
The study area is in a valley of the Russian River, in the inner North Coast Range. The Russian River is approximately 150 feet east of the study area. There is a corridor of riparian vegetation along the river outside the study area. The study area is located on a flood terrace of the river.
Most of the terrace is used for agriculture, primarily vineyards and pear orchards. The natural vegetation is valley oak woodland.
The study area is at the site of the former City wastewater treatment facility. The former treatment facility is no longer present and was likely removed between 1958 and 1975 (USGS, 2019). Other portions of the former treatment facility are now used for baseball fields, a BMX track, and phase 1 of Ukiah Riverside Park. 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.
The climate in the region consists of cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The mean annual precipitation in Ukiah is 37.35 inches and mean annual temperatures range from an average maximum temperature of 73.5 degrees Fahrenheit to an average minimum temperature of 43.6 degrees Fahrenheit (Western Regional Climate Center, 2019; NWSFO, 2019). Precipitation from July 1, 2018 through May 22, 2019 totaled 43.67 inches, which is 119% of the average annual rainfall for that period (NWSFO, 2019). Ukiah received over three inches of precipitation in the week preceding the field work (NWSFO, 2019).
4.2 Soils
The soil map (Figure 3) indicates two soil map units in the study area (NRCS, 2019a). A brief description of each primary soil within each map unit is provided below. All colors refer to moist soil. Both soil map units are listed as hydric where the necessary landform occurs (flood-plains; NRCS, 2019b).
Russian loam, 0–2% slopes. Russian soils formed in alluvium from sedimentary rocks and occur on flood plains and low stream terraces. They are well-drained, with moderate permeability and slow runoff, with occasional flooding. A typical profile of Russian loam has:
0–38 inches Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) neutral loam. 38–65 inches Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) neutral very fine sandy loam.
236
217
188
Path: u:\GIS\GIS\projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig3_WD_Soils.aprx, ballen 6/19/2019 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe, Oct. 2017; SSURGO, 2018; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 3
Soils
N
0 150
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
ID - Soil Map Unit
188 - Russian Loam (0-2% slopes)
217 - Xerofluvents (0-2% slopes)
236 - Water
Study Area
Soil Map Unit Boundary
4. Setting
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 15 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
Xerofluvents, 0–2% slopes. These soils are on flood plains along rivers or streams or on alluvial fans with a Mediterranean (xeric) moisture regime. Flooding may occur in winter. The vegetation on xerofluvents is commonly mixed forest or grass and shrubs (NRCS 1999).
4.3 Hydrology
The entire study area is in the watershed of the upper Russian River (HUC 1801011004). As discussed previously, the study area is located within the floodplain of the river, and the river is approximately 150 feet east of the study area. There are no traditional navigable waters in or near the study area. The lowest reach of the Russian River is considered a traditional navigable water from Vacation Beach approximately 13.6 miles downstream to the mouth of the river (USACE, 1971). The study area experiences flooding from the nearby Russian River during times of high water.
4.4 Vegetation
Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area, and are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The entire study area has experienced substantial soil disturbance in the past and vegetation is mostly dominated by nonnative ruderal species. The northern end of the study area contains old spoils piles of asphalt that are covered largely with nonnative invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) with some native shrubs including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). The southern end of the study area is dominated by nonnative annual grasses including wild oat (Avena fatua), rye grass (Festuca perennis), and bromes (Bromus spp.). Vegetation in seasonal wetlands is described in Chapter 5.1. A list of plant species recorded at data points is in Appendix B. Representative photographs of the study area are in Appendix C.
5. Results
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 16 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 5
Results
5.1 Aquatic Resources
The aquatic resources delineation identified 0.178 acre of aquatic resources within the study area, consisting of two seasonal wetlands. Aquatic resources were classified using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (“Cowardin Classification”) (FGDC, 2013). Details of the wetlands are provided in Table 1 and described below. Figure 4 shows the location and extent of the wetlands. The Aquatic Resources Spreadsheet is in Appendix D.
TABLE 1
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Map ID Wetland Type – Cowardin Classification Total Acres Wetlands
SW-1 Seasonal Wetland – Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded (PEMC) 0.140 SW-2 Seasonal Wetland – Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded (PEMC) 0.038 Wetland Total: 0.178
Grand Total: 0.178
SOURCE: ESA 2019
5.1.1 Wetlands
Seasonal Wetland 1
Seasonal wetland (SW) 1 is in the bottom of an artificially excavated pit (Appendix C, Photo 2).
During the time of the survey, SW-1 had hydrophytic vegetation dominated by rye grass (Festuca perennis; FAC) and dock (Rumex sp.; at least FACW). A few willows (Salix sp.) and cottonwoods (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) grow along the margin of SW-1. Soils were clearly disturbed from previous activities in the study area. Nevertheless, a horizon at six inches met the redox dark surface indicator. The soil was saturated one inch below the surface at data point 1, and a few other areas within SW-1 had surface water ponded to a depth of up to a few inches.
Russian
River
SW-1
(0.140 ac.)
SW-2
(0.038 ac.)
Stormwater
Culvert Outfall
DP-1
DP-2
DP-4 DP-3
DP-5
DP-6
DP-7
DP-8
DP-9
DP-10
DP-11
DP-12
590
580
580
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
590
Path: U:\gis\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D181242_UkiahRiversidePark\Fig4_WD_Wetlands.aprx, ballen 6/19/2019 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe, Oct. 2017; ESA, 2019. Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Figure 4
Aquatic Resources
N
0 100
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Study Area - 8.603 ac.
Data Point
Contour (2')
Seasonal Wetland - 0.178 ac. 1 inch = 100 feet
Delineation conducted by Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill (ESA).
Map prepared by Brad Allen (ESA) on Jun 17, 2019
&
&
5. Results
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 18 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
There are two sources of hydrology for SW-1. The first is surface water runoff from uplands that collects in the bottom of the pit. The second is from flood events of the Russian River. 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. The bottom of the pit is approximately 574 feet in elevation. The sides of the gully are eroding into an old dirt road (Appendix C, photo 5), 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. In years in which the river reaches a sufficient flood elevation, SW-1 may be inundated to a depth and for a duration much longer than in other years where upland precipitation runoff is the sole source of hydrology. The base flood elevation (1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in a given year) is approximately 593.5 feet (Appendix E).
Seasonal Wetland 2
SW-2 is in the bottom of an artificially excavated ditch (Appendix C, photo 7). The 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 banks near the River. There is no indication from historic topographic maps that the ditch is a relocated tributary (USGS, 2019).
The bottom of the ditch is not uniformly sloped. The western end of the ditch does not fully drain and may retain water up to several inches deep. During the survey, SW-2 had hydrophytic vegetation and soils similar to SW-1. Hydrology indicators were fine sediments on the bottom few inches of plant stems and the FAC-neutral test.
5.2 Clean Water Rule Analysis
Table 2 summarizes the application of the clean water rule to the aquatic resources in the study area.
5.2.1 Seasonal Wetland 1
The pit containing SW-1 was dug for the purpose of gravel extraction. While the pit is located at the former wastewater treatment facility that once operated in the study area, it was dug as a source of gravel. The City of Ukiah noted in a 1999 memorandum (Appendix F) that a longtime City Employee indicated the pit “was a naturally occurring gravel deposit that the City excavated.”
33 CFR 328.3(b)(4)(v) excludes pits excavated in dry land for obtaining gravel that fill with water as waters of the U.S. Such features are not waters of the U.S., even where they include wetlands that would otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8). The pit was dug in the floodplain of the Russian River, but the area surrounding the pit is uplands. The pit was dug in dry land, for the purpose of gravel extraction, and hence is not a waters of the U.S.
5. Results
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 19 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
5.2.2 Seasonal Wetland 2
SW-2 is in the bottom of an excavated ditch. The ditch is not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary. There are no tributaries shown in the study area on any of the USGS (2019) topographic maps, including the oldest one reviewed from 1957. The ditch flows ephemerally during precipitation events. The ditch receives flow from the outfall of a City stormwater culvert and conveys stormwater from the culvert outfall to the Russian River. 33 CFR 328.3(b)(3)(i) excludes as waters of the U.S. ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary. The ditch meets this definition. 33 CFR 328.3(b)(6) excludes as waters of the U.S. stormwater control features constructed to convey stormwater that are created in dry land. The ditch also meets this definition. The ditch was dug in the floodplain of the Russian River, but the area surrounding the ditch is uplands. Features that meet the definition of sections (b)(3) and (b)(6) are not waters of the U.S., even where they include wetlands that would otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8).
TABLE 2
APPLICATION OF THE 2015 CLEAN WATER RULE TO AQUATIC RESOURCES Map ID 33 CFR 328.3 Waters Type Waters of the
U.S. (ac)
Excluded by
Rule (ac)
Rationale
Wetlands
SW-1 (b)(4)(v) – Water-filled
Depression
-- 0.140 SW-1 is in the bottom of a pit
excavated in dry land for gravel.
SW-2 (b)(3)(i) – Ephemeral Ditch,
(b)(6) – Stormwater Control
Feature
-- 0.038 SW-2 is in the bottom of a ditch
excavated in dry land, with
ephemeral flow, that conveys
stormwater.
Wetlands Subtotal: -- 0.178
Total: -- 0.178
5.3 Conclusions
A total of 0.178 acre of seasonal wetlands occurs in the study area. The seasonal wetlands are excluded by rule as waters of the U.S.
This report documents the wetland boundary delineation and best professional judgment of ESA investigators. All conclusions presented should be considered preliminary and subject to change pending official review and preliminary jurisdictional determination in writing by the USACE.
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 21 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 6
References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors, 2012. The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
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
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Google, Inc. 2019. Google Earth (Version 7.3.2.5776) [Software]. Available:
www.google.com/earth/. Accessed June 2019.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.M. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin, 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17.
Munsell Color, 2015. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised edition. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor, NY.
National Weather Service Forecast Office (NWSFO). 2019. Preliminary monthly climate data for Ukiah, CA. Accessed June 2019. Available:
https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=eka
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999. Soil taxonomy, second edition. Agriculture Handbook Number 436. ———, 2019a. Online Soil Survey. Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed June 2019. ———, 2019b. List of Hydric Soils. Available: www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/ use/hydric. Accessed June 2019.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1971. Navigable waterways as of 2 August 1971.
6. References
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 22 ESA / 181242 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
———, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region (Version 2.0) ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/ EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ———, 2014. A guide to ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineation for non-perennial streams in the western mountains, valleys, and coast region of the United States. Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-14-13. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. National Wetlands Inventory. Available:
www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed June 2019.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Available:
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed June 2019.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2019. Period of Record General Climate Summary for Ukiah, California, 1893 –2013. Available: www.wrcc.dri.edu/coopmap. Accessed June 2019.
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
A-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
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: 1 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Excavated basin Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave-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:
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:____6 ft. radius_________)
UPL Species x 5 =
1. Festuca perennis 35 D FAC
2. Rumex sp. (at least FACW) 30 D FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
3. Epilobium ciliatum 5 FACW
4. Eleocharis macrostachya 1 OBL 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: 71 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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 1
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 0-2 10YR 4/2 99 10YR 5/8 1 C M Clay loam
2-6 10YR 2/2 100 Loam
6-12 10YR 3/2 85 10YR 3/6 15 C M 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:
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: Stratification from repeated inundation events evident. Two pits dug within 2 feet of each other to get clear soil data. Very dark second horizon appears variable in depth.
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): 2
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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: 2 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Excavated basin side-slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex-linear Slope (%): 100 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:
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:___6 ft radius__________)
UPL Species x 5 =
1. Raphanus sp. 40 D UPL
2. Festuca perennis 30 D FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
3. Sonchus asper ssp. asper 3 FAC
4. Rumex sp. (at least FACW) 1 FACW 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: 74 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 25 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 2
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 4/3 100 Loam Much 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:
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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: 3 Investigator(s): Chuck Hughes and Elizabeth Hill Section, Township, Range: See Report Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave-concave Slope (%): ≈0 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:
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 radius__________)
UPL Species x 5 =
1. Festuca perennis 30 D FAC
2. Epilobium ciliatum 3 FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
3. Festuca bromoides 25 D FACU
4. Geranium dissectum 5 UPL Prevalence Index = B/A =
5. Bromus hordeaceus 15 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6. Hirschfeldia incana 2 UPL 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: 80 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 20 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 3
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 4/3 100 Loam
Much cobble & old
refuse (screws) mixed in
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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
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
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:
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 taken in a location where ditch drains well.
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
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:
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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:
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 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
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:
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
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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:
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:
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
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:
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: Old electric wire dug up.
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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:
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:
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
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 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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:
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
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
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:
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: Datapoint is in an area of old spoils piles consisting of asphalt and concrete.
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
B-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
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
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
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
C-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
D-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
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
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
D-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
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.
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project
E-1 ESA / 181242
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report July 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
RIVERSIDE PARK REGENERATION PROJECT
Habitat Assessment
City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California
Prepared for December 2019
City of Ukiah
Appendix 3
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
&
&
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
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),
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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)
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.
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,
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Appendix A
Regulatory Context
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Appendix B
Special-Status Species
Considered in the Study Area
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Appendix C
Plants Observed in the
Study Area
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
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
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
April 14, 2022
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.
April 14, 2022
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.
April 14, 2022
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
___________
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
April 14, 2022
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
April 14, 2022
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
April 14, 2022
Draft Soil Sampling Results Report
Appendix A
Laboratory Analytical Report
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"
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)
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" Analytical Qualifiers
J Result is less than the RL/ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration is an estimated value.
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.