Ukiah City Council
August 7, 2024

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-47 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Scoping Plan Update identifies key sectors of the implementation strategy, which includes improvements in low carbon energy, industry, transportation sustainability, natural and working lands, waste management, and water. CARB determined that the target statewide 2030 emissions limit is 260 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) and that further commitments will be needed to achieve an additional reduction of 50 MMTCO2e beyond current policies and programs (CARB, 2017).

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes the framework for achieving the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels, established by SB 32. The plan update details local actions that land-use development projects and municipalities can implement to support the statewide goal. For project-level CEQA analyses, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update states that projects should implement feasible mitigation, preferably measures that can be implemented onsite.

Significance Thresholds
The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) has adopted a threshold of significance for the purposes of evaluating GHG emissions resulting from operation of Projects within its jurisdiction. According to the Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance, a Project would have a significant impact if operational emissions of GHGs exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e) per year. The MCAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for construction GHG emissions; therefore, this analysis compares Project-related GHG emissions to the screening threshold of 900 MTCO2e per year, established by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Report, CEQA and Climate Change— Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CAPCOA, 2008). The 900 MTCO2e-per-year threshold is more conservative than the operational threshold used by the MCAQMD. Therefore, use of the CAPCOA screening threshold is a conservative metric for determining significance of impacts associated with GHG emissions that would result from the proposed Project.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to generate GHG emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction of the Project would generate GHG emissions from use of heavy-duty construction equipment and from vehicle trips associated with construction workers, vendors, and haul trucks traveling to and from the Project site. Operational GHG emissions would result from employee vehicle trips during routine maintenance of the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 specifically addresses the significance of GHG emissions, requiring a lead agency to make a “good-faith effort” to “describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions in CEQA environmental documents. The CEQA Guidelines do not set a numerical threshold of significance with which to evaluate GHG emissions; however, Section 15064.7 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-48 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
Construction-related GHG emissions that would be generated from the Project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, and were then compared to the CAPCOA threshold of 900 MTCO2e per year, as shown in Table GHG-1, below. Project-specific information provided by the project applicant and incorporated into the model included the anticipated construction schedule, a construction equipment list, the number of workers anticipated onsite daily, and the amount of material to be imported and exported. Where Project-specific information was not available, CalEEMod defaults were used. Detailed modeling assumptions are included in Appendix A. As shown in Table GHG-1 construction of the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance.

TABLE GHG-1
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS1
GHG Emission MTCO2e
Construction Emissions` 300
CAPCOA Threshold 900
Exceeds Threshold? No
NOTES:

MTCO2e = metric tons CO2 equivalents
1 Project emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. See Appendix A for model outputs and more detailed assumptions.

SOURCE: Appendix A.

During operation, the Project would generate minimal GHG emissions from use of employee vehicles during routine maintenance. These operational emissions would be the same as what is currently being performed during regular maintenance of the park and would not represent a significant new source of GHGs that could have a significant impact on the environment. Because neither construction nor operation of the Project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants in amounts that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows for public agencies to analyze and mitigate GHG emissions as part of a larger plan for the reduction of GHGs and describes the required contents of such a plan. As described below, the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update incorporates a broad array of regulations, policies, and state plans designed to reduce GHG emissions. Those that are applicable to the construction and operation of the proposed Project are listed in Table GHG-2. As shown

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-49 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 below, the Project would be consistent with goals described in the Scoping Plan Update to reduce energy use and transportation emissions, consistent with statewide strategies and regulations. As a result, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions; and the impact would be less than significant.

TABLE GHG-2

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACTIONS IN 2017 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
Strategy Description Consistency Analysis
AB 1493
(Pavley
Regulations)
Reduces GHG emissions in new
passenger vehicles from model year 2012
through 2016 (Phase I) and model years,
2017–2025 (Phase II). Also reduces
gasoline consumption to a rate of 31
percent of 1990 gasoline consumption
(and associated GHG emissions) by 2020.

Consistent. The standards would
apply to all vehicles used by
construction workers and maintenance
workers associated with the Project.

The Project would be consistent with
this regulation and would not conflict
with implementation of the vehicle
emissions standards.

Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
(Executive Order
S-01-07)
Establishes protocols for measuring lifecycle carbon intensity of transportation fuels and helps to establish use of
alternative fuels.

Consistent. The standards would
apply to all vehicles used by
construction workers and maintenance
workers associated with the Project.

The Project would be consistent with
this regulation and would not conflict
with implementation of the
transportation fuel standards.

Advanced Clean
Cars Program
In 2012, CARB adopted the Advanced
Clean Cars (ACC) program to reduce
criteria pollutants and GHG emissions for
model year vehicles 2015 through 2025.

ACC includes the Low-Emission Vehicle
(LEV) regulations that reduce criteria
pollutants and GHG emissions from lightand medium-duty vehicles, and the ZeroEmission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an
increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning
battery electric and fuel cell electric
vehicles), with provisions to also produce
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in
the 2018 through 2025 model years.

Consistent. The standards would
apply to all vehicles used by
construction workers and maintenance
workers associated with the Project.

Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with this regulation and
would not conflict with implementation
of the ACC program.

SOURCE: CARB, 2017; ESA, 2020.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies and policies included in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable plan, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and the impact would be less than significant.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-50 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change—Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2020.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, December 2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11, 2009; re-approved by CARB August 24, 2011. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2020.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

November 2017. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

Accessed June 22, 2020.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-51 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the Project site, the Project site was utilized as a wastewater treatment plant from the 1930s until 1958 (Dannatt 1999). The Project site had a trap shooting facility and a police shooting facility from 1968 to 1978, and a large onsite pit that was mined for gravel from 1981 until 1986. In addition, the Project site was periodically used as an unauthorized dumping site for household debris. No additional uses of the Project site have occurred since the 1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that would have introduced additional or different sources of hazards or hazardous materials.

While there was no record of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Project site, the historic onsite dumping may have resulted in contamination of soil. Other prior uses of the Project site could have also resulted in contamination that may include metals, petroleum, pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Additionally, the prior use of the site as a trap shooting facility could have resulted in deposition of lead materials. As recommended in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, soil testing is necessary to determine if contamination is present at the Project site.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-52 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Phase I assessment also discussed the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, which is located approximately 0.35 mile west of the Project site and is listed on State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker database as a hazardous materials cleanup site. The Coca-Cola site had releases from two former USTs that were removed in January of 1991. Groundwater monitoring indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and the case was closed in 1993 (Dannatt, 1999; SWRCB, 2020).

To further investigate the Project site for the potential presence of contamination from previous uses, soil samples were collected on March 23 and May 26 of 2022 and analyzed for chemicals that may be associated with the previous land uses at concentrations above regulatory action levels (ESA, 2022). The March 2022 sampling event tested for a wide range of potential contaminants including VOCs, SVOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH; gasoline, diesel, and motor oil), organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and CAM 17 metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, total mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc). The metals results were compared to background levels from published studies to identify those chemicals that are present at naturally occurring background levels. All results above background levels were 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 above background levels were 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.

The March 2022 sampling results identified lead, and the pesticides chlordane and DDT as chemicals of concern at one location (Sample S-2; see ESA 2022 for map) in the northern portion of the Project site. None of the other sample locations had any chemicals above regulatory action levels. To further evaluate the extent of soil with chemical concentrations that would exceed regulatory action levels, additional soil samples were collected around the Sample S-2 location in May 2022 and analyzed for the chemicals of concern identified during the March 2022 sampling event (i.e., lead and pesticides).

The combined results of both sampling events for the chemicals of concern are tabulated in the soil sampling technical report prepared for the Project (ESA, 2022). The results of the soil sampling indicated that the concentrations of chlordane, DDT, and lead in a limited shallow hot spot in the northern portion of the Project site (i.e., the location of Sample S-2 to one foot in depth) is the only location and depth with soil that has chemical concentrations that exceeded the terrestrial ESL, and both the surface and foundation beneficial reuse screening criteria for wetland areas. This indicates that the shallow soil at Sample S-2 is not suitable for reuse in the proposed wetland environment. No other areas have chemicals at concentrations that would prevent beneficial reuse.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-53 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Safety Element of the City of Ukiah 2040 General Plan addresses a wide variety of approaches pertaining to hazard management and mitigation (City of Ukiah, 2022). Other regional hazards and hazardous materials guidance documents include, but are not limited to, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Operational Area Emergency Plan, and the Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which was adopted by the County in December 2020 (Mendocino County, 2020). The MJHMP discusses prevalent hazards within the County; identifies risks to vulnerable assets, people, and property; and provides a strategy to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. The four cities within Mendocino County, including the City of Ukiah, contributed to the MJHMP to individually assess hazards, explore hazard vulnerability, develop mitigation strategies, and create their own plan for each respective city. The Jurisdictional Annex to the MJHMP, was adopted by the City of Ukiah in 2020. Hazards identified for the City of Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood, and pandemic (Mendocino County, 2020).

The City of Ukiah Emergency Operation Plan (May 2021) is designed to ensure continuity of operations and essential services, such as police, fire, utilities, and other day-to-day operations during and after an emergency or disaster. This plan was developed in consultation with the Ukiah Disaster Council it complies with all local ordinances, state law, and aligns with contemporary emergency planning guidance. This plan serves as the primary guide for reducing emergency and disaster risk within the City of Ukiah and establishes roles and procedures for deployment of the City’s Emergency Operations Center. A current map of evacuation zones and routes is also maintained on the City of Ukiah’s Office of Emergency Management webpage.

Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) prepared the Mendocino Evacuation Plan (July, 2020) as an annex to the EOP and identifies evacuation routes within the County. This Plan describes existing conditions, access concerns, and strategies for managing evacuations which exceed the day-to-day capabilities of the various public safety agencies in Mendocino County.

The City of Ukiah is identified as being located within “Planning Area 2” and “Zone 2f” of the Evacuation Plan. As noted in the plan, Highways 101 and 20 are identified as primary evacuation routes for the Ukiah area. The selection of specific (additional) evacuation routes (in effect during an emergency) will be done in the field at the Incident Command Post, according to the plan (MCOG, 2020).

The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the Ukiah planning area City of Ukiah jurisdictional limits. The Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) was adopted by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. The UKIALUCP identifies areas (known as “compatibility zones”) with potential hazards and impacts to persons using or working within the vicinity of the airport.
a), b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction of the Project would involve the routine use of small quantities of hazardous materials commonly used during construction activities such as fuels, lubricants, and oil for construction equipment.

Storage and use of hazardous materials at the construction site during routine use could result in the release of small quantities of hazardous materials, which could degrade soil and/or surface water within the Project area. This impact would be potentially significant.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-54 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 As discussed under Section 2.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Project construction would require compliance with the state Construction General Permit implementation of BMPs to minimize the risk of a hazardous materials release during construction activities.

The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations. These requirements would ensure that hazardous materials used for construction would be stored in appropriate containers, with secondary containment to prevent a potential release. Additionally, Project-related spills of hazardous materials would be required to be reported to appropriate regulatory entities, including but not limited to the City of Ukiah; Mendocino County Environmental Health Department; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Hazardous materials spills would be cleaned up immediately, and contaminated soils would be excavated and transported to approved disposal facilities, consistent with state and local requirements.

Once operational, the Project would not use hazardous materials in the Project area.

Therefore, impacts associated with the routine use of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Project construction activities would involve excavating, trenching, and grading, as well as the use of hazardous materials such as fuel, oils, and lubricants. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, shallow soil at one location (Sample S-2) in the northern portion of the Project site is known to have lead, chlordane, and DDT at concentrations above regulatory action levels. Although none of the other locations had chemical concentrations above regulatory action levels, soil with chemicals at concentrations above regulatory action levels may be present at unsuspected locations. Hazardous materials encountered in excavated soil or groundwater generated from dewatering activities during Project construction could result in a release to the environment, which could potentially expose construction workers, other City personnel, and/or the public to hazardous materials. The impact related to exposure to hazardous materials in soil and groundwater during construction of the Project and a reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials in the environment would be potentially significant. To address both the management of the known contaminated soil and the potential for newly discovered locations, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented. These measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Health and Safety Plan and a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan to ensure appropriate management of soil and groundwater encountered during construction.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Project site is not within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

The closest school is Oak Manor Elementary School, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of a school, and there would be no impact.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-55 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 d) No Impact. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (referred to as the Cortese List) and would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. There would be no impact. e) Less than Significant Impact. Ukiah Municipal Airport is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the Project site. Most of the Project site is located outside of the six compatibility zones identified in the UKIALUCP, within the “Other Airport Environs” (OAE) area which is identified as an area having an overall low risk from airport operations. Occasional overflights may be intrusive to some outdoor activities, but the OAE zone does not contain any regulations regarding intensity of use or other standards specific to airport safety concerns that would be applicable to the Project. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, most land-use categories, including recreation facilities, parks and open land areas are considered normally compatible in the OAE compatibility zone. A small portion of the site (southeast corner) of the site is located within Compatibility Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern) which includes areas within the standard traffic pattern and pattern entry routes where aircraft altitude typically 1,000 to 1,500 feet above runway. Noise and risk exposure for uses within Zone 6 is identified as low and outdoor group recreation facilities and open space areas are identified as normally acceptable within this zone. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The impact would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The primary routes for evacuation from the City of Ukiah are identified as Highways 101 and 20, as these routes are well maintained and have adequate carrying capacity for evacuation purposes (MCOG, 2020). Although there are no specific evacuation routes discussed in either the Mendocino County Emergency Operations Plan, Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, nor the City of Ukiah’s jurisdictional annex to the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Mendocino County, 2016; 2020), Highway 101 is identified as a primary route in the (recently completed) Mendocino County Evacuation Plan (MCOG, 2020). The Project site is off of East Gobbi Street, this portion of which is not considered a major roadway in the City of Ukiah.

However, East Gobbi Street directly connects to Gobbi Street, an arterial route linking to central Ukiah and Highway 101, an identified emergency evacuation route. As discussed in Section 2.2.17, Transportation, in the absence of measures to limit impacts, Project construction activity could generate traffic delays and otherwise temporarily interfere with emergency access along East Gobbi Street during construction, which has the potential to generate impacts to emergency evacuation.

To reduce traffic congestion impacts and potential access conflicts including emergency services access, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, Construction Traffic Management Plan, would be needed to ensure that a construction traffic management plan, subject to City review and approval, would be prepared and implemented during construction. Once constructed, the Project would not interfere with or impede any emergency response or evacuation plan. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-56 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 g) Less than Significant Impact. Based on mapping by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2007).

The use of construction equipment and the possible temporary on-site storage of fuels and/or other flammable construction chemicals could pose an increased fire risk resulting in injury to workers or the public during construction. However, contractors would be required to comply with hazardous materials storage and fire protection regulations, (as described in Section 2.2.20, Wildfire) which would minimize potential for fire creation, and ensure that the risk of wildland fires during construction would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Health and Safety Plan.

The City of Ukiah or its contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) in accordance with federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and Cal/OSHA regulations (8 CCR Title 8, Section 5192). Because anticipated contaminants vary depending upon the location of proposed improvements in the Project area and may vary over time, the HASP shall address site-specific worker health and safety issues during construction. The HASP shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, Mendocino County Department of Environmental Health (MCDEH), and/or appropriate CUPA personnel for approval. The HASP shall include the following information.

1. Results of the soil sampling conducted in March and May of 2022.

2. All required measures to protect construction workers and the general public by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction areas and to reduce hazards outside of the construction areas. If prescribed contaminant exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with state and federal regulations.

3. Required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to contaminated materials, in accordance with state and federal worker safety regulations, and designated qualified individual personnel responsible for implementation of the HASP.

4. The contractor shall have a site health and safety supervisor fully trained pursuant to hazardous materials regulations be present during excavation, trenching, or cut and fill operations to monitor for evidence of potential soil contamination, including soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers. The site health and safety supervisor must be capable of evaluating whether hazardous materials encountered constitute an incidental release of a hazardous substance or an emergency spill. The site health and safety supervisor shall implement procedures to be followed in the event of an unanticipated hazardous materials release that may impact health and safety. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations and regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to:
a) immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release;

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-57 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 b) notifying City of Ukiah, MCDEH, RWQCB, and/or DTSC; and c) retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling, remediation, and/or disposal.

5. Documentation that HASP measures have been implemented during construction.

6. Provision that submittal of the HASP, or any review of the contractor’s HASP, shall not be construed as approval of the adequacy of the contractor as a health and safety professional, the contractor’s HASP, or any safety measure taken in or near the construction site. The contractor shall be solely and fully responsible for compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to health and safety during the performance of the construction work.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

The City of Ukiah shall require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan prior to construction that specifies the method for handling and disposal of the contaminated soil identified in the March and May 2022 sampling events, and newly discovered contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during construction, as applicable.

The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall include all necessary procedures to ensure that excavated materials and fluids generated during construction are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner that is protective of human health and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, Mendocino County Environmental Health Department, and/or appropriate CUPA personnel for approval. The Plan shall include the following information.

1. Step-by-step procedures for evaluation, handling, stockpiling, storage, testing, and disposal of excavated material, including criteria for reuse and offsite disposal. All excavated materials shall be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and spoils that are visibly stained and/or have a noticeable odor shall be stockpiled separately to minimize the amount of material that may require special handling. In addition, excavated materials shall be inspected for buried building materials, debris, and evidence of underground storage tanks; if identified, these materials shall be stockpiled separately and characterized in accordance with landfill disposal requirements. If some of the spoils do not meet the reuse criteria and/or debris is identified, these materials shall be disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill facility.

2. Procedures to be implemented if unknown subsurface conditions or contamination are encountered, such as previously unreported tanks, wells, or contaminated soils.

3. Procedures for containment, handling and disposal of groundwater generated from construction dewatering, the method to be used to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials likely to be encountered and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods.

Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan (see Section 2.2.17, Transportation, for text of mitigation).

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-58 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 11, 2007. Map. Scale 1:12,000. Available online at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6715/fhszl06_1_map23.pdf.

City of Ukiah. 2021. City of Ukiah Emergency Operation Plan. Adopted May 13, 2021. Available online at https://cityofukiah.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/City-of-Ukiah-EmergencyOperation-Plan.pdf City of Ukiah 2021. Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) Adopted May 20, 2021. Available online at: http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Ukiah-Municipal-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan-2021.pdf.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

City of Ukiah. 2022. 2040 General Plan. Adopted December 7, 2022. Available online at:
https://ukiah2040.com/.

Dannatt and Associates (Dannatt), 1999. Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Gobbi Street Riverside Park Property, Mendocino County, California. August 31, 1999.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2022. Soil Sampling Report, Ukiah Riverside Park Project, Ukiah, California. June 5.

Mendocino County, 2016. Mendocino County Operational Area, Emergency Operation Plan.

September 2016. Accessible online: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/8211/636329380557000000.

Mendocino County, 2020. Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Adopted December, 2020. Vol 2, Chapter 1, City of Ukiah Jurisdictional Annex, adopted by the City of Ukiah November 18, 2020; submitted to CalOES January 25, 2021. Available online: http://mitigatehazards.com/mendocino-county/final-mjhmp/#.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), 2020. Mendocino County Evacuation Plan, An Annex to the Mendocino Emergency Operations Plan, August 2020. Available online:
https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/c99a8053f/EvacuationPlan.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2019. Environmental Screening Levels.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.html.

Accessed March 22, 2022.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2020. GeoTracker database. Case Summary for Coca-Cola of Ukiah. Accessible online: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/ ?CMD=runreport&myaddress=ukiah.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-59 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in a floodplain terrace of the Russian River in the inner North Coast Range. The Russian River is approximately 150 east of the Project site. The Russian River is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for water temperature and sedimentation/siltation. Due to sediment impairments in tributaries, the entire Russian River watershed is listed as impaired for sediment. Surface water supplies for the Ukiah region include direct surface diversions from the Russian River and the Eel River, from which water is diverted into the Russian River watershed through the Potter Valley Project, and stored at Lake Mendocino.

The Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin (commonly referred to as the Basin Plan) forms the basis for water quality standards in the region, as regulated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Multiple beneficial uses of surface waters of the Upper Russian River Watershed (Ukiah sub area) have been identified including: municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; industrial service supply; industrial process supply; groundwater recharge; freshwater replenishment; navigation; water contact and non-contact

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-60 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 recreation; commercial and sport fishing; warm and cold freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened, or endangered species; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning; shellfish harvesting; and aquaculture (RWQCB, 2015).

Groundwater is drawn from the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin is the northernmost basin in the Russian River basin and underlies an area of approximately 60 square miles. Average rainfall in Ukiah is slightly less than 35 inches. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter. Rainfall is often from brief, intense storms, which move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project would include soil disturbing activities such as grading and site contouring, which have the potential to mobilize sediment, silt, and other contaminants through runoff. As construction of the Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil, compliance with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (commonly referred to as the Construction General Permit) is required. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation.

The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including specific measures to control erosion and limit contamination of ground and surface waters. The City of Ukiah requires preparation of an erosion control plan which would include specific stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and siltation of the Russian River, its tributaries, and neighboring properties (City of Ukiah, 2021).

The Project’s ground disturbance in the absence of measures to protect riparian vegetation may result in erosional flow towards the river, potentially contributing to sediment into the river. As noted in the setting section, the Russian River and its tributaries are listed as impaired for sediment; therefore, erosion and sedimentation could generate potentially significant water quality impacts. To reduce potential effects Mitigation Measure HYD-1, SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control, would be implemented to ensure that regulatory requirements consistent with the terms of the Construction General Permit, SWPPP, general wetland avoidance measures (provided in the Project Description), and stormwater BMPs (as required by the City) would control and limit runoff from the Project site, consistent with water quality standards. To ensure that ground disturbance does not result in conditions of runoff on or off site and that habitats are protected, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (described in Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources) would also be implemented. These measures would limit disturbance of existing wetlands and riparian woodlands and prevent the Project from contributing to the siltation of the Russian River and its tributaries.

As discussed in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are existing hazards in proximity to the site which could contaminate ground or surface water quality during construction ground disturbing activities, such as excavation and movement of soils. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented to reduce potential

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-61 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 impacts. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 requires that a health and safety plan be prepared and followed during construction. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 requires implementation of a soil and groundwater management plan if hazardous materials or contaminated soil and groundwater above regulatory screening levels are identified. These mitigation measures would ensure that appropriate procedures are followed in the event of contact with hazardous materials to prevent release of contaminants into surface and ground waters. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts associated with the Project’s construction would be less than significant with mitigation implemented. (Refer to Section 2.2.9 for the text of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2).

Following construction, the City of Ukiah would be responsible for maintaining the revegetation and managing Riverside Park in a manner that would provide for ongoing protection of water quality. Water quality impacts during operation and maintenance of the Project would be less than significant.
b), e) No Impact. The Project would not utilize groundwater resources during construction or operation, nor would the Project include the extensive placement of impervious surfaces that would interfere with groundwater recharge. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the Project would include excavation and removal of approximately 2,260 CY of existing waste piles of concrete, relic asphalt, and other debris. The removal of this debris would improve conditions for groundwater recharge upon the site. Trails are also proposed as part of the overall landscape design master plan. However, the boardwalk and other pathways would be designed to allow for groundwater recharge to occur within the floodplain and park. Therefore, the Project would not impede sustainable management of the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. There would be no impact under this criterion attributable to the Project.
c.i) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project includes extensive alteration of drainage patterns for the purpose of recontouring the site and restoring wetlands and floodplain habitat areas within Riverside Park. The proposed design for the Project does not include the extensive addition of impervious surface areas. Construction would require implementation of a SWPPP which would include measures to minimize erosion and control runoff on and off-site. Resource avoidance measures, as described in the Project Description, include placement of silt fences to prevent siltation (turbid water generated during construction) from contaminating the Russian River and its tributaries.

Additionally, the contractor selected to construct the Project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan, subject to review and approval by the City of Ukiah. To ensure that appropriate measures to limit runoff are taken prior to and during construction including preparation of a SWPPP and an erosion and sediment control plan, Mitigation Measure HYD-1, SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, would be implemented.

With adherence to stormwater and associated water quality regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 outlining basic requirements of the SWPPP and erosion control plan to be prepared for the Project, erosion and

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-62 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 sedimentation/siltation would be controlled during construction. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant with mitigation.
c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed design for the Project does not include the extensive addition of impervious surface areas. Proposed graveled pathways and boardwalks would not significantly alter the conditions on site and would generally allow for the continuity of groundwater recharge. As proposed, the Project addresses existing drainage issues through removal of concrete rubble and relic debris to allow for the enhancement of seasonal (existing and constructed) wetlands. The Project is designed to improve conditions in the floodway. As the Project will require placement of fill within the regulatory floodway, a Mendocino County Flood Hazard Zone Development Permit will be required to be obtained to construct the project. The Project is designed such that no rise in the floodway would occur, as demonstrated by the FEMA No-Rise Certification prepared for the Project. There would be no detrimental flood-related impact to the site or surrounding neighborhood attributable to the Project. c.iii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed Project is in a public park adjacent to a riparian corridor of the Russian River and neighboring agricultural lands. As discussed in question b), the Project would not add extensive impervious surface area to the site. The Project design would allow for appropriate drainage to facilitate wetland restoration as discussed in the Project’s Hydrology Technical Memorandum (ESA, 2020).

Although extensive grading and recontouring of the site would be implemented, such work would be subject to the City of Ukiah’s design standards and erosion and sediment control requirements. Consistent with these standards, measures will be taken to minimize or otherwise limit runoff during construction, subject to City engineering review and approval. Site soils would be stabilized and revegetated following disturbance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures ensuring development of a SWPPP required for the construction general permit and BMPs as part of the erosion and sediment control plan, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. c.iv) Less than Significant Impact. Because the Project would not add extensive impervious surfaces, flood flows would not be impeded or redirected into the surrounding site.

Through the removal of relic debris from the Project site and restoration of the wetland areas within the Project site, the proposed Project, as implemented, would result in improved conditions for the functionality of this portion of the Russian River floodplain. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is not located in the coastal zone or in a tsunami inundation zone. The Russian River is a linear waterway, not subject to a seiche. Therefore, there is no risk for release of pollutants associated with these hazards for the site and surroundings.

The Project is within the Russian River floodplain subject to periodic inundation. Under existing conditions there is potential for release of contaminants during inundation.

Proposed soil excavation and movement could increase the risk of contamination.

Therefore, measures to reduce this risk would be needed during construction of the Project.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-63 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure compliance with water quality requirements including preparation of a SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-23 (described in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) would be implemented to ensure that potential hazards are identified and safely removed from the site, thereby limiting contamination of surface and groundwaters. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

The City of Ukiah or its designated contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to construction of the Project. The SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan shall stipulate specific measures or best management practices (BMPs) to reduce site runoff and control and limit erosion and siltation associated with project construction. Implementation of BMPs would ensure that the effects on water quality would remain at less-than-significant levels. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Prior to construction all wetland and riparian avoidance areas, storm drains, drainage swales, and creeks located near the construction site shall be marked or flagged as avoidance areas. Pre-construction training shall be provided to make sure construction contractors and subcontractors are aware of their responsibilities regarding stormwater requirements to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains or surface waters.
• Conduct earthwork during the dry season (generally June 1–October 30). • To the extent possible, stage construction equipment and materials in previously disturbed areas.
• Minimize ground and vegetation disturbance during project construction by establishing designated equipment staging areas, ingress and egress corridors, spoils disposal and soil stockpile areas, and equipment exclusion zones prior to the commencement of any grading operations. In order to minimize the mobilization of contaminants.
• Stockpile soil only at the designated staging and stockpile area and install sediment barriers (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, and straw bales) around the base of stockpiles to intercept runoff and sediment during storm events. Cover stockpiles daily with tarps or geotextile fabric to provide further protection against wind and water erosion. • All construction wastes, debris, sediment, rubbish, trash, etc., shall be removed from the project site daily during construction, and thoroughly at completion of the project.

Debris shall be transported to an authorized upland disposal area. Wastes shall be disposed of properly; remove litter from the site daily; materials that cannot be reused or recycled must be taken to an appropriate landfill; dispose of hon hazardous construction wastes in covered dumpsters or recycling receptacles; recycle materials whenever possible.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-64 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 • Fuel, maintain, and clean vehicles at a minimum of 175 feet distance from any riparian habitat or water body and adhere to a spill response plan. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to follow should a spill occur. Training materials for spill prevention and response measures shall be prepared in adherence with state and federal regulations. • Locate portable toilets (if utilized during construction) a minimum of 25 feet away from drain inlets, water courses and traffic circulation; portable toilets shall be secured to prevent overturning; regular service shall be provided. • Water utilized for dust control shall not be allowed to result in conditions of runoff.

Care shall be taken to not overwater causing sediment-laden runoff. Earthwork operations shall cease when wind speeds exceed 20 mph for one hour or more. • Regular spot checks shall occur during construction to ensure that erosion control measures and BMPs are functional and regularly maintained.

Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1and HAZ-2 (see Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for text of mitigation). Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (see Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources, for text of mitigation).

References
City of Ukiah, 2021. Municipal Code Division 9, Planning and Development, Chapter 7, Erosion and Sediment Control. Available online: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah/#!/ Ukiah09/Ukiah0907.html#7. Accessed October 26, 22021.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2020. Draft Hydrologic Analysis for the Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project Memorandum. November 2, 2020.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2018. The Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin, June 2018 Edition. Chapter 2, Beneficial Uses. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/180710/BP Chapter2BeneficialUses.pdf.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-65 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.11 Land Use and Planning
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The City of Ukiah includes contiguous lands at the city center, as well as lands owned and managed by the city (such as Riverside Park) for a total of approximately 4.72 square miles of incorporated area. Ukiah serves as the County Seat of Mendocino County, as well as the county’s main commercial hub. Zoning and land uses are governed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in Division 9, Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code. Predominant land uses in the City include single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses ranging from local commercial to service commercial, as well as manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, and public facilities. The City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted by City Council on December 7, 2022, and contains the following goals and policies that are applicable to the Project (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element Goal PFS-12: To provide parks, recreational facilities, and trails for residents and visitors.

Policy PFS-12.1: Connected Park System. The City shall provide an interconnected park system that creates an urban greenbelt and links all trail systems within the City.

Policy PFS-12.2: Expansion of Recreational Amenities and Programs. The City shall expand amenities and recreational programs in parks and recreational facilities that accommodate a variety of ages and address the needs of families.

Policy PFS-12.3: Equitable Access to Parks and Recreation Facilities. The City shall establish new parks and recreation facilities to ensure all residents have access within a one-mile radius of their place of residence regardless of socio-economic status.

Environment and Sustainability Element
Goal ENV-5: To ensure the health and viability of the Russian River and its tributaries.

Policy ENV-5.1: Local Collaboratives. The City shall participate in local collaborative efforts to restore and preserve the health of the Russian River as a habitat for riparian species.

Policy ENV-5.3: Russian River Riparian Area. The City shall support the County in maintaining the Russian River as a natural riparian corridor.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-66 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Goal ENV-6: To preserve and restore creeks, streams, riparian areas, and wetlands.

Policy ENV-6.2: Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention. The City shall require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams. (Source: New Policy) Policy ENV-6.3: Waterway Restoration. The City shall encourage and provide resources to landowners in the city to remove invasive species, plant native plant species, and prevent pollution from entering local creeks and waterways. (Source: New Policy) Policy ENV-6.4: Waterway Channelization. The City shall actively support the use of natural waterways within the city by avoiding any new waterway channelization within the city and collaborating with local and regional agencies to restore channelized waterways where feasible. (Source: New Policy)
Policy ENV-6.5: Creek Protection. The City shall require new development located adjacent to stream corridors to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, erosion and sedimentation prevention, and natural creek channel and riparian vegetation preservation. (Source: Existing Programs OC-7.5(a), OC-9.2d, OC-9.2e, modified) Policy ENV-6.6: Erosion Control Plans. The City shall require new development that requires significant grading near creeks, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to prepare erosion control plans that address grading practices that prevent soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and drainageway scour, consistent with biological and aesthetic values. (Source:

New Policy).

Policy ENV-6.8: Research and Educational Access. The City shall work with public and private landowners adjacent to creeks to allow public access to creeks, streams, waterways, and riparian areas for educational and research programs Land Use Element
Policy LU-11.8: Tree Preservation. The City shall encourage the preservation of trees on public and private property. Priority should be given to the preservation of trees considered significant due to their size, history, unusual species or unique quality.

Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project would consist of restoration and enhancement of trails within a public park, with no change of use or other alteration that would physically divide an established community; therefore, there would be no impact under this criterion. b) No Impact. The General Plan land use classification for Riverside Park is Public (P) and, is zoned as Public Facilities (PF). The P designation applies to lands which is intended to be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasipublic purposes. Similarly, the PF zoning district is intended to be applied to properties which are used for or are proposed to be used for public or quasi-public purposes or for specified public utility purposes. Parks and recreation facilities, as well as conservation and natural resource conservation areas are listed as allowed uses with the PF zoning district. Additionally, the Project supports the Public Facilities, Services and

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-67 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Infrastructure; Environment and Sustainability; and Land Use elements of the City’s 2040 General Plan, which encourage the preservation of sensitive natural resources, restoration and preservation of flood plains and areas along the Russian River, as well as maintenance of existing recreational facilities and development of new facilities.

The Project would conform to existing zoning and land use classifications; no new land uses are proposed as part of the Project (City of Ukiah, 2022). Given the Project would comply with all regulatory requirements, does not propose new land uses to the site or surrounding area, and does not conflict with the City’s land uses or General Plan goals or policies, there would be no impact with respect to land use and planning.

References
City of Ukiah, 2022. City of Ukiah 2040 General Plan, Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure; Environment and Sustainability; and Land Use elements. Available at https://ukiah2040.com/ Accessed December 28, 2022.

City of Ukiah, Zoning Map. n.d. Available at http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/Zoning-2017-17x24-Final.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2020.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-68 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.12 Mineral Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires Geologists of the State to classify lands into Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The mineral resource land classification supports the protection and wise development of California’s mineral resources (California Department of Conservation, 2019).

Aggregate resource minerals, primarily sand and gravel, found along many rivers and streams in Mendocino County is considered the most prominent mineral resource found in the county. The Ford Gravel Bars are along the Russian River near Ukiah. Historically, aggregate mining occurred at the Project site within and near Riverside Park.

Discussion
a, b) No Impact. According to the California Geological Survey, the land within the Project Site is not assigned as an MRZ indicating a low potential for the presence of valuable mineral resources based on the site geography (California Department of Conservation, 2020.) The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data System also indicates no mineral resources in the lands of the Project site (USGS, 2020). The City’s 2040 General Plan does not indicate the presence of mineral resources, nor an important mineral resource recovery site within the Project site (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Therefore, the Project would not result in loss of mineral resources or a mineral resource recovery site. Under these criteria, there would be no impact.

References
California Department of Conservation, 2020. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Lands Classification. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ index.html?map=mlc. Accessed May 31, 2020.

California Department of Conservation, 2019. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-land-classification-smara. Accessed June 1, 2020.

City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://ukiah2040.com/. Accessed December 28, 2022.United State Geological Survey (USGS), 2020. Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS), MRDS records graded, Mapping Tool. Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/map-graded.html. Accessed May 29, 2020.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-69 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.13 Noise
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters including the rate of oscillation (frequency) of sound waves, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB roughly corresponding to the threshold for human hearing, and 120-140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad band of audible frequencies in varying levels of magnitude. Given that the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes low and extremely high frequencies, referred to as A-weighting, and is expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA).

Noise Exposure and Community Noise
Noise levels in a community environment rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. In fact, community noise varies continuously with time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. Background noise levels change throughout a typical day, but do so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources and atmospheric conditions. The addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., helicopter and other aircraft flyovers, horns, sirens) makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day.

These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. Noise descriptors discussed in this analysis are summarized below:

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-70 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period).

Ldn: The day-night noise level (Ldn) or the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period and which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises.

Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level measured during the measurement period of interest.

The City of Ukiah Municipal Code does not specify quantitative noise standards for construction activities. However, Chapter 3, Section 6054 of the Municipal Code restricts construction activities within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The nearest residential receptor is located across the street from the entrance to Riverside Park, but is located beyond 500 feet from the outer edge of the Project site; therefore, the Project site is not within 500 feet of a residential zone and this restriction does not apply. Other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site include residences approximately 0.3 miles to the west, as well as the Oak Manor Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Project site.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate noise primarily during construction as discussed below. Once operational, the Project would not include any stationary noise sources. Maintenance would consist of regular checks on the erosion control devices and irrigation systems, mowing upland areas, tree trimming, trash removal, weed control, plant viability monitoring, and overall site good housekeeping measures. A small all-terrain vehicle may be used to maintain or patrol the park, which would generate minimal noise. Therefore, the operational noise impact would be less than significant.

As detailed in Section 1.6.4 of the Project Description, construction would take place over a period of up to nine months and would include six (overlapping) phases:
• Phase 1 - Mobilization, site clearing, and grubbing (7 days); • Phase 2 - Debris removal (21 days);
• Phase 3 - Fine grading and soil compaction (21 days); • Phase 4 - Construction of pedestrian paths and wooden observation platforms (30 days);
• Phase 5 - Planting of vegetation and installation of irrigation (30 days); and • Phase 6 - Site clean-up (21 days).

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-71 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Construction would involve use of equipment that would generate noise at and adjacent to construction areas. Noise impacts from construction would depend on the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Construction noise impacts are most severe if construction activities take place during noise-sensitive hours (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), in areas immediately adjoining noisesensitive land uses, and/or when construction duration lasts over extended periods of time. Project construction will require heavy equipment including a bulldozer, dump truck, and water truck, as well as two excavators and two mini excavators to accomplish the restoration.

Table NOI-1 shows typical noise levels produced by the types of construction equipment that are expected to be used for Project construction.

TABLE NOI-1

TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Type of Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA Acoustical Usage factor (%) Backhoe 78 40
Dozer 82 40
Dump Truck 76 40
Excavator 81 40
Front End Loader 79 40
Grader 85 40
Pickup Truck 75 40
Roller 80 20
SOURCE: FHWA, 2017.

The operation of each piece of off-road equipment at the Project site would not be constant throughout the day, as equipment would be turned off when not in use. This is accounted for in the acoustical usage factor for each equipment, also shown in Table NOI-1. Over a typical work day, equipment would operate at different locations on the Project site and would not always be operating concurrently.

Although no construction noise standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code are applicable to the Project, the Project’s construction activities would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3 p.m. Consistent with Ukiah Municipal Code restrictions on construction within a residential zone, construction would be restricted to the less noisesensitive daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No work on weekends and holidays is proposed.

To estimate the daytime construction noise levels that the closest sensitive receptors would be exposed to, consistent with the methodology recommended by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual (2018), the two noisiest pieces of equipment used for Project construction are assumed to be operating simultaneously at

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-72 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 the center of the Project site, which is located approximately 800 feet from the Project site boundary and therefore approximately 1,300 feet from the nearest residential receptor. Taking into account the acoustical usage factors, simultaneous operation of a grader and a dozer at the same location at the center of the Project site would generate a combined daytime noise level of 54.4 dBA Leq at this receptor. There are no quantitative standards for construction noise specified by either the Ukiah General Plan or the municipal code. The FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has identified a daytime 1-hour Leq level of 90 dBA as a noise level where adverse community reaction could occur at residential land uses (FTA, 2018). Construction noise generated by the Project would be well below this level. Therefore, noise impacts from the operation of construction equipment at the Project site would be less than significant.

In addition to construction equipment, noise would also be generated from construction vehicles transporting workers and materials to and from the Project site. Construction workers would generate approximately 24 trips per day (from 12 workers on average). In addition, it is estimated that off-hauling existing site debris and cleared vegetation from the site would require up to 233 truck trips (466 one-way trips) over 21 days of Phase 2 and delivery of clay soil, decomposed granite and building materials to the site would require approximately 90 (one-way) truck trips over a period of 51 days during Phases 3 and 4. The Project would also require off haul of approximately 228 CY of contaminated soil materials, which would involve 34 (one-way) truck trips, as described in the Project Description. Construction traffic trips to and from the Project site would occur during the less noise-sensitive, daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays. On an average, this equates to approximately 3 trips per hour during Phase 2 and 2 trips per day during Phases 2 and 3. As the nearest residential receptor would be located along the truck route to and from the Project site, the increase in construction truck traffic would add to the ambient noise level at the receptor over the period of construction. However, the addition of noise from 3 truck pass-bys over an hour during Phase 2 would not increase the hourly Leq at the receptor to beyond the FTA’s 90 dBA standard. Increase in truck-related noise at the receptor during Phases 3 and 4 would be even lower. Therefore, the impact of Project construction traffic on roadside noise levels would also be less than significant.

Operation
Following construction, the Project will be maintained by existing operations and maintenance staff, with support from volunteers, organizations, and/or designated contractors. Maintenance activities would include regular checks on the erosion control devices, irrigation systems, mowing upland areas, tree trimming, trash removal, weed control, and implementation of other good housekeeping measures at the site. These activities would generate additional vehicular trips to the site as well as result in the operation of equipment to accomplish these tasks, both of which would generate noise.

However, due to the distance of more than 500 feet separating sensitive receptors from these activities at the Project site, noise generated would attenuate to well below ambient noise levels at the sensitive receptors. The operational noise impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-73 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. This impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the type of soil, equipment, and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment can cause ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings on the soil near the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results, ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. While ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, fragile buildings must receive special consideration.

There are no structures in the vicinity of the Project site that are of historical significance (see Section 2.2.5, Cultural Resources). Therefore, to assess impacts, the analysis below uses the construction vibration criteria for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage and vibration levels that could generate human annoyance.

Construction activities may generate perceptible vibration while impact equipment or heavy earth moving equipment are in use. Equipment expected to be used for Project construction, as shown in Table NOI-1, do not include any high vibration generating equipment such as pile drivers, drill rigs or vibratory compactors. The FTA and Caltrans have adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential impacts related to receiving land uses sensitive to vibration. The FTA identifies 0.2 in/sec PPV as the level at which potential damage could result to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

Caltrans identifies 0.24 in/sec PPV as the level at which vibration is distinctly perceivable to humans.

Based on ground-borne vibration levels for standard types of construction equipment provided by the FTA, of the equipment proposed to be used for Project construction, the use of a vibratory roller/compactor would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels. Vibratory rollers typically generate vibration levels of 0.210 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (FTA, 2018). However, there are no structures within this distance of proposed construction activities. Residential receptors closest to proposed construction activities are located over 500 feet away. At this distance, noise generated by construction equipment would not be perceptible when compared to the building damage and human annoyance vibration thresholds of 0.2 in/sec and 0.24 in/sec, respectively.

Therefore, operation of the highest vibration generating construction equipment would result in less-than-significant impacts at nearby residences. Vibration impacts from other equipment are expected to be lower. Further, the operation and location of each piece of construction equipment at the Project site would not be constant throughout the day; equipment would be operating at different locations within the Project site and would not always be operating concurrently. Consequently, vibration levels during the majority of

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-74 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 the construction period at the nearest off-site residences would be much lower. Therefore, vibration impacts from Project construction would be less than significant.

Once operational, the Project would not include any new sources of vibration. Therefore, the Project would have no operational impacts with regard to ground-borne vibration. c) No Impact. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest public airport is the Ukiah Municipal Airport located approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest of the project site. The Project site is outside of the delineated noise contours, as described in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (City of Ukiah, 2021). Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft activity. Therefore, there would be no impact.

References
City of Ukiah 2021. Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) Adopted May 20, 2021. Available online: http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Ukiah-Municipal-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan-2021.pdf.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2017. Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors, last updated August 24, 2017. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/ environmental-programs/noise-and-vibration.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-75 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.14 Population and Housing
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, in 2021 the population was 86,669 in the County of Mendocino and 15,526 in the City of Ukiah (CDOF, 2021). Overall, the City of Ukiah’s population has increased moderately in the past 30 years, with an accelerated increase in the last 5 years. The City’s annual growth rate between 1990 and 2018 averaged approximately

0.3 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the City added 545 residents, or 3.7 percent to its population.

Discussion
a) No Impact. In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in substantial population increases and/or new development that would not otherwise occur in the absence of that project. The Project does not include inhabitable structures, such as housing or businesses. Nor would the Project result in permanent employment opportunities that could indirectly induce population growth.

The Project’s construction and restoration would be likely to require a small, temporary workforce, which is expected to be drawn from the local labor pool or from neighboring counties. Although the Project may enhance the public enjoyment or use of the park the Project would not expand the existing park, nor lead to substantial increased population.

There would be no impact associated with population growth. b) No Impact. The Project would not displace any existing housing or remove residents.

Therefore, no replacement housing would be required to be constructed elsewhere and no impact would occur under this criterion.

References
California Department of Finance 2021. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2020 and 2021, Sacramento, California May 2021. Available online:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed January 27, 2022.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-76 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.15 Public Services
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Ukiah Police Department provides law enforcement and public safety/police services for the entire City limits including Riverside Park. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department provides police services for areas outside of the City limits. Fire protection services in the Ukiah Valley are provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority in collaboration with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Educational facilities in the Ukiah Valley area are provided by the Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD, 2020), County Office of Education, and the Mendocino-Lake Community College District. There are also several private and charter schools serving residents within the City of Ukiah, as well as the unincorporated portions of Mendocino County. There are 13 City parks (including Riverside Park), a municipal golf course, and a skate park managed by the City of Ukiah, in addition to other recreational facilities in the City.

Impact Discussion
a.i) No Impact. The City of Ukiah Fire Department and Ukiah Valley Fire District are two departments that work as one, referred to as Ukiah Valley Fire Authority, maintaining comprehensive coverage for the City and the surrounding Ukiah Valley (City of Ukiah, 2020). The Ukiah Valley Fire Authority Station 643 and the Ukiah Valley Fire District Station are both located within 3.5 miles of the Project site. The Project would not result in an increase in population or the construction of facilities that would increase demand for fire protection services or impact service ratios, such that new fire protection facilities would be required to be constructed. The Project’s construction and operation would not result in a substantial increase in demand for fire protection services that could not be met by existing local service systems. Therefore, no impact would occur under this criterion.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-77 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 a.ii) No Impact. The City of Ukiah’s Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Ukiah. The department’s communications center handles all 9-1-1 calls and non-emergency calls for both the City of Ukiah and City of Fort Bragg police departments. Ukiah’s Police Department is located at 300 Seminary Avenue, approximately 2 miles west of the Project site. Construction and maintenance of the Project would not result in an increase in demand for police protection or impact service ratios that could not be met by existing local public service providers. Therefore, no impact would occur under this criterion.
a.iii) No Impact. The Ukiah Unified School District serves the City of Ukiah. There are 14 schools servicing grades preschool through High School within the District. As described in Section 2.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not result in an increase in housing or population. Therefore, the Project would not generate an increase in demand for local school facilities. No impact would occur under this criterion. a.iv) Less Than Significant. As described in Section 2.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project is not expected to result in a temporary or permanent increase of local population.

Thus, existing parks or other public facilities would not be impacted and a need for additional parks or public facilities would not be necessary. Although improvements of Riverside Park may attract a slight increase in park visitors following construction, that potential increase would be considered a less than significant impact. a.v) No Impact. The Project would not include any residential development or otherwise increase the local population such that the provision of additional public facilities would be needed. Therefore, there would be no impact pertaining to the construction of such facilities associated with the proposed Project.

References
City of Ukiah Police, About Ukiah PD. Available at https://www.ukiahpolice.com/about/aboutukiah-pd/. Accessed May 12, 2020.

City of Ukiah, 2020. Consolidated Fire Services. Available at http://www.cityofukiah.com/ projects/consolidated-fire-services/. Accessed May 12, 2020.

Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD), 2020. Schools. Available at https://www.uusd.net/apps/ pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=675525&type=d&pREC_ID=1067736. Accessed May 12, 2020.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-78 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.16 Recreation
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City maintains a wide variety of park and building facilities to meet the needs of the community. Most parks are open daily to the public between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Many facilities may also be reserved for a low rental fee. Rental operations include picnic and barbecue facilities, conference and meeting rooms, banquets and wedding facilities, a board room and auditorium, sports stadium and complex, swimming pool, amphitheaters, covered gazebo, and a pavilion. In addition to the 14 parks and facilities, the City has completed four miles of the Great Redwood Trail, established by SB 1029 (McGuire), which is expected to be a 320-mile, multi-use rail-to-trail project from the San Francisco Bay Area to Humboldt County.

The Project would be located in Riverside Park along the Russian River, which provides various recreational opportunities such as swimming, fishing, inner tubing, and picnicking. There are four public access points to the Russian River near the City of Ukiah, from north to south access points include: the Ukiah Softball Complex, the Vichy Springs/Perkins Road crossing, the end of East Gobbi Street at Riverside Park, and the Talmage Road crossing. The access point located at the end of East Gobbi Street in Riverside Park is the closest river access point to the Project site located adjacent to and north of Riverside Park. Excluding Riverside Park, the closest recreational facility to the Project site is Oak Manor Park located west of the Project site.

Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. As stated in Section 2.2.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not introduce a new population or induce growth such that substantial deterioration would occur to existing recreational facilities in Ukiah. However, The Project would enhance the recreational experience for residents of the surrounding communities and contribute to the use of an existing recreational facility. The Project would include restoration of Riverside Park, enhancement of park trails, supporting environmental education through native riparian plantings and placement of interpretive signage. Therefore, following construction, the Project would benefit the existing neighborhood and deter potential overuse of other existing and nearby parks. The Project would not result in the acceleration of or substantial deterioration of Riverside Park or other recreational facilities. There would be no adverse impact under this criterion.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-79 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would qualitatively enhance the existing Riverside Park recreational facilities. However, no expansion of Ukiah Riverside Park would occur with implementation of the Project. Construction of the Project would temporarily alter conditions for recreational use of the park. However, following construction, operation of the Project would improve recreational resources (described above) along with site drainage, water quality, groundwater recharge, wetland habitat, riparian and native grassland and would not generate long-term adverse physical effects to the environment. Therefore, the impact associated with construction would be temporary and less than significant.

References
City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan, Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.

Adopted December 7, 2022. Available at: https://ukiah2040.com/

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-80 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.17 Transportation
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION — Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
The Project would be located near the end of East Gobbi Street. East Gobbi Street connects to Gobbi Street, which is an arterial road that functions as an east-to-west corridor connecting the southern portion of the City to the regional transportation network through the north-south interchange at Highway 101, located approximately 0.5 mile to the west of Riverside Park. As defined in the City’s 2040 General Plan, an arterial route is a major street intended to move traffic into and through the community (City of Ukiah, 2022). East Gobbi Street is a two-way single lane route connecting the residential community on the east side of Highway 101 to local schools and Riverside Park providing access to the Russian River.

Regulatory Setting
The City of Ukiah’s 2040 General Plan contains a number of goals, policies, and implementation programs pertaining to the circulation and transportation system. Specifically, the Mobility Element of Ukiah 2040 focuses on enhancing transportation options for Ukiah residents, workers, and visitors and improving mobility through increased connectivity and efficient management of existing infrastructure. The 2040 General Plan increases the emphasis on providing multi-modal street facilities that meet the needs of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit, movers of commercial goods, children, seniors, and persons with disabilities (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Additionally, the following local plans have historically addressed transportation issues within the City of Ukiah: 2017 Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Ukiah Safe Routes to School Plan (2014), Mendocino County Rail Trail Plan (2012), the Ukiah Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan (2009), MCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Active Transportation Plan (ATP) (adopted in 2022) and Section 5, Circulation and Transportation, of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (2011) addresses transportation within the larger Ukiah Valley.

The RTP/ATP provides an overview of both short- and long-term transportation goals, objectives and policies for the region, as well as a list of potential projects intended for implementation. The RTP/ATP considers all modes of transportation including automobile, trucking, bicycle, pedestrian, air, public transit, rail, maritime, and any related facilities needed for an effective

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-81 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 transportation system. The Plan also assesses current and long-range transportation issues, identifies needs and deficiencies, considers funding options and suggests actions to address these items, in an effort to improve the overall transportation system in the region.

The RTP provides an overview of the regional transportation system and describes an action plan for short and long-range improvements in Ukiah. Short-range improvements identified for city streets include signalization at the Gobbi Street and Waugh Lane intersection (approximately 1-mile east of Riverside Park). Long-range improvements for the State highway corridor include construction of various interchange improvements on US-101 in the Ukiah area. The RTP specifies the goal to “provide a safe transportation system and enable rapid and safe evaluation and emergency response” (MCOG, 2021).

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for land use projects exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. In addition, projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

In 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) which is intended to provide advice and recommendations for evaluating VMT, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. As discussed further below, the Technical Advisory offers that screening thresholds may be used to identify when land use projects, such as small scale projects, should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed traffic study.

On behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Fehr & Peers, prepared a Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study (Baseline Study; May, 2020) to provide an overview of SB 743, summarize VMT data available for Mendocino County, discuss alternatives for and recommend VMT measurement methods and thresholds for lead agencies in Mendocino County, and recommend transportation demand management (TDM) strategies for reducing VMT on projects in Mendocino County.

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project would be located entirely within an existing developed park in the City of Ukiah. Other than minor improvements to the trails at Riverside Park, no change to the City’s circulation system, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be required or is proposed to occur with implementation of the

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-82 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Project. Therefore, this analysis focuses on temporary impacts to the circulation system that may occur during the construction phase.

Construction would include a temporary increase in traffic associated with ingress and egress of vehicles and equipment to and from the Project site via East Gobbi Street. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, approximately 233 (round trip) and 34 (one way) truck trips would be required to remove relic debris and removed vegetation from the site. The Project would potentially impact the circulation system during construction as haul trucks, construction equipment, and construction workers would be entering and leaving the park to access the Project site and for soil off haul purposes. Due to the location of Riverside Park near the terminus of East Gobbi Street, there are no alternate routes for traffic or diversion options. No road or lane closures are anticipated to be required to construct the Project. However, construction-related vehicles would travel through a neighborhood in close proximity to an elementary school, and so are likely to be traveling near bicyclists and pedestrians. The Mendocino County of Governments implements the safe routes to school program in this region, which includes (among its other recommendations for active transportation) to ease traffic congestion near schools to improve safety (MCOG 2014).

The City of Ukiah 2040 General Plan Mobility Element (MOB-3.3) states the City “shall use traffic calming methods within residential and mixed-use areas, where necessary, to create a pedestrian-friendly circulation system.” Under existing conditions, the portion of East Gobbi Street leading from Washo Drive to Riverside Park does not have designated bike lanes or sidewalks. Although East Gobbi Street is outside the City limits, this analysis acknowledges that the proposed Project would temporarily conflict with City’s General Plan policies as the truck trips associated with the Project could potentially interfere with safe bicycle and pedestrian use of a portion of Gobbi Street during construction. To address conflicts for safe use of Gobbi Street for bicyclists and pedestrians, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, Construction Traffic Management Plan, would be implemented. The traffic management plan would reduce conflicts during construction. Moreover, conflicts associated with the Project would not persist following the 9-month duration of construction. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, Construction Traffic Management Plan, impacts would be temporary and less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. As noted in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the addition of Class I bicycle paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non-motorized travel is listed as a project that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in VMT. In addition, according to the Baseline Study, analysis of smaller, less complex projects can be simplified by using screening criteria. If a project meets any of the criteria outlined in Section 3.3 of the Baseline Study, it may be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact without further study.

Although no housing is proposed as part of the Project, a temporary increase in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) would occur during the approximately 9-month duration of

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-83 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 construction. It is assumed that construction workers drawn from the regional labor pool would travel to the site via car or truck on a daily basis over the approximately 130 days of construction. Assuming each worker at the peak of construction traveled a distance of 25 miles (each way) to the site, the combined worker VMT for these workers would be approximately 600.4 Additionally, the Project would involve VMT associated with the off-hauling of debris from the site during construction. It is anticipated that inert debris could be transferred to a facility such as Ukiah Solid Waste Systems, located in Ukiah approximately 2.5 miles from the Project site. Based on these assumptions, the Project would likely meet the screening criteria for small projects that generate less than 640 VMT per day, as identified by the screening criteria in Section 3.3 of the Baseline Study (F&P 2020). Moreover, the Project would be generally consistent with the local general plan and regional transportation plan objectives. Therefore, this Initial Study considers the temporary increase in VMT resulting from this construction to be less than significant.

Following construction, the Project would be maintained and operated in a manner similar to existing conditions. Site maintenance would consist of regular checks in the installed irrigation systems, landscape maintenance, trash removal and similar activities.

No increase in staff would be required to maintain the park following construction. The Project is not expected to result in any appreciable increase in visitor use. Therefore, VMT would not be anticipated to increase during the operation and maintenance phase.

For this reason, operational VMT impacts would also be considered less than significant. c, d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, Project construction would include approximately 233 (round-trip) truck trips to facilitate off hauling of debris and removed vegetation that would temporarily impact traffic along East Gobbi Street during this phase of construction. Additionally, 34 (one-way) truck trips are anticipated to offhaul contaminated soil to an approved facility. Moreover, given that short-range improvements are identified in the MCOG Regional Transportation Plan, there is the potential for Project-related construction traffic to coincide with these shortrange improvements, which could temporarily generate conflicts during construction. In the absence of measures to limit impacts, Project construction activity could generate traffic delays and otherwise temporarily interfere with emergency access along East Gobbi Street during construction.

To reduce traffic congestion impacts and potential access conflicts, a construction traffic management plan would be prepared, subject to City review and approval. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, Construction Traffic Management Plan, would be implemented to provide for safe management of ingress and egress during construction. The Traffic Management Plan elements would reduce the potentially significant effects of short-term and intermittent construction-related congestion caused by construction vehicles or equipment on local roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would limit construction ingress and egress to off-peak hours. This mitigation would provide a 4 The assumed VMT is calculated here as 12 (workers) X 50 (miles) =600 VMT per day.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-84 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 plan for transportation security and emergency response, consistent with the goals and objectives of the RTP. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits and the issuance of decommissioning authorizations, the City and/or its construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Ukiah Public Works Department for approval. The Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
• Temporary Traffic Control plan that addresses traffic safety and control through the work zone, including during temporary lane closures (if needed) to accommodate materials delivery, debris off hauling, or any other major project-related traffic; • Identify the anticipated timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials and debris off-haul activities;
• Requirement for designated construction staff to be assigned as flaggers to direct traffic into and/or through temporary traffic control zones, as needed; • Requirement to place temporary signage, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic; • Ensure access for emergency vehicles to and from the Project site; • Access to adjacent properties shall be maintained;
• Specify construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible;
• Requirement to obtain all necessary permits for the work within the road right of way or use of oversized/overweight vehicles that would utilize City or County-maintained roads, which may require California Highway Patrol or a pilot car escort, if applicable. Copies of the approved traffic plan and issued permits shall be submitted to the Ukiah Public Works Department.

References
City of Ukiah, 2022. 2040 General Plan, Mobility Element. Adopted December 7, 2022.

Available at: https://ukiah2040.com/
Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), 2014. Mendocino County Safe Routes to Schools 2014 Plan. Available online: https://www.mendocinocog.org/mendocino-county-saferoutes-to-school-plan. Accessed January 24, 2022.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-85 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 MCOG, 2021. 2022 Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan & Active Transportation Plan. Adopted February 7, 2022. Available online: https://www.mendocinocog.org/ files/653d21e36/2022+RTP-ATP+Feb+2022-Final+Adopted.pdf Ukiah Daily Journal, 2021. Walk and Bike Mendocino updates Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, January. https://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/2021/01/11/walk-and-bikemendocino-updates-ukiah-bicycle-and-pedestrian-master-plan/. Accessed May 11, 2021.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-86 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES —
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources. Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
Tribal cultural resources are: 1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or, 2) a resource determined by the CEQA lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). For a cultural landscape to be considered a tribal cultural resource, it must be geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape (PRC Section 21074[b]). A historical resource, as defined in PRC Section 21084.1, unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or non-unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h), may also be a tribal cultural resource.

As discussed in Section 2.2.5, Cultural Resources, Ukiah is located in the ancestral territory of the Northern Pomo. Tribes known to be present within the Ukiah area include (but are not limited to) the following: Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, Pinoleville Pomo Nation, Potter Valley Rancheria, Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, and the Yokayo Tribe5. Geographic areas most typically culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water.
5 The Yokayo Tribe is not federally recognized.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-87 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Impact Discussion
a.i/ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Through background research at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System and a survey, both of which are described in detail in Section 2.2.5, Cultural Resources, no known archaeological resources that could be considered tribal cultural resources, listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register, or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), pursuant to PRC Section 21074(a)(1), would be impacted by the Project.

The City of Ukiah sent notifications to twelve Native American tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s tribal consultation list for Mendocino County. The tribes were provided with Project information and a location map by email and/or letter.

No tribes responded to the notification. In addition, the City of Ukiah did not identify any resource that could potentially be affected by the Project to be a tribal cultural resource significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c).

If any previously unrecorded archaeological resource are identified during grounddisturbing construction activities and are found to qualify as a tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC Section 21074(a)(1) (determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources), any impacts to the resource resulting from the Project could be potentially significant. Any such potential significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (refer to Section 2.2.5, Cultural Resources, for the text of mitigation). This mitigation measure would ensure that work halt in the vicinity of a find until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment and provide additional recommendations if necessary, including contacting Native American tribes.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-88 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Water
The primary source for water in Ukiah is surface waters of the Russian River, which are diverted from the Eel River and stored in Lake Mendocino. There are five major providers of community water services in the Ukiah Valley. The City’s water service area comprises nearly 100 percent of the population residing within City limits. Millview County Water District provides water to north Ukiah and an unincorporated area bordering the city to the north. Willow County Water District provides water to south Ukiah and an unincorporated area bordering the City to the south.

Calpella County Water District provides water to the community of Calpella (City of Ukiah, 2022). All water suppliers are regulated by the California Department of Health Services. The City of Ukiah adopted the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2021. The UWMP considers multiple growth scenarios and determined there is adequate capacity to serve projected hookups through the 2045 planning horizon.

Electricity
Ukiah has its own Electric Utility Department that provides service to residents in the City. The City’s Electric Utility Department is a municipally owned utility that maintains its own powergenerating capabilities, such as the 3.5 Megawatt Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Plant, which is one of the City’s major sources of electricity (City of Ukiah, 2022).

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-89 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Sewer and Wastewater
The City of Ukiah provides wastewater collection and treatment for approximately two-thirds of the City and operates its own wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). A separate agency, the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) serves the remaining portions of Ukiah. The City’s 2020 UWMP identifies that the WWTP has a dry-weather capacity of 3.01 million gallons per day (mgd) and that in 2020, the WWTP collected a total of 2,671 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is equivalent to 2.4 mgd (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Solid Waste
The Ukiah landfill, outside City limits on Vichy Springs Road, stopped receiving municipal solid waste in 2001 and the City is working on capping the landfill. Ukiah contracts its solid waste, recycling, and composting to the private company C&S Waste Solutions. Solid waste is transported to the Ukiah Valley Transfer Station, located at 3151 Taylor Drive in Ukiah. Solid waste generated in Ukiah (not capable of recycling or reuse) is exported from the transfer station for disposal to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) the maximum permitted capacity for the Ukiah Transfer Station is 400 tons per day, with no reported estimated capacity closing date (CalRecycle 2022b). As of 2020 the facility receives an average of 120 to 130 tons per day (City of Ukiah, 2022).

Impact Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of any new wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, telecommunication facilities, or other utilities. No change to the City’s facilities maintenance is anticipated. Following construction, the park would continue to be maintained by the City, as under existing conditions. There would be no impact.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would require water for dust control, which would be provided from municipal sources onsite and/or trucked to the site. A slight increase in water use would also be expected in order to successfully establish native riparian plantings and site landscaping, proposed as part of the Project.

Other than temporary irrigation, the Project does not include or require the extension of any water infrastructure. Thus, the Project would not induce growth or increase demand during operation and maintenance. Therefore, the Project would not result in water supply impacts. Under this criterion, there would be a less than significant impact primarily associated with construction.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is a public park with existing restroom facilities served by the Sanitation District; the restrooms would not be altered as part of the Project. The use of these facilities by construction workers could temporarily increase the use of existing permanent toilets onsite, but as this use would be minor (up to 12 workers), the Sanitation District would have adequate capacity to serve the minor increase in use. At the discretion of the City, temporary portable toilets may be utilized

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-90 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 during construction (in lieu of use of existing restrooms). Temporary facilities would be provided by the contractor selected to construct the Project and serviced by an approved sanitation facility. Under either scenario, the Project would not result in any need for increased wastewater treatment capacity. The Project would not result in any service change during construction, nor during operation and maintenance. Therefore, there would be criterion less-than-significant impact.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would include removal of relic concrete and asphalt debris and invasive vegetation from the site, which would result in 3,262 CY of solid waste proposed for offhauling. The closest active landfill capable of receiving uncontaminated wastes is the Ukiah Transfer Station (UTS) located at 3151 Taylor Drive in the City of Ukiah, approximately 5 miles south of the Project. Because the Project would remove 3,262 CY (or approximately 4,140 tons) of solid waste6 over a 21-day timeframe, the Project could generate an excess of solid waste for this facility. However, waste in excess of this amount can be exported to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Suisun City, which has a throughput capacity of 4,430 tons per day and an expected closure date of 2048 (CalRecycle, 2021). As described in the Project Description, in addition to the inert solid waste, the Project would also require off haul of approximately 228 CY of contaminated soil materials. This solid waste (not capable of meeting acceptable standards for reuse on site or for deposition into local landfills) would require approximately 34 one-way truck trips anticipated to be delivered to the Clover Flat Landfill in Napa County, which is a facility capable of receiving such wastes. Concrete and asphalt waste debris can be recycled, which would effectively reduce the overall amount of solid waste taken to landfill. Granite Construction, located in Ukiah, accepts concrete without rebar and asphalt for recycling (Mendocino County, 2021). Because there are feasible options for the Project’s solid waste debris recycling and disposal and a management plan would be implemented, the Project would not impair the attainment of either State or local standards or solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to follow all construction and demolition waste diversion requirements from the 2010 California Green Code. No other federal, state, or local regulations would apply to the Project. As a result, the Project would comply with all federal, state, and local management reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

References
C&S Waste Solutions, 2020. Ukiah Transfer Station & Recycling Center. Available online:
https://candswaste.com/locations/california/mendocino-county/ukiah-transfer-stationrecycling-center/#mainlocation.

Cal Recycle, 2020. Ukiah Transfer Station (23-AA-0040). SWIS Facility Detail. Available online: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/23-AA-0040. 6 This conversion assumes a density similar to that of cement or 94 pounds per cubic foot.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-91 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 CalRecycle, 2021. Potrero Hills Landfill (48-AA-0075). SWIS Facility Detail. Available online:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591.

Accessed October 26, 2021.

City of Ukiah, 2022.Ukiah 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Adopted December 7, 2022. Available at: https://ukiah2040.com/.

City of Ukiah, 2020. Official website: Waste Water Treatment Plant Operations. Available online: http://www.cityofukiah.com/waste-water-treatment-plant/. Accessed May 21, 2020.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-92 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

2.2.20 Wildfire
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The Project is located in Riverside Park in the Ukiah Valley along the Russian River. The Project Site is designated as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and is in an area that is “unzoned” according to CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps (CALFIRE, 2007). Surrounding land uses consist of agricultural, rural residential, and limited recreational uses and open space associated with the Russian River. The Project site has been severely degraded over time; therefore, much of the Project site consists of compacted, degraded soils, and piles of concrete debris and asphalt.

Riparian habitat exists adjacent to the Russian River. Fire protection services in the vicinity of the Project Site are provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. The Project Site is located in Battalion 3 of the Mendocino Unit of CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE, 2020). Ukiah has been identified as a community at risk for wildfires (CAL FIRE, 2020). The Project site itself is relatively flat and is located adjacent to the Russian River. The Project does not propose or include any housing or inhabitable or flammable structures. The Project would be located approximately 0.2 miles west of a SRA area zoned as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone and would be located 1.8 miles east of a SRA area zoned as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2007).

Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, although there are no specific evacuation routes discussed in either the Mendocino County Emergency Operations Plan or the Mendocino County MultiHazard Mitigation Plan (Mendocino County, 2016; 2020), Highway 101 is described in the Mendocino County Evacuation Plan as a primary evacuation route. The Project site is on East Gobbi Street, which connects to Gobbi Street linking through central Ukiah to US 101. The CAL FIRE Mendocino Unit Strategic Fire Plan contains goals and policies that relate to identifying and reducing wildland fire hazards in the region, promoting land

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-93 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 use planning processes that reduce wildland fire hazards, and developing the resources necessary to implement fire prevention strategies. The Project would not conflict with the implementation of any of these goals or objectives.

As described in Section 2.2.17, Transportation, as a means to mitigate and limit impacts associated with construction that could otherwise impair or obstruct emergency evacuation, a construction traffic management plan would be prepared. With implementation of measures specified in the construction traffic management plan and described in Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, the Project’s construction would not interfere, impede, or conflict with an emergency response or evacuation plan. With implementation of MM TRAF-1, the impact would be less than significant. Refer to Section 2.2.17, Transportation, for text of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
b) Less than Significant Impact. During Project construction, heavy equipment such as excavators, dozers, and dump trucks would be used. The presence and use of heavy equipment and vehicles would introduce a slight risk of ignition, as a spark from a piece of equipment or a vehicle could ignite surrounding vegetation and result in a fire.

However, due to the existing site conditions, and proximity to water which could be used in an emergency situation, the risk of a construction ignition resulting in a fire would be very low. Furthermore, as described in the Project Description, considering the limited duration of the construction period and the small size of the construction crew and equipment required, the increase in fire risk introduced by construction of the Project would be minimal and temporary. The Project involves a park and floodplain restoration with no inhabitable structures proposed as part of the Project. With respect to fire risk, operation of the site and surroundings would continue as under existing conditions.

Although the Project is located near lands susceptible to the spread of wildland fire, the physical characteristics of the Project site and proximity to water would decrease that risk. Thus, under operations, the Project would have no impact with regard to increased risk for the spread of wildland fire. Overall impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes the removal of existing debris, grading and recontouring, berm construction, installation of a boardwalk, observation platforms, and gravel paths, and soil restoration and landscaping. These components of the Project would not increase fire risk. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure which could exacerbate fire risk or result in ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts, primarily related to construction (as discussed in question b), would be limited in duration and less than significant. d) No Impact. The Project site is relatively level and there are no residences located immediately downslope or downstream of the Project site. The closest residence is located just over 500 feet north of the Project Site. As described under question b), the Project’s construction would result in a minimal increase in wildfire risk. The Project would be designed, constructed, and maintained such that slope instability would not occur. Therefore, there would be no impact.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-94 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1. See Section 2.2.17, Transportation, for text of measure.

References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2007. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas, Ukiah, California. September 17, 2017 Available online: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5862/ukiah.pdf. accessed May 1, 2021 CAL FIRE, 2020. CAL FIRE Mendocino Unit Strategic Fire Plan. May 8, 2020. Available online:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5tnhwo20/2020-meu-fire-plan.pdf Accessed: May 1, 2021.

Mendocino County, 2016. Mendocino County Operational Area, Emergency Operation Plan.

September 2016. Accessible online: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/8211/636329380557000000.

Mendocino County, 2020. Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Adopted December, 2020. Vol 2, Chapter 1, City of Ukiah Jurisdictional Annex, adopted by the City of Ukiah November 18, 2020; submitted to CalOES January 25, 2021. Available online: http://mitigatehazards.com/mendocino-county/final-mjhmp/#.

Accessed January 27, 2022.

Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), 2020. Mendocino County Evacuation Plan, An Annex to the Mendocino Emergency Operations Plan, August 2020. Available online:
https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/c99a8053f/EvacuationPlan.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-95 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Impact Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Once constructed, the proposed Project has the potential to improve the quality of the environment as the project would remove potentially hazardous debris and enhance wetlands within Riverside Park. However, the analysis presented in this Initial Study has identified potentially significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Wildfire, attributable to the Project’s construction. To reduce impacts associated with these resource areas, mitigation measures have been proposed and will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring Plan (see Chapter 3) upon adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project approval. As required by CEQA, these mitigation measures are required to be implemented as directed herein. With implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures, the Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, including fish and wildlife species and their habitat, plant or animal communities, or otherwise eliminate examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of mitigation, the impacts identified in this Initial Study would be reduced to less than significant levels. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. A consideration of past, present, and recently foreseeable future projects in Ukiah indicates that the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact. Given the type, size, and location of the proposed Project relative to other projects proposed in Ukiah, this analysis of potential cumulative impacts is focused on the eastern portion of the City and surrounding unincorporated communities in Southern Mendocino County, proximal to the Russian River.

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-96 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 The City is undertaking municipal development such as current and future housing, municipal infrastructure projects, roadway improvements, and other construction, which has the potential to overlap with construction of the Project.

As described in the various resource sections of this document, the Project would either have no impacts or temporary and less than significant impacts (not requiring mitigation measures) for the following resource categories: Aesthetics, Agriculture, Energy, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Noise, Recreation, and Utilities. The Project would not contribute cumulatively considerable impacts for these resources.

The Project could have potentially significant impacts with respect to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation and Wildfire. However, such impacts would be generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the site and, where necessary, mitigated such that impacts would not substantially combine with other off-site impacts of other projects. Moreover, other projects would also be required to comply with regulatory requirements to reduce effects from these projects. With implementation of mitigation measures and the associated compliance with applicable regulations, the effects from other projects would be reduced and would not be cumulatively considerable when combined with the effects of the Project (also subject to these regulations). Therefore, the impacts would not be cumulatively significant.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potentially significant impacts on human beings (that could occur either directly or indirectly) are identified in this IS/MND. These are primarily associated with construction of the proposed Project generating potentially significant impacts to Air Quality (Section 2.2.3), Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 2.2.9), and Transportation (Section 2.2.17). In each of these sections of the MND mitigation is provided to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this document, along with the necessary compliance with federal, state, and local agency statutes and regulations, potential impacts to human beings would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to ensure that the Project would not have a cumulative effect on the environment when considered together with other projects. The full text of these measures is provided in the respective resource sections of this Initial Study.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Fugitive Dust Reduction Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Best Management Practices
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Worker Education and Awareness Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Biological Monitoring
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Pre-construction Nest Surveys

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-97 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Bat-safe Tree Work
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Riparian and Wetland Avoidance Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2: Measures for Inadvertent Discovery Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Health and Safety Plan
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan

2. Environmental Checklist
Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 2-98 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 This page intentionally left blank

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-1 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 CHAPTER 3
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
This section summarizes the mitigation measures that would be integrated into the Project to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Also provided is a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) organized in a tabular format, keyed to each mitigation measure incorporated into the project. The tables following each measure provide a breakdown of how the mitigation measure would be implemented, who would be responsible, and when it would occur. The tables consist of four column headings which are defined as follows:
• Implementation Procedure: If needed, this column provides additional information on how the mitigation measures would be implemented.
• Monitoring and Reporting Actions: This column contains an outline of the appropriate steps to verify compliance with the mitigation measure. • Oversight Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks.
• Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each monitoring and reporting task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action.

3.1 Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Fugitive Dust Reduction Measures. The Project would implement the precautions and mitigation measures required by Rule 1-430 including (MCAQMD, 2011):
• Reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne, including, but not limited to, the following provisions:
– Covering open bodied trucks when used for transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dust.
– Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters, to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials.
– The screening of all open-outdoor sandblasting and similar operations; – The use of water or chemicals for the control of dust during the demolition of existing buildings or structures.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-2 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 • The following airborne dust control measures shall be required during all construction operations, the grading of roads, or the clearing of land:
– All visibly dry disturbed soil and road surfaces shall be watered to minimize fugitive dust emissions.
– All unpaved areas shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph. – Earth or other material tracked onto neighboring paved roads shall be removed promptly. – Approved chemical soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed earth surfaces in active construction areas and exposed stock piles (i.e. sand, gravel, dirt). – Dust generating activities shall be limited during periods of high winds (over 15 mph). – Access of unauthorized vehicles onto the construction site during non-working hours shall be prevented.
– A daily log shall be kept of fugitive dust control activities.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah shall
include dust control
requirements in
construction specifications.

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction
specifications.

1. City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction.

2. Measures to be
implemented by
construction contractor.

2. Selected contractor to
document that measures
are implemented.

2. City of Ukiah Parks
Department.

2. Implement measures
during construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Best Management Practices. The Project shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Best Management Practices as recommended by the MCAQMD’s Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance and District Interim CEQA Criteria and GHG Pollutant Thresholds (MCAQMD, 2010; MCAQMD, 2013). The District Interim CEQA Criteria and GHG Pollutant Thresholds indicates that the agencies should use the Bay Area CEQA thresholds for projects in Mendocino County. Therefore, the Project shall implement the following Best Management Practices (BAAQMD, 2017):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-3 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxic control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City shall include
BAAQMD basic control
BMP requirements in
construction specifications.

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction
specifications.

1. City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction.

2. Measures to be
implemented by the selected
construction contractor.

2. Selected contractor to
document that measures
are implemented.

2. City of Ukiah Parks
Department.

2. Implement measures
during construction.

3.2 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Worker Education and Awareness. A worker education and awareness program (WEAP) about western pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog shall be provided to all on-site personnel by a qualified biologist before the commencement of materials staging or ground-disturbing activities. Though no significant impacts on foothill yellow-legged frog are anticipated, the WEAP shall include information on this species in the unlikely event they should occur in the work area. The biologist shall explain to construction workers how best to avoid impacts and should include topics on species identification, life history, descriptions, and habitat requirements during various life stages. The crew members shall sign a sign-in sheet documenting that they received the training.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City shall include WEAP
training requirements in
construction specifications
and assign a qualified
biologist to conduct the
training.

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction specifications
and formalize the
assignment.

1. City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction.

2. Measures to be
implemented by the selected
construction contractor.

2. Selected contractor to
document that training is
implemented through crew
sign-in sheets.

2. City of Ukiah Parks
Department.

2. Training to take place
prior to construction.

New personnel shall
also receive WEAP
training prior to working
on site.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-4 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Biological Monitoring. 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 safe, suitable habitat away from the construction zone. Any relocation activities would be reported to CDFW within 7 days.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City assigns a
qualified biologist to
monitor the site during
vegetation removal and
grading.

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction
specifications.

1. City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction.

2. The qualified biologist shall
relocate western pond
turtles and report activities
to CDFW as described in
mitigation.

2. Selected contractor to
document that measures
are implemented.

2. City of Ukiah Parks
Department.

2. Implement measures
during construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Pre-construction Nest Surveys. Nesting birds and their nests shall be protected during construction by use of the following measures:
1) Removal of riparian vegetation and trimming of trees shall occur outside the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 30), to the extent feasible. If removal of riparian vegetation and trimming or removal of trees during bird nesting season cannot be fully avoided, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction nesting surveys within 7 days prior to the start of such activities or after any construction breaks of 14 days or more. Surveys shall be performed for the Project site and suitable habitat within 250 feet of the Project site in order to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 0.5 mile of the Project site to locate any active raptor (bird of prey) nests.
a) If active nests are located during the pre-construction bird nesting surveys, the wildlife biologist shall evaluate whether the schedule of construction activities could affect the active nests and the following measures shall be implemented based on their determination.
b) If construction may affect the active nest, the biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer. Typically, these buffer distances are between 25 feet and 250 feet for passerines and between 300 feet and 500 feet for raptors. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity or if an obstruction, such as a large tree, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. The buffer shall be maintained until young birds are fledged and independent of the nest. 2) For bird species that are sensitive species (i.e., fully protected, endangered, threatened, or species of special concern), a City representative, supported by the wildlife biologist, shall consult with the USFWS and/or CDFW regarding modifying nest buffers, prohibiting construction within the buffer, modifying construction, or other activities impacting nesting birds.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-5 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah or
designated contractor to
assign a qualified biologist
to conduct preconstruction
nest surveys.

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction specifications
to ensure the inclusion of
pre-construction surveys
and nest protection
measures in construction
specifications.

1. City of Ukiah to
formalize assignment.

1. Prior to and during
construction.

2. Bird and nest protection
measures to be
implemented by the selected
construction contractor.

2. Selected contractor to
document that measures
are implemented.

2. City of Ukiah Parks
Department.

2. Implement measures
during construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Bat-safe Tree Work. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status bats in advance of tree trimming to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees to be disturbed, the following measures shall be implemented:
1) Trimming of trees shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15; outside of bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15 to August 15) and outside of months of winter torpor (approximately October 15 to February 28), to the extent feasible.
2) If trimming of trees during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site where these activities are planned, a no-disturbance buffer as determined by a qualified biologist shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer in-use as maternity or hibernation roosts.
a. The qualified biologist shall be present during tree trimming if bat roosting habitat is present. Trees with roosts shall be disturbed only when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur within the next 3 days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F. 3) Trimming of trees containing or suspected to contain roost sites shall be done under supervision of the qualified biologist. Branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost shall be cut only using small tools such as chainsaws or hand saws.

Branches or limbs containing roost sites shall be trimmed the following day, under the supervision of the qualified biologist, also using chainsaws.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City shall include
mitigation in construction
specifications.

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction
specifications.

1. City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction.

2. Measures to be
implemented by the selected
construction contractor.

2. Selected contractor to
document that measures
are implemented.

2. City of Ukiah Parks
Department.

2. Implement measures
during construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Riparian and Wetland Avoidance. Sensitive vegetation communities shall be avoided during construction. High visibility and silt fencing shall be erected at the edge of the construction footprint for all work anticipated to occur within 50 feet of

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-6 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 seasonal wetland and riparian woodland. In addition, tree protection fencing shall be placed around all trees proposed to be preserved onsite within the construction area. The fencing shall be installed 1 foot beyond the driplines of the protected trees and be maintained until construction has been completed. A qualified biological monitor shall 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 the area necessary for construction.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City shall include
mitigation for avoidance of
sensitive vegetation (as
described) into
construction specifications

1. City of Ukiah to review
construction
specifications to ensure
inclusion of mitigation.

1. The City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction

2. Measures for avoidance of
sensitive vegetation to be
implemented (as described
in mitigation).

2. The selected
construction contractor to
implement measures.

2. The City of Ukiah
Parks Department

2. Tree and vegetation
protection measures to
be maintained through
the completion of
construction.

3.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are encountered during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt, and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archeology, shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of Ukiah of their initial assessment. Prehistoric cultural materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g. projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g. mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period cultural materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

If the City of Ukiah determines, based on recommendations from a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative (if the resource is indigenous), that the resource may qualify as a historic property (meeting the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4), a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5), or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in PRC Section 21080.3), the resource shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the City of Ukiah shall consult with appropriate Native American representative (if the resource is indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (according to PRC Section 21084.3).

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-7 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah to include
mitigation as described into
construction specifications
to ensure procedures for
discovery of prehistoric or
historic period cultural
materials are implemented.

1. The City of Ukiah to
review construction
specifications.

1. The City of Ukiah [ 1. During all phases of
project construction.

2. In the event that cultural
materials are encountered
during construction, halt
construction within 100 feet
of the find and notify a
Secretary of the Interiorqualified archaeologist.

2. Contractor immediately
notifies the City of Ukiah
Parks Dept. of the
discovery. In consultation
with the City, the
designated contractor to
coordinate inspection of
the find (by a qualified
archaeologist) within
24-hours of discovery.

2. The City of Ukiah 2. During ground
disturbing construction
activities.

3. Measure to be implemented
as described.

3. The City to determine
based on archaeologist
and tribal representative’s
recommendations (if
applicable) the resource
shall be documented and
avoided.

3. The City of Ukiah 3. During all phases of
ground disturbing
construction activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event of discovery of any human remains during project activities, such activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the Mendocino County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required.

The Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted within 24 hours if the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American. The Commission will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn shall be contacted and requested to make recommendations to the City of Ukiah for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any grave goods. The City of Ukiah shall follow the recommendations of the most likely descendant.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah to include
mitigation as described into
construction specifications
to ensure procedures for
discovery of human
remains are implemented.

1. The City of Ukiah to review
construction specifications.

1. City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction

2. In the event that human
remains are encountered
during construction, halt
construction within 100 feet
of the find and notify the
County coroner and the City.

2. The City of Ukiah and its
designated contractor shall
follow the
recommendations of the
coroner and NAHC (as
applicable).

2. City of Ukiah and its
designated
construction
contractor.

2. During ground
disturbing construction
activities.

3. Measure to be implemented
as described.

3. The City and it’s designated
contractor to follow the
recommendations, as
applicable.

3. The City of Ukiah 3. During all phases of
ground disturbing
construction activities.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-8 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

3.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Health and Safety Plan. The City of Ukiah or its contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) in accordance with federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and Cal/OSHA regulations (8 CCR Title 8, Section 5192). Because anticipated contaminants vary depending upon the location of proposed improvements in the Project area and may vary over time, the HASP shall address site-specific worker health and safety issues during construction. The HASP shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, Mendocino County Department of Environmental Health (MCDEH), and/or appropriate CUPA personnel for approval. The HASP shall include the following information.

1. Results of the soil sampling conducted in March and May of 2022.

2. All required measures to protect construction workers and the general public by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction areas and to reduce hazards outside of the construction areas. If prescribed contaminant exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with state and federal regulations.

3. Required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to contaminated materials, in accordance with state and federal worker safety regulations, and designated qualified individual personnel responsible for implementation of the HASP.

4. The contractor shall have a site health and safety supervisor fully trained pursuant to hazardous materials regulations be present during excavation, trenching, or cut and fill operations to monitor for evidence of potential soil contamination, including soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers. The site health and safety supervisor must be capable of evaluating whether hazardous materials encountered constitute an incidental release of a hazardous substance or an emergency spill. The site health and safety supervisor shall implement procedures to be followed in the event of an unanticipated hazardous materials release that may impact health and safety. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations and regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to:
a) immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release; b) notifying City of Ukiah, MCDEH, RWQCB, and/or DTSC; and c) retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling, remediation, and/or disposal.

5. Documentation that HASP measures have been implemented during construction.

6. Provision that submittal of the HASP, or any review of the contractor’s HASP, shall not be construed as approval of the adequacy of the contractor as a health and safety professional, the contractor’s HASP, or any safety measure taken in or near the construction site. The contractor shall be solely and fully responsible for compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to health and safety during the performance of the construction work.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-9 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah (or its
designated contractor) to
retain a qualified
professional to prepare a
health and safety plan
(HASP) to ensure
procedures for health and
safety are in place.

1. The City of Ukiah shall
review the HASP prior to
construction.

1. The City of Ukiah,
MCDEH.

1. Prior to construction

2. Measures to be
implemented as described
in mitigation and HASP.

2. Designated contractor
shall document
compliance.

2. City of Ukiah 2. During all phases of
construction.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. The City of Ukiah shall require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan prior to construction that specifies the method for handling and disposal of the contaminated soil identified in the March and May 2022 sampling events, and newly discovered contaminated soil and groundwater encountered during construction, as applicable.

The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall include all necessary procedures to ensure that excavated materials and fluids generated during construction are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner that is protective of human health and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, Mendocino County Environmental Health Department, and/or appropriate CUPA personnel for approval. The Plan shall include the following information.

1. Step-by-step procedures for evaluation, handling, stockpiling, storage, testing, and disposal of excavated material, including criteria for reuse and offsite disposal. All excavated materials shall be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and spoils that are visibly stained and/or have a noticeable odor shall be stockpiled separately to minimize the amount of material that may require special handling. In addition, excavated materials shall be inspected for buried building materials, debris, and evidence of underground storage tanks; if identified, these materials shall be stockpiled separately and characterized in accordance with landfill disposal requirements. If some of the spoils do not meet the reuse criteria and/or debris is identified, these materials shall be disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill facility.

2. Procedures to be implemented if unknown subsurface conditions or contamination are encountered, such as previously unreported tanks, wells, or contaminated soils.

3. Procedures for containment, handling and disposal of groundwater generated from construction dewatering, the method to be used to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials likely to be encountered and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods.

Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan (as described in Section 3.6).

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-10 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah (or its
designated contractor) to
retain a qualified professional
to prepare a soil and
groundwater management
plan to ensure procedures for
hazardous materials
containment, handling, and
disposal are in place.

1. The City of Ukiah shall
review the Plan prior to
construction. The Plan
shall be submitted to the
Mendocino County
Environmental Health
Department or
appropriate CUPA
personnel for approval.

1. The City of Ukiah and
Mendocino County
Department of
Environmental Health.

1. Prior to construction

2. Measures to be implemented
as described in mitigation and
soil and groundwater
management plan.

2. Designated contractor
shall document
compliance with plan
procedures. .

2. City of Ukiah 2. During all phases of
construction.

3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The City of Ukiah or its designated contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to construction of the Project. The SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan shall stipulate specific measures or best management practices (BMPs) to reduce site runoff and control or otherwise limit erosion and siltation associated with project construction. Implementation of BMPs would ensure that the effects on water quality would remain at less-than-significant levels.

Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Prior to construction all wetland and riparian avoidance areas, storm drains, drainage swales, and creeks located near the construction site shall be marked or flagged as avoidance areas.

Pre-construction training shall be provided to make sure construction contractors and subcontractors are aware of their responsibilities regarding stormwater requirements to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains or surface waters. • Conduct earthwork during the dry season (generally June 1–October 30). • To the extent possible, stage construction equipment and materials in previously disturbed areas.
• Minimize ground and vegetation disturbance during project construction by establishing designated equipment staging areas, ingress and egress corridors, spoils disposal and soil stockpile areas, and equipment exclusion zones prior to the commencement of any grading operations. In order to minimize the mobilization of contaminants. • Stockpile soil only at the designated staging and stockpile area and install sediment barriers (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, and straw bales) around the base of stockpiles to intercept runoff and sediment during storm events. Cover stockpiles daily with tarps or geotextile fabric to provide further protection against wind and water erosion. • All construction wastes, debris, sediment, rubbish, trash, etc., shall be removed from the project site daily during construction, and thoroughly at completion of the project. Debris shall be transported to an authorized upland disposal area. Wastes shall be disposed of properly; remove litter from the site daily; materials that cannot be reused or recycled must be

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-11 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 taken to an appropriate landfill; dispose of hon hazardous construction wastes in covered dumpsters or recycling receptacles; recycle materials whenever possible. • Fuel, maintain, and clean vehicles at a minimum of 175 feet distance from any riparian habitat or water body and adhere to a spill response plan. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to follow should a spill occur. Training materials for spill prevention and response measures shall be prepared in adherence with state and federal regulations.
• Locate portable toilets (if utilized during construction) a minimum of 25 feet away from drain inlets, water courses and traffic circulation; portable toilets shall be secured to prevent overturning; regular service shall be provided.
• Water utilized for dust control shall not be allowed to result in conditions of runoff. Care shall be taken to not overwater causing sediment-laden runoff. Earthwork operations shall cease when wind speeds exceed 20 mph for one hour or more. • Regular spot checks shall occur during construction to ensure that erosion control measures and BMPs are functional and regularly maintained.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah (or its
designated contractor) to
retain a qualified
professional to prepare a
stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP)
and an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan to
ensure procedures for
protection of water are in
place.

1. The City of Ukiah shall
review the Plan prior to
construction.

1. The City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction

2. Measures to be
implemented as described
in mitigation and SWPPP
and Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan.

2. Designated contractor
shall document
compliance with SWPPP
and Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan
measures.

2. City of Ukiah 2. During all phases of
construction and post
construction as
applicable to the
SWPPP and/or City
requirements.

3.6 Transportation
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits and the issuance of decommissioning authorizations, the City and/or its construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Ukiah Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation, District 1, as appropriate, for approval. The Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-12 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 • Temporary Traffic Control plan that addresses traffic safety and control through the work zone, including during temporary lane closures (if needed) to accommodate materials delivery, debris off hauling, or any other major project-related traffic; • Identify the anticipated timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials and debris off-haul activities;
• Requirement for designated construction staff to be assigned as flaggers to direct traffic into and/or through temporary traffic control zones, as needed; • Requirement to place temporary signage, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
• Ensure access for emergency vehicles to and from the Project site; • Access to adjacent properties shall be maintained;
• Specify construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible;
• Requirement to obtain all necessary permits for the work within the road right of way or use of oversized/overweight vehicles that would utilize City or County-maintained roads, which may require California Highway Patrol or a pilot car escort, if applicable. Copies of the approved traffic plan and issued permits shall be submitted to the Ukiah Public Works Department.

Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring and
Reporting Actions
Oversight
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule

1. The City of Ukiah (or its
designated contractor) to
prepare a traffic
management plan to
ensure procedures for
traffic management are in
place.

1. The City of Ukiah shall
include the traffic
management plan
(mitigation) requirement
in construction
specifications and review
the traffic management
plan prior to construction.

1. The City of Ukiah 1. Prior to construction

2. Measures to be
implemented as described
in mitigation and plan.

2. Designated contractor
shall document
compliance.

2. City of Ukiah 2. During all phases of
construction.

3.7 Wildfire
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan (as described in Section 3.6).
_________________________

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-13 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023

3.8 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/ media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Accessed November 2021.

3. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project 3-14 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 This page intentionally left blank

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project A-1 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Appendix A
Air Quality Emissions
Technical Appendix

This page intentionally left blank

Ukiah Riverside Park - CalEEMod Assumptions

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Location Mendocino - Inland County
Climate Zone 1
Land Use Setting Rural
Start of Construction 23-Dec-21
Operational Year 2023
Utility Company PG&E
CO2 intensity 2.68 PG&E GHG emission factor based on https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2021/assets/PGE_CRSR_2021.pdf

LAND USE
Land Use Land Use Subtype Unit Amt Size Metric Lot Ac SF Recreational Park 8.6 ac 8.6 374,616

CONSTRUCTION
Construction Phasing
Construction Phase Start Date End Date Days/wk Total Days Site Preparation 12/23/2021 12/31/2021 5 7
Grading 1/1/2022 2/28/2021 5 42
Construction 3/1/2021 3/31/2021 5 60
Site Preparation 4/1/2021 4/30/2022 5 21
130
Offroad Equipment
Equipment Type Unit Amt Hours/Day HP LF
Bulldozer 1 9
Dump Truck 1 9
Excavator 2 9
Mini Excavator 2 9
Dust from Material Movement
Phase Material Import (cy) Material Export (cy) Size Metric Acres Graded Notes Site Prep 0 1002 CY default Import: 2260 CY debris removal, 1002 CY cleared vegetation removal Grading 1230 2260 CY default Export: 1140 CY clay soil, 90 CY decomposed granite Site Restoration 0 0 CY default
Demo
Size Metric Unit Amt
Bldg sf/Tons of Debris 0 sf
Trips & VMT
Phase Name # of worker trips/day # vendor trips/day
# haul trips (total per
phase)
Trip length worker
(mi)
trip length
vendor (mi) Trip length haul (mi) Vehicle Class Worker
Vehicle Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling Notes
Site Prep 24 2 83.57142857 Default Default Default LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT HHDT 2 vendor trips per day for water truck Grading 24 2 249.2857143 Default Default Default LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT HHDT 14 CY haul truck capacity Construction 24 2 36 Default Default Default LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT HHDT Site Restoration 24 2 12 Default Default Default LDA,LDT1,LDT3 HHDT,MHDT HHDT the 12 one way haul trips for 6 wooden benches
Architectural Coating 8 one way haul trips for 4 trash receptacles Phase Interior Paint VOC Exterior Paint VOC 2 one way haul trips for prefab bridge Arch Coating defaults 2 one way haul trips for overlok deck 2 one way haul trips for wood deck area
MITIGATION MEASURES 2 one way haul trips for wood joist Water Exposed Area 2 one way haul trips for wood railing Frequency 2 one way haul trips for wood post
Assume 2 2 one way haul trips for hardware angle bracket 2 one way haul trip for concrete footing
Unpaved Road Mitigation
Vehicle Speed
Assume no
Engine
Tier 4?
Assume no

Riverside Park - Mass Emissions Calculations

PROJECT DETAILS
Conversions Construction Schedule
Year Days Phase Start Date End Date Total Days
1 365 Site Preparation 12/23/2021 12/31/2021 7
Tons Pounds Grading 1/1/2022 2/28/2021 42
1 2000 Construction 3/1/2021 3/31/2021 60
Site Preparation 4/1/2021 4/30/2022 21
130

ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
UNMitigated
Criteria Air Pollutants (TPY) GHGs (MT/Year)
ROG NOx PM10 (exhaust) PM2.5 (exhaust) CO2e
2021 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 2021 18.2106
2022 0.16 1.42 0.06 0.06 2022 281.6442
Total 0.17 1.52 0.07 0.06 Total 299.8548
Criteria Air Pollutants (Avg PPD)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2021 3.11 30.57 1.32 1.22
2022 2.59 23.04 1.03 0.94
Mitigated
Criteria Air Pollutants (TPY) GHGs (MT/Year)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
2021 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 2021 18.2106
2022 0.16 1.42 0.06 0.06 2022 281.6439
Total 0.17 1.52 0.07 0.06 Total 299.8545
Criteria Air Pollutants (Avg PPD)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2021 3.11 30.57 1.32 1.22
2022 2.59 23.04 1.03 0.94

Ukiah Riverside Park Regeneration Project B-1 ESA / 201801242 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2023 Appendix B
Biological Resources
Habitat Assessment

This page intentionally left blank

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

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.