Ukiah Recycled Water Project - IS-MND-Public Draft2

R
e
c
y
c
l
e
dW
a
t
e
r
PROJECT
PUBLI
C DRAFT
I
NI
TI
ALSTUDY/
MI
TI
GATED NEGATI
VE DECLARATI
ON
uk0313r
18660_85x11.
psd
Mar
ch 2013
City of Ukiah
Recycled Water Project
Public Draft
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by:
SMB Environmental, Inc.

March 2013
City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Public Draft IS/MND
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1
Project Location, Environmental Setting, and Background .....................................1-1
Goal and Objectives ..............................................................................................1-3
Document Organization and Review Process ........................................................1-4
Chapter 2
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................2-1

Proposed Project/Action Description......................................................................2-1
Potential Users and Phasing .................................................................................2-1
Pipeline Facilities ...................................................................................................2-4
Pump Station .........................................................................................................2-4
Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................2-4
Construction Considerations ..................................................................................2-5
Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water Policy ..............2-7
Operational Plans ..................................................................................................2-8
Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals ......................................................2-8
No Project/Action Alternative .................................................................................2-8
Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences .......................................................3-1

3.1
Aesthetics ..............................................................................................................3-2
3.2
Agricultural Resources...........................................................................................3-3
3.3
Air Quality ..............................................................................................................3-5
3.4
Biological Resources ...........................................................................................3-11
3.5
Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................3-18
3.6
Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................3-22
3.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................3-24
3.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .........................................................................3-0
3.9
Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................3-4
3.10
Land Use and Planning .........................................................................................3-8
3.11
Mineral Resources.................................................................................................3-9
3.12
Noise ...................................................................................................................3-10
3.13
Population and Housing.......................................................................................3-13
3.14
Public Services ....................................................................................................3-15
3.15
Recreation ...........................................................................................................3-16
3.16
Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................3-17
3.17
Traffic and Transportation....................................................................................3-19
3.18
Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................3-21
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................3-23
Chapter 4 Determination: .....................................................................................................4-1
Chapter 5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................5-1
List of Figures
Figure 1:General Location Map ........................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 2:Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments ....................................................... 2-2
Figure 3:Recommended Phasing of Proposed Project/Action .......................................... 2-3
March 2013

Public Draft IS/MND
List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters .................................................................... 2-1
Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary .......................................................... 2-4
Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities .................................................................................. 2-5
Table 4: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project Facilities ... 2-8
Table 5: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions Phase 1 ............................. 3-7
Table 9: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions Total Project ..................... 3-9
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Emissions Calculations ............................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Biological Resources Investigation Report .................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Section 106 Cultral Resources Investigation Report ................................... C-1
March 2013
ii

Public Draft IS/MND
List of Abbreviations
ABWF
average base wastewater flow
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin
Bay Area Air Basin
C.C.R
California Code of Regulations
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal EPA
California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal Water
California Water Service Company
Cal/OSHA
State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations
CALTRANS
California Department of Transportation
CAP
Clean Air Plan
CCAA
California Clean Air Act
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CESA
California Endangered Species Act
CGS
California Geological Survey
CNDDB
California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS
California Native Plant Societys
CWA
Federal Clean Water Act
DPM
Diesel particulate matter
DTSC
Department of Toxics Substances Control
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
gpd
gallons per day
gpm
gallons per minute
HCP
Habitat Conservation Plan
I/I
infiltration/inflow
March 2013
iii

Public Draft IS/MND
ISA
International Society of Arboriculture Standards
Leq
Equivalent Sound Level
LU
Landscape Unit
mgd
million gallons per day
MRZ
Mineral Resource Zone 4
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NBWRP
North Bay Water Recycling Program
NEPA
National Environmental Quality Act
NESHAP
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOx
Nitrus Oxcides
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OHWM
Ordinary High Water Mark
PWWF
Peak wet weather flow
ROG
reactive organic gases
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SFPUC
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SR
State Route
SRF
State Revolving Funds
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
TAZ
Traffic Analysis Zones
TSP
Total Suspended Particles
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
March 2013
iv

Public Draft IS/MND
Chapter 1
Introduction
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that addresses the potential
environmental impacts of the City of Ukiahs proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed
Project/Action). The purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to replace/augment existing water supplies
in Ukiah Valley. Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water
demands for irrigation and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local
agricultural industry. It would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah
Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.
This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City is the lead agency under CEQA. In addition, the City is also seeking funds from the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Board). The SRF Loan Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and subject to federal environmental regulations, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the General Conformity Rule for the Clean Air Act
(CAA), among others. Federal agencies have their own policies on how they comply with federal
environmental laws. Instead of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), USEPA has chosen to
use CEQA as the compliance base for Californias SRF Loan Program, in addition to compliance with
ESA, NHPA, and CAA. Collectively, the State Board calls these requirements CEQA-Plus. As a result,
this document has been prepared to meet the CEQA-Plus requirements.
1.1 Project Location, Environmental Setting, and Background

As shown in Figure 1, the City is located in Mendocino County in the northern coastal region of
California. The City is situated in the Ukiah Valley approximately 60 miles north of Santa Rosa, 20 miles
south of Willits, and 5 miles south-west of Lake Mendocino, and is surrounded by coastal ranges in
southern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the east
by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above mean sea
level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south near El
Robles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs north to
south through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to south
through the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County.
Originally part of a Mexican Land Grant, the City began its history as a Valley settlement in 1856. Due to
the Citys moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end of
the 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County
(www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood production
plants, in addition to up-and-coming nonagricultural manufacturers.
Surface waters, namely the Russian River and Lake Mendocino, and groundwater are the major water
resources that sustain the people and industries of Ukiah area. The City and several other water service
providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within their
service area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both irrigate
their crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources have
become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-stream flow requirements
for endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies, including recycled
water, has increased.
March 2013
1-1
8"
8"
8"
8"
1 6"
16"
"
" 12
12"
12"
16"
8"
8"
16"
1 6"
16"
16"
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
12"
12"
1
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Agricultural Parcels
CEQA-Fig_1-Proposed_Project_or_Action.mxd
Figure 1
PROPOSED PROJECT/ACTION
CITY OF UKIAH
RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Public Draft IS/MND
Environmental groups have increasingly studied how river and groundwater diversions have negatively
affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of these
diversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries) presented the State Board with information that water withdrawn from the
Russian River for frost protection of agricultural crops poses a threat to federally threatened and
endangered salmonids in the Russian River watershed. They documented two episodes of fish stranding
mortality that occurred in April 2008, one on Felta Creek in Sonoma County and the second on the
mainstream of the Russian River near Hopland in Mendocino County (Draft EIR Russian River Frost
Protection Regulation, 2007). NOAA Fisheries requested the State Board take regulatory action
immediately to regulate diversions for frost protection to prevent salmonid mortality. The State Board is
currently considering regulatory action that would deem any diversions for frost protection from March
15 through May 15 unreasonable, unless approved by the State Board through the completion of an
extensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay of
the State Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and
Sonoma Counties.
Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative water
supplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service providers
in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River and Lake
Mendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area would increase
the overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions.
The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent of
the UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City is
limited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly stringent
discharge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be discharged to
the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges very high
quality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which treated effluent
can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including delivery of
recycled water to irrigation customers.
1.2 Goal and Objectives

The goal and objectives and purpose of the Proposed Project is to construct an approximately 9.4-mile
pipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands in the
Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,375 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys existing
Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary
recycled water unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections
60301 through 60355.
The City held a visioning workshop on February 28, 2011 early in the master planning process to ensure
the Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) aligned with the goals and values of the City and other
potentially affected interests. To ensure the master plan addressed both local and regional issues and
provided local and regional benefits, the City of Ukiah invited City engineering, planning, management,
and operations staff, water service providers in the surrounding area from Redwood Valley to Willow
County Water District, and agricultural entities to partake in the visioning workshop. Attendees included
representatives from the following entities:
City of Ukiah
Ukiah Valley Sanitation District
March 2013
1-3

Public Draft IS/MND
Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District
Mendocino County Farm Bureau
Millview Water District
Rogina Water District
Willow Water District
Redwood Valley Water District
The group discussed values and challenges pertaining to the RWMP and identified several goals and
objectives. The primary goals and objectives that were identified include:
Implementing a recycled water program that is safe and meets the needs of the City and
surrounding communities, including local agricultural businesses;
Reducing withdrawals from the Russian River and Lake Mendocino surface waters;
Implementing a program that helps the City with its disposal options for its treated wastewater
effluent; and
Implementing a program that is financially viable and minimizes costs to ratepayers.
It was agreed during the workshop that implementing recycled water anywhere within Ukiah
Valley and the surrounding area would improve the regional water supply from Redwood Valley to
Hopland. The attendees also identified major water uses located near the recycled water source the
UWWTP.
1.3 Document Organization and Review Process

This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA-Plus requirements and is to provide a
preliminary environmental investigation of the Proposed Project/Action to determine if it may have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. This document is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the background, goals and objectives of the
Proposed Project/Action, and document contents.
Chapter 2, Project Description and Alternatives. Chapter 2 describes the major components of the
Proposed Project and describes the No Project Alternative.
Chapter 3, CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Chapter 3 discusses the potential environmental
impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Each resource
section of the checklist is followed by a discussion of each potential impact listed in that section.
It also presents corresponding mitigation measures proposed as part of the Proposed
Project/Action, to avoid or reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This checklist has been
modified to include additional topics to meet the requirements of NEPA for the State Boards
CEQA-Plus requirements.
Chapter 4, Determination. Chapter 4 provides the proposed result of this Initial Study.
Chapter 5, Bibliography. Chapter 5 provides a list of reference materials and persons consulted
during the preparation of the Initial Study.
This document will be available for a 30-day public review period, during which written comments may
be submitted. Responses to written comments received by the end of the 30-day public review period will
be prepared and included in the final document to be considered by the City and/or the State Board prior
to taking any discretionary action/decision on the Proposed Project/Action.
March 2013
1-4

Public Draft IS/MND
Chapter 2
Proposed Project Description and Alternatives
This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project/Action including a discussion of the
construction considerations, compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board Requirements, operational
plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary. In addition, this section also describes
the No Project/Action Alternative.
2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to replace/augment existing water supplies in Ukiah Valley.
Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water demands for irrigation
and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local agricultural industry. It
would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment
Plant (UWWTP), and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.
The Proposed Project was developed through an extensive engineering and feasibility study process,
culminating in a recommended or preferred alternative. The basis for the Proposed Project for this report
and environmental analysis is identified as the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 7 of the Citys February
2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. As shown in Figure 2 below, the Proposed Project/Action would
consist of 9.4 -miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8- to 16-inch to provide recycled
water from the Citys existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of agricultural and urban
landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 parcels covering 703 acres
would be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284 acres
would be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary of
the key parameters of the overall Proposed Project/Action. What follows is a discussion of the major
features of the Proposed Project/Action.
Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters
Parameter
Number of
Units
Irrigation Demand (AFY)
1,234
Irrigated area Served (Acres)
703
Parcels Provided irrigation (Number)
44
Frost Protection Demand (AFY)
142
Frost Protected land (Acres)
284
Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres)
17
Pipeline Length (Miles)
9.4
Pipeline Diameter (Inches)
8-16
Pump Station
2.1.1 Potential Users and Phasing

There are two categories of potential users, agricultural and landscape irrigation. The Proposed
Project/Action will be developed in four phases. Figure 3 provides a summary of the recommended
phasing for the implementation of the Proposed Project/Action. Table 2 provides a summary of the
estimated annual demand for recycled water by phase as well as by irrigation and frost protection.
March 2013
2-1
RD
ER
REDEMEYE R
R E D EM EY
R
G
R
EI
OL
O
RT
BA
H ILL
RD
B UD HI
BODMI WAY
HOW ELL
CRE
E
K RD
EASTSID
E RD
ST I
NV
IL L
NG
HR
ROSEMAR
Y HILL R A NC
RUDDIC
12"
GIELOW LN
TW
IN
I
Pond Site
12"
ER
B
KNO
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
BO
D
ON R
A TS
DR
R
TAYLOR D
ES
TAT
I NGHA M RD
K CUNN
RD
LEE
AVE
BISBY
PARK CREEK LN
EL
E
RK
BU
D
ER
BL
RO
D
LR
HIL
B ISB Y A V
ADDOR
BROGGIE LN
16"
SS
RD
RD
REEK
MILL C
N
PP L
SHE P RD L
A
MCC LURE SUBDIVISION
TALMAGE RD
16"
O LL
K KN
IL
DR
VAN PELT
TINDALL RANCH RD
OL
OA
RD
LN
DR
KNO LL RD
RID G
EUNICE CT
M
PO
OA
ES T
VIE
W
AV E
SON
JEFFER
DR
DR
16"
CR
IS
AR
IN
OL
P
A
1 6"
LA
WS
N
V I C HY SPRI
RD
RIVER
BEACON LN
I ST
8"
AIRPORT RD
CRESTA DR
S DORA ST
HELEN AVE
AVE
LU CE
AVE
LUCE
T AL MAG E R D
IS LN
LEW
E GOBB
REDWOOD HWY
RD AVE
H LN
WAUG
C INO DR
EW
POMO DR
S ORCHA
ST
ST
S OAK
ME
ND
O
S MAIN
DR
ND
HLA
HIG
Y ST
W CLA
T
ILL S
WM
VI
T
KINS S
E PER
ST
NDLEY
T
W STA
R CH S
W CHU
16"
1 6"
N MAIN ST
ST
STA
EY
NL
12"
CLARA AVE
N OAK
H ST
8"
"
VE
BRUSH ST
FORD ST
UA
12"
N BUS
E AV
12"
ST
MA
PL
8"
BRIGGS ST
8"
8"
8"
LE W
16"
EMPIRE DR
RD
IS
FORD RD
TE
N STA
TE ST
N STA
LO W
GA P R
FEED LOT RD
DESPINA DR
LOVERS LN
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
WWTP Ponds and Buildings
River
DIAMETER
Local Streets
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Major Roads
Figure 2
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/
RD
ER
N
V I C HY SPRI
UA
R
EI
OL
O
ADDOR
TALMAGE RD
B UD HI
TINDALL RANCH RD
LN
BROGGIE LN
GIELOW LN
SS
ES
TAT
T
ST I
BO
CRE
E
K RD
RD
CUNNINGHAM
RD
LEE
NV
IL L
ER
K
RUDDIC
B I SB Y
A VE
EL
E
RK
BU
PARK CREEK LN
NG
HR
ROSEMAR
Y HILL R A NC
HOW ELL
TW
IN
I
EASTSID
E RD
OA
Ukiah
WWTP
O LL
K KN
N
PP L
SHE P RD L
A
BODMI WAY
RD
REEK
MILL C
DR
KNO LL RD
RD
RD
AV E
SON
JEFFER
EUNICE CT
AIRPORT RD
LA
WS
OA
H ILL
LN
S DORA ST
HELEN AVE
TAL MAGE RD
BEACON LN
ES T
VIE
W
RD
RIVER
H
WAUG
ST
AVE
LU CE
CR
I ST
DR
VAN PELT
RT
E GOBB
RD
BA
RID G
B
KNO
ILL S
REDWOOD HWY
WM
PLUM ST
S OAK
DR
ND
HLA
HIG
ST
URCH
W CH
ST
Y
A
L
WC
T
KINS S
E PER
D
ON R
A TS
DR
S
NDLEY
DR
POMO D R
W STA
ST
IL
CLARA AVE
N OAK
H ST
AV
FORD ST
N BUS
STA
EY
NL
IS
AR
IN
OL
P
A
R E D EM EY
BRIGGS ST
LE W
IS
EMPIRE DR
G AP RD
RD
FORD RD
TE ST
N STA
L OW
FEED LOT RD
REDEMEYER
LOVERS LN
D
ER
BL
RO
D
LR
HIL
B ISB Y A V
0
Miles
Legend
Pipelines Potential Parcels

by Phase
1
2
3
4
by Phase
1
2
3

River
Major Roads
Local Streets
CEQA-Fig_3-Recommended_Phasing_of_the_Proposed_Project_or_Action.mxd
Figure 3
PHASING OF PROPOSED PROJECT/ACTION
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/

Public Draft IS/MND
Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary

Estimated Recycled Water Demand (AFY)
Irrigation
Phase
Agricultural
Urban
Landscape
Frost
Protection
Total by
Phase
Cumulative
Total
309.2
0.0
94.6
403.8
403.8
210.4
0.0
4.8
215.1
618.9
311.8
22.2
42.3
376.3
995.2
0.0
380.6
0.0
380.6
1,375.8
Total
831.4
402.8
141.7
1,375.8
2.1.2 Pipeline Facilities

As mentioned above and shown on Figures 2 and 3, the proposed recycled water system includes 9.4
miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8 and 16-inches in diameter. The recycled water would
be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be available up
to the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities. The pipeline
will be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first phase is
anticipated to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be along paved
roads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along paved roads,
primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a part of Phase 4
would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to minimize the total
length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral streams and/or
drainages that lead to the Russian River.
2.1.3 Pump Station

A single pump station is included in the alignment shown in Figure 2 at the Ukiah WWTP. Initially, it is
planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with spare
bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in Phase 2.
Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for frost
protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation.
2.1.4 Storage Facilities
As also shown on Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action also includes the construction and operation of a
new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a
capacity of approximately 1.6 MG and encompassing approximately 5 acres. The storage pond at the
wastewater treatment plant will accommodate the variation in potential customer demand patterns and
also serve as an equalization basin to buffer the potential variation in effluent flow at the WWTP. In
addition this storage pond, individual farmers will either use their existing storage ponds and/or develop
additional storage ponds on their own. These specific farmer activities are not included in the Proposed
Project/Action.
March 2013
2-4

Public Draft IS/MND
Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities
Diameter
(inches)
Phase
Type of Alignment
Ukiah WWTP Site Piping
Agricultural Land Service Roads
Length
(feet)
Length
(miles)
Construction
Schedule
16
1,300
0.25
2013 - 2014
12
5,600
1.06
2013 - 2014
6,900
1.31
2013 - 2014
Phase 1 Subtotal
2
Paved Public Street
16
5,600
1.06
2019 - 2020
16
4,200
0.80
2019 - 2020
9,800
1.86
2019 - 2020
Phase 2 Subtotal
3
16
9,000
1.70
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
16
4,000
0.76
2025 - 2026
12
400
0.08
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
1,000
0.19
2025 - 2026
14,400
2.73
2025 - 2026
Phase 3 Subtotal
4
Paved Public Street
12
4,700
0.89
2031 - 2032
Paved Public Street
13,800
2.61
2031 - 2032
Phase 4 Subtotal
18,500
3.50
2031 - 2032
Proposed Project/Action Total
49,600
9.40
2013 - 2032
Note:
1). Laterals to individual agricultural parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer or landowner and are not
included in the lengths presented here.
2.2 Construction Considerations

As shown in Table 3 above, construction of the Proposed Project/Action is expected to begin in the
summer of 2013 and continue over approximately a 20 year period as each of the four phases are planned
to be developed in five (5) year increments beginning in 2013. Construction work will typically be done
within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly on
Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed
primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during construction
will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of the
construction techniques and activities.
The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover construction
techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50 foot wide
construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction.
However, in most places a 25 foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the
smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 3-5
feet wide and 3-6 feet deep.
The Proposed Project/Action would also require crossing six small ephemeral creeks and/or
drainages that flow to the Russian River. Each of the crossings will be done using trenchless
March 2013
2-5

Public Draft IS/MND
construction techniques1 and will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy
weather and during the months between October 15 and through April 1.
Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any
dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and not
into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB).
Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring
brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize
and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that each phase of the project would be
constructed by two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 5001,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging areas for storage of
pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that would minimize
hauling distances and long-term disruption.
Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project/Action.
Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or
disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for
this project. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphaltconcrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project/Action could
generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for
this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include,
but not limited to:
Track-mounted excavator
Backhoe
Grader
Crane
Dozer
Compactor
Trencher/boring machine
End and bottom dump truck
Front-end loader
Water truck
Flat-bed delivery truck
Forklift
Trenchless technology is a type of subsurface construction work that requires few trenches or no continuous trenches. It is a rapidly growing
sector of the construction and civil engineering industry. Trenchless technology can be defined as "a family of methods, materials, and equipment
capable of being used for the installation of new or replacement or rehabilitation of existing underground infrastructure with minimal disruption
to surface traffic, business, and other activities. Trenchless construction includes such construction methods as tunneling, microtunneling (MTM), horizontal directional drilling (HDD) also known as directional boring, pipe ramming (PR), pipe Jacking (PJ), moling,
horizontal auger boring (HAB) and other methods for the installation of pipelines and cables below the ground with minimal excavation. Large
diameter tunnels such as those constructed by a tunnel boring machine (TBM), and drilling and blasting techniques are larger versions of
subsurface construction. The difference between trenchless and other subsurface construction techniques depends upon the size of the passage
under construction. Trenchless construction requires considering soil characteristics and the loads applied to the surface. In cases where the soil is
sandy, the water table is at shallow depth, or heavy loads like that of urban traffic are expected, the depth of excavation has to be at a depth such
that the pressure of the load on the surface does not affect the bore, otherwise there is danger of surface caving in.
March 2013
2-6

Public Draft IS/MND
Compressor/jack hammer
Asphalt paver & roller
Street sweeper
It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific
details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor. However, this description
provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated with
construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are
generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the Citys design standards or
established ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not
described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any minor
change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.
2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water
Policy
The Proposed Project/Action will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable
requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation
that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Board
adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water
recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part
of that process, the State Board prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the use
of recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated by
reference for this document and Proposed Project/Action. The newly adopted RW Policy includes a
mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1,000,000 AFY by
2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservation
and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed
both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has designated the Regional Water
Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the North
Coast RWQCB is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the North Coast Area and
including Mendocino County.
The Proposed Project/Action will be provided high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water
from UWWTP and made available to users within the Ukiah Valley. All irrigation systems will be
operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled Water
Policy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled
water and any reclamation permits issued by the North Coast RWQCB. Recycled water permits typically
require the following:
Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated;
Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities;
Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to the
release of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first;
Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and
Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditions
have been met as defined in Title 22.
March 2013
2-7

Public Draft IS/MND
2.4 Operational Plans

The City will enforce an irrigation schedule among its users. The irrigation schedule is assumed as
follows:
Agricultural Irrigation: 6 AM to 6 PM
Landscape Irrigation: 6 PM to 5 AM
Frost Protection Irrigation: Only as required
By irrigating using the above scheduling, peak flows are reduced and pipe sizing is optimized.
2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals

Table 4 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to
construction of the Proposed Project/Action. Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.
Table 4: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities
Agency
Type of Approval
Nationwide Permit #12 for Construction

Activities (or) Section 404 (Wetlands)
Permit
Coordination with Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) for permitting of new
wastewater storage pond
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System General Permit for Stormwater
Discharge Associated with Construction
Activities
Recycled Water Use Permit
California Division of Occupational Safety and

Health
Construction activities in compliance with

CAL/OSHA safety requirements
Streambed Alteration Agreements
Ukiah Municipal Airport Operations

Permitting of new wastewater storage pond
Authority to Construct
Permit to Operate
Encroachment Permit County Roads
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control

Board
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Mendocino County Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD)
County of Mendocino
2.6 No Project/Action Alternative

Under the No Project/Action Alternative, the Citys Proposed Project/Action would not be constructed.
For this analysis, it is assumed that the existing baseline condition and the future No Project/Action
condition are the same. That is, the No Project/Action Alternative assumes that none of the Proposed
Project/Action facilities would be constructed. Individual farmers may implement and or construct their
own water supply or frost protection facilities, but these would be speculative at best and therefore are not
considered further as part of this analysis. As a result, the impact description and summary compares the
Proposed Project/Action to the existing conditions now and into the future assuming that the City would
not construct any facilities to meet the objectives of the Proposed Project/Action. Again, the No
Project/Action which assumes that none of the proposed facilities will be constructed now or in the future.
March 2013
2-8

Public Draft IS/MND
Chapter 3
Environmental Review and Consequences
This chapter evaluates the potential for the Proposed Project/Action to have a significant effect on the
environment. Using a modified CEQA Environmental Checklist Form as presented in Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines as a framework, the checklist identifies the potential impacts of the Proposed
Project/Action pursuant to both CEQA and NEPA. This document compares the Proposed Project/Action
against the No Project/Action Alternative as is required by CEQA and NEPA.
Environmental Impact Designations
For this checklist, the following designations are used to distinguish between levels of significance of
potential impacts to each resource area:
Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to
be significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource, even after mitigation
strategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be significant and for which no
mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must
be prepared to meet CEQA requirements, respectively.
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Adverse environmental consequences that have
the potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the
application of identified mitigation strategies that are not already been incorporated into the
Proposed Project/Action description.
Less-than-Significant Impact. Potential adverse environmental consequences have been
identified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold criteria for that
resource. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. No adverse environmental consequences have been identified for the resource or the
consequences are negligible or undetectable. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Resources Evaluated
The following are the key environmental resources that were evaluated in this document.
Aesthetics
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Population and Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Air Quality
Land Use / Planning
Socioeconomics
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Transportation/Traffic
Cultural Resources
Noise
Utilities and Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Public Services
Mandatory Findings of Significance
March 2013
3-1

Public Draft IS/MND
3.1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Proposed Project/Action:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas
and therefore would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista. In the distance to the east
and west, hills provide background to area views. However construction and/or operation of the
Proposed Project/Action would not affect any scenic vistas or its designation. No impacts are
anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.
(b)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located near or within a designated state scenic
highway and therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Highway 101 through the
Ukiah Valley is regarded by the locals as a scenic corridor, providing visitors and residents access
to the beauty of the valley. However, no highways in Mendocino County have been officially
designated as state scenic highways by the City, County and/or the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). As a result, construction and/or operation of the Proposed
Project/Action would not affect any scenic resources along Highway 101 or its designation.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be visible

and would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches as well as the
presence of construction equipment and materials. Construction impacts would be temporary and
are considered to be less-than-significant. Once built, the pipeline facilities would be buried
underground and not visible. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not affect any
visual resources.
(d)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Proposed Project/Action
would not be constructed during nighttime hours and once constructed there would be no lights or
other sources of light or glare. Therefore no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-2

Public Draft IS/MND
3.2 Agricultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use?
Discussion
(a)
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use. The proposed pipeline facilities would be constructed within
existing paved streets as well as agricultural service roads. The pipeline facilities that would be
located in agricultural lands would be approximately 19,200 feet or 3.64 miles long. Assuming a
5-foot permanent easement, this could permanently affect approximately 2.2 acres of agricultural
lands. In addition, the proposed storage pond would be located on 40 acres of agricultural land
that was recently purchased by the City and would take up approximately 2.5 acres of this land
adjacent to the Ukiah WWTP. As a result, the Proposed Project/ Action could result in an impact
of up to approximately 4.7 acres of agricultural lands. However, this is not considered to be a
significant impact given the approximately 20,000 acres of productive agricultural lands in the
Ukiah Valley2. Specifically, this represents significantly less than 1 percent of the total
agricultural production acreage within the Ukiah Valley. In addition, the pipeline alignment has
been designed to be located within existing agricultural service roads to avoid interfering with
existing and future agricultural operations as much as possible. As a result, any impacts of
converting farmland to non-agricultural usage would be considered less than significant. No
mitigation is required or necessary.
(b)
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action has the potential to conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the proposed
pipeline facilities would be constructed within existing paved streets as well as agricultural
service roads. Specifically, the pipeline facilities that would be located in agricultural lands
County of Mendocino, Ukiah Valley Area Plan. 2007.
March 2013
3-3

Public Draft IS/MND
would be approximately 19,200 feet or 3.64 miles long. Assuming a 5-foot easement, this would
permanently affect approximately 2.2 acres of agricultural lands. In addition, the proposed
storage pond would be located on 40 acres of agricultural land that was recently purchased by the
City and would take up to approximately 2.5 acres of this land adjacent to the Ukiah WWTP. As
a result, the Proposed Project/ Action could result in an impact of up to approximately 4.7 acres
of agricultural lands. However, this is not considered to be a significant impact given the
approximately 20,000 acres of productive agricultural lands in the Ukiah Valley. Specifically,
this represents significantly less than 1 percent of the total agricultural production acreage within
the Ukiah Valley. In addition, the pipeline alignment has been designed to be located in the
existing agricultural service roads along the edge of the property to avoid interfering with existing
and future agricultural operations as much as possible. As a result, any conflicts with existing
zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would be considered less than
significant. No mitigation is required or necessary.
(c)
Less- than-Significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed pipeline facilities would be
constructed within agricultural lands as well as public paved streets. Specifically the pipeline
facilities that would be located in agricultural lands would be approximately 19,200 feet or 3.64
miles long. Assuming a 5-foot easement, this would permanently affect approximately 2.2 acres
of agricultural lands. In addition, the proposed storage pond would be located on 40 acres of
agricultural land that was recently purchased by the City and would take up approximately 2.5
acres of this land adjacent to the Ukiah WWTP. As a result the Proposed Project/ Action could
result in an impact of up to approximately 4.7 acres of agricultural lands. However, this is not
considered to be a significant impact given the approximately 20,000 acres of productive
agricultural lands in the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, this represents significantly less than one (1)
percent of the total agricultural production acreage within the Ukiah Valley. In addition, the
pipeline alignment has been designed to be located in existing agricultural service roads along the
edge of the property to avoid interfering with existing and future agricultural operations as much
as possible. As a result, this is not expected to adversely affect agricultural practices and/or
significantly convert farmland to non-agricultural usage. In fact, securing a supplemental water
resource from the City will help preserve agriculture within the Ukiah Valley.
From an operational perspective, the application of recycled water does have the ability to
increase salts and nutrient loadings on the soils. See the Discussion in the Hydrology/Water
Quality Section of this document. To address this concern, the City will enforce a strict irrigation
schedule that will apply recycled water at agronomical rates and will not result in significant salt
or nutrient loadings that would adversely affect agricultural practices and/or significantly convert
any farmland to non-agricultural usage. Therefore, no mitigation is required or necessary.
March 2013
3-4

Public Draft IS/MND
3.3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within the jurisdiction of
the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), the regional agency
empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in Mendocino County.
MCAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary
emission sources and through its planning and review process. The Project site is located in the
North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), as established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
The NCAB includes Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity, Del Norte Counties, and Northern Sonoma
County. The NCAB extends south from the coast of Oregon between 30 and 100 miles wide. The
Coastal Range and Pacific Ocean border to the west, the Sacramento Valley to the east and the
Klamath Mountains in the north. Mendocino County is non-attainment for the state PM-10
standard. The primary sources of PM-10 are wood combustion emissions, fugitive dust from
construction projects, automobile emissions, and industry. Some of the automobile emissions are
the result of pass-though traffic on 101 because of its nature as a major transportation corridor
in the state. The District has full monitoring stations (NOx, Ozone, CO and PM-10) in both Ukiah
and Willits. A PM-2.5 monitor has been established in Ukiah. Both Ukiah and Willits have had
PM-10 exceedances in the past. Winter cold-air inversions are common in the valleys from
November to February. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. MCAQMD has not adopted formal CEQA
Thresholds. MCAQMD has traditionally relied informally on the CEQA thresholds adopted by
March 2013
3-5

Public Draft IS/MND
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with minor modifications reflecting
location conditions. MCAQMD has requested that the BAAQMD May 28, 2010 CEQA
thresholds and CEQA guidelines be followed to evaluate air quality impacts. Currently, these
guidelines have been overturned by the Alameda County Court and the BAAQMD has requested
that its 1999 CEQA Thresholds be used instead3. Specifically, based on BAAQMDs 1999
CEQA Thresholds, a project is considered to have a significant regional air quality impact if it
would result in an increase in emissions of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10,
reactive organic gases (ROG) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). ROG and NOX are both ozone
precursors. Construction activities would begin in the summer of 2013 and continue over an
approximately 20-year period and into the 2030. Specifically, each of the four phases is planned
to be developed in 5-year increments. Overall construction work would require the use of various
types of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, and
various kinds of trucks.
Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of
fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary
day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing
weather. As shown in Appendix A, estimated construction emissions for the construction
activities were generated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Districts
Road Construction model (i.e. URBEMIS Model). (Note that this model was used because
BAAQMD recommends its use). The Roadway Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft
Excel worksheet available to assess the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimated
construction equipment fleet mix and the acreage and soil volume were put into the URBEMIS
model in order to determine potential emissions for each construction phase as well as for the
overall project. Tables 5-8 provide the emissions output from URBEMIS in maximum pounds per
day as well as in estimated tons for each phase of the Proposed Project/Action. Table 9 provides
a worst case scenario and assumes that all of the proposed project facilities were constructed as
one project instead of into four phases over 20 years. As shown in the tables, emissions do not
exceed BAAQMDs daily and/or annual significance thresholds.
BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines were developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the
requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010
to include reference to thresholds of significance (Thresholds) adopted by the Air District Board on June 2, 2010. The
Guidelines were further updated in May 2011. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding
that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court did not determine whether the
Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the Thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a
writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD had complied
with CEQA. In view of the courts order, BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the Thresholds be used as a generally
applicable measure of a projects significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quality
thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Although lead agencies may rely on BAAQMDs CEQA
Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health
impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the Thresholds
and is no longer recommending that these Thresholds be used as a general measure of a projects significant air quality impacts.
Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air Districts 1999 Thresholds of Significance and they may continue to make
determinations regarding the significance of an individual projects air quality impacts based on the substantial evidence in the
record for that project.
March 2013
3-6

Public Draft IS/MND
Table 5: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions-Phase 1

Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Activities
ROG
CO
NOx
PM10
PM2.5*
Grubbing/Land Clearing
4.3
17.8
31.2
3.9
1.8
Grading/Excavation
6.0
35.0
41.6
4.5
2.3
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade
4.3
17.6
28.6
4.1
2.0
Paving
3.0
11.6
14.5
1.3
1.2
Maximum (lbs/day)**
6.0
35.0
41.6
4.5
2.3
Total Tons/Project/Year
0.6
3.1
4.3
0.5
0.3
Thresholds of Significance
Pounds per Day
80
550
80
80
80
Tons per Project/Year
15
100
15
15
15
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Notes
* The BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.
** Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will be
occurring concurrently; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are not a summation of the daily emission rates of
all phases.
*** BAAQMDs May 2011 Thresholds were invalidated by Alameda County Superior Court and BAAQMD
recommends using its 1999 Thresholds.

ROG
CO
NOx
PM10
PM2.5*
3.1
14.0
21.2
3.4
1.3
Grading/Excavation
3.6
22.2
22.2
3.6
1.5
3.0
15.7
19.1
3.5
1.4
Paving
2.1
11.4
11.3
0.8
0.8
Maximum (lbs/day)**
3.6
22.2
22.2
3.6
1.5
0.4
2.3
2.6
0.4
0.2
Pounds per Day
80
550
80
80
80
15
100
15
15
15
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Notes
all phases.
March 2013
3-7

Public Draft IS/MND

ROG
CO
NOx
PM10
PM2.5*
2.5
13.3
14.9
3.1
1.0
Grading/Excavation
2.6
21.2
14.4
3.1
1.0
2.3
16.0
13.3
3.1
1.0
Paving
1.5
12.4
9.5
0.5
0.4
Maximum (lbs/day)**
2.6
21.2
14.9
3.1
1.0
0.3
2.3
1.8
0.4
0.1
Pounds per Day
80
550
80
80
80
15
100
15
15
15
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Notes
all phases.

ROG
CO
NOx
PM10
PM2.5*
2.6
14.8
16.1
3.1
1.0
Grading/Excavation
2.8
22.8
15.6
3.1
1.1
2.5
17.6
14.5
3.1
1.1
Paving
1.7
14.0
10.7
0.5
0.5
Maximum (lbs/day)**
2.8
22.8
16.1
3.1
1.1
0.3
2.5
1.9
0.4
0.1
Pounds per Day
80
550
80
80
80
15
100
15
15
15
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Notes
all phases.
March 2013
3-8

Public Draft IS/MND
Table 9: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions-Total Project

ROG
CO
NOx
PM10
PM2.5*
11.0
42.1
50.4
5.6
3.3
Grading/Excavation
13.4
67.7
66.2
6.4
4.0
11.0
41.9
47.8
5.8
3.5
Paving
9.7
35.8
33.7
3.0
2.7
Maximum (lbs/day)**
13.4
67.7
66.2
6.4
4.0
6.8
1.6
7.1
0.7
0.5
Pounds per Day
80
550
80
80
80
15
100
15
15
15
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Notes
all phases.
Nevertheless, BAAQMDs approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive
control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of these
dust control measures (Mitigation Measures AIR-1 below), the Proposed Project/Actions
construction-related dust impacts would be even further reduced and would remain less-thansignificant.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Dust Control. During all phases of construction, the
following dust control procedures shall be implemented:
Water all active construction sites as necessary.
Cover all trucks having soil, sand, or other loose material or maintain at least two
feet of freeboard on all trucks.
Apply water as necessary, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved

access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep if visible soil material is carried into adjacent streets.
Water or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed soil stockpiles.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph.
Once operational, emission sources resulting from project operations would be associated with
operation of the pump station, regular maintenance and inspection work. Operational impacts
would be considered less-than-significant. With respect to project conformity with the federal
Clean Air Act, the Proposed Project/Actions potential emissions are well below minimum
thresholds and are below the areas inventory specified for each criteria pollutant designated nonattainment or maintenance for the Bay Area. As such, further general conformity analysis is not
required.
March 2013
3-9

Public Draft IS/MND
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the entire San Francisco Bay
Area is currently designated non-attainment for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, the state 1hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is in attainment or unclassified with respect to the other
ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD is active in establishing and enforcing air pollution
control rules and regulations in order to attain all state and federal ambient air quality standards
and to minimize public exposure to airborne toxins and nuisance odors. Air emissions would be
generated during construction of the Proposed Project/Action, which could increase criteria air
pollutants, including PM10. However, construction activities would be temporary and would
incorporate the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 as identified above.
As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities emission sources resulting from
Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work. Given the
limited number of trips that would be required, only limited emissions would be generated; these
emissions would be expected to be well below BAAQMD guidelines. See Tables 5-9 above. As
such, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria air pollutants, and the impacts would be even less-than-significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1.
(d)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Diesel emissions would result both from dieselpowered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with project operation. Diesel
particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air
contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given
that construction would occur for a limited amount of time and that only a limited number of
diesel trucks would be associated with operation of the project, localized exposure to DPM would
be minimal. As a result, the cancer risks from the project associated with diesel emissions over a
70-year lifetime are very small. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less-thansignificant. Likewise, as noted above, the project would not result in substantial emissions of any
criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure AIR-1; therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors,
including residents in the project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, impacts to sensitive receptors would be lessthan-significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.
(e)
Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the Proposed Project/Action, the various

diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. These odors are
not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and
short-lived in nature. Furthermore, the Proposed Project/Action would not include development
of any uses that are associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be lessthan-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.
March 2013
3-10

Public Draft IS/MND
3.4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
(a)
Less-than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would be

primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City and on agricultural services roads
in agricultural lands in the Ukiah Valley, east of the City and Highway 101. However, the
Proposed Project/Action could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.
March 2013
3-11

Public Draft IS/MND
A record search of CDFGs Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and USFWS Species List was
conducted for the area within a five-mile radius of the Project area to identify previously reported
occurrences of state and federal special-status plants and animals. Also, a review of several recent
EIRs within the vicinity provided recent relevant information as to regards for the potential
effects to special-status species within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. In addition, a
reconnaissance field survey was conducted on May 18, 20012 to determine the potential for
special-status species to occur within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. This field visit
was not intended to be a protocol-level survey to determine the actual absence or presence of
special-status species, but was conducted to determine the potential for special-status species to
occur within the Proposed Project/Action Area. Appendix B provides a summary of the potential
for special status species to occur within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. No specialstatus species were observed during the field visit. Detailed below is a summary of those findings
and proposed mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Of the 23 special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed
Project/Action Study Area, no species were determined to have moderate to high potential to
occur in the Proposed Project/Action Area.
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Of the 24 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed
Project/Action Study Area, seven (7) were determined to have a high or moderate potential to
occur in the Study Area. Recommendations for reducing impacts to these special-status species
are provided below.
Birds
Potential impacts to special-status birds would be minimized to less than significant levels with
the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Breeding/Nesting Surveys. For construction
activities that occur between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction breeding bird
surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 10 days of any
initial ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitable
nesting habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active, non-status passerine nests
identified at that time should be protected by a 50 foot radius minimum exclusion zone.
Active raptor or special-status species nests should be protected by a buffer with a
minimum radius of 200 feet. CDFG and USFWS recommend that a minimum 500-foot
exclusion buffer be established around active white-tailed kite and golden eagle nests.
The following considerations apply to this mitigation measure:
March 2013
Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance
commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. If no
breeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.
Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and
are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone would
remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.
The non-breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this period,
breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting birds are
encountered during work activities in the non-breeding season, disturbance activities
3-12

Public Draft IS/MND
within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest should be postponed until the nest is
abandoned or young birds have fledged.
Reptiles
Potential impacts to special-status reptiles would be minimized to less than significant levels with
the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures
Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle may occur within the Russian River system in the vicinity of the project site.
Suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat is moderately present in the creek drainage crossings.
Mitigation Measures BIO-2 below would reduce impacts of filling, grading, or other ground
disturbance within the study areas to a less than significant level for Western pond turtle adults,
nests, and young.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct A Preconstruction Survey for Western Pond

Turtles and Relocate, if Necessary. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction
survey for western pond turtles no more than 30 days prior to construction in suitable aquatic
habitats within the project corridor, including stream crossings, drainage ditches, and
culverts. A combination of visual and trapping surveys may be performed with authorization
from CDFG. If the species is found near any proposed construction areas, impacts on
individuals and their habitat shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If occupied habitat can be
avoided, an exclusion zone shall be established around the habitat and temporary plastic
fencing shall be installed around the buffer area with Sensitive Habitat Area signs posted
and clearly visible on the outside of the fence. If avoidance is not possible and the species is
determined to be present in work areas, the biologist with approval from DFG may capture
turtles prior to construction activities and relocate them to nearby, suitable habitat a minimum
of 300 feet downstream from the work area. Exclusion fencing should then be installed if
feasible to prevent turtles from reentering the work area. For the duration of work in these
areas the biologist should conduct monthly follow-up visits to monitor effectiveness.
Fish Species
Central California Coast coho salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, Central Valley
steelhead, and California coastal Chinook salmon are known to occur in the Russian River.
Suitable foraging and rearing habitat is present within and adjacent to the study areas. Potential
impacts to these fish species are discussed below.
Erosion associated with project construction activities resulting in the introduction of sediments
into the Russian River could negatively affect water quality in rearing and foraging habitat.
Introduction of sediments could lead to increased embedding of river substrate, which could
negatively affect invertebrate communities used as a food source by juvenile fish. Impacts to the
species or critical habitat that constitute harm or harassment could be considered a take by the
FESA. This is considered a potentially significant impact if the project would substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. Mitigation
Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 below are proposed to reduce the potential impacts to less than
significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is proposed requiring Best Management Practices
be installed to eliminate construction-related runoff and sedimentation into the creeks/drainages
as well as the Russian River.
Construction could result in frac-out during trenchless construction techniques and activities.
Frac-out is a term used to describe the fracture or cracking of soil or rock above an active
subsurface drilling operation leading to discharge of drilling slurry to the surface. Frac-outs
March 2013
3-13

Public Draft IS/MND
occurring in aquatic environments are difficult to contain, primarily because bentonitea

commonly used, inert drilling lubricantreadily disperses in flowing water and quickly settles in
standing water. Bentonite is non-toxic, but there are two specific, indirect effects of bentonite on
aquatic life. Initially, the suspended bentonite may inhibit respiration of fishes, although this is
typically short-lived. Once the bentonite settles, secondary long-term effects can result. For
example, egg masses of fish could be covered by a layer of bentonite, inhibiting the flow of
dissolved oxygen to the egg masses. Secondly, benthic invertebrates may be covered and
suffocate from fouled gills and/or lack of oxygen. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 through BIO-5
would reduce any impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid cutting through the creeks. As described in the
Proposed Project/Action description, all of the creek crossings will be crossed by using
trenchless construction techniques in the dry season. Specifically, no pipeline construction
activities shall occur between December 1 and May 31 (a work window identified by the
National Marine Fisheries Service), which is the period when adult and juvenile salmonids
are likely to occur in the Russian River. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream
channels during installation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Implement Construction Best Management Practices. To

reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s)
shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best
Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the North Coast
RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a
minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement
weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points;
stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing
plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent
properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization
and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets;
use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by
dewatering; and returning all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews
shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Develop and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for
Trenchless Construction Activities. For trenchless construction activities4 that use drilling
lubricants, the City or its contractor shall prepare and implement a frac-out contingency plan
that is intended to minimize the potential for a frac-out associated with tunneling activities;
provide for the timely detection of frac-outs; and ensure an organized, timely, and
minimum-impact response in the event of a frac-out and release of drilling lubricant (i.e.,
bentonite). The contingency plan will require, at a minimum, the following measures.
Trenchless technology is a type of subsurface construction work that requires few trenches or no continuous trenches. It is a rapidly growing
sector of the construction and civil engineering industry. Trenchless technology can be defined as "a family of methods, materials, and equipment
capable of being used for the installation of new or replacement or rehabilitation of existing underground infrastructure with minimal disruption
to surface traffic, business, and other activities. Trenchless construction includes such construction methods as tunneling, microtunneling (MTM), horizontal directional drilling (HDD) also known as directional boring, pipe ramming (PR), pipe Jacking (PJ), moling,
horizontal auger boring (HAB) and other methods for the installation of pipelines and cables below the ground with minimal excavation. Large
diameter tunnels such as those constructed by a tunnel boring machine (TBM), and drilling and blasting techniques are larger versions of
subsurface construction. The difference between trenchless and other subsurface construction techniques depends upon the size of the passage
under construction. Trenchless construction requires considering soil characteristics and the loads applied to the surface. In cases where the soil is
sandy, the water table is at shallow depth, or heavy loads like that of urban traffic are expected, the depth of excavation has to be at a depth such
that the pressure of the load on the surface does not affect the bore, otherwise there is danger of surface caving in.
March 2013
3-14

Public Draft IS/MND
Trenchless construction activities to be conducted during a work window identified

by the National Marine Fisheries Service when adult and juvenile salmonids are not
present in the project area (June 1 through November 30).
A full-time monitor will attend all drilling to look for observable frac-out conditions
or lowered pressure readings on drilling equipment. If a frac-out is identified, all
work will stop, including the recycling of drilling lubricant. In the event of a frac-out
into water, the pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess mud from
escaping through the fracture. The location and extent of the frac-out will be
determined, and the frac-out will be monitored for 4 hours to determine whether the
drilling lubricant congeals (bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the fracout location).
If the drilling lubricant congeals, no other actions will be taken that would potentially
suspend sediments in the water column.
Surface releases of bentonite will be allowed to harden and then will be removed.
The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or

remove the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.
Non-Sensitive Species
The construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action could result in temporary disturbance
of non-sensitive plant and wildlife species which are not considered sensitive by the resource
agencies. However, these temporary impacts are considered less than significant and the
Proposed Project/Action would not result in adverse effects to special-status species. As a result
and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed above, the construction and/or
operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG and/or
USFWS.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would cross six
(6) ephemeral drainages that lead to the Russian River and which could have a substantial adverse
effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. However, the City proposes to use
trenchless construction techniques to cross the drainages in the dry season. Mitigation Measures
BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5 would further reduce any potential impacts to less than significant
levels. As a result, no significant impacts would occur to the creeks and any sensitive species or
habitats contained there within and/or the Russian River. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-6
is proposed requiring the project applicant to obtain all necessary authorization from regulatory
agencies and implement any necessary restoration or mitigation. The implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce any impacts associated with the Proposed Project/Action to a
level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Obtain all Required Authorizations. Prior to issuance of
encroachment permits for the Proposed Project/Action, the City, as necessary, shall
conduct a wetlands delineation study in sensitive areas of the Proposed Project/Action
and obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction riparian habitats and
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. Such agencies may include, but are not limited to, the
March 2013
3-15

Public Draft IS/MND
United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted habitat shall be
offset through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at a CDFG and
USFWS-approved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action could have an

adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 above
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The six (6) ephemeral creek/drainage crossings may meet the USACE criteria for Waters of the
U.S. and any fill or degradation to these channels could significantly impact water quality or
habitat for protected species. Specifically, any activity that results in the deposit of dredge or fill
material within the Ordinary High Water mark of Waters of the U.S. typically requires a permit
from the (Corps). In addition, the bed and banks of the creeks and drainage channels could also
fall under the regulatory authority of the CDFG. However, as stated in Chapter 2, Project
Description, all of the creek/drainage crossings will involve using trenchless construction
techniques and will not involve cutting through or disturbing the creeks.
Excavation, grading, and other general construction activities associated with the Proposed
Project/Action would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and
siltation in the Project area. Construction during the rainy season could result in increases in
erosion, siltation, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other
construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff.
Construction activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient
loading and increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from
construction have the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a
potentially significant impact to wetlands and waters of the U.S. With the incorporation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, and BIO-6 above, any potential impacts are
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
(d)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not

interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As stated above, the Proposed
Project/Action would be constructed primarily within existing roadways within the City and on
agricultural service roads in agricultural lands in unincorporated areas in Ukiah Valley. In
addition, all of the creek/drainage crossings would involve using trenchless construction
techniques and avoid cutting into or through the creeks/drainages. However, construction
activities could adversely affect non-listed special-status nesting raptors. Many raptors are
sensitive to loud construction noise such as that associated with grading and demolition. Such
activities could cause nest abandonment or destruction of individual active raptor nests. Because
all raptors and their nests are protected under 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, this
could result in a significant impact. As a result, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would reduce this
impact to less than significant levels.
(e)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not expected to conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No
trees are anticipated to be cut down, removed or significantly trimmed as a result of the
construction, operation, and implementation of the proposed Project/Action. As a result, no
impacts are expected and no specific mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-16

Public Draft IS/MND
(f)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The construction of the Proposed Project/Action
would be located within existing roadways within the City. As a result, no impacts are expected
and no specific mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-17

Public Draft IS/MND
3.5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Appendix C provides a Cultural Resources
Investigation which was conducted in order to identify cultural resources which include
prehistoric and historic archeological resources, buildings, structures, and sites of religious or
cultural significance for Native Americans within the proposed project area. Because the
Proposed Project/Action may involve the use of State Revolving Loan Program and/or federal
funds, this investigation was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Register [CFR]
Part 800).
On August 24, 2012, a records search was conducted by staff at the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California (NWIC File # 12-0047). The
record search included the project Area of Potential Effect (APE) and a 0.25-mile radius outside
the project boundaries. The record search included reviewing pertinent NWIC base maps that
reference cultural resources records and reports, historic period maps, and literature for
Mendocino County including current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHP), the California Inventory of
Historical Resources, California State Historic Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical
Interest.
Review of this information indicates that there have been three recorded cultural resources studies
and two recorded archeological studies that cover less than 10 percent of the Proposed
Project/Action area. This project area contains two recorded archeological resources (P-23March 2013
3-18

Public Draft IS/MND
004814 and P-23-004815), both of which contain Native-American and historic-era cultural
material. In addition, the Proposed Project Action runs adjacent to and crosses the Northwestern
Pacific Railroad alignment, portions of which have been recorded as P-23-003663. Local, state,
and federal inventories include no recorded buildings or structures within the Proposed
Project/Action area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded
buildings or structures.
At the time of Euro-American contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers
of a Northern Pomo language, one of the seven Pomoan languages. Several ethnographic Native
American villages and camps (Komli, Kabegilna, Tcioteya, Katili, Banakaiyau) are known to be
located in or adjacent to the proposed project area. Based on an evaluation of the environmental
setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of
Mendocino County have been found in close proximity to sources of water (including perennial
and intermittent streams and springs), near the valley/upland interface, and near ecotones and
other productive environments. The proposed project area is located adjacent to the Russian River
and various tributaries thereof. This portion of Ukiah Valley is known to have a high potential for
containing buried archaeological sites that may show no signs on the surface. Given the similarity
of these environmental factors, coupled with the archaeological and ethnographic sensitivity,
there is a high potential of identifying unrecorded Native American resources in the proposed
project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period archaeological
resources within the proposed project area. The 1920 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ukiah 15minute tactical map depicts several farmsteads in areas where the proposed alignment is planned.
In addition, the proposed project area appears to cross or run in close proximity to portions of the
grade of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. With this in mind, there is a moderate potential of
identifying unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources in the proposed project area.
The cultural resources investigation also included a field reconnaissance of the Project APE on
July 17, 2012 and no cultural resources, including archeological resources P-23-004814 and P-23004815, were identified within the Proposed Project/Actions proposed alignment and
construction corridor.
On July 24, 2012, a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in
Sacramento, California in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites listed on its Sacred
Lands File are within the current project APE. A response from the NAHC was received on
August 9, 2012, stating that a search of its Sacred Land File failed to indicate the presence of
Native American cultural resources in the immediate project APE. Included with the response
was a list of 26 Native American representatives who may have further knowledge of Native
American resources within or near the project APE. To ensure that all Native American concerns
are adequately addressed, letters to each of the listed tribal contacts were sent on August 17,
2012, requesting any information about the project that these individuals may have. As of this
date, only two responses have been received and which indicated that they have no specific
knowledge of any specific cultural resources sites of concern.
Based upon this investigation, detailed below are several recommendations and mitigation
measures that should be implemented to ensure that there are no significant impacts to cultural
resources that may exist in the APE as direct and indirect result of the Proposed Project/Action.
March 2013
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance of

Identified Cultural Resources. Prior to and/or during the engineering and final design
3-19

Public Draft IS/MND
phase, a qualified professional archeologist or cultural resources specialist will provide a

final pre-construction survey of the exact proposed pipeline alignment and placement of
the project facilities within the proposed construction corridor and ensure that the
construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action will not affect the archeological
resources P-23-004814, P-23-004815, and P-23-003663 as identified by NWIC above. In
the unlikely event that the Proposed Project/Action could affect these resources, the
proposed project facilities shall be constructed in a manner that will avoid damaging
these resources. Specifically, the pipeline shall either be installed by avoidance of the
resource by realignment of the pipeline or facility around the resource(s) and/or as in the
case of crossing the Northwestern Railroad, the resource shall be avoided by going
beneath through the implementation of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) or another
equally effective construction technique(s). In addition, the archeological resource sites
shall include the installation of barrier fencing or other physical barriers to prevent
construction personnel and vehicles from coming onto the sites during construction.
During construction, the area shall be monitored by a professional archaeologist to ensure
that (1) barrier fencing is maintained, (2) vehicles and workers do in fact remain off the
site, and (3) violations of the exclusion area are reported and infractions are policed in
accordance with treatment of other environmental violations. Any construction or
postconstruction use of the road adjacent to the sites in support of the pipeline shall be
confined to the road which shall be used as is and shall not be modified by grading or
expanded in width.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Halt work if cultural resources are discovered. In the
event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during
ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and
after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the
significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines
15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California
Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall
meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to
historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the
find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other
parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological
resources is carried out.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project/Action would not
result in impacts to historical resources.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. No known significant archaeological resource

exist within the Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project/Action is not likely to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources. Nevertheless,
there is a slight chance that construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action could result in
accidentally discovering unique archaeological resources. However, with the incorporation of
Mitigation Measure CR-2 identified above, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in any
significant impacts to archeological resources.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontologic resources are the fossilized

evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary
March 2013
3-20

Public Draft IS/MND
rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through
time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of
the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils particularly vertebrate fossils are considered to be
nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide,
fossils are highly significant records of ancient life. No known significant paleontological resource
exist within the Project area. Also, because the Proposed Project/Action would result in minimal
excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However,
fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity. In the event a
paleontologic resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Stop work if paleontological remains are discovered. If
paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds,
or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that
area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in
consultation with the City.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project/Action would not
result in impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources.
(d)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no known burial sites within the
project APE. The field survey did not find any evidence of human remains or burial goods within
the project APE. In addition, none of the previous surveys that included the APE or were within a
0.25-mile radius reported finding any human remains. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that
subsurface construction activities may encounter undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is
a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed to reduce this potentially significant impact
to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Halt work if human remains are found. If human remains
are encountered during excavation activities conducted for the Proposed Project/Action, all
work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the Mendocino County Coroners
office shall be notified. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American in
origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the
Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the
discovered human remains and any associated burial goods.
March 2013
3-21

Public Draft IS/MND
3.6 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion
(a)
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action consists primarily of a pipeline

system that would be constructed within and under existing roadways. The Proposed
Project/Action does not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
March 2013
3-22

Public Draft IS/MND
including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event. The proposed pipeline will not cross a
known fault, but the project area is susceptible to strong groundshaking during an earthquake which
could occur along known faults in the region. The Proposed Project/Action is located about 1 mile
west of the Maacama-Brush Fault and near the San Andreas Fault. However, the Proposed
Project/Action does not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact.
Construction activities associated with the Proposed
Project/Action would involve excavation and earthmoving which could cause erosion or loss of
topsoil. Construction activities would involve excavation, moving, filling, and the temporary
stockpiling of soil. Earthwork associated with development construction could expose soils to
erosion. However, the Proposed Project/Action would be constructed in existing roadways and
utility corridors and would be covered and paved immediately after the pipeline has been installed.
As a result, any soil erosion or loss of top soil would be considered less-than-significant.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action may be located in

areas that consist of medium dense to dense fine granular soils. In addition, perched ground water
could be present. As such, the soil in some areas of the alignment may have a high susceptibility to
liquefaction during seismic shaking. Other portions of the Project may be less susceptible to
liquefaction and related damage. Lateral spreading, often associated with liquefaction, is less likely
because there are no steep banks or hard ground bordering the Project area, but could still
potentially be a hazard. As a result, the following mitigation is proposed:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Perform Geotechnical Investigation. The City shall
require a design-level geotechnical study to be prepared prior to project implementation
to determine proper design and construction methods, including any cathodic protection
measures needed for installing the pipelines in these soils.
With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, any resulting impacts would be considered to be
less-than-significant.
(d)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action could be located on

expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). However, with
the incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 above, any impacts would be less-thansignificant.
(e)
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not include the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Application of recycled water to landscaped
areas in excess of agronomic rates could alter some soil properties that influence the suitability of a
site to be used for septic tanks or alternate wastewater disposal systems. However, the City will
ensure that all recycled water users apply water at agronomical rates. Therefore, no adverse effects
to soil resources are expected. No mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-23

Public Draft IS/MND
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions5

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an application plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.3 -Air Quality (i.e. starting on page 3-5),
construction of the Proposed Project/Action would generate emissions, but those temporary emissions
would not have a significant effect or impact on the environment. Emissions from the operation of
the Proposed Project/Action would be limited to operational or maintenance vehicles and would not
be considered a significant source or amount of emissions. The Proposed Project/Action would
include a new pumping station with electric motors and therefore would not generate and/or
significant emissions. As a result, any emissions resulting from the construction and/or operation of
the Proposed Project/Action would not be considered to have a significant impact on the environment.
No mitigation is necessary or required.
(b) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.3 -Air Quality (i.e. starting on page 3-5), the Proposed
Project/Action would not conflict with an application plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. MCAQMD has not adopted formal CEQA
Thresholds. MCAQMD has traditionally relied informally on the CEQA thresholds adopted by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with minor modifications reflecting location
conditions. MCAQMD has requested that the BAAQMD May 28, 2010 CEQA thresholds and CEQA
guidelines be followed to evaluate air quality impacts. Currently, these guidelines have been
overturned by the Alameda County Court and the BAAQMD has requested that its 1999 CEQA
Thresholds be used instead6. Specifically, based on BAAQMDs 1999 CEQA Thresholds, a project is
5
An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is included in the body of environmental document. While
the City has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers with as much information as
possible about the project, it is the State of Californias determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific
information related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination
regarding the projects direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. The City does remain firmly committed to
implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the
environmental document.
6
BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines were developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the
requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010
to include reference to thresholds of significance (Thresholds) adopted by the Air District Board on June 2, 2010. The
Guidelines were further updated in May 2011. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding
that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court did not determine whether the
Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the Thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a
March 2013
3-24

Public Draft IS/MND
considered to have a significant regional air quality impact if it would result in an increase in
emissions of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10, reactive organic gases (ROG) or nitrogen
oxides (NOX). ROG and NOX are both ozone precursors. Construction activities would begin in the
summer of 2013 and continue over an approximately 20-year period and into the 2030. Specifically,
each of the four phases is planned to be developed in 5-year increments. Overall construction work
would require the use of various types of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including bulldozers,
wheel loaders, excavators, and various kinds of trucks.
Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of
fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary day
to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather.
As shown in Appendix A, estimated construction emissions for the construction activities were
generated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Districts Road Construction
model (i.e. URBEMIS Model). (Note that this model was used because BAAQMD recommends its
use). The Roadway Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft Excel worksheet available to assess
the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimated construction equipment fleet mix and the
acreage and soil volume were put into the URBEMIS model in order to determine potential emissions
for each phase as well as for the overall project. Further, Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Section 3.3 Air
Quality (i.e. Pages 3-5 through 3-10) provide a summary of the emissions output from URBEMIS in
maximum pounds per day as well as in estimated tons for each phase of the Proposed Project/Action.
Table 9 provides a worst case scenario and assumes that all of the proposed project facilities were
constructed as one project instead of into four phases over 20 years. As shown in the tables, emissions
do not exceed BAAQMDs daily and/or annual significance thresholds. The Proposed Project/Action
would not conflict with an application plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases. No mitigation is necessary or required.
writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD had complied
with CEQA. In view of the courts order, BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the Thresholds be used as a generally
applicable measure of a projects significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quality
thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Although lead agencies may rely on BAAQMDs CEQA
Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health
impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the Thresholds
and is no longer recommending that these Thresholds be used as a general measure of a projects significant air quality impacts.
Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air Districts 1999 Thresholds of Significance and they may continue to make
determinations regarding the significance of an individual projects air quality impacts based on the substantial evidence in the
record for that project.
March 2013
3-25

Public Draft IS/MND
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

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
for people residing or working in the Project area?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
(a)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not involve the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials.
However, construction of the Proposed Project/Action could temporarily increase the transport
March 2013
3-0

Public Draft IS/MND
of materials generally regarded as hazardous materials that are used in construction activities. It
is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline,
diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, paint, and other similarly related materials would be brought onto the
project site, used, and stored during the construction period. The types and quantities of materials
to be used could pose a significant risk to the public and/or the environment. In addition,
construction of the Proposed Project/Action could result in the exposure of construction workers
and residents to potentially contaminated soils. As a result the following mitigation measures are
proposed:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
Store, Handle, Use Hazardous Materials in
Accordance with Applicable Laws. The City shall ensure that all construction-related
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be stored, handled, and used in a manner
consistent with relevant and applicable federal, state, and local laws. In addition,
construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be staged and stored
away from stream channels and steep banks to keep these materials a safe distance from
near-by residents and prevent them from entering surface waters in the event of an
accidental release.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Properly Dispose of Contaminated Soil and/or
Groundwater. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered or if suspected
contaminated is encountered during project construction, work shall be halted in the area,
and the type and extent of the contamination shall be identified. A contingency plan to
dispose of any contaminated soil or groundwater will be developed through consultation
with appropriate regulatory agencies.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Properly Dispose of Hydrostatic Test Water.
Dewatering and of the pipeline during hydrostatic testing during construction as well as
any dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to
land and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval
from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the Proposed Project/Action

could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. As with all construction activities, the potential exists for accidents to occur, which
could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the incorporation of
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 identified above, potential impacts are considered to
be less-than-significant.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of portions of the pipeline

segments of the Proposed Project/Action would be located within one-quarter mile of several
existing schools including Union High School, North Side School, and Oak Manor School among
others. Although construction activities would require the use of some hazardous materials, due
to the short duration and limited extent of construction activity, the potential for accidental
release of hazardous materials associated with construction activities to affect nearby school
children. In addition with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2
identified above, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
(d)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located on a site which is known to be included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and
therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, a
March 2013
3-1

Public Draft IS/MND
records search was conducted using the State of California Department of Toxic Substance
Controls Envirostor Database and GIS mapping system and no records of any identified
hazardous waste or materials was identified within the Proposed Project/Action Area. As a result,
no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.
(e)
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within two miles of the
Ukiah Municipal Airport. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would not adversely
affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety,
light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project
area. However, the operation of the new proposed wastewater storage facility has the potential to
attract birds and wildlife that could affect airport operations and has the potential to increase the
potential for bird strikes with aircraft at the Ukiah Municipal Airport. For all airports, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has jurisdiction on anything that can affect airport operations and
recommends a distance of 5 statute miles between the farthest edge of the airports air operation
area (AOA) and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife
movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. FAA considers existing and new
wastewater storage facilities to be an attractive nuisance to airport operations and the proposed
new wastewater storage pond is well within the AOA. As a result, this is regarded as a
potentially significant impact. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation
measures, the potential impacts can be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Consult with FAA, Ukiah Municipal Airport, USFWS,
and CDFG. The City shall initiate consultation with the Ukiah Municipal Airport
operations manager as well as with the FAA, USFWS, and CDFG to disclose plans for
developing the new wastewater storage facility and seek their input resulting in the
development of a specific plan and/or management activities to avoid or reduce the
potential for attracting hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or
departure airspace.
(f)
Ukiah Municipal Airport. In addition, there might be private airstrips in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project/Action. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action
would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings,
flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower
within the Project area. Any potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. No
specific mitigation is required.
(g)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. However,
when installing the pipelines in the existing roadways, the Proposed Project/Action could block
access to nearby roadways for emergency vehicles. With the incorporation of the following
mitigation, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ -5: Develop and Maintain Emergency Access Strategies.
In conjunction with Mitigation Measure Traffic-1: Develop a Traffic Control Plan
identified below in the Traffic and Transportation section, comprehensive strategies for
maintaining emergency access shall be developed. Strategies shall include, but not
limited to, maintaining steel trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across
open trenches and identification of alternate routing around construction zones. Also,
police, fire, and other emergency service providers shall be notified of the timing,
March 2013
3-2

Public Draft IS/MND
location, and duration of the construction activities and the location of detours and lane
closures.
(h) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action
would be located within an agricultural and urban setting, but is not generally located in an area
where there is the substantial risk of a wildland fire. Specifically, a records search of the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Severity mapping system does not
regard the Proposed Project/Action Area to be in an area of moderate or high risk to wildfires.
However, project components would be constructed within or near annual grasslands with
moderate to high potential for fire in the dry season. Operation of equipment used to construct the
Proposed Project/Action, such as bulldozers, tractors, transportation vehicles, welders, and
grinders cold increase the potential for fire. The potential exists for construction equipment and
vehicles to come into contact with heavily vegetated areas, thereby igniting dry vegetation. With
the implementation of the following mitigation, potential impacts would be reduced to less than
significant.
Mitigation MeasureHAZ-6: Develop and Implement Fire Management Plan. The
City shall develop and implement a Fire Management Plan (FMP) with the appropriate
local and state fire suppression agencies to verify that the necessary fire prevention and
response methods are included in the plan. The FMP shall also include fire precaution
and pre-suppression and suppression measures consistent with the policies and standards
in the affected jurisdictions (i.e. City and County). The FMP would include, but not be
limited to, the following requirements:
March 2013
The City shall ensure that, through enforcement of contractual obligations on the
contractor(s) during construction, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for
development using spark-producing equipment would be cleared of dried
vegetation or other materials that could serve as fire fuel. The contractor would
keep these areas clear of combustible materials to maintain a fire break. Any
construction equipment that normally includes a spark-arrester would be
equipped with an arrester in good working order. This would include, but not
limited to, vehicles, heavy equipment, and chainsaws.
Construction work crews would be required to carry sufficient fire suppression

equipment to ensure that any fire resulting from construction activities could be
immediately extinguished. All off-road equipment sing internal combustion
engines would be equipped with spark arresters.
3-3

Public Draft IS/MND
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion of siltation onor off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(erosion potential)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
March 2013
3-4

Public Draft IS/MND
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation.
Excavation, grading, and construction
activities associated with the Proposed Project/Action could violate water quality as those
activities would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation
in the Project area. Construction during the rainy season could result in increases in erosion,
station, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction
activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction
activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and
increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have
the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially
significant impact to water quality. With the incorporation of the following mitigation, any
potential impacts to water quality are reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices.
To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected
contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and
implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the
North Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall
include the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement
weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points;
stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing
plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent
properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips;
stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm
drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water
generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre-existing conditions.
In addition, the operation of the Proposed Project/Action and application of recycled water will
increase salts and nutrient loadings on the soils which could result in significant impacts to
adjacent surface and groundwater resources. Agricultural farmers within the area maintain their
own onsite pumping and distribution systems to supply water to their crops. Depending on their
access and water rights, they rely on water from the Russian River and its tributaries as well as
groundwater. Groundwater and Russian River are similar in water quality and generally have an
average TDS level of approximately 224 milligrams per liter (mg/l)7. At build out, the Proposed
Project/Action would offset approximately 1,375 afy of that supply with recycled water for
irrigation purposes. The proposed new recycled water supply would have an average TDS level
of approximately 345 mg/l8 which would result in an approximately 54 percent increase in salt
loading for the 1,375 afy of water to be used for irrigation purposes. It is assumed that with
proper irrigation best management practices, recycled water operations would have an 80 percent
irrigation efficiency, meaning that 80 percent of the applied recycled water would be lost through
evapotranspiration and the remaining 20 percent of the flow would percolate through the root
zone. All of the applied salts are assumed to remain with the 20 percent flow and would
percolate into the groundwater as a result of winter rains. The increased salt loading would result
in approximately 200 tons per year. However, in context to the overall Ukiah Valley
Groundwater Basin which has a capacity of 324,000 acre-feet, this incremental increase is not
7
8
California, Department of Water Resources (DWR), Californias Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118. February 2004.
City of Ukiah, Reclaimed Water Effluent TDS Study. September 2012.
March 2013
3-5

Public Draft IS/MND
considered to be a significant impact. Also, recycled water has higher amounts of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium than potable supplies. Thus, recycled water would help alleviate the
need to use fertilizers which are more readily applied if potable supplies are used for irrigation
and which are not accounted for in its TDS calculations. Further, with the implementation of the
following recycled water best management practices, any adverse impacts can be further reduced
and remain to be less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: Implement Recycled Water Best Management
Practices. In order to help reduce the potential effects of increased salt loading potential
as a result of using recycled water, the City shall:
Ensure that water is applied consistent with Title 22 requirements and in amounts
(frequency and intensity) which meet the demands of the plant (agronomic rates), but
not in excessive amounts such that salts buildup in the soil beyond the root zone
and/or otherwise are leached to groundwater;
Ensure that adequate soil drainage is maintained;
Ensure that salt-sensitive plants are not to be spray wet; and
Addressing sodium and alkalinity concerns through addition of water and soil
amendments, including addition of gypsum.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2, any water quality
impacts as a result of the use of recycled water will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. No
additional mitigation measures or demineralization facilities would be required.
(b)
No Impact. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be limited to 3-6 feet below surface elevation
and would not interfere with groundwater supplies. Once constructed, the pipeline will also not
adversely affect groundwater supplies. In fact, the importation of up to 1,375 acre-feet of
recycled water per year has the potential to offset current groundwater pumping which has the
potential to increase local groundwater supplies through an in-lieu recharge basis. Therefore, no
adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed

Project/Action would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result
in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site. Crossing of the six ephemeral streams or
drainages will be done using trenchless construction techniques in the dry season and will not
occur during the rainy weather months between October 15 and through April 1. These measures
will be combined with erosion and siltation controls and in-stream resource protection measures
as provided in Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, above. In addition, the Project area will be
returned to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project/Action would not
significantly alter any existing drainage areas.
(d)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed

Project/Action would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site. Crossing of the six existing ephemeral streams or drainages will be
done using trenchless construction techniques in the dry season and will not occur during the
March 2013
3-6

Public Draft IS/MND
rainy weather months between October 15 and through April 1. These measures will be combined
with erosion and siltation controls and in-stream resource protection measures as provided in
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, above. In addition, the Project area will be returned to preconstruction conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project/Action would not significantly alter any
existing drainage areas.
(e)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not result in any new significant impervious
surfaces and would not create new areas of low permeability. The Proposed Project/Action
would be returned to pre-construction conditions and would not significantly increase the
impervious surfaces and therefore would not create new areas of low permeability. As a result, no
additional runoff is expected to be generated by the Proposed Project/Action. Therefore, the
Proposed Project/Action would not result in exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is necessary.
(f)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not

substantially affect water quality. As discussed earlier, the construction of the Proposed
Project/Action could result in minor, temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation
issues. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above, potential
impacts to water quality would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
(g)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not redirect flood flows or otherwise place
housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required
or necessary.
(h)
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would be generally located within
the 100-year flood plain of the Russian River. However, the proposed pipeline facilities would be
located underground and would not be affected if inundated. The proposed storage facility at the
Ukiah WWTP would also be within the 100-year flood plain but would be built in a similar
fashion as to the other secondary storage facilities to withstand a 100-year event.
(i)
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding; including flooding as a
result of a failure of a levee or dam. The proposed storage facilities could potentially rupture as a
result of flooding and or a seismic event. However, the amount or volume of water would not
significantly expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. Any
potential impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required or
necessary.
(j)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving a seiche or tsunami. In addition, the Proposed
Project/Action area is essentially level, with minimal to no potential hazards from mudflows. No
impacts are likely or anticipated.
March 2013
3-7

Public Draft IS/MND
3.10 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the Project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not physically divide an established community.
The Proposed Project/Action is located in the City and in unincorporated portions of Mendocino
County. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not result in a
disruption, physical division, or isolation of existing residential or open space areas. As a result,
no impacts are likely or anticipated.
(b)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area. In fact, the City and
Mendocino County have developed strategic plans and policies to encourage the use of recycled
water. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(c)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As stated above, the Proposed Project/Action would
be constructed primarily within existing roadways and in agricultural lands of farmers who are
interested in receiving the recycled water. For this reason, no impact is expected and no
mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-8

Public Draft IS/MND
3.11 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

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 locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action site is not located on a site that is identified as a
significant source of mineral resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project/Action is not located
in an area identified as containing mineral resources classified MRZ-2 by the State geologist that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, the Proposed
Project/Action would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources; therefore,
no impact is expected. No mitigation is required.
(b)
No Impact. The Citys and Mendocino Countys General Plan do not identify any locally
important mineral resources or recovery sites in the Proposed Project/Actions area. Further, as
discussed in (a), the Proposed Project/Action would be unlikely to result in the loss of availability
of a mineral resource deposit that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore,
no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-9

Public Draft IS/MND
3.12 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Proposed Project/Action result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?
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 expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion
(a)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action is located in an

area with limited potential for sensitive receptors. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the
project site are residences along the proposed pipeline alignment within the City limits of Ukiah.
The Proposed Project/Action has the potential to generate noise during the construction phase
through the use of equipment and construction vehicle trips. Once constructed, the Proposed
Project/Action would not create any new sources of operational noise. Therefore, operation of the
pipeline would not result in noise impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would
generate temporary and intermittent noise. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the
particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment.
March 2013
3-10

Public Draft IS/MND
Back-up beepers associated with trucks and equipment used for material loading and unloading at
the staging area would generate significantly increased noise levels over the ambient noise
environment in order to be discernable and protect construction worker safety as required by
OSHA (29 CFR 1926.601 and 29 CFR 1926.602). Residences in the vicinity of the staging area
would thus be exposed to these elevated noise levels.
Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related noise
impacts would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase
ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially
significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. Compliance with the Citys noise
ordinance and implementation of the following mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts
related to construction noise, to a less-than-significant level. The following mitigation measures
are proposed:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Hours. Construction activities will
be limited to the least noise-sensitive times and will comply with both the City and
Mendocino County noise ordinances. Construction, alteration, repair or land development
activities shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., on
Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. No construction shall be permitted on
Sundays.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Locate Staging Areas away from Sensitive Receptors.
The Citys construction specification shall require that the contractor select staging areas
as far as feasibly possible from sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Maintain Mufflers on Equipment. The Citys
construction specifications shall require the contractor to maintain all construction
equipment with manufacturers specified noise-muffling devices.
Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Idling Prohibition and Enforcement. The City shall
prohibit and enforce unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. In practice, this
would mean turning off equipment if it will not be used for five or more minutes.
Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Equipment Location and Shielding. The City shall
require locating all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air
compressors as far as possible from homes and businesses.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, noise impacts would be considered lessthan-significant.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action

would not result in exposing people to or generating excessive groundborne vibration or noise
impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action could likely result in minor and temporary
increases in groundborne vibration or noise, however, construction activities would be temporary.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts associated with
the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
(c)
No Impact. The operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not increase noise in and around
the Project area. Once constructed, the operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in any
noise. The Proposed Project/Action would not cause a permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, this impact is
considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-11

Public Draft IS/MND
(d)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Project construction activities may lead to a

temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts
resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level.
(e)
Ukiah Municipal Airport.
However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed
Project/Action would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, takeoffs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and
the control tower within the Project area. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Any potential impacts are
considered to be less than significant. No specific mitigation is required.
(f)
Ukiah Municipal Airport. In addition, there might be private airstrips in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project/Action. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action
would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings,
flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower
within the Project area. The Proposed Project/Action would not expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Any potential impacts are considered to be
less than significant. No specific mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-12

Public Draft IS/MND
3.13 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Induce substantial 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 housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not induce population growth either directly or
indirectly. The Proposed Project/Action would be to provide 1,375 afy of recycled water for
irrigation and frost protection to offset surface and groundwater supplies currently being used for
irrigation purposes as farmers water supplies are being curtailed due to environmental and flow
restrictions on the Russian River. This recycled water supply would help supplement the Ukiah
Basins current groundwater supplies by an in-lieu recharge process, but would not be a sufficient
supply to induce urban growth in the area in and of itself. Theoretically, this amount of water
could help support a population increase of approximately 5,000 people. However, the City
already has more than enough water supplies and rights to meet and exceed current and
foreseeable planned growth and demand. As discussed in the Citys Urban Water Management
Plan, the Citys firm water supply capacity is approximately 43 percent higher than the maximum
projected demand through 2035. The total current water supply capacity is 65 percent higher than
projected 2035 demands. Therefore, the City has no planned projects to increase its water supply
production capacity. Therefore, this new supply would not really aid or facilitate any new growth
beyond the Citys existing planning horizon. Further, the City has growth management strategies
in place to control growth. In addition, construction, operation, and maintenance would not result
in any substantial increase in numbers of permanent workers/employees. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(b)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not result in displacing substantial numbers of
existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would avoid the need to demolish any existing
houses and would not affect any other housing structures. As a result, the Proposed
Project/Action would not displace existing housing, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
March 2013
3-13

Public Draft IS/MND
(c)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Construction of the Proposed
Project/Action would avoid the need to demolish existing housing and other housing structures.
As a result, the Proposed Project/Action is not expected to displace people from their homes.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
March 2013
3-14

Public Draft IS/MND
3.14 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.12 Population and Housing, the Proposed Project/Action
will not generate population growth and the operation and maintenance of the Proposed
Project/Action would not be labor intensive. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action would not
increase the demand for the kinds of public services that would support new residents, such as
schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and
no mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-15

Public Draft IS/MND
3.15 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action will not contribute to population growth. Therefore,
the Proposed Project/Action will not 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. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.
(b)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action does not include or require construction or expansion
of recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in (a), the Proposed Project/Action will not
increase the demand for recreational facilities. As a result, no impact is expected and no
March 2013
3-16

Public Draft IS/MND
3.16 Socioeconomics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project/Action:

a) Result in any adverse socioeconomic effects?
b) Conflict with Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice) policies?
c) Affect Indian Trust Assets?
Discussion
(a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not have any adverse
socioeconomic effects. The Proposed Project/Action would involve the construction and
operation of a recycled water system to offset the use of existing non-potable surface and
groundwater supplies. This would ensure a reliable, long-term water supply that would help
support the existing and future agricultural and urban landscape irrigation activities within Ukiah
Valley and which would be considered a beneficial socioeconomic effect. In addition, the
Proposed Project/Action would also benefit the City and residents of the City by finding a use of
the Citys treated wastewater as it is not able to discharge that water into the Russian River during
the months of March through October. The Proposed Project/Action would result in a land based
assessment which could have a negative socioeconomic effect within the City and/or the Ukiah
Valley. However, the development of this water supply could have a beneficial impact to the
region due to reduced discharge sanctions and future water service fees by reducing the need to
pursue more expensive future water supplies or actions for irrigation and frost prevention
purposes. In addition, the City would have to go through a Proposition 218 process where
beneficiary landowners would have to cast ballots before any additional assessments can be
levied. The City is pursuing several funding mechanisms which would include applying for state
and federal grants and loans to help reduce the cost of the project. In addition, the City would
repay any loans by charging a fee to users for the use of the recycled water. It is assumed that the
project costs would result in an increase in costs. However, the additional project costs would not
adversely affect any minority or low-income populations and/or adversely alter the
socioeconomic conditions of populations that reside within the City or Ukiah Valley. As a result,
the Proposed Project/Action would not have any adverse socioeconomic effects.
(b) No Impact. Executive 12898 requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice as
part of its mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human
health on environmental effects, including social and economic effects of its programs, policies,
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. The
Proposed Project/Action would involve the construction and operation of a recycled water system
to deliver supplemental water to the region to help protect and enhance the existing agricultural
practices within the City and Ukiah Valley. The Proposed Project/Action does not propose any
features that would result in disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects,
March 2013
3-17

Public Draft IS/MND
have any physical effects on minority or low-income populations, and/or alter socioeconomic
conditions of populations that reside or work within the City and/or Ukiah Valley.
(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not have any adverse effects on Indian Trust
Assets (ITA). ITAs are legal interests in property or rights held by the United States for Indian
Tribes or individuals. Trust status originates from rights imparted by treaties, statutes, or
executive orders. Examples of ITAs are lands, including reservations and public domain
allotments, minerals, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, or other natural resources, money or
claims. Assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights. ITAs cannot be
sold, leased, or otherwise alienated without federal approval. ITAs do not include things in which
a tribe or individuals have no legal interest such as off-reservation sacred lands or archaeological
sites in which a tribe has no legal property interest. No ITAs have been identified within the
construction areas of the Proposed Project/Action. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action
would have no adverse effects on ITAs.
March 2013
3-18

Public Draft IS/MND
3.17 Traffic and Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location which results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
(a)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Portions of the Proposed Project/Action would

be constructed within existing paved roadways as well as unpaved agricultural service roads.
Construction would temporarily disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the vicinity of
the project thus disrupting local vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along the haul route.
Although construction-generated traffic would be temporary during peak excavation and
earthwork activities, average daily truck trips would be 40 round-trip truck trips per day. The
primary impacts from the movement of trucks would include short-term and intermittent
lessening of roadway capacities due to slower movements and larger turning radii of the trucks
compared to passenger vehicles. The following mitigation measures are proposed:
March 2013
3-19

Public Draft IS/MND
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prepare and Implement Traffic Control Plan. As is

consistent with existing policy, the City shall require the contractor to prepare and
implement effective traffic control plans in the areas of City streets to show specific
methods for maintaining traffic flows. Examples of traffic control measures to be
considered include: 1) use of flaggers to maintain alternating one-way traffic while
working on one-half of the street; 2) use of advance construction signs and other public
notices to alert drivers of activity in the area; 3) use of positive guidance detour signing
on alternate access streets to minimize inconvenience to the driving public; 4) provisions
for emergency access and passage; and 5) designated areas for construction worker
parking.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following
construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during
construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, potential temporary impacts are
considered to be less-than-significant.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above in (a), construction

activities of the Proposed Project/Action may result in increased vehicle trips. This could
temporarily exceed, either individually or cumulatively, existing level of service standards.
However, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in any long-term degradation in operating
conditions or level of service on any project roadways. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRA-1 impacts associated with exceeding level of service standards would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level.
(c)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action does not involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to
cause any change in air traffic patterns. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required.
(d)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action does not propose to make changes to roadways that
would create road hazards or alter design features developed to mitigate such hazards. No
impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
(e)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would have

temporary effects on traffic flow, due to added truck traffic during construction which could
result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require the contractor to establish methods for maintaining
traffic flow in the project vicinity and minimizing disruption to emergency vehicle access to land
uses along the truck route. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would also ensure
potential impacts associated with temporary effects on emergency access would be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
(f)
Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related construction activities would require additional

parking for workers and equipment on a temporary basis. However, sufficient space exists within
the construction easement to accommodate parking needs for construction workers and
equipment. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(g)
Less-than-Significant Impact. The construction activities associated with the Proposed

Project/Action would be short term and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation.
Also once constructed, the Proposed
Project/Action would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation. Any short-term effects would be considered less than significant.
March 2013
3-20

Public Draft IS/MND
3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Projects solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
(a)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. In fact, the Proposed Project/Action
would help dispose of the Citys existing treated wastewater consistent with the requirements of
the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated
and no mitigation is required.
March 2013
3-21

Public Draft IS/MND
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would involve the construction of a

water recycling system to serve the recycled water for irrigation and frost protection purposes
within the City and portions of Ukiah Valley instead of discharging to the treated wastewater
effluent to the Russian River. However, any impacts associated with the construction and/or
operations are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(c)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not require or result in the construction of
additional off-site storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no
(d)
No Impact. Under the Proposed Project/Action the City will be providing tertiary treated from
its existing UWWTP for irrigation and frost protection purposes in the City and portions of the
Ukiah Valley instead of discharging to the treated wastewater effluent to the Russian River. The
City has sufficient supplies to meet the needs of the Proposed Project/Action and would not need
to purchase any new supplies or entitlements. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no
(e)
No Impact. Under the Proposed Project/Action, the City will be providing tertiary treated from
its existing UWWTP for irrigation and frost protection purposes in the City and portions of the
Ukiah Valley instead of discharging to the treated wastewater effluent to the Russian River. The
City has sufficient supplies to meet the needs of the Proposed Project/Action and would not need
to purchase any new supplies or entitlements. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no
(f)
No Impact. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not generate a
significant amount of solid wastes. The City and Mendocino Countys solid wastes currently are
shipped 90 miles to the Potrero Hills landfill in Solano County as the Citys landfill was closed.
However, construction and operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not generate a
significant amount of solid wastes. No impacts are expected to existing landfills and no
(g)
No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts and no
March 2013
3-22

Public Draft IS/MND
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

a) Have the potential to 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, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that would be individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(Cumulatively considerable means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Have environmental effects that would
cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
(a)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. With the incorporation of the previously

identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project/Action will not substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, 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,
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. Any impacts from the
Proposed Project/Action in these areas are considered here to be less-than-significant with the
implementation and incorporation of the above mentioned mitigation measures.
(b)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section

15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were
any project-specific effects as a result of the Proposed Project/Action. No direct project-specific
significant effects were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative (as well
March 2013
3-23

Public Draft IS/MND
as direct) impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the Proposed
Project/Action does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
(c)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As a result of mitigation included in this

environmental document, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in substantial adverse
effects to humans, either directly or indirectly.
March 2013
3-24

Public Draft IS/MND
Chapter 5
Bibliography
Detailed below are the sources referenced during the preparation of this environmental document.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines. 1999.
City of Ukiah. Biological Resources Investigation Report. 2012.
City of Ukiah. Cultural Resources Investigation Report. 2012.
City of Ukiah. Recycled Water Master Plan. February 2012.
City of Ukiah. Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
California Natural Diversity Database, July 2012
California Department of Toxic Substances. Envirostor database and GIS System. July 2012
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Severity Mapping. July 2012
California, Department of Water Resources (DWR), Californias Groundwater Basin, Bulletin

118. February 2004.
County of Mendocino, Ukiah Valley Area Plan. 2007.
Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California
(NWIC File # 12-0047). 2012.
March 2013
5-1
Appendix A
Air Quality Emissions Calculations
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2

Emission Estimates for ->
Project Phases (English Units)
City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project - Phase 1

ROG (lbs/day)
CO (lbs/day)
NOx (lbs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
CO2 (lbs/day)
4.3
17.8
31.2
3.9
1.4
2.5
1.8
1.3
0.5
3,583.6
Grading/Excavation
6.0
35.0
41.6
4.5
2.0
2.5
2.3
1.8
0.5
5,558.7
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
4.3
17.6
28.6
4.1
1.6
2.5
2.0
1.4
0.5
3,354.4
Paving
3.0
11.6
14.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1,573.9
Maximum (pounds/day)
6.0
35.0
41.6
4.5
2.0
2.5
2.3
1.8
0.5
5,558.7
Total (tons/construction project)
0.6
3.1
4.3
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
533.5
Notes:
Project Start Year ->
2013
Project Length (months) ->
12
Total Project Area (acres) ->
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) ->

Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)->
0
250
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions
shown in columns K and L.

Project Phases (Metric Units)

ROG (kgs/day)
CO (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
NOx (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day)
CO2 (kgs/day)
2.0
8.1
14.2
1.8
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.2
1,628.9
Grading/Excavation
2.7
15.9
18.9
2.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.2
2,526.7
2.0
8.0
13.0
1.9
0.7
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.2
1,524.7
Paving
1.4
5.3
6.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Maximum (kilograms/day)
2.7
15.9
18.9
2.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.2
2,526.7
0.6
2.9
3.9
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
483.9
Total (megagrams/construction project)

Notes:
2013
12
Total Project Area (hectares) ->
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) ->

Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)->
715.4
0
191
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions


ROG (lbs/day)
CO (lbs/day)
NOx (lbs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
CO2 (lbs/day)
3.1
14.0
21.2
3.4
0.9
2.5
1.3
0.8
0.5
3,774.3
Grading/Excavation
3.6
22.2
22.2
3.6
1.1
2.5
1.5
0.9
0.5
4,820.1
3.0
15.7
19.1
3.5
1.0
2.5
1.4
0.9
0.5
3,545.0
Paving
2.1
11.4
11.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1,762.3
3.6
22.2
22.2
3.6
1.1
2.5
1.5
0.9
0.5
4,820.1
0.4
2.3
2.6
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
509.6
Notes:
2019
12

0
100


ROG (kgs/day)
CO (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
NOx (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
CO2 (kgs/day)
1.4
6.3
9.6
1.5
0.4
1.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
1,715.6
Grading/Excavation
1.6
10.1
10.1
1.6
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.2
2,191.0
1.4
7.1
8.7
1.6
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
1,611.4
Paving
0.9
5.2
5.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.6
10.1
10.1
1.6
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.2
2,191.0
0.4
2.1
2.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
462.2

Notes:
801.1
2019
12

76


ROG (lbs/day)
CO (lbs/day)
NOx (lbs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
CO2 (lbs/day)
2.5
13.3
14.9
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
4,073.2
Grading/Excavation
2.6
21.2
14.4
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
5,121.0
2.3
16.0
13.3
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
3,843.9
Paving
1.5
12.4
9.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
2,060.3
2.6
21.2
14.9
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
5,121.0
0.3
2.3
1.8
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
549.2
Notes:
2025
12

0
100


ROG (kgs/day)
CO (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
NOx (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
CO2 (kgs/day)
1.1
6.0
6.8
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
1,851.5
Grading/Excavation
1.2
9.7
6.5
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
2,327.7
1.0
7.3
6.1
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
1,747.2
Paving
0.7
5.6
4.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.2
9.7
6.8
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
2,327.7
0.3
2.1
1.6
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
498.1

Notes:
936.5
2025
12

76


ROG (lbs/day)
CO (lbs/day)
NOx (lbs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
CO2 (lbs/day)
2.6
14.8
16.1
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
4,337.7
Grading/Excavation
2.8
22.8
15.6
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
5,385.5
2.5
17.6
14.5
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
4,108.5
Paving
1.7
14.0
10.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2,324.9
2.8
22.8
16.1
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
5,385.5
0.3
2.5
1.9
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
584.1
Notes:
2025
12

0
100


ROG (kgs/day)
CO (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
NOx (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
CO2 (kgs/day)
1.2
6.7
7.3
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
1,971.7
Grading/Excavation
1.3
10.4
7.1
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
2,448.0
1.1
8.0
6.6
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
1,867.5
Paving
0.8
6.4
4.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1,056.8
1.3
10.4
7.3
1.4
0.3
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
2,448.0
0.3
2.3
1.7
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
529.8
Notes:
2025
12

76

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project - Total

ROG (lbs/day)
CO (lbs/day)
NOx (lbs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM10 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
PM2.5 (lbs/day)
CO2 (lbs/day)
11.0
42.1
50.4
5.6
3.1
2.5
3.3
2.8
0.5
6,366.9
Grading/Excavation
13.4
67.7
66.2
6.4
3.9
2.5
4.0
3.5
0.5
9,277.7
11.0
41.9
47.8
5.8
3.3
2.5
3.5
3.0
0.5
6,137.7
9.7
35.8
33.7
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.7
4,357.2
13.4
67.7
66.2
6.4
3.9
2.5
4.0
3.5
0.5
9,277.7
1.6
6.8
7.1
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
950.3
Paving
Notes:
2013
12

0
400

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project - Total

ROG (kgs/day)
CO (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
NOx (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
PM10 (kgs/day)
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
CO2 (kgs/day)
5.0
19.1
22.9
2.6
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.3
0.2
2,894.1
Grading/Excavation
6.1
30.8
30.1
2.9
1.8
1.1
1.8
1.6
0.2
4,217.1
5.0
19.0
21.7
2.6
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.4
0.2
2,789.8
Paving
4.4
16.3
15.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1,980.5
6.1
30.8
30.1
2.9
1.8
1.1
1.8
1.6
0.2
4,217.1
1.4
6.2
6.4
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
861.9
Notes:
2013
12

0
306
Appendix B
Biological Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah
Recycled Water Project
Prepared by:
September 2012
September 2012
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Purpose of this Assessment ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2
Project Location and Background ................................................................................................. 5
1.3
Goal and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 8
Section 2 - Description of Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 9

2.1
Proposed Project/Action Description ........................................................................................... 9
2.1.1
Potential Users and Phasing.................................................................................................. 9
2.1.2
Pipeline Facilities ................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.3
Pump Station ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.4
Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................. 12
2.2
Construction Considerations....................................................................................................... 13
2.3
Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water Policy ................................... 15
2.4
Operational Plans ........................................................................................................................ 16
2.5
Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals ........................................................................... 16
Section 3 Environmental and Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 17

3.1 Regulatory Environment ................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.1
Federal Regulations................................................................................................................. 17
3.1.1.2
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act...................................................................................... 18
3.1.1.3
Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................................. 18
3.1.1.4
River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act ........................................................................ 19
3.1.2
State Regulations .................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.2.1
California Endangered Species Act..................................................................................... 19
3.1.2.2
California Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern ................................... 20
3.1.2.3
California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 350 ............................................ 21
3.1.2.3
California Native Plant Protection Act ............................................................................... 21
3.1.2.4
California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616................................. 21
3.1.3
Local ........................................................................................................................................ 22
September 2012

3.1.3.1
3.2
City of Ukiah General Plan ................................................................................................. 22
Regional Setting .......................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.1
Local Setting ........................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.2
Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................ 24
3.3
Potentially Affected Federal Species and Habitats ..................................................................... 24
Section 4 Effects on Species and Habitat ........................................................................................ 33

4.1
General Effects ............................................................................................................................ 33
4.2
Effects to State and Federally Listed Species and Habitat .......................................................... 34
4.2.1
Mammals ............................................................................................................................ 35
Actinemys marmorata - Western Pond Turtle .................................................................................... 35

4.2.2
Birds .................................................................................................................................... 36
Agelaius tricolor -Tricolored blackbird ................................................................................................ 37

Pandion haliaetus Osprey ................................................................................................................ 38
Strix occidentalis caurina - Northern spotted owl .............................................................................. 39
4.2.3
Fish ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Oncorhynchus kisutch - Central California coast coho salmon ........................................................... 41

Oncorhynchus mykiss - Central Valley steelhead................................................................................ 41
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - California coastal Chinook salmon ....................................................... 41
4.2.4
Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands............................................................... 46
Seasonal Wetland/Vernal pools.......................................................................................................... 46

Other Waters of the US....................................................................................................................... 46
Section 5
5.1
Determination of Effects ................................................................................................ 49

No Effect...................................................................................................................................... 49
Plant Species ....................................................................................................................................... 49

Mammals ............................................................................................................................................ 49
Birds .................................................................................................................................................... 50
Reptiles................................................................................................................................................ 50
Amphibians ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Invertebrates....................................................................................................................................... 50
5.2
Potential to Affect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect ............................................................... 50
Plants................................................................................................................................................... 50
Mammals ............................................................................................................................................ 50
September 2012

Birds .................................................................................................................................................... 50
Fish ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Invertebrates....................................................................................................................................... 50
Section 6 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 50
List of Figures
Figure 1:General Location Map .................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2:Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments .................................................................................. 9
Figure 3:Recommended Phasing of Proposed Project/Action ................................................................... 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters ............................................................................................. 9
Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary .................................................................................. 12
Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities........................................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities .................. 16
Table 5: Potential for Special-Stats Species to Occr in the Proposed Project/Action Study Area .............. 25
September 2012
Section 1 - Introduction
This document identifies potential state and federally-listed species and species of concern that could be
affected by the implementation of the City of Ukiahs (City) proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed
Project/Action). This section describes the existing biological resources within the Proposed
Project/Action footprint and addresses potential impacts to biological resources associated with
implementation of the proposed Project/Action. This evaluation includes a review of potentially
occurring special-status species, wildlife habitats, waters of the U.S. including wetlands, and tree
resources. The results of this evaluation are based on literature searches, database queries, and a
reconnaissance-level survey of the Proposed Project/Action area.
1.1 Purpose of this Assessment

The purpose of this document is to analyze the potential effects of the Citys Proposed Project/Action on
those state and federally listed and proposed species that may occur in the Proposed Action Area. This
document conforms to and with the legal requirements set forth under the California Endangered
Species Act of 1984 (CESA) Fish and Game Code Section 2050 as well as Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C 1536(c) and 50 CFR 402). It is presumed that the City will be the lead agency
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, the City is pursuing funds from the
State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Board) on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as potentially
under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program administered by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) under the U.S. Department of the Interiors Public Law 102-575. As a result either
the State Board or USBR would be the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As a result, this document evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects the Proposed
Project/Action may have upon state and federally listed and proposed species. Based on this analysis, a
determination is made as to whether the Proposed Project/Action may adversely affect these species,
and recommends mitigation that may reduce potential adverse effects.
1.2 Project Location and Background

southern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the
east by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above
mean sea level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south
near El Robles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs
north to south through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to
south through the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County.
September 2012
8"
8"
8"
8"
1 6"
16"
"
" 12
12"
12"
16"
8"
8"
16"
1 6"
16"
16"
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
12"
12"
1
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Figure 1
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/

the Citys moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end
of the 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County
(www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood
production plants, in addition to up-and-coming nonagricultural manufacturers.
providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within
their service area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both
irrigate their crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources
have become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-stream flow
requirements for endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies,
including recycled water, has increased.
affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of
these diversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries
extensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay
of the State Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and
Sonoma Counties.
Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative
water supplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service
providers in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River
and Lake Mendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area
would increase the overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions.
The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent
of the UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City
is limited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly
stringent discharge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be
discharged to the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges
very high quality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which
September 2012

treated effluent can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including
delivery of recycled water to irrigation customers.
1.3 Goal and Objectives

The goal and objectives and purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to construct an approximately
9.4-mile pipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands
in the Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,375 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys
existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected
tertiary recycled water unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22,
Sections 60301 through 60355.
The City held a visioning workshop on February 28, 2011 early in the master planning process to ensure
the Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) aligned with the goals and values of the City and other
potentially affected interests. To ensure the master plan addressed both local and regional issues and
provided local and regional benefits, the City of Ukiah invited City engineering, planning, management,
and operations staff, water service providers in the surrounding area from Redwood Valley to Willow
County Water District, and agricultural entities to partake in the visioning workshop. Attendees included
representatives from the following entities:
City of Ukiah
Ukiah Valley Sanitation District
Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District
Mendocino County Farm Bureau
Millview Water District
Rogina Water District
Willow Water District
Redwood Valley Water District
The group discussed values and challenges pertaining to the RWMP and identified several goals and
objectives. The primary goals and objectives that were identified include:
Implementing a recycled water program that is safe and meets the needs of the City and
surrounding communities, including local agricultural businesses;
Reducing withdrawals from the Russian River and Lake Mendocino surface waters;
Implementing a program that helps the City with its disposal options for its treated wastewater
effluent; and
Implementing a program that is financially viable and minimizes costs to ratepayers.
It was agreed during the workshop that implementing recycled water anywhere within Ukiah Valley and
the surrounding area would improve the regional water supply from Redwood Valley to Hopland. The
attendees also identified major water uses located near the recycled water source the UWWTP.
September 2012
Section 2 - Description of Proposed Action

This section provides a detailed description of Proposed Project/Action including a discussion of the
construction considerations, compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board Requirements, operational
plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary. In addition, this section also
describes the No Project/Action Alternative.
2.1
Proposed Project/Action Description
Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water demands for
irrigation and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local agricultural
industry. It would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah
Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP), and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.
culminating in a recommended or preferred alternative. The basis for the Proposed Project for this
report and environmental analysis is identified as the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 7 of the Citys
February 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. As shown in Figure 2 below, the Proposed Project/Action
would consist of 9.4 -miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8- to 16-inch to provide
recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of agricultural and
urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 parcels covering 703
acres would be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284
acres would be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary
of the key parameters of the overall Proposed Project/Action. What follows is a discussion of the major
Parameter
Number of
Units
1,234
703
44
142
284
17
9.4
8-16
Pump Station
2.1.1 Potential Users and Phasing

September 2012
RD
ER
REDEMEYE R
R E D EM EY
R
G
R
EI
OL
O
RT
BA
H ILL
RD
B UD HI
BODMI WAY
HOW ELL
CRE
E
K RD
EASTSID
E RD
ST I
NV
IL L
NG
HR
ROSEMAR
Y HILL R A NC
RUDDIC
12"
GIELOW LN
TW
IN
I
Pond Site
12"
ER
B
KNO
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
BO
D
ON R
A TS
DR
R
TAYLOR D
ES
TAT
I NGHA M RD
K CUNN
RD
LEE
AVE
BISBY
PARK CREEK LN
EL
E
RK
BU
D
ER
BL
RO
D
LR
HIL
B ISB Y A V
ADDOR
BROGGIE LN
16"
SS
RD
RD
REEK
MILL C
N
PP L
SHE P RD L
A
TALMAGE RD
16"
O LL
K KN
IL
DR
VAN PELT
TINDALL RANCH RD
OL
OA
RD
LN
DR
KNO LL RD
RID G
EUNICE CT
M
PO
OA
ES T
VIE
W
AV E
SON
JEFFER
DR
DR
16"
CR
IS
AR
IN
OL
P
A
1 6"
LA
WS
N
V I C HY SPRI
RD
RIVER
BEACON LN
I ST
8"
AIRPORT RD
CRESTA DR
S DORA ST
HELEN AVE
AVE
LU CE
AVE
LUCE
T AL MAG E R D
IS LN
LEW
E GOBB
REDWOOD HWY
RD AVE
H LN
WAUG
C INO DR
EW
POMO DR
S ORCHA
ST
ST
S OAK
ME
ND
O
S MAIN
DR
ND
HLA
HIG
Y ST
W CLA
T
ILL S
WM
VI
T
KINS S
E PER
ST
NDLEY
T
W STA
R CH S
W CHU
16"
1 6"
N MAIN ST
ST
STA
EY
NL
12"
CLARA AVE
N OAK
H ST
8"
"
VE
BRUSH ST
FORD ST
UA
12"
N BUS
E AV
12"
ST
MA
PL
8"
BRIGGS ST
8"
8"
8"
LE W
16"
EMPIRE DR
RD
IS
FORD RD
TE
N STA
TE ST
N STA
LO W
GA P R
FEED LOT RD
DESPINA DR
LOVERS LN
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
River
DIAMETER
Local Streets
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Major Roads
Figure 2
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/
RD
ER
N
V I C HY SPRI
UA
R
EI
OL
O
ADDOR
TALMAGE RD
B UD HI
TINDALL RANCH RD
LN
BROGGIE LN
GIELOW LN
SS
ES
TAT
T
ST I
BO
CRE
E
K RD
RD
CUNNINGHAM
RD
LEE
NV
IL L
ER
K
RUDDIC
B I SB Y
A VE
EL
E
RK
BU
PARK CREEK LN
NG
HR
ROSEMAR
Y HILL R A NC
HOW ELL
TW
IN
I
EASTSID
E RD
OA
Ukiah
WWTP
O LL
K KN
N
PP L
SHE P RD L
A
BODMI WAY
RD
REEK
MILL C
DR
KNO LL RD
RD
RD
AV E
SON
JEFFER
EUNICE CT
AIRPORT RD
LA
WS
OA
H ILL
LN
S DORA ST
HELEN AVE
TAL MAGE RD
BEACON LN
ES T
VIE
W
RD
RIVER
H
WAUG
ST
AVE
LU CE
CR
I ST
DR
VAN PELT
RT
E GOBB
RD
BA
RID G
B
KNO
ILL S
REDWOOD HWY
WM
PLUM ST
S OAK
DR
ND
HLA
HIG
ST
URCH
W CH
ST
Y
A
L
WC
T
KINS S
E PER
D
ON R
A TS
DR
S
NDLEY
DR
POMO D R
W STA
ST
IL
CLARA AVE
N OAK
H ST
AV
FORD ST
N BUS
STA
EY
NL
IS
AR
IN
OL
P
A
R E D EM EY
BRIGGS ST
LE W
IS
EMPIRE DR
G AP RD
RD
FORD RD
TE ST
N STA
L OW
FEED LOT RD
REDEMEYER
LOVERS LN
D
ER
BL
RO
D
LR
HIL
B ISB Y A V
0
Miles
Legend

by Phase
1
2
3
4
by Phase
1
2
3

River
Major Roads
Local Streets
Figure 3
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/

Irrigation
Phase
Agricultural
Urban
Landscape
Frost
Protection
Total by
Phase
Cumulative
Total
309.2
0.0
94.6
403.8
403.8
210.4
0.0
4.8
215.1
618.9
311.8
22.2
42.3
376.3
995.2
0.0
380.6
0.0
380.6
1,375.8
Total
831.4
402.8
141.7
1,375.8
2.1.2 Pipeline Facilities

miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8 and 16-inches in diameter. The recycled water
would be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be
available up to the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities.
The pipeline will be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first
phase is anticipated to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be
along paved roads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along
paved roads, primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a
part of Phase 4 would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to
minimize the total length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral
streams and/or drainages that lead to the Russian River.
2.1.3 Pump Station

planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with
spare bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in
Phase 2. Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for
frost protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation.
2.1.4 Storage Facilities
As also shown on Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action also includes the construction and operation of
a new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a
12
September 2012

Project/Action.
Phase
1
1
2
2
Type of Alignment
Diameter
(inches)
16
12

Phase 1 Subtotal
16
Paved Public Street
16

Phase 2 Subtotal
Length
(feet)
1,300
Length
(miles)
0.25
Construction
Schedule
2013 - 2014
5,600
1.06
2013 - 2014
6,900
1.31
2013 - 2014
5,600
1.06
2019 - 2020
4,200
0.80
2019 - 2020
9,800
1.86
2019 - 2020
16
9,000
1.70
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
16
4,000
0.76
2025 - 2026
12
400
0.08
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
1,000
0.19
2025 - 2026
14,400
2.73
2025 - 2026
12
4,700
0.89
2031 - 2032
Phase 3 Subtotal
4
Paved Public Street
Paved Public Street
13,800
2.61
2031 - 2032
Phase 4 Subtotal
18,500
3.50
2031 - 2032
49,600
9.40
2013 - 2032
Note:
2.2 Construction Considerations

summer of 2013 and continue over approximately a 20 year period as each of the four phases are
planned to be developed in five (5) year increments beginning in 2013. Construction work will typically
be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly
on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be
constructed primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during
construction will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary
of the construction techniques and activities.
techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50 foot wide
However, in most places a 25 foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the
13
September 2012

construction techniques and will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy
weather and during the months between October 15 and through April 1.
dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and
not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB).
brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to
characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that each phase of the
project would be constructed by two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of
approximately 500-1,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging
areas for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that
would minimize hauling distances and long-term disruption.
generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions
for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may
include, but not limited to:
Backhoe
Grader
Crane
Dozer
Compactor
Front-end loader
Water truck
14
September 2012
Forklift
Street sweeper
provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated
with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are
described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any
minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.
2.3
Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water Policy
The Proposed Project/Action will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable
requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation that
is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Board adopted
a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling
throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part of that
process, the State Board prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the use of
recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated by
reference for this document and Proposed Project/Action. The newly adopted RW Policy includes a
mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1,000,000 AFY by
2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservation
and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed
both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has designated the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the
North Coast RWQCB is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the North Coast
Area and including Mendocino County.
The Proposed Project/Action will be provided high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled
water from UWWTP and made available to users within the Ukiah Valley. All irrigation systems will be
operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled Water
Policy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled
water and any reclamation permits issued by the North Coast RWQCB. Recycled water permits typically
require the following:
Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated;
Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities;
Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to the
release of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first;
15
September 2012
Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and
Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditions
have been met as defined in Title 22.
2.4 Operational Plans

The City will enforce an irrigation schedule among its users. The irrigation schedule is assumed as
follows:
Agricultural Irrigation: 6 AM to 6 PM
Landscape Irrigation: 6 PM to 5 AM
Frost Protection Irrigation: Only as required
By irrigating using the above scheduling, peak flows are reduced and pipe sizing is optimized.
2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals

Table 4 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to
construction of the Proposed Project/Action. Additional local approvals and permits may also be
required.
Table 4: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities
Agency
Type of Approval
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit #12 for Construction Activities

(or) Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit
Coordination with Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) for permitting of new wastewater storage
pond
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control

Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

General Permit for Stormwater Discharge
Associated with Construction Activities
Recycled Water Use Permit
California Division of Occupational Safety and

Health
Construction activities in compliance with

CAL/OSHA safety requirements
Streambed Alteration Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Ukiah Municipal Airport Operations Permitting of

new wastewater storage pond
Mendocino County Air Quality Management

District (BAAQMD)
Authority to Construct
County of Mendocino
Encroachment Permit County Roads
Permit to Operate
16
September 2012
Section 3 Environmental and Regulatory Setting

This section describes the existing environment within and around the Proposed Project/Action Study
Area as it pertains to state and federally-listed species.
3.1 Regulatory Environment

The following discussion identifies federal, state, and local regulations that serve to protect sensitive
biological resources relevant to the environmental review process.
3.1.1 Federal Regulations

The following discussion identifies federal regulations that serve to protect sensitive biological resources
relevant to the environmental review process.
3.1.1.1
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Secretary of the Interior (represented by the USFWS) and the Secretary of Commerce (represented
by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS) have joint authority to list a species as threatened or
endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (United States Code [USC], Title 16,
Section 1533[c]). FESA prohibits the take of endangered or threatened fish, wildlife, or plants species
in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law, in addition to adverse modifications to
their critical habitat. Under FESA, the definition of take is to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The USFWS and
NMFS also interpret the definition of harm to include significant habitat modification that could result
in the take of a species.
If an activity would result in the take of a federally listed species, one of the following is required: an
incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of FESA, or an incidental take statement issued pursuant to
federal interagency consultation under Section 7 of FESA. Such authorization typically requires various
measures to avoid and minimize species take, and to protect the species and avoid jeopardy to the
species continued existence.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 7 of FESA, a federal agency reviewing a proposed project which
it may authorize, fund, or carry out must determine whether any federally listed threatened or
endangered species, or species proposed for federal listing, may be present in the project area and
determine whether implementation of the proposed project is likely to affect the species. In addition,
the federal agency is required to determine whether a proposed project is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed or designated for such species (16 USC
1536[3], [4]).
Generally, the USFWS implements FESA for terrestrial and freshwater fish species and the NMFS
implements FESA for marine and andromous fish species. USFWS and/or NMFS must authorize projects
17
September 2012

where a federally listed species is present and likely to be affected by an existing or proposed project.
Authorization may involve a letter of concurrence that the project will not result in the potential take of
a listed species, or may result in the issuance of a Biological Opinion that describes measures that must
be undertaken to minimize the likelihood of an incidental take of a listed species. A project that is
determined by USFWS or NMFS to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species cannot be
approved under a Biological Opinion.
Where a federal agency is not authorizing, funding, or carrying out a project, take that is incidental to
the lawful operation of a project may be permitted pursuant to Section 10(a) of FESA through approval
of a habitat conservation plan (HCP).
FESA requires the federal government to designate critical habitat for any species it lists under the
Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to
the species conservation, and those features that may require special management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the regulatory
agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation.
3.1.1.2
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. I, 1989), as amended by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The act addresses whole birds,
parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. For projects that would not cause direct mortality of birds, the
MBTA is generally interpreted in CEQA analyses as protecting active nests of all species of birds that are
included in the List of Migratory Birds published in the Federal Register in 1995 and as amended in
2005. Though the MBTA allows permits to be issued for import and export, banding, scientific collecting,
taxidermy, and rehabilitation, among other reasons, there is no provision in the MBTA that allows for
species take9 related to creation or other development (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50: Wildlife
and fisheries Part 21; Migratory Bird Permits).
3.1.1.3
Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several
times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from
taking bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The act provides criminal penalties for persons
who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import,
at any time or any manner, any bald eagle[or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg
thereof. The act defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect,
molest, or disturb.
18
September 2012

3.1.1.4
River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act
The Secretary of the Army (represented by the Corps of Engineers [USACE]) has permitting authority
over activities affecting waters of the United States under Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act (33
USC 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water (33 USC 1344). Waters of the United States are defined in
Title 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams
(including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act requires a federal license or permit
prior to accomplishing any work in, over, or under navigable10 waters of the United States, or which
affects the course, location, condition or capacity of such waters. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
requires a federal license or permit prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, unless the activity is exempt (33 CFR 324.4) from Section 404 permit requirements (e.g., certain
farming and forestry activities). To obtain a federal license or permit, project proponents must
demonstrate that they have attempted to avoid the resource or minimize impacts on the resource;
however, if it is not possible to avoid impacts or minimize impacts further, the project proponent is
required to mitigate remaining project impacts on all federally-regulated waters of the United States.
Section 401 of the Act (33 USC 1341) requires any project proponents for a federal license or permit to
conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the creation or operation of facilities, which may result
in any discharge into navigable waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in
which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution
control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates
or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water
quality standards. A certification obtained for the creation of any facility must also pertain to the
subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California
rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its 9 Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs).
3.1.2 State Regulations

The following discussion identifies federal regulations that serve to protect sensitive biological resources
3.1.2.1
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Section 2081 of the California Fish and
Game Code, a permit from the CDFG is required for activities that could result in the take of a statelisted threatened or endangered species (i.e., species listed under CESA). The definition of take is to
hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill (Fish and Game
Code Section 86).
Unlike the federal definition of take, the state definition does not include harm or harass. As a
result, the threshold for take under CESA is typically higher than that under FESA. Section 2080 of the
19
September 2012

Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the authority of CESA, except
as otherwise permitted under Fish and Game Code Sections 2080.1, 2081, and 2835. Under CESA, the
California Fish and Game Commission retains a list of threatened species and endangered species (Fish
and Game Code Section 2070). The California Fish and Game Commission also maintains two additional
lists:
1. Candidate species (CDFG has issued a formal notice that the species is under review for addition to
either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species)
2. Species of special concern (which serves as a watch list)
A lead agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any statelisted threatened or endangered species may be present in a project area and determine whether the
proposed project may take a listed species, consistent with the requirements of CESA. If a take would
occur, an incidental take permit would be required from the CDFG, including a mitigation plan that
provides measures to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the take. The measures must be
roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking and must be capable of successful
implementation. Issuance of an incidental take permit may not jeopardize the continued existence of a
state-listed species. For species that are also listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA, CDFG
may rely on a federal incidental take statement or incidental take permit to authorize an incidental take
under CESA.
3.1.2.2
California Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern
The classification of fully protected was the CDFGs initial effort to identify and provide additional
protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish,
amphibian and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been
listed under CESA and/or FESA. The California Fish and Game Code sections (fish at Section 5515,
amphibian and reptiles at Section 5050, birds at Section 3511, and mammals at Section 4700) dealing
with fully protected species states that these species may not be taken or possessed at any time
and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or
licenses to take any fully protected species, although take may be authorized for necessary scientific
research. This language makes the fully protected designation the strongest and most restrictive
regarding the take of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with fully protected species
were amended to allow the CDFG to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed
species.
Species of special concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which
are nonetheless of concern to the CDFG because are declining at a rate that could result in listing or
historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This
designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFG, land managers,
consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the
need for costly listing under FESA and CESA and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be
20
September 2012

required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the
biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management
attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special
consideration under the CEQA during project review.
3.1.2.3
California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503
Independent of the MBTA, birds of prey are protected in California under the Fish and Game Code
(Section 3504.5, 1992). Section 3504.5 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in
the order Falconiformes (diurnal birds of prey) or Strigiformes (owls) or to take, possess, or destroy the
nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile
eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. The CDFG considers any disturbance that
causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort to be taking.
3.1.2.3
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) and the Natural
Communities Conservation Planning Act provide guidance on the preservation of plant resources; these
two acts underlie the language and intent of Section 15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. Vascular plants
listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS (2001), but which have no designated status or protection
under state or federal endangered species legislation, are defined as follows:
1. List 1A: Plants presumed extinct
2. List 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
3. List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere
4. List 3: Plants about which more information is needed a review list
5. List 4: Plants of limited distribution a watch list
In general, plants appearing on CNPS List 1A, 1B, or 2 are considered to meet the criteria for
endangered, threatened, or rare as laid out in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, plants
listed on CNPS List 1A, 1B, or 2 also meet the definition of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant
Protection Act) and Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of the California Fish and Game Code.
3.1.2.4
California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616
Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to
jurisdiction by the CDFG under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity
that would do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a
river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a
river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled,
flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake generally require a 1602 Lake
and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term stream, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in
21
September 2012

the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: a body of water that flows at least periodically or
intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This
includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian
vegetation (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes,
watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water
conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife.
Riparian is defined as on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream; therefore, riparian vegetation is
defined as, vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs
because of, the stream itself. Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG.
3.1.3 Local
The following discussion identifies local regulations that serve to protect sensitive biological resources
3.1.3.1
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 Citys General
Plan focuses on the protection and enhancement of limited natural resources within the City. The
following goals, policies, and actions are relevant to the proposed Project:
Goal OC-22: Conserve and replenish valley oaks in the Valley.

o Policy OC-22.1: Maintain, protect, and replant stand of Valley Oaks.
Implementation Measure OC-22.1(a): When reviewing proposals for
development, require that all valley oaks on the project area be identified,
and ensure that all reasonable efforts have been undertaken to protect the
trees.
Goal OC-23: Native plant landscaping shall be encouraged.

o Policy OC-23.1: Define standards that include native plant landscaping.
Implementation Measure OC-23.1(a): Provide information about native
plant landscaping to developers.
Implementation Measure OC-23.1(b): Develop landscaping standards which
use native plant landscaping for all new development and redevelopment
projects.
Implementation Measure OC-23.1(c): Landscaping standards for new
development and redevelopment projects shall be applicable to all but
individual single-family residential development. Compliance with
landscaping standards shall be required as a condition of discretionary
approvals or a condition of issuing a building permit.
22
September 2012
3.2
Goal OC-25: Maintain and enhance the Citys canopy of shade trees.
o Policy OC-25.1: Protect existing healthy mature trees to maintain shade and area
attractiveness.
Implementation Measure OC-25.1(a): During the short-term planning
period, utilize the Land Development Code or enact an ordinance identifying
important shade tree areas and providing for their long-term management
and health.
Implementation Measure OC-25.1(b): Establish a requirement for public
notice and hearing when trees area to be removed from undeveloped
public, private, and redeveloped property except for recreational
purposes or in relation to agriculture as part of the design review process.
Goal OC-29: Maintain and enhance the urban forests which create a sense of urban
space.
o Policy OC-29.1: The development review process shall incorporate measures to
maintain and enhance the urban tree canopy.
Implementation Measure OC-29.1(a): The Land Development Code shall
incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban tree canopy.
Implementation Measure OC-25.1(b): Review construction and landscaping
site plans to ensure that healthy trees are not removed unnecessarily.
Tree Protection Ordinance

o The City of Ukiah does not have a specific ordinance relating to the protection of
trees within the city limits. Tree protection measures and mitigation for impacts to
tree resources are typically done on a project specific basis.
Regional Setting
The City of Ukiah is located within southern Mendocino County, along the Russian River in the Ukiah
Valley. The City lies within the Northern California Coast Ranges Ecological Section and the Central
Franciscan Ecological Subsection. This subsection is influenced somewhat by marine air but lacks
summer fog and has a temperate and humid climate. Many rapid to moderately rapid flowing rivers and
streams in deeply incised canyons flow westerly into the Pacific Ocean in this Section. This subsection is
characterized by mountains with rounded ridges, steep and moderately steep sides, and narrow
canyons, with several broad valleys, including the Ukiah Valley, site of the Proposed Project/Action.
Regional natural plant communities common to this area include oak woodlands, mixed oak and conifer
woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, and riparian woodlands.
Agriculture and urban development have modified most of the native habitat in the Ukiah Valley,
creating fragmented and isolated habitats along riparian corridors, designated open space, ranches, and
parks. The Ukiah Valley was once entirely oak forest. Within approximately one quarter mile of the
Russian River and other waterways, valley oaks grew in a continuous canopy with a dense undergrowth
23
September 2012

of varied plant species. Farther from the waterways, valley oaks grew in more open woodlands and
savanna. Black oaks grew on drier ground, and mixed oak woodlands, including blue oak, interior live
oak, Oregon white oak, and canyon live oak, covered the hills. Overall, remaining native habitats in the
region surrounding the City of Ukiah are found in riparian areas and floodplains as well as native mixed
oak and conifer woodlands in the Coast Ranges east and west of the City. Vegetation communities and
wildlife habitats present within Ukiah include urban, ruderal, annual grassland, sporadic stands of oaks,
and narrow ribbons of riparian along the larger creeks and the Russian River.
3.2.1
Local Setting
The Project is located primarily in the City of Ukiah, California. Average annual precipitation is 37.4
inches. Mean maximum temperature is approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and mean minimum
temperature is approximately 44F. Due to urbanized conditions, existing vegetative resources are
limited to landscaping, ornamental plantings, and agricultural fields. Ornamental and native trees are
planted throughout parking lot islands, at the perimeter of commercial buildings, and along streets
bordering the Project site. Those trees tall enough to be used by birds such as raptors do not include
species typically used by raptors for nesting. Due to high tree canopy fragmentation, the Project site
provides limited habitat for wildlife. The number and diversity of species that use the urban habitat is
generally low and includes common birds such as rock doves, house sparrows, starlings, American
crows, and yellow-billed magpies.
3.2.2
Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.
Based upon a literature search and a reconnaissance field study on May 18, 2012, there are no known
wetlands or vernal pools which exist in the Proposed Project/Action Area. The Proposed Project/Action
would cross six ephemeral creeks/drainages that lead to the Russian River and would be considered Other
Waters of the U.S.
3.3
Potentially Affected Federal Species and Habitats
A list of special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the
study area was compiled based on data in California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB, (CDFG, 2012)],
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS, 2012), and the
USFWS List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be Affected by Projects in the
Ukiah, CA 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USFWS, 2012). On May 18, 2012, a field reconnaissance
site visit was conducted for the entire Proposed Project/Action Area to search for suitable habitats for
species identified in the species list as occurring in the vicinity. The potential for each special status
species to occur in the Study Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria:
No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species
requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site
history, disturbance regime).
24
September 2012

Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or
the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The
species is not likely to be found on the site.
Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are
present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species
has a moderate probability of being found on the site.
High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present
and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high
probability of being found on the site.
Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded on the site recently.
The site assessment was intended to identify the actual presence or absence of suitable habitat for each
state and federally-listed special status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its
potential to occur in the Study Area. No special status species were observed during the field visit. The
site visits do not constitute a protocol-level survey and were not intended to determine the actual
presence or absence of a species. However, Table 5 below lists the state and federally-listed species
that have the potential to exist within the Proposed Project/Action Area, along with their preferred
habitats, the potential to occur within the Action Study Area, and recommendations to avoid and
minimize potential effects to these species.
Table 5
Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Proposed Project/Action Study Area
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Plants
Arctostaphylos
canescens ssp.
sonomensis Sonoma
canescent manzanita
Arctostaphylos
stanfordiana ssp.
Raichei
Raiches manzanita
Boschniakia hookeri
Small groundcone
--/--/1B.2
-/--/1B.1
--/--/2.3
Carex comosa
Bristly sedge
--/--/2.1
Ceanothus confusus
Rincon Ridge ceanothus
--/--1B.1
Didymodon norrisii
Norris's beard-moss
//2.2
Found in lower
montane coniferous
forest and chaparral
habitat.
Found in lower
montane coniferous
forest and chaparral
habitat.
Found in north coast
coniferous forests.
Found in coastal
prairies, marshes,
swamps, and valley and
foothill grassland.
Found in closed-cone
coniferous forests,
chaparral and
cismontane woodland
habitat.
Found on
intermittently mesic
25
Unlikely Study area

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Unlikely Study area

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Unlikely Study area

does not provide
suitable habitat.
Unlikely Study area
does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species
Unlikely Study area

does not provide
suitable habitat.
Conduct preconstruction
protocol plant
surveys in
May.
No further actions
are recommended
Unlikely Study area

does not provide
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
rock outcrops in
suitable habitat.
for this species.
cismontane woodland
and lower montane
coniferous forest.
Entosthodon kochii
Found in cismontane
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Kochs cord moss
--/--1B.3
woodland habitats.
does not provide
are recommended
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Fissidens pauperculus
Found in damp soil in
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
minute pocket moss
--/--1B.2
northern California
does not provide
are recommended
coast coniferous
suitable habitat.
for this species.
forests.
Fritilaria roderickii
--/SE/1B.1
Found in coastal bluff
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Rodericks fritillary
scrub, coastal prairie,
does not provide
are recommended
and valley and foothill
suitable habitat.
for this species.
grassland habitats.
Hesperolinon
--/--/1B.2
Found in chaparral,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
adenophyllum
cismontane woodland,
does not provide
are recommended
Glandular western flax
suitable habitat.
for this species.
grassland habitats.
Horkelia bolanderi
--/--/1B.2
Found in chaparral,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Bolanders horkelia
lower montane
does not provide
are recommended
coniferous forests,
suitable habitat.
for this species.
meadows and seeps,
grasslands.
Lasthenia burkei
FE/SE/1B.1 Found in meadows,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Burkes goldfields
seeps, and vernal
does not provide
are recommended
pools.
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Layia septentrionalis
--/--/1B.2
Found in chaparral,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Colusa layia
does not provide
are recommended
suitable habitat.
for this species.
grasslands.
Limnanthes bakeri
--/SR/1B.1
Found in meadows,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Bakers meadowfoam
seeps, marshes,
does not provide
are recommended
swamps, vernally mesic suitable habitat.
for this species.
valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal
pools.
Malacothamnus hallii
--/--/1B.2
Found in chaparral and Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Halls bush-mallow
coastal scrub habitat.
does not provide
are recommended
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Malacothanus
--/--/1A
Found in cismontane
Unlikely Study area
Conduct premendocinensis
woodland.
does not provide
construction
Mendocino bush-mallow
suitable habitat.
protocol plant
surveys in
May.
Navarretia leucocephala --/--/1B.1
Found in cismontane
Unlikely Study area
Conduct pressp. bakeri
woodland, lower
does not provide
construction
26
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Bakers navarretia
elevation montane
suitable habitat.
protocol plant
coniferous forests,
surveys in
meadows, seeps, valley
May.
and foothill grasslands,
and vernal pools.
Plagiobothrys lithocaryus --/--/1A
Found in chaparral,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Mayacamas popcorn
does not provide
are recommended
flower
and mesic valley and
suitable habitat.
for this species.
foothill grassland.
Pleuropogon
--ST/1B.1
Found in broadleaf
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
hooverianus
upland forests,
does not provide
are recommended
North coast semaphore
meadows, seeps, and
suitable habitat.
for this species.
grass
open, mesic areas of
north coast coniferous
forests.
Sanguisorba officinalis
--/--/2.2
Found in bogs, fens,
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
great burnet
wet meadows, seeps
does not provide
are recommended
and stream edges,
suitable habitat.
for this species.
often on rocky
serpentine areas.
Tracyina rostrata
--/--/1B.2
Found in cismontane
Unlikely Study area
Conduct prebeaked tracyina
woodland and valley
does not provide
construction
and foothill grassland
suitable habitat.
protocol plant
habitat.
surveys in
May.
Usnea longissima
--/--/-Found in old-growth
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
long-beard lichen
and late-successional
does not provide
are recommended
conifer stands,
suitable habitat.
for this species.
hardwood stands, and
riparian areas,
particularly in coastal
climates or on fogswept mountains
where humidity is high
Viburnum ellipticum
--/--/2.3
Found in cismontane
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
oval-leaved viburnum
woodland, chaparral,
does not provide
are recommended
and lower montane
suitable habitat.
for this species.
coniferous forests.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
--/CSC/-Prefers rocky, outcrop
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Pallid bat
areas in deserts where
does not provide
are recommended
they commonly roost in suitable habitat.
for this species.
crevices, caves, attics of
houses, under the
eaves of barns, behind
signs, in hollow trees,
and in abandoned
buildings.
27
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Arborimus pomo
--/CSC/-Nests and feeds on
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Sonoma tree vole
large conifers in
does not provide
are recommended
northern CA coastal
suitable habitat.
for this species.
forests.
Corynorhinus townsendii --/CSC/-Found in rocky areas
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Townsends big-eared
where abandoned
does not provide
are recommended
bat
mines and buildings
suitable habitat.
for this species.
and caves are available.
Martes pennanti
FC/CSC/-Inhabits mixed conifer
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
(pacifica)
and Douglas-fir forests, does not provide
are recommended
Pacific fisher
and red fir, lodgepole
suitable habitat.
for this species.
pine, and mixed
evergreen/broad leaf
forest. Dens in cavities
near the tops of large
trees, hollow logs,
talus, and crevices in
rock outcrops.
Birds
Accipiter gentilis
--/CSC/-Within and in vicinity of Unlikely Study area
No further actions
Northern goshawk
coniferous forest. Uses does not provide
are recommended
old nests and maintains suitable habitat.
for this species.
alternate sites. Usually
nests on north slopes,
near water. Red fir,
lodgepole pine, Jeffrey
pine, and aspens are
typical nest trees.
Agelaius tricolor
--/CSC/-Prefers freshwater
Moderate Study Area
Conduct preTricolored blackbird
marshes with tall,
may provide suitable
construction
dense cattails or tules
habitat for this species
surveys in May.
but also in thickets of
near the Russian River
willow, blackberry, and and adjacent to
wild rose. Forages in
agricultural fields.
grasslands and
agricultural lands.
Ammodramus
--/CSC/-Prefers areas with
Unlikely Study area
No further actions
avannarum
significant grass cover
does not provide
are recommended
Grasshopper sparrow
and few shrubs for
suitable habitat.
for this species.
perching. Avoids grazed
land and dense shrub
cover.
Brachyramphus
FT/SE/-Occur in calm, shallow, Unlikely Study area
No further actions
marmoratus
coastal waters and
does not provide
are recommended
Marbeled
bays, but breed inland, suitable habitat.
for this species.
murrelet
up to 45 miles from
shore, in mature, wet
forest
28
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Pandion haliaetus
--/--/-Lives near bodies of
Moderate Study Area
Conduct preOsprey
water such as lakes,
construction
rivers, bays, sea coasts, habitat for this species
surveys in May.
marshes, and
mangroves.
and adjacent to
Strix occidentalis caurina FT/SC/-Prefer old growth
Moderate Study Area
Conduct preNorthern spotted owl
coniferous forests with may provide suitable
construction
multi-layered, multihabitat for this species
surveys in May.
species canopy with
moderate to high
and adjacent to
canopy closure.
Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
Ponds, marshes, rivers, Moderate Study Area
Conduct premarmorata
--/CSC/
streams, and irrigation
construction
Northwestern pond
ditches with aquatic
habitat for this species
surveys in May.
turtle
vegetation. Requires
along drainages and
basking sites and
creeks near or leading
suitable upland habitat to the Russian River.
for egg-laying. Nest
sites most often
characterized as having
gentle slopes (<15%)
with little vegetation or
sandy banks
Amphibians
Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged
frog
Fish
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Central California coast
coho salmon
--/CSC/--
Breeds in shaded
stream habitats with
rocky, cobble substrate,
usually below
6,000 feet in elevation.
Absent or infrequent
when introduced
predators are present.
Unlikely Study area

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
FE/SE/--
This ESU includes all

naturally spawned
populations of coho
salmon from Punta
Gorda in northern
California south to and
including the San
Lorenzo River in central
California, as well as
populations in
tributaries to San
Francisco Bay,
Moderate
Construction of the
Proposed Project/
Action could cause
siltation and water
quality issues through
drainages and creeks
that ultimately
discharge into the
Russian River.
Avoid cutting
through creeks,
implement
construction best
management
practices, develop
amd implement a
frac-out
contingency plan
for trenchless
construction.
29
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
excluding the
Sacramento-San
Joaquin River system.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT/--/-This DPS is found in
Moderate
Avoid cutting
through creeks,
Central Valley steelhead
coastal streams from
Construction of the
implement
the Russian River in
Proposed Project/
construction best
Sonoma County south
Action could cause
management
to Aptos in Santa Cruz
siltation and water
practices, develop
County, including
amd implement a
tributaries to San
frac-out contingency
Francisco and San
that ultimately
plan for trenchless
Pablo bays.
discharge into the
construction.
Russian River.
Oncorhynchus
FT/--/-This ESU naturally
Moderate
Avoid cutting through
tshawytscha
occurs in coastal rivers
Construction of the
creeks, implement
California coastal
and streams south of
Proposed Project/
construction best
Chinook salmon
the Klamath
Action could cause
management practices,
develop amd
River to the Russian
siltation and water
implement a frac-out
River, California.
contingency plan for
trenchless
that ultimately
construction.
discharge into the
Russian River.
Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservatio FE/--/-Inhabit highly turbid
Unlikely. Suitable
No further actions
Conservancy fairy shrimp
water in vernal pools.
vernal pool habitat
are recommended
Known from six
does not appear to be
for this species.
populations in the
present in the Study
northern central valley. Area.
Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/--/--
Inhabit small, clearwater sandstone

depression pools,
grassy swales, slumps,
or basalt-flow
depression pools.
Unlikely. Grassy swales

in the Study Area are
characterized by
significant graded
activity and are unlikely
to provide suitable
habitat for this species.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
FT/--/--
Occurs in the Central

Valley region in
association with blue
elderberry shrubs.
Prefers to lay eggs in
elderberry stems
greater than 1 in
diameter.
Unlikely. No elderberry
shrubs were identified
in the Study Area and
suitable habitat is not
present.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Lepidurus packardi
FE/--/--
Pools commonly found
Unlikely. The Study
No further actions
30
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Vernal pool tadpole
in grass bottomed
Area is characterized by are recommended
shrimp
swales of unplowed
significant graded
for this species.
grasslands. Some pools activity and is unlikely
are mudbottomed and
to provide suitable
highly turbid.
habitat for this species.
Speyeria callippe callippe
Callippe silverspot
butterfly
FE/--/--
Historically inhabited
grasslands ranging over
much of the northern
San Francisco Bay
region, but eventually
was known to occur on
the east and western
sides of San Francisco
Bay.
Unlikely. The only

known colony now is
on San Bruno Mountain
on the San Francisco
peninsula.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Speyeria zerene myrtleae

Myrtle's silverspot
butterfly
FE/--/--
Historically known to
occur in San Mateo
County north to the
mouth of the Russian
River in Sonoma
County.
Unlikely. This coastal

species is unlikely to
occur in the Project
area. The butterfly is
known from only four
populations in
northwestern Marin
County and
southwestern Sonoma
County. Its habitats are
typically coastal dunes
and bluffs, a habitat
type not present in the
Project Area.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Syncaris pacifica
California freshwater
shrimp
FE/SE/--
Endemic to Marin,
Napa, and Sonoma
Counties. Found in
shallow pools away
from streamflow in low
gradient streams where
riparian cover is
moderate to heavy.
Unlikely. Suitable
vernal pool habitat is
not present in the
Study Area
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
KEY:
Federal: (USFWS)
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government
FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government
FC = Candidate for listing by the Federal Government
State: (CDFG)
SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
31
September 2012

Table 5
Potential for
Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
ST = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only)
CSC = California Species of Concern
CNPS: (California Native Plant Society)
List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
List 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
List 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
List 3 = Need more information
0.1 = Seriously endangered in California
0.2 = Fairly endangered in California
0.3 = Not very endangered in California
= No Listing
SOURCE: USFWS, 2012; CDFG, 2012; CNPS, 2012
32
September 2012
Section 4 Effects on Species and Habitat

This section describes the potential effects on state and federally-listed species and habitats as a result
of implementing the Proposed Project/Action.
4.1
General Effects
Implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to cause the following general effects on
federally listed species and habitat in the Action Area.
Increase in Human Activity. The Proposed Project/Action will require construction crews to be
working in the Proposed Project/Action Area for several months. In addition, construction
activities will cause an increase in noise and vibration in the Action Area, thereby potentially
disturbing fish and wildlife causing them to avoid the area. This may indirectly cause reduced
viability, as foraging opportunities may temporarily become more limited and/or chances for
predation increase.
Increase in Sedimentation and decrease in water quality. The Proposed Project/Action may
temporarily decrease water quality in the Action Area and immediately downstream if
sediments or chemicals are discharged from the construction site. A decrease in water quality
may cause a decline in preferred food sources or reduce concentrations of available oxygen for
fish and/or amphibian eggs or young.
As a result, the following general construction best management practices and mitigation measures are
recommended to reduce and/or avoid these potential adverse impacts.
Implement Construction Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion

and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control
measures as required by the North Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce
erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of
construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and
stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative
buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved;
protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer
strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm
drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated
by dewatering; and returning all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews
shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.
33
September 2012
4.2
Effects to State and Federally Listed Species and Habitat
This section describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects the Proposed Project/Action
may have to those species identified in Section 3.0 as having a medium or higher potential to occur
within the Proposed Project/Action Area. Potential species and habitats deemed to be absent or
unlikely to occur are not discussed further below. Possible interrelated and interdependent actions to
the Proposed Action are also discussed. Potential effects are defined as follows.
Direct Effect. Those effects generated directly from the Proposed Project/ Action, such as an
incidental take during construction and elimination of suitable habitat due to construction
(50CFR 402.02)
Indirect Effect. Those effects that are caused by the Proposed Project/Action and are later in
time, such as the discharge of sediment or chemicals adversely affect water quality downstream
of the Action Area (50 CFR 402.02).
Cumulative Effect. Effects of future state or private activities that are reasonably certain to
occur within the Proposed Project/Action Area (50 CFR 402.02).
Interrelated Actions. Those actions that are part of, and dependent upon, a larger action (50
CFR 402.02).
Interdependent Actions. Actions that have no independent utility apart from the Proposed
Project/Action (50 CFR 402.02).
Construction of the Proposed Project/Action could likely have temporary direct effects to state and
federally threatened and endangered species and habitat. The Proposed Project/Action could also
incidentally take listed species if they are present in the Proposed Project/Action Area during
construction activities. However, following construction, the Proposed Project/Action would not have
any adverse effects on any state and/or federally listed species and habitats. Summarized below are the
potential effects on state and federally listed species and recommended measures to reduce and/or
avoid these potential adverse effects as a result of construction activities.
4.2.1 Plants
The Proposed Project/Act would take place on paved roads and on unpaved agricultural services roads
in agricultural fields. Due to the urban and agricultural activities, suitable habitat does not exist for
special-status plant species in the Proposed Project/Action area. A reconnaissance survey on May 18,
2012 did not identify any special-status plant species. Nevertheless, the following measures are
recommended to ensure that no special-status plant species would be harmed as a result of
construction activities.
Survey for Special-Status Plants. Prior to construction, conduct a survey for all special-status
plants which could occur in areas where the pipeline facilities would be constructed. All surveys
will be carried out in the appropriate blooming period prior to construction. If special-status
plants are found in an area where the pipeline infrastructure is to be built, the pipeline will be
rerouted to avoid these plants. If the plants cannot be avoided for some reason, the City shall
replant and/or replace the plant species, resulting in a no net loss of the plant species.
34
September 2012
4.2.2
Mammals
The construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action are not anticipated to have any
adverse impacts on special-status mammal species. Further, the Proposed Project/Action is unlikely to
have significant cumulative effects on special-status mammal species or its supporting habitat. No other
known development is currently planned in the Proposed Project/Action Study Area that would remove
or further degrade habitat within the vicinity of Proposed Project/Action Area. In addition, the
Proposed Project/Action would also not have any long-term effects to habitat quality in the region after
construction is complete. The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent
utility apart from other Projects in City and Ukiah Valley and would not have any additional adverse
interrelated effects on special-status mammal species or supporting habitat.
4.2.3
Reptiles
The following is a summary of the potential to affect special status reptile species.
Actinemys marmorata - Western Pond Turtle
Species Overview
The Western Pond Turtle is a CDFG Species of Special Concern. Western Pond Turtles are the only native
inland turtle in California. This turtle is uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitats throughout
California, west of the Sierra-Cascade crest and Transverse Ranges. The turtle inhabits annual and
perennial aquatic habitats, such as coastal lagoons, lakes, ponds, marshes, rivers, and streams from sea
level to 5,500 feet in elevation. The turtle also occupies man-made habitats such as stock ponds,
wastewater storage, percolation ponds, canals, and reservoirs. This species requires lowflowing or
stagnant fresh or brackish aquatic habitat with suitable basking structures, including rocks, logs, algal
mats, mud banks and sand. Warm, shallow, nutrient-rich waters are ideal, as they support turtle prey
items, which include aquatic invertebrates and occasionally fish, carrion, and vegetation. Turtles require
suitable aquatic habitat for most of the year; however, the turtle often occupies creeks, rivers, and
coastal lagoons that become seasonally unsuitable. To escape periods of high water flow, high salinity,
or prolonged dry conditions, the turtle may move upstream and/or take refuge in vegetated, upland
habitat for up to 4 months. Although upland habitat is utilized for refuge and nesting, this species
preferentially utilizes aquatic and riparian corridors for movement and dispersal.
The Western pond turtle nests from late April through July. This species requires open, dry upland
habitat with friable soils for excavating nests, and it prefers to nest on un-shaded slopes within 5 to 100
meters of suitable aquatic habitat. Females venture from water for several hours in the late afternoon
or evening during the nesting season to excavate a nest, lay eggs, and bury the eggs to incubate and
protect them. Nests are well-concealed, though native mammals are occasionally able to locate and
predate upon eggs. Hatchlings generally emerge in late fall but may overwinter in the nest and emerge
in early spring of the following year. Because of the presence of suitable upland and aquatic habitats
35
September 2012

within and adjacent to the study area, and since Western pond turtles are known to be present in the
Russian River, this species has a high potential to occur and nest within portions of the study area. The
following proposed mitigation measures below would reduce impacts to Western pond turtle adults, nests,
and young.
Conduct A Preconstruction Survey for Western Pond Turtles and Relocate, if Necessary. A
qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for western pond turtles no more
than 30 days prior to construction in suitable aquatic habitats within the project corridor,
including stream crossings, drainage ditches, and culverts. A combination of visual and
trapping surveys may be performed with authorization from CDFG. If the species is found
near any proposed construction areas, impacts on individuals and their habitat shall be
avoided to the extent feasible. If occupied habitat can be avoided, an exclusion zone shall be
established around the habitat and temporary plastic fencing shall be installed around the
buffer area with Sensitive Habitat Area signs posted and clearly visible on the outside of
the fence. If avoidance is not possible and the species is determined to be present in work
areas, the biologist with approval from DFG may capture turtles prior to construction
activities and relocate them to nearby, suitable habitat a minimum of 300 feet downstream
from the work area. Exclusion fencing should then be installed if feasible to prevent turtles
from reentering the work area. For the duration of work in these areas the biologist should
conduct monthly follow-up visits to monitor effectiveness.
Cumulative Effects
Further, the Proposed Project/Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on this
species or its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the
Proposed Project/Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the Russian
River within the vicinity of Proposed Project/Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action
would also not have any long-term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is
complete.
Interdependent and Interrelated Effects
The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other Projects
in City and Ukiah Valley and would not have any additional adverse interrelated effects on this species
or its supporting habitat.
4.2.4
Birds
The following is a summary of the potential to affect identified special status bird species that could be
affected by the construction of the Proposed Project. The following general measures are
recommended to avoid potential impacts.
Conduct Breeding/Nesting Surveys. For construction activities that occur between February
1 and August 31, preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
36
September 2012

biologist prior to and within 10 days of any initial ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall
be conducted within all suitable nesting habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active,
non-status passerine nests identified at that time should be protected by a 50 foot radius
minimum exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-status species nests should be protected
by a buffer with a minimum radius of 200 feet. CDFG and USFWS recommend that a
minimum 500-foot exclusion buffer be established around active white-tailed kite and
golden eagle nests. The following considerations apply to this mitigation measure:
o
Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance
commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. If
no breeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.
Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and
are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone
would remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.
The non-breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this

period, breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting
birds are encountered during work activities in the non-breeding season,
disturbance activities within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest should be postponed
until the nest is abandoned or young birds have fledged.
Survey for Migratory Bird Nests. All initial vegetation clearing, including grading of
grasslands or removal or trimming of trees or shrubs will take place outside of the migratory
bird nesting season. If vegetation removal must occur during the migratory bird nesting
season vegetation, clearing activities will be preceded by a survey for migratory bird nests. If
active nest(s) are located within the area to be cleared, all vegetation clearing activities
within 50-feet of active nest(s) will take place after the nest(s) are no longer active.
Survey for Active Raptor Nests. Before construction activity commences, all suitable raptor
nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active raptor nests.
If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer
will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer
distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line-of-sight of the
construction activity.
Agelaius tricolor -Tricolored blackbird

Species Overview
The Tricolored blackbird is a California species of special concern that is largely endemic to California.
Tricolored blackbird is found mostly throughout the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Delta regions
(Hamilton, 2004) and is highly gregarious, foraging and nesting in flocks. Tricolored blackbirds forage in
annual grasslands; wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands; and croplands. They also
37
September 2012

forage occasionally in riparian scrub habitats and along marsh borders. Tricolored blackbirds nest near
freshwater marshes. The three basic requirements for nesting sites include open accessible water; a
protected nesting substrate, including either flooded or thorny or spiny vegetation; and a suitable
foraging space providing adequate insect prey within a few miles of the nesting site (Hamilton et al.,
1995; Beedy and Hamilton, 1997, 1999). The breeding season generally extends from mid-March into
mid-July (Hamilton, 2004). Nests built of mud and plant material are usually located a few feet over, or
near, freshwater, but may be hidden on the ground among low vegetation. Primary threats to tricolored
blackbirds are the direct loss and alteration of habitat, but other human activities and predation also
threaten tricolored blackbirds. Potentially suitable foraging habitat for this species is present. The
tricolored blackbirds may forage and roost in a variety of habitats present in the Study Area including
grasslands and seasonal wetlands. Since this species has a moderate potential to occur within the Study
Area as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a transient. The following measures are recommended
to reduce any potential adverse impacts.
Survey for Active Tricolored Blackbird Nests. Before construction activity commences, all
suitable raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active
Tricolored Blackbird nests. If an active nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a
no-activity buffer will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting birds.
This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line-of-sight of
the construction activity.
Cumulative Effects
Proposed Project/Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the vicinity of
Proposed Project/Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action would also not have any
long-term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete.
Pandion haliaetus Osprey
Species Overview
The Osprey is a California species of special concern. This species is found primarily in ponderosa pine
and mixed conifer habitats along seacoasts, lakes, and rivers. It preys mostly on fish at or below the
water surface, but will also take small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Foraging
areas require large snags and open trees near large, clear, open waters. Ospreys typically swoop from
flight and hover or perch to catch prey. The species breeds primarily in northern California and typically
38
September 2012

builds nests in large conifers, but may also use artificial platforms as nesting areas. The breeding season
is from March to September. Nests are built on platforms of sticks at the top of large snags, deadtopped trees, on cliffs, or on human-made structures. A nest may be as much as 250 feet above ground
and is usually within 1,000 feet of fish-producing water. Osprey need tall, open-branched pilot trees
nearby for landing before approaching the nest and for use by young for flight practice. Typically, this
species migrates in October southward along the coast and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada to
Central and South America (Zeiner et al., 1990a). Since this species has a moderate potential to occur
within the Study Area as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a transient. The following measures are
recommended to reduce any potential adverse impacts.
Survey for Active Osprey Nests. Before construction activity commences, all suitable Osprey
nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active raptor nests.
If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer
will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer
distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line-of-sight of the
construction activity.
Cumulative Effects
Further, the Proposed Project/Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on this species or
its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed
Project/Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the vicinity of Proposed
Project/Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action would also not have any long-term effects
to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete.
Strix occidentalis caurina - Northern spotted owl
Species Overview
The northern spotted owl is a federally-listed threatened species and a California species of special
concern. It is a large, dark-eyed, round-headed, dark brown owl with white spotting on the head, back,
and underparts. It inhabits old-growth forests throughout the Pacific Northwest. The 2008 Northern
Spotted Owl Recovery Plan specifies the following vegetation alliances as their preferred nesting habitat:
Douglas-fir, western hemlock, grand fir (Abies grandis), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa), Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica), mixed evergreen, mixed conifer hardwood, coastal
redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Bishop pine (Pinus muricata), and mixed evergreen-deciduous
hardwood (USFWS, 2008).
39
September 2012

Northern spotted owls current range extends from southeast British Columbia through the Cascade
Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far
south as Marin County, California. Median annual home range for pairs in California, Oregon, and
Washington varies from 2,955 to 14,211 acres (USFWS, 2008). Pairs are non-migratory and remain on
their home range throughout the year. The northern spotted owl breeding period extends from
February, when courtship begins, to September.
Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) is the dominant prey species in the western
hemlock/Douglas-fir (Tsuga heterophylla/Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests, in their northern range. Duskyfooted woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) is more important in the drier southern, mixed-conifer/mixed-
There is a moderate potential for northern spotted owl

occurrence due to the presence of suitable habitat and known breeding sites within vicinity of
the Study Area. The following measures are recommended to reduce any potential adverse impacts.
evergreen forests (USFWS, 2008).
Survey for Active Nests. Before construction activity commences, all suitable nesting habitat
within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active nests. If an active nest is
located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer will be erected around
the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be
amended to account for nests that are not within the line-of-sight of the construction
activity.
Cumulative Effects
Proposed Project/Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the vicinity
of Proposed Project/Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action would also not have any
long-term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete.
4.2.5
Fish
The following is a summary of the potential to affect special status fish species.
Species Overview
The following fish species are discussed below.
40
September 2012
Oncorhynchus kisutch - Central California coast coho salmon

Oncorhynchus mykiss - Central Valley steelhead
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - California coastal Chinook salmon
General Salmonid Life Cycle. Anadromous salmonids share similar life cycle patterns. Anadromous fish
live in the oceans as adults, growing and maturing in the food-abundant environment. After reaching
maturity in the ocean, salmonids immigrate1 to their natal (place of hatching) streams to spawn.
Spawning generally takes place in the tails of pools and riffles. Substrate size and quality is important for
successful spawning. The suitable substrate is free of silt and size varies from small gravel to cobble (0.5
to 6 inches in diameter), depending on the fish species. Eggs are deposited in a gravel nest, called a
redd, and hatch in 30 to 60 days depending on the temperature of the water and the species. In the
Russian River, juvenile salmonids typically spend between two months (Chinook salmon), one and onehalf years (coho salmon), and two years (steelhead) growing in the freshwater habitat before
emigrating2 to the ocean. Prior to emigration, juvenile salmonids go through a physiological process
that allows them to adapt from a freshwater environment to a marine environment (smoltification). The
emigrating fish, called smolts, leave the freshwater environment for the ocean during the spring. Due to
this anadromous life cycle, salmonids encounter a range of distinct habitat types throughout their life
history.
During emigration, juvenile salmonids typically enter estuarine habitats, which can vary widely in their
physical characteristics. Salmonid use of estuarine habitats has been well documented, and the time
spent in an estuary and the benefits received from estuarine habitat can vary widely among species and
watersheds (Bond et al., 2008; Smith, 1990). Some salmonids move through estuaries in days, whereas
other species remain for many months (described in more detail by species, below). Studies have
demonstrated that lagoon environments, such as the likely historic conditions of the Russian River
Estuary, are beneficial to the growth of juvenile steelhead in central California due to their residency
time prior to emigration (NMFS, 2008; Bond et al., 2008). Fresh or brackish water lagoons at the mouths
of many streams in California often provide freshwater depths, water quality, and productivity that are
highly favorable to the growth and ocean survival of rearing salmon and steelhead (NMFS, 2008; Smith,
1990, Bond et al., 2008).
Oncorhynchus kisutch - Central California coast coho salmon. Coho salmon range from Asia and Alaska
to Central California as far south as Santa Cruz County. This salmon is state and federally listed as
endangered due to a 90-95% decline in abundance (Moyle, 2002). There is little historical
documentation regarding the distribution and abundance of coho salmon in the Russian River (SCWA,
2010b). However, an early estimate put the coho salmon population at 5,000 fish, which utilized the
tributaries near Duncans Mills (SCWA, 2008). Although there are no current estimates of coho salmon in
the Russian River, recent juvenile surveys indicate that the wild coho population has been reduced to
very low levels and are only known to persist in a few creeks. In an attempt to recover the Russian River
run, the Coho Salmon Broodstock Program was initiated. The program propagates local coho at the Don
Clauson Fish Hatchery located adjacent to Warm Springs Dam and releases young into several Russian
River tributaries with historic occurrences of coho.
41
September 2012

Coho salmon is an anadromous species with a three-year life cycle. Adults spend approximately two
years at sea before migrating in late-fall and winter to their natal stream to spawn. Once spawning is
completed adults die within a few days or weeks. Young spend their first year rearing in streams with
deep pools and submerged large woody cover. Emigration occurs in spring usually before June to avoid
warmer summer temperatures. Smolts may acclimate to seawater in estuaries before entering the
ocean. Coho salmon are the most temperature sensitive of the three salmonids in the Russian River
watershed and require permanent cool clean water for spawning and rearing young. Optimal juvenile
habitat for growth is characterized by temperatures of 12-14C. Coho do not persist in streams where
summer temperatures reach 22-25C for extended periods of time or where there are high fluctuations
in temperature at the upper end of their tolerance range (Moyle, 2002). Additionally, although coho
typically rear in clear streams, some juveniles rear in the freshwater portions of estuaries and lagoons
rather than streams (Moyle, 2002), but summer lagoon rearing appears to be rare among coho salmon
along the central California coast, probably due to the lower tolerance of the species to high water
temperatures compared to steelhead.
Very few coho salmon smolts have been captured in the Estuary during fish monitoring surveys (SCWA
2006, 2010a). A total of 77 smolts have been captured since 2004. Low coho captures in the Estuary are
related to their low numbers in the Russian River watershed, but also the timing of Water Agency fish
surveys that begin in late-May or June when most smolts have already migrated to the ocean. Nearly all
smolts are captured during May or early June (SCWA, 2010a). Most smolts seined in the Estuary had a
clipped adipose fin indicating a hatchery origin from the Coho Salmon Captive Broodstock Program
(SCWA, 2010b).
Oncorhynchus mykiss - Central Valley steelhead. Steelhead range from Russia and Alaska to Baja,
Mexico. The Russian River once supported the third most productive watershed for steelhead in
California (Moyle 2002). Although steelhead have declined, wild steelhead continue to occur throughout
most of the Russian River basin and spawn in the upper mainstem and numerous tributaries and are the
most abundant and widespread of the ESA-listed species in the Russian River watershed. Hatchery
steelhead raised at the Don Clauson Fish Hatchery are stocked in the Russian River and tributaries to
mitigate for the loss of habitat upstream of Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino.
Steelhead/rainbow trout are adapted to a variety of habitats and show considerable flexibility in life
history patterns. Fish that spend their adult life in the ocean and migrate to freshwater streams to
spawn (i.e., anadromous) are called steelhead, while fish that spend their entire life cycle in freshwater
streams (i.e., resident fish) are called rainbow trout. Steelhead in the ocean take advantage of the
abundance of food and can grow up to 70 cm in length. Rainbow trout have limited food resources and
reach maturity at much smaller sizes. Adult steelhead migrate from the ocean during winter to natal
freshwater streams were they spawn. Adults may spawn up to 4 times in their life. Juvenile steelhead,
called parr or smolts, spend 1 or 2 years rearing in freshwater streams or estuaries before entering the
ocean where they mature. Because of the broad plasticity in this species life history, there are
intermediate or differing patterns for steelhead that take advantage of local conditions.
42
September 2012

Due to the distribution of the species and plasticity of life history, water temperature requirements for
steelhead vary in the literature (SCWA, 2008). Optimal summer water temperatures for steelhead in
California range from approximately 10 to 15C. A useful criterion for determining habitat suitability
based on the available literature suggests that average daily temperatures should be less than 20C and
daily maximum temperatures should be less than 24C to allow acceptable steelhead/rainbow trout
growth (Bell, 1973; Barnhardt, 1986). The 20C criterion represents a water temperature below which
reasonable growth of steelhead/rainbow trout may be expected. Data in the literature suggest that
temperatures above 21.5C result in no net growth or a loss of condition in rainbow trout and a reduced
capacity for respiration (Barnhardt, 1986). The upper incipient lethal temperature for steelhead/rainbow
trout is approximately 24C (75F; Bell, 1973; Barnhardt, 1986).
In general, salmonids in warmer waters require more food and oxygen because their metabolism
increases with temperature (Moyle, 2002). In the absence of more definitive data on the thermal
tolerance of steelhead, the thermal tolerance criteria (frequency of average daily temperatures greater
than 20C, and frequency of maximum daily temperatures greater than 24C) should not be used as
absolute thermal thresholds, but rather represent general guidelines for assessing the biological
significance of water temperature conditions. However, steelhead have been documented in habitat
with temperatures ranging from 0C in winter to as high as 26-27C in summer (Moyle, 2002).
Temperatures greater then 23C can become lethal if acclimation is not gradual. Even with acclimation,
temperatures between 24-27C are typically lethal other than for short exposures (Moyle, 2002).
The seasonal abundance of steelhead varies annually, but is usually highest in May and decreases in
succeeding summer months. The spatial distribution of steelhead varies greatly. Most age 0+ steelhead
are typically captured in the upper and middle Estuary (fresh and brackish water) during May and June
(SCWA, 2010b). Few steelhead are captured in the lower Estuary during this period. Conversely, from
July to September most steelhead are captured in the middle and lower Estuary (brackish and marine
salinity conditions). Steelhead have rarely been captured at the two lower sample stations (River Mouth
and Penny Island) during all survey years (SCWA, 2010b).
Recent research by Bond et al. (2008) has specifically attributed the importance of estuarine lagoon
rearing to the survival of returning adult steelhead. Steelhead reared in a lagoon were shown to be
significantly larger for all years studied than juveniles migrating directly to the ocean in spring (Bond et
al., 2008). Lagoon residents were consistently larger than downstream migrants who spent little time
rearing in lagoons. Size-selective survival is the largest determinant in driving which individuals
contribute to the adult population. Steelhead smolts experience a strong size-selective mortality in the
marine environment (that is, smaller individuals have a lower probability of survival). Bond et al. (2008)
demonstrate a survival advantage for larger lagoon-reared individuals and over 95% of returning adults
were lagoon-reared. These patterns of growth and ocean survival are driven by the difference in growth
rates between productive estuary/lagoon waters and the relatively oligotrophic upstream habitat (Bond
et al., 2008). There is strong evidence of the importance of lagoon habitat as a nursery to coastal
California steelhead populations (Bond et al., 2008; Smith, 1990, NMFS, 2008) demonstrating the
importance of lagoons in producing larger smolts that contribute to the majority of the adult population.
43
September 2012

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha - California coastal Chinook salmon. Russian River Chinook salmon follow
the life history pattern of fall-run Chinook salmon, which is an adaptation to avoid summer high water
temperatures. Fall-run adult salmon migrate from the ocean to spawn in the main channels of rivers and
large tributaries in late summer and fall, and die soon after spawning. Fry emerge in spring and move
downstream within a few months. Young Chinook salmon may rear in the mainstem of rivers or
estuaries during spring before water temperatures increase in the summer. Estuary-reared juvenile
Chinook salmon may grow to a larger size than river-reared fish, which is likely to improve their chances
for ocean survival and return (McKeon, 1985; cited in Entrix, 2004). Once accustomed to saltwater,
smolts emigrate out to sea where they spend between 1 and 5 years maturing before returning to their
natal stream to spawn and complete their lifecycle. Upstream migration from the ocean to spawn in the
mainstem of the Russian River and tributaries occurs from the last week in August through December
(primarily October through November). Spawning begins in November and likely continues through
early January, when the salmon die after spawning.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The Proposed Project/Action includes the provision to cross the six creek/drainage crossings which could
result in potentially significant erosion and siltation which could affect these species in the Russian
River. As a result, construction activities associated with crossing these creeks could have potential
significant adverse effects on these fisheries. However, with implementation of the following mitigation
measures, the Proposed Action is not likely to have a direct or indirect adverse impact on these species.
Avoid cutting through the creeks. As described in the Proposed Project/Action description,
all of the creek crossings will be crossed by using trenchless construction techniques in the
dry season. Specifically, no pipeline construction activities shall occur between December 1
and May 31 (a work window identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service), which is
the period when adult and juvenile salmonids are likely to occur in the Russian River.
Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.
Implement Construction Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant

erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and
erosion control measures as required by the North Coast RWQCB. Best Management
Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following
measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of
construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared,
excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and
applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing
sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of
sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment
controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and
44
September 2012

returning all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid
entering the stream channels during installation.
Develop and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Construction

Activities. For trenchless construction activities that use drilling lubricants, the City or its
contractor shall prepare and implement a frac-out contingency plan that is intended to
minimize the potential for a frac-out associated with tunneling activities; provide for the
timely detection of frac-outs; and ensure an organized, timely, and minimum-impact
response in the event of a frac-out and release of drilling lubricant (i.e., bentonite). The
contingency plan will require, at a minimum, the following measures.
o
Trenchless construction activities to be conducted during a work window identified

by the National Marine Fisheries Service when adult and juvenile salmonids are not
present in the project area (June 1 through November 30).
A full-time monitor will attend all drilling to look for observable frac-out conditions
or lowered pressure readings on drilling equipment. If a frac-out is identified, all
work will stop, including the recycling of drilling lubricant. In the event of a frac-out
into water, the pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess mud from
escaping through the fracture. The location and extent of the frac-out will be
determined, and the frac-out will be monitored for 4 hours to determine whether
the drilling lubricant congeals (bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the
frac-out location).
If the drilling lubricant congeals, no other actions will be taken that would
potentially suspend sediments in the water column.
The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or

remove the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.
45
September 2012

Cumulative Effects
Further, the Proposed Project/Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on this species or
its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed
Project/Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the Russian River within the
vicinity of Proposed Project/Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action would also not have
any long-term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete.
4.2.6
Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands
The following is a summary of the potential to affect water of the United States, including wetlands.
Overview
Seasonal Wetland/Vernal pools
The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed on paved roads and on existing agricultural services
roads in agricultural fields that are highly disturbed areas. As a result, there are no known seasonal
wetlands and/or vernal pools that would be affected by the Proposed Project/Action.
Other Waters of the U.S.
The Proposed Project/Action would cross six ephemeral creeks/drainages that lead to the Russian River
and would be considered Other Waters of the U.S.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The Proposed Project/Action could have an adverse effect on six (6) creek/drainage crossings that may
meet the USACE criteria for Waters of the U.S. and any fill or degradation to these channels could
significantly impact water quality or habitat for protected species. Specifically, any activity which results
in the deposit of dredge or fill material within the Ordinary High Water mark of Waters of the U.S.
typically requires a permit from the (Corps). In addition, the bed and banks of the creeks and drainage
channels could also fall under the regulatory authority of the CDFG. However, as stated in Section 2,
Project Description, all of the creek/drainage crossings will involve the use of trenchless construction
techniques in the dry season and not involve cutting through or disturbing the creeks.
Excavation, grading, and other general construction activities associated with the Proposed
Project/Action could expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation in
the Project area. Construction during the rainy season could result in increases in erosion, siltation, and
46
September 2012

water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction activities could
expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction activities could
therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and increasing the total
suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have the potential to impact the
creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially significant impact to wetlands and waters
of the U.S.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce and minimize these impacts so as to
not adversely affect.
Obtain all Required Authorizations. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for the
Proposed Project/Action, the District shall, as necessary, prepare a wetlands delineation and
obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction over riparian habitats and
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. Such agencies may include, but are not limited to, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the
Mendocino County Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted habitat shall be offset
through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at a CDFG and/or USFWSapproved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio. The requirements of this
mitigation measure do not apply if pipeline installation activities completely avoid work within
the bed, bank, or channel of the creeks and/or drainages.
Develop and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Construction Activities.
For trenchless construction activities that use drilling lubricants, the City or its contractor shall
prepare and implement a frac-out contingency plan that is intended to minimize the potential
for a frac-out associated with tunneling activities; provide for the timely detection of frac-outs;
and ensure an organized, timely, and minimum-impact response in the event of a frac-out and
release of drilling lubricant (i.e., bentonite). The contingency plan will require, at a minimum,
the following measures.
o
A full-time monitor will attend all drilling to look for observable frac-out conditions or
lowered pressure readings on drilling equipment. If a frac-out is identified, all work will
stop, including the recycling of drilling lubricant. In the event of a frac-out into water,
the pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess mud from escaping through the
fracture. The location and extent of the frac-out will be determined, and the frac-out
will be monitored for 4 hours to determine whether the drilling lubricant congeals
(bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the frac-out location).
If the drilling lubricant congeals, no other actions will be taken that would potentially
suspend sediments in the water column.
47
September 2012

o
The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or remove
the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.
Avoid cutting through the creeks. As described in the Proposed Action description, all creek
crossings will be crossed by installing the pipelines on the side of the bridge and above the
channel. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation. With
these mitigation measures in place, the Proposed Project/Action is unlikely to have a direct
and/or indirect adverse effect on this species or its supporting habitat. Once constructed, the
operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project/Action will not adversely affect this species.
Implement Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation,
the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit
(SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required
by the North Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall
include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during
inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points;
stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic
coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by
installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of
sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment
controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning
all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream
channels during installation.
Cumulative Effects
The Proposed Project/Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on riparian habitat and/or
jurisdictional wetlands. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed Action Area
that would remove or further degrade riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional wetlands within the vicinity
of Proposed Project/Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action would not have any longterm effects to riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the region as once construction is
complete.
The Proposed Project/Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other
Projects in the City and in the unincorporated area in Ukiah Valley of Mendocino County and would not
have any adverse interdependent and/or interrelated effects on riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional
wetlands.
48
September 2012
Section 5 Determination of Effects

This section provides a summary and makes a determination as to the potential for the Proposed
Project/Action to affect state and federally listed species. The Proposed Project/Action would not
adversely affect state or federal special status species after the implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures and strategies.
5.1
No Effect
Through the course of this study and analysis, it is our determination that the Proposed Project/Action
will not affect the following state and/or federally listed species:
Plant Species
Arctostaphylos canescens ssp. Sonomensis
Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. Raichei
Boschniakia hookeri
Carex comosa
Ceanothus confuses
Ceanothus Didymodon norrisii
Entosthodon kochii
Fissidens pauperculus
Fritilaria roderickii
Hesperolinon adenophyllum
Horkelia bolanderi
Lasthenia burkei
Layia septentrionalis
Limnanthes bakeri
Malacothamnus hallii
Malacothanus mendocinensis
Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Bakeri
Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Mayacamas
Pleuropogon hooverianus
Sanguisorba officinalis
Tracyina rostrata
Usnea longissima
Viburnum ellipticum
Sonoma canescent manzanita

Raiches manzanita
Small groundcone
Bristly sedge
Rincon Ridge
Norris's beard-moss
Kochs cord moss
minute pocket moss
Rodericks fritillary
Glandular western flax
Bolanders horkelia
Burkes goldfields
Colusa layia
Bakers meadowfoam
Halls bush-mallow
Mendocino bush-mallow
Bakers navarretia
popcorn flower
North coast semaphore grass
great burnet
beaked tracyina
long-beard lichen
oval-leaved viburnum
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
Arborimus pomo
Corynorhinus townsendii
Martes pennanti (pacifica)
Pallid bat
Sonoma tree vole
Townsends big-eared bat
Pacific fisher
49
September 2012

Birds
Accipiter gentilis
Ammodramus avannarum
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Northern goshawk
Grasshopper sparrow
Marbeled Murrelet
Reptiles
None
Amphibians
Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged frog
Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservation
Branchinecta lynchi
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Lepidurus packardi
Speyeria callippe callippe
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Syncaris pacifica
Conservancy fairy shrimp

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Callippe silverspot butterfly
Myrtle's silverspot butterfly
California freshwater shrimp
5.2
Potential to Affect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Through the course of this study and analysis, it is our determination that the Proposed Project/Action
could affect, but with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in Section 4, would not
adversely affect the following state and/or federally listed species:
Plants
None
Mammals
None
Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata marmorata
Northwestern pond turtle
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
Pandion haliaetus
Strix occidentalis caurina
Tricolored blackbird
Osprey
Northern spotted owl
Fish
Central California coast coho salmon

Central Valley steelhead
California coastal Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Invertebrates
None
50
September 2012
Section 6
Bibliography
California Natural Diversity Database. 2012.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list database and Wetland Tracker. 20121
Allen, S., D.G. Ainley, L. Fancher, and D. Shuford. 1987a. Movement and activity patterns of
harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from the Drakes Estero population, California, 1985-1986. Report to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA
Technical Memoranda Series NOS/MEMD 6. August 1987.
Allen, S., J.F. Penniman, and D. Ainley. 1987b. Movement and activity patterns of harbor seals
(Phoca vitulina) from the Drakes Estero population, California, 1986-1987. Annual report to the
Marine and Estuarine Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. December
1987.
American Ornithologists' Union, Check-list of North American birds, 7th ed. Am. Ornithol.
Union, Washington, D. C., 1998.
Anderson, D. W. and F. Gress. 1984. Status of a northern population of California Brown

Pelicans. Condor 85:79-88.
Barbour, M. G, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr, Terrestrial Vegetation of California,

Third Edition, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA., 2007.
Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton III, Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), in The Birds of
North America, No. 423 (A Poole and F. Gills, eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA, 1999.
Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton III, Tricolored blackbird status update and management
guidelines, Jones & Stokes Associated, Inc. (JSA 97-099), Sacramento, CA, prepared for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR and California Department of Fish and Game, 1997.
Bolster, B. C. 2005. Species accounts: Lasiurus blossevillii, western red bat. Western Bat
Working Group. Available at: http://wbwg.org/species_accounts.htm#LABL.
Briggs, K. T., W. B. Tyler, D. B. Lewis, and D. R. Carlson. 1987. Bird communities at sea off
California: 1975 to 1984. Studies in Avian Biology 11.
Bulger, J. B., N. J. Scott, Jr., and R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of
adult California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands.
Biological Conservation 110:85-95.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California Wildlife Habitat
Relationships: (CWHR Version 8.2). CDFG Natural Heritage Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. State of California, The Natural
Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, California
51
September 2012

Natural Diversity Database, July 2009. Special Animals (883 taxa). Available at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. Rarefind 4.1, California Natural
Diversity Database. Records for Arched Rock, Duncans Mills, Camp Mecker,
Guerniville, Fort Ross, Bodega Head, and Valley Ford quadrangles. Electronic database.
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), Sonoma Coast State Park Final
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, May 2007.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online
edition, v7-10b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Available at:
http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
Desmond J. S, Deutschman D. H, and J. B. Zeuler. 2002. Spatial and Temporal Variation in

Estuarine Fish and Assemblages: Analysis of an 11-year Data Set. Estuaries Vol. 25, No. 4A, p.
552-569.
Essig Museum of Entomology, 2006, University of California, Berkeley, Californias Endangered

Insects. http://essig.berkeley.edu/endins/listed.htm.
Federal Register. 1970a. 50 CFR Part 17, 8491-8498. Conservation of endangered species and
other fish or wildlife (First list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife as Appendix A). June 2,
1970 (Volume 35).
Federal Register. 1970b. 50 CFR Part 17, 16047-16048. Appendix D United States list of
endangered native fish and wildlife. October 13, 1970 (Volume 35).
Federal Register. 1988. 50 CFR Part 17, 43884-43889. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants: determination of endangered status for the California freshwater shrimp. October 31, 1988
(Volume 53 Number 210).
Federal Register. 1992a. 50 CFR Part 17, 27848-27858. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; six plants and Myrtles silverspot butterfly from coastal dunes in Northern and Central
California determined to be endangered. June 22, 1992 (Volume 57).
Federal Register. 1992b. 50 CFR Part 17, 45328-45337. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population
of the marbled murrelet. October 1, 1992 (Volume 57 Number 191).
Federal Register. 1996a. 50 CFR Part 17, 25813-25834. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. May 23, 1996
(Volume 61, Number 101).
Federal Register. 1996b. 50 CFR Part 17, 26356-26320. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. May 24, 1996 (Volume 61,
Number 102).
52
September 2012
plants: determination of endangered status for the Callippe silverspot Butterfly and the Behrens
silverspot Butterfly and threatened status for the Alameda whipsnake. December 5, 1997
(Volume 62 Number 234).
plants; final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying
peregrines in the conterminous United States. August 25, 1999 (Volume 64 Number 164).
plants: revised designation of critical habitat for California red-legged frog; Final Rule. March 17,
2010 (Volume 75, Number 51).
Hamilton, W. J., III, L. Cook, and R. Grey. Tricolored blackbird project 1994, Unpublished
Report, prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, 1995.
Hamilton, W. J., Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), in The Riparian Bird Conservation
Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California, California
Partners in Flight, Available at: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmlodocs/riparian_v-2.html. 2004.
Hanson, L., Russian River Estuary Study of Pinniped Report, prepared for the Russian River
Estuary Study 1992-1993, 1993.
Heckel, M., Russian River Estuary Study, 1992-1993, Prepared for Sonoma County Department
of Planning and California State Coastal Conservancy, 1994.
Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of

California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Department
of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Jaques, D. L., Range expansion and roosting ecology of non-breeding California brown pelicans.
Master's Thesis. Univ. of California, Davis. 1994.
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes, Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California,
Final Report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
Contract No. 8023, 1994
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes, Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged

frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for
management, in: Sarzo, R., K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, (technical coordinators).
Proceedings of the symposium on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in
North America, USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166, Pp. 144-158, 1988.
Jennings, M. R., M. P. Hayes, and D. C. Holland, A petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the western pond turtle
(Clemmys marmorata) on the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, 1992.
53
September 2012
Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield,

and T. S. Zimmerman, Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl
in the United States, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical
Publication FWS/BTP R6001-2003, 2003, Washington, D.C.
Madrone Audubon Society, Inc., Sonoma County Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995.
Martini-Lamb, Jessica, Sonoma County Water Agencey, written correspondence, September 21,
2010.
Mathews, E.A and J. Driscoll, Disturbance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and potential
effects on counts from aerial surveys, Glacier Bay National Park, 1991-1999, prepared
for: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Resource Management Division, 2001.
Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary,
1996, Annual Report, February 21, 1997.
1997, Second Annual Report, February 5, 1998.
1998, Third Annual Report, March 15, 1999.
1999, Fourth Annual Report, March 24, 2000.
Mortenson, J. 1996. Human interference with harbor seals at Jenner, California, 1994-1995.
Prepared for Stewards of Slavianka and Sonoma Coast State Beaches, Russian River/Mendocino
Park District. July 11. 1996.
Mortenson, J. and E. Twohy. 1994. Harbor seals at Jenner, California, 1974-1993. Prepared for
Prepared for Stewards of Slavianka and Sonoma Coast State Beach, California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Duncans Mills, CA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Biological Opinion for Water Supply, Flood Control
Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and
Water Conservation District in the Russian River Watershed September 24, 2008.
54
September 2012
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), March
30, 2010. 2010c.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris).
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harborseal.htm, accessed August 3,
2010. 2010a.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina).

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harborseal.htm, accessed August 3,
2010. 2010b
Prunuske Chatham, Inc., Willow Creek Watershed Management Plan, March 2005.
Remsen, Jr. J. V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California, double-crested cormorant:
California Department of Fish and Game.
Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens, A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition,
2009.
Seltenrich, C., and A. Pool, A standardized approach for habitat assessments and visual
encounter surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, 2002.
Shaffer, H. B., G. M. Fellers, S. R. Voss, J. C. Olivers, G. B. Pauly. 2004. Species

boundaries, phylogeography and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana
aurora/draytonii) complex. Molecular Ecology 13:2667-2677.
Sherwin, R. 1998. Species accounts: Antrozous pallidus, pallid bat. Western Bat Working Group.
Available at: http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/species_accounts.html. Accessed February 1,
2008.
Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. California bird Species of Special Concerns: 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, 2008.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Circuit Rider Productions, A guide to restoring
native riparian habitat in the Russian River Watershed, Circuit Rider Productions, Inc., 1998.
55
September 2012
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water
Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 2000, Fifth Annual Report, June 12, 2001.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, Russian River
Estuary Management Activities Pinniped Monitoring Plan, prepared by Jessica Martini-Lamb,
Sonoma County Water Agency, and Michele Luna and Joe Mortenson, Stewards of the Coast and
Redwoods, September 9, 2009a.
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods (Stewards) and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA),
Harbor Seals at Jenner and at Peripheral Sites, Presentation, April 2010a.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Request for Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental
Harassment Authorization: Russian River Estuary Management Activities, July 2009.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Fish and Macro-Invertebrate
Studies, 2005, prepared by David Cook, July 2006.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching Monitoring
Plan, 2005, prepared by Jessica Martini-Lamb, Jeff Church, David Cook, Josh Fuller, and David
Manning, September 2005.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Management Activities,
Pinniped Monitoring at Jenner Haulout Counts, unpublished data and photographs, July 1, 2010b.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Vegetation Mapping Dataset, unpublished, 2010c.
Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company, 2003.
Sturm, K. 1998. From summer range to home range? Endangered Species Bull. 23(5):22-24.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California brown pelican recovery plan, Portland,
Oregon, 1983.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris
pacifica) recovery plan, Portland, Oregon, 1998.
56
September 2012
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Federally endangered and threatened species that
occur in or may be affected by projects in U.S.G.S. 7 minute quads for Duncans Mills and
Arched Rock, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento District office database. Available at:
http://www.fws,gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm. Accessed June 29, 2010.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population of the
western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California/Nevada Operations Office,
2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California, Portland, Oregon, 203 pp.
1997.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix
occidentalis caurina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp., 2008.
Van Wagner, T. J., Selected life-history and ecological aspects of a population of foothill yellowlegged frogs (Rana boylii)from Clear Creek, Nevada County, California. Masters Thesis,
Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico, CA. 1996.
Warner, R. E., and K. M. Hendrix, California Riparian Systems, Ecology, Conservation, and
Productive Management, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA., 1984.
Whitlow, T.H., Flood Tolerance in Plants: A State of the Art Review. Technical Report E-79-2,
prepared for: Office, Chief of Engineers; U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds., California's Wildlife. Vol
I: Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
1988.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds., California's Wildlife. Vol.
II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 1990a.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds., California's
Wildlife. Vol. III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California. 1990b.
57
September 2012
_______________________________________________________________
Barnhart, R.A., Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - steelhead., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. 82(11.60),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 21, pp, 1986.
Behrens, D.K., Coastal and Oceanography Group, UC Davis/Bodega Marine Laboratory, UC

Davis/Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, email communication and
dissemination of data, November 23, 2010.
Bell, M.C., Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon, Contract No. DACW57-68-C- 0086. 425 pp, 1973.
Bond, M. H., S. A. Hayes, C. V. Hanson, and R. B. MacFarlane, Marine survival of steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) enhanced by a seasonally closed estuary, Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 65:22422252.
Cook, D. G., S. d. Chase, S. J. Manning. 2010. Distribution and ecology of the Russian River tule
perch. California Fish and Game Journal 96:50-68.
Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 2009. Longfin smelt fact sheet. DFG June, 2009. Accessed
online November 30, 2010 at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/longfinsmelt/documents/LongfinsmeltFactSheet_July09.pdf
D.W. Alley & Associates, 2004 Soquel Creek Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan
Update, Prepared by Alley, D.W., K. Lyons, S. Chartrand and Y. Sherman, Prepared for the City
of Capitola, Project # 192-01. June, 2004.
D.W. Alley & Associates, 2010, Soquel Creek Lagoon Monitoring Report 2009. Prepared by
D.W. Alley & Associates. Prepared for the City of Capitola. Project #106-19. January, 2010.
Environmental Data Solutions (EDS), 2009. Lower Russian River Bathymetric Analysis, Draft,
October 2009, Methods Procedures, and Results, November 2009.
Entrix, Russian River Biological Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San
Francisco District, San Francisco, California, and Sonoma County Water Agency Santa Rosa,
California. Entrix, September 29, 2004.
Goodwin, P., C.K. Cuffe, J.L. Nielsen, T. Light, and M. Heckel, Russian River Estuary Study
1992-1993, 1993.
Habitat Restoration Group, Soquel Creek Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan, Prepared
by The Habitat Restoration Group, Prepared for the City of Capitola, 1990.
Largier, J. and D. Behrens, Preliminary Study of Russian River Estuary: Circulation and Water
Quality Monitoring -2009 Data Report, Report to Sonoma County Water Agency, Bodega
Marine Laboratory, University of California Davis, February 2010.
Merritt Smith Consulting. 2000. Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River
Estuary, 1999. Fourth Annual Report. 24 March, 2000.
58
September 2012
Moyle, P. B., Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA, 2002.
Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of

special concern in California, second edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland
Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Biological Opinion (BO) for Water Supply, Flood
Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Sonoma County Water Agency, and Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and
Water Conservation District in the Russian River Watershed, NMFS, Southwest Region, 2008.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations for Water Supply, Flood
Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Sonoma County Water Agency, and Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and
Water Conservation District in the Russian River Watershed. NMFS, Southwest Region, 2008.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of
Incidental Take Authorizations to the Sonoma County Water Agency for Russian River Estuary
Management Activities, March, 2010.
Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., Russian River Outlet Channel Adaptive Management Plan,
Prepared for Sonoma County Water Agency, Prepared by Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd.
With Bodega Marine Laboratory, University of California at Davis, April 1, 2010.
SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting. 2001.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching Monitoring
Plan, September, 2005.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching 2005
Monitoring Report. July, 2006.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Water Supply, Transmission, and Reliability Project
(Water Project), Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 2008.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 2010a, Estuary Fisheries Report, February 2010.
Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching 2009
Monitoring Report, 2010b.
Smith, J.J. The effects of the sandbar formation and inflows on aquatic habitat and fish
utilization in Pescadero, San Gregorio, Wadell, and Pomponio creek estuary/lagoon systems,
1985-1989. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, California,
1990.
59
September 2012
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Investigation Report
Section 106
Prepared by:

September 2012
September 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Location and Background ....................................................................................................... 4
Potential Users and Phasing ................................................................................................................. 7
Pipeline Facilities................................................................................................................................. 10
Pump Station....................................................................................................................................... 10
Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 10
Construction Considerations................................................................................................................... 11
Area of Potential Effect .................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Setting ............................................................................................................................... 13
Archaeology and Prehistory .................................................................................................................... 13
European History of Mendocino County ................................................................................................ 15
Ethnography ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Current Status of Reservations and Rancherias...................................................................................... 18
Status of Resource Protection ................................................................................................................ 19
Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 20
Federal .................................................................................................................................................... 20
National Historic Preservation Act ...................................................................................................... 20
National Environmental Policy Act ..................................................................................................... 20
State ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
California Register of Historical Resources ......................................................................................... 21
California Environmental Quality Act.................................................................................................. 21
Local ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
City of Ukiah General Plan .................................................................................................................. 21
County of Mendocino General Plan .................................................................................................. 21
Investigation Methodology and Results ............................................................................................ 22
Northwest Information Center (NWIC) Record Search .......................................................................... 22
Survey Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Native American Heritage Commission Record Search and Outreach ................................................... 23
September 2012

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 23
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 25
List of Figures
Figure 1:General Location Map .................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2:Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments .................................................................................. 8
Figure 3:Recommended Phasing of Proposed Project/Action ..................................................................... 9
List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters ............................................................................................. 7
Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary .................................................................................. 10
Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities........................................................................................................... 11
Attachment A .......................................................................................... Native American Correspondence
September 2012
Introduction
This document is a cultural resources inventory study on the City of Ukiahs proposed Recycled Water
Project (Proposed Project/Action) in Mendocino County, California. This report presents the project
location and background, Proposed Description/Action, area of potential effect, environmental setting,
regulatory framework, and the investigation methods and results of the cultural resources investigation
for the Proposed Project/Action.
The term cultural resources encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and
burial sites. Below is a brief summary of each component:
Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic
resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the
States history and are generally less than 200 years old.
Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures.
Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures.
Paleontological Resources: Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils.
Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually
associated with indigenous cultures, are interred.
This study was conducted in order to identify cultural resources which include prehistoric and historic
archeological resources, buildings, structures, and sites of religious or cultural significance for Native
Americans within the proposed project area. Because the Proposed Project/Action may involve the use
of State Revolving Loan Program and/or federal funds, this investigation was conducted in compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36
Code of Federal Register [CFR] Part 800).
Project Location and Background

southern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the
east by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above
mean sea level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south
near El Robles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs
north to south through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to
south through the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County.
September 2012
8"
8"
8"
8"
1 6"
16"
"
" 12
12"
12"
16"
8"
8"
16"
1 6"
16"
16"
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
12"
12"
1
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Figure 1
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/

the Citys moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end
of the 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County
(www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood
production plants, in addition to up-and-coming nonagricultural manufacturers.
providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within
their service area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both
irrigate their crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources
have become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-stream flow
requirements for endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies,
including recycled water, has increased.
affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of
these diversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries
extensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay
of the State Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and
Sonoma Counties.
Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative
water supplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service
providers in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River
and Lake Mendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area
would increase the overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions.
The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent
of the UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City
is limited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly
stringent discharge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be
discharged to the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges
very high quality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which
September 2012

treated effluent can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including
delivery of recycled water to irrigation customers.
Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water demands for
irrigation and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local agricultural
industry. It would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah
Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP), and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.
culminating in a recommended or preferred alternative. The basis for the Proposed Project for this
report and environmental analysis is identified as the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 7 of the Citys
February 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. As shown in Figure 2 below, the Proposed Project/Action
would consist of 9.4 -miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8- to 16-inch to provide
recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of agricultural and
urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 parcels covering 703
acres would be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284
acres would be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary
of the key parameters of the overall Proposed Project/Action. What follows is a discussion of the major
Parameter
Number of
Units
1,234
703
44
142
284
17
9.4
8-16
Pump Station
Potential Users and Phasing

September 2012
RD
ER
REDEMEYE R
R E D EM EY
R
G
R
EI
OL
O
RT
BA
H ILL
RD
B UD HI
BODMI WAY
HOW ELL
CRE
E
K RD
EASTSID
E RD
ST I
NV
IL L
NG
HR
ROSEMAR
Y HILL R A NC
RUDDIC
12"
GIELOW LN
TW
IN
I
Pond Site
12"
ER
B
KNO
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
BO
D
ON R
A TS
DR
R
TAYLOR D
ES
TAT
I NGHA M RD
K CUNN
RD
LEE
AVE
BISBY
PARK CREEK LN
EL
E
RK
BU
D
ER
BL
RO
D
LR
HIL
B ISB Y A V
ADDOR
BROGGIE LN
16"
SS
RD
RD
REEK
MILL C
N
PP L
SHE P RD L
A
TALMAGE RD
16"
O LL
K KN
IL
DR
VAN PELT
TINDALL RANCH RD
OL
OA
RD
LN
DR
KNO LL RD
RID G
EUNICE CT
M
PO
OA
ES T
VIE
W
AV E
SON
JEFFER
DR
DR
16"
CR
IS
AR
IN
OL
P
A
1 6"
LA
WS
N
V I C HY SPRI
RD
RIVER
BEACON LN
I ST
8"
AIRPORT RD
CRESTA DR
S DORA ST
HELEN AVE
AVE
LU CE
AVE
LUCE
T AL MAG E R D
IS LN
LEW
E GOBB
REDWOOD HWY
RD AVE
H LN
WAUG
C INO DR
EW
POMO DR
S ORCHA
ST
ST
S OAK
ME
ND
O
S MAIN
DR
ND
HLA
HIG
Y ST
W CLA
T
ILL S
WM
VI
T
KINS S
E PER
ST
NDLEY
T
W STA
R CH S
W CHU
16"
1 6"
N MAIN ST
ST
STA
EY
NL
12"
CLARA AVE
N OAK
H ST
8"
"
VE
BRUSH ST
FORD ST
UA
12"
N BUS
E AV
12"
ST
MA
PL
8"
BRIGGS ST
8"
8"
8"
LE W
16"
EMPIRE DR
RD
IS
FORD RD
TE
N STA
TE ST
N STA
LO W
GA P R
FEED LOT RD
DESPINA DR
LOVERS LN
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
River
DIAMETER
Local Streets
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Major Roads
Figure 2
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/
RD
ER
N
V I C HY SPRI
UA
R
EI
OL
O
ADDOR
TALMAGE RD
B UD HI
TINDALL RANCH RD
LN
BROGGIE LN
GIELOW LN
SS
ES
TAT
T
ST I
BO
CRE
E
K RD
RD
CUNNINGHAM
RD
LEE
NV
IL L
ER
K
RUDDIC
B I SB Y
A VE
EL
E
RK
BU
PARK CREEK LN
NG
HR
ROSEMAR
Y HILL R A NC
HOW ELL
TW
IN
I
EASTSID
E RD
OA
Ukiah
WWTP
O LL
K KN
N
PP L
SHE P RD L
A
BODMI WAY
RD
REEK
MILL C
DR
KNO LL RD
RD
RD
AV E
SON
JEFFER
EUNICE CT
AIRPORT RD
LA
WS
OA
H ILL
LN
S DORA ST
HELEN AVE
TAL MAGE RD
BEACON LN
ES T
VIE
W
RD
RIVER
H
WAUG
ST
AVE
LU CE
CR
I ST
DR
VAN PELT
RT
E GOBB
RD
BA
RID G
B
KNO
ILL S
REDWOOD HWY
WM
PLUM ST
S OAK
DR
ND
HLA
HIG
ST
URCH
W CH
ST
Y
A
L
WC
T
KINS S
E PER
D
ON R
A TS
DR
S
NDLEY
DR
POMO D R
W STA
ST
IL
CLARA AVE
N OAK
H ST
AV
FORD ST
N BUS
STA
EY
NL
IS
AR
IN
OL
P
A
R E D EM EY
BRIGGS ST
LE W
IS
EMPIRE DR
G AP RD
RD
FORD RD
TE ST
N STA
L OW
FEED LOT RD
REDEMEYER
LOVERS LN
D
ER
BL
RO
D
LR
HIL
B ISB Y A V
0
Miles
Legend

by Phase
1
2
3
4
by Phase
1
2
3

River
Major Roads
Local Streets
Figure 3
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/

Irrigation
Phase
Agricultural
Urban
Landscape
Frost
Protection
Total by
Phase
Cumulative
Total
309.2
0.0
94.6
403.8
403.8
210.4
0.0
4.8
215.1
618.9
311.8
22.2
42.3
376.3
995.2
0.0
380.6
0.0
380.6
1,375.8
Total
831.4
402.8
141.7
1,375.8
Pipeline Facilities
miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8 and 16-inches in diameter. The recycled water
would be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be
available up to the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities.
The pipeline will be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first
phase is anticipated to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be
along paved roads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along
paved roads, primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a
part of Phase 4 would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to
minimize the total length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral
streams and/or drainages that lead to the Russian River.
Pump Station
planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with
spare bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in
Phase 2. Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for
frost protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation.
Storage Facilities
As also shown on Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action also includes the construction and operation of
a new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a
Project/Action.
10
September 2012

Diameter
(inches)
Phase
Type of Alignment
16
12
Phase 1 Subtotal
Length
(miles)
Construction
Schedule
1,300
0.25
2013 - 2014
5,600
1.06
2013 - 2014
6,900
1.31
2013 - 2014
Length
(feet)
Paved Public Street
16
5,600
1.06
2019 - 2020
16
4,200
0.80
2019 - 2020
9,800
1.86
2019 - 2020
Phase 2 Subtotal
3
16
9,000
1.70
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
16
4,000
0.76
2025 - 2026
12
400
0.08
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
1,000
0.19
2025 - 2026
14,400
2.73
2025 - 2026
Phase 3 Subtotal
4
Paved Public Street
12
4,700
0.89
2031 - 2032
Paved Public Street
13,800
2.61
2031 - 2032
Phase 4 Subtotal
18,500
3.50
2031 - 2032
49,600
9.40
2013 - 2032
Note:
Construction Considerations
summer of 2013 and continue over approximately a 20 year period as each of the four phases are
planned to be developed in five (5) year increments beginning in 2013. Construction work will typically
be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly
on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be
constructed primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during
construction will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary
of the construction techniques and activities.
techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50-foot wide
However, in most places a 25-foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the
11
September 2012
construction techniques in the dry season and will not occur during rainy weather and during
the months between October 15 and through April 1.
dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and
not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB).
brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to
characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that each phase of the
project would be constructed by two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of
approximately 500-1,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging
areas for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that
would minimize hauling distances and long-term disruption.
generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions
for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may
include, but not limited to:
Backhoe
Grader
Crane
Dozer
Compactor
Front-end loader
Water truck
Forklift
12
September 2012
Street sweeper
provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated
with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are
described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any
minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.
Area of Potential Effect

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Proposed Project/Action is defined as the geographic area or
areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of
cultural resources as defined above. Trenching for installing the recycled water pipelines would typically
require a width of three feet and a vertical depth of approximately six feet; therefore the vertical APE
would be typically six feet. For this Proposed Project/Action, an APE of 50-foot wide corridor (25-foot
radius from centerline) would be assumed to accommodate for areas for staging and spoils. Depending
upon the width of the roadway and the size of pipe, a narrower horizontal APE with an average width of
12.5 feet extending through the right-of-way could be realized. The storage pond would occupy up to
12.5 acres on the 40-acre parcel the City recently acquired adjacent and to the south of the Ukiah
WWTP. This APE also includes a 10 foot buffer around those improvements for spoils and staging.
Excavation of the storage pond is estimated to be approximately 6 feet deep.
Regional Setting
What follows is a discussion of the regional environmental setting for cultural resources in Ukiah, Ukiah
Valley and portions of Mendocino County.
Archaeology and Prehistory

Generally, the prehistory of the Ukiah Valley within Mendocino County is not well known. No peerreviewed documents have been published since the seminal study presented by Fredrickson in 1984.
The Northwest Information Center at California State University, Sonoma indicated that approximately
4,320 archaeological sites from both prehistoric and historic eras have been catalogued or listed. The
most frequent form of cultural resource study is the surface inspection and these vary widely with
respect to project methodology.
The coastal region of Mendocino County exhibits two, perhaps three, different forms of cultural
adaptations. The Coast Yuki north of Fort Bragg lived on the coast year-round, with their major villages
set back from the coast within sheltered areas. The Northern Pomo were a riverine-adapted people who
made seasonal treks to the coast, set up seasonal camps, harvested their seafood, and returned home.
13
September 2012

Large, complex village sites have not been found often on the coast between Fort Bragg and the Navarro
River, unless they pre-date Northern Pomo habitation. The Central Pomo south of the Navarro lived in
permanent villages and seasonal camps on the coast.
The redwood belt in central Mendocino County was used for short-term purposes by individuals or
groups passing through the region; however, no prehistorical Mendocino County groups lived
permanently or even seasonally in this zone. The Central and Northern Pomo maintained large villages
along the Russian River and its larger tributaries. These peoples made seasonal encampments in upland
areas but were primarily a riverine adapted people. The Yuki were also a riverine group, but with a
substantial mountain adaptation living along the Middle and South Forks of the Eel and Black Butte
Rivers. They made extensive use of the mountainous lands surrounding them. Their linguistic relatives,
the Huchnom, lived along the South Eel. The Huchnom's territory was limited. It appears that all of their
major villages were located along the South Eel, with the mountainous regions used for short trips to
gather specific resources. Of all the Yuki groups, they were most similar to the Pomo, and interacted
with the Potter and Redwood Valley Pomo group extensively.
Much the same can be said for Cahto groups living along Ten Mile Creek. Separate from the Yuki, the
Cahto integrated well with their Pomo neighbors, living along those major watercourses within their
territory with a highly variable food base. The North Fork Wailaki were a riverine people with an
adaptation different from their more southerly neighbors. Theirs was a largely salmon oriented
economy, supplemented by local resources such as acorn harvesting, gathering, and hunting. Large
villages were established along the major watercourses, with seasonal camps and special use sites
located in the upland regions of their territory. Remaining Athapaskan-speaking groups along the
northern boundary of the County are more aptly discussed within the context of Humboldt County.
Their material culture and economic adaptations are similar to the North Fork Wailaki.
The time depth of human occupation of Mendocino County is uncertain. Human occupation is reported
in the Clear Lake Basin and in Sonoma County around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.5 In Humboldt County,
the time depth of human occupation along the coast is not more than a few thousand years; however,
prehistoric occupation on the interior ridges separating Shasta County may have occurred perhaps 8,000
years ago. Similar time depth is reported for the Eel River region. The oldest occupation in Round Valley
is about 3,000 years ago, but occupation in the surrounding hills and drainages extends back to
approximately 8,000 years ago. Although the Russian River was very heavily used, occupation has not
been reported before 5,000 years ago.
Human occupation along the coast, in both Northern and Central Pomo controlled territory, appears
roughly contemporaneous with that of the Russian River. It has been suggested that the lack of antiquity
for human occupation along the coast may be in part a result of rising sea levels that inundated older
archaeological sites. While there is no evidence for this, it does offer a plausible explanation for why the
coast of northern California lacks significant time depth of human occupation.
14
September 2012
European History of Mendocino County

The European history of Mendocino County began many decades before the Bear Flag Revolt of 1848.
The earliest known incursions into the County by Europeans were in the 1820s. Several pre-Eighteenth
Century Spanish coastal explorations were undertaken, including one by Cabrillo, but there is no
evidence that any of these landed on the coast of Mendocino County to establish permanent
settlements. In the early decades of the Nineteenth Century, the Russian Empire established a number
of settlements in northwestern Sonoma County centered on Fort Ross. The Russians were not satisfied
to merely exploit their immediate surroundings and they conducted extensive explorations of the
interior. A qualified scientist accompanied each exploration and, as a result, the National Academy of
Sciences in Leningrad has near unparalleled collections of Coastal California ethnographic and botanical
materials. One of these explorations, circa 1828, traveled up the Russian River into Mendocino County
and then east to Clear Lake, describing either Mt. Lassen or Mt. Shasta to the north. Very little of this
information has been translated. Working with new translated information, Werner (1977) prepared a
short summary and bibliography of these explorations.
In the 1820s and 1830s, the County was visited, perhaps annually, by bands of English, French Canadian,
and American fur trappers. Never staying long in one place, these men were hunters and trappers and
only incidentally explorers. Spain, and subsequently Mexico, had many settlements in what was known
as Alta Californiaan area roughly corresponding to the coastal strip of modern California as far north
as central Sonoma County, where a mission and small presidio were established. By the 1840s, Sonoma
and Napa counties were carved into large land grants and, late in that decade, two ranchos were
established in southern Mendocino County: Rancho de Sanel at Hopland and Yokaya in the Ukiah Valley
(Marschner 2000:195).
Neither Spanish nor Mexican influence extended into Mendocino County beyond establishing the two
land grants. Neither grant was developed or confirmed by the U.S. government (Marschner 2000:196).
However, Fernando Feliz did receive a patent for some 17,000 acres in Sanel Valley after receiving the
Rancho de Sanel land grant from the Mexican government (Hoover, et al. 1966:196). There were no
established cities or towns until 1859, and, owing to an extremely sparse population, the County was
administered by Sonoma County. In the 1840s, Rafael Garcia was using Point Arena for cattle grazing
and claimed to have a rancho but it was never named or confirmed.
The first region in Mendocino County to develop was the coast. In the 1850s, the County's fishing and
lumber industries were established. Harbors were established at the mouths of the Noyo, Navarro, and
Albion Rivers, with the Noyo an early center for fishing. The ports on the Navarro and Albion Rivers were
developed to serve a burgeoning lumber industry (Gille 1980:331). Other coastal areas were also subject
to intensive activities associated with this industry; Point Arena was reputedly the busiest town between
San Francisco and Eureka.
By the 1880s, the California Lumber Company had established 20 mills along the coast connected by
narrow gauge railroads to each other and the numerous small towns (Usal, Rockport, Hardy Creek,
15
September 2012

Westport, Cleone, Fort Bragg, Noyo, Caspar, Mendocino City, Little River, Albion, Navarro, Greenwood,
Elk River, and Gualala). Some of these towns have completely disappeared, while others have managed
to survive as small rural communities. The Town of Mendocino has been designated by the State of
California as a special community pursuant to the Coastal Act in recognition of an existing balance of
residential, commercial and visitor serving facilities. The Town of Mendocino remains a visitor
destination for its historic significance and natural beauty.
The U. S. government originally established Fort Bragg, named after General Braxton Bragg of Mexican
War fame, as an Army fort on what was to be the Mendocino Indian Reservation. The fort was
established within the City limits of a thriving community. In the 1850s, the Union Lumber Company had
established lumber mills within in the City of Fort Bragg and in 1922 established the first private nursery
in California, the first private venture of its type in the State (Hoover, et al 1966:199). In the
1850s, the California Western Railroad connected the City to Willits; this railroad survives to this day as
the popular Skunk Train.
Inland towns were established at Ukiah, Hopland (called Sanel as late as 1859), and the town of Willits,
established circa 1865. Kirk Brier first settled Willits in Little Lake Valley in 1865, but the town was
named after Hiram Willits who bought Brier out and then helped with incorporation in 1888. The first
settler in the Ukiah area was S. Lowry, who established himself there by 1856. He sold his land to A. T.
Perkins, and in 1859 the tiny hamlet of some 100 people was selected as the County seat. In 1894, the
State Fish and Game Commission took over a fish hatchery begun in 1894 by the Northwestern Pacific
Railway. In 1898, the International Geodetic Association established one of four International Latitude
Observatories in the Ukiah area. In 1900, C. A. Purdy established a preserve for native western
wildflowers, bulbs, shrubs, and trees. This area east of Ukiah is known as Purdys Garden; the
internationally known facility was gone by the 1960s (Hoover, et al. 1966:196-197).
The Ukiah area is also the location of Vichy Springs, one of the oldest continuously operating hot springs
resorts in the country (Hoover, et al. 1999), beginning as a resort circa 1888 as Doolan Ukiah Vichy.
Vichy Springs is recognized as a State historical landmark (Number 980). Other mineral spring resorts in
the County include Orrs Springs west of Ukiah and Duncan Springs south of Hopland. The Sun House in
Ukiah is also a State listed historical landmark (Number 926).
These inland interior areas were very remote; in the Boonville locality a unique dialect of English was
begun called Boontling, one of the very few recognized dialects of English. The rugged interior of the
County within the Redwood belt remains a sparsely settled region to this day. Population centers in the
region are small, with Boonville, Navarro, and Comptche in the south, and Branscomb in the north.
Boonville was founded in 1864 as Kendall City. Navarro or 'Navarra' appears on a Rancho Diseno map of
1844, but after statehood the post office in this location was called Wendling, until 1914 when it was
changed to Navarro. Branscomb was settled relatively late, in 1895 when the post office was
established.
16
September 2012

The major industry of the interior was logging and supporting facilities with light retailing in the small
towns. The industry led to the establishment of Philo, Yorkville, and other towns in this portion of the
County. Agricultural activities were undertaken in the larger valleys, for example Anderson Valley
around Boonville and Yorkville. More recently, in the southern end of the County vineyards in some
areas have replaced fruit trees. The first major crop in the Hopland area, planted by Stephen Warren
Knowles in 1858, was hops and by the early 1900s, hops were replaced by pears and later vineyards. The
Potter, Redwood, and Coyote Valleys north, northeast, and east of Ukiah were heavily agricultural with
some logging in the first two. Coyote Valley, flooded in 1958 by Lake Mendocino behind Coyote Dam,
was also heavily agricultural and the first vineyard in Mendocino County was begun here in the 1880s
(Patterson, et al. 1977). The Ukiah Valley remains primarily an agricultural area although light industry
and commercial development has increased since the Second World War. Round Valley, about 30 miles
northeast of Willits, is also heavily agricultural with some logging in the northern end. Local tradition has
the last fast draw duel in California occurring in the streets of Covelo circa 1908.
Ethnography
The entire southern third of Mendocino County was the home of groups of Central Pomo. To the north
of the Central groups lie the Northern Pomo, who controlled a strip of land extending from the coast to
Clear Lake in Lake County. The northern groups controlled the coast from the Navarro River north to
Cleone and from just north of Anderson Valley to Sherwood Valley. Coyote, Yokayo, Redwood, and
Potter Valleys were within their territory. The Northern Pomo were the most populous native linguistic
groups in the County. The Pomo were a Hokan language group, judged one of the oldest linguistic
families in the State (McLendon and Oswalt 1977).
The Coast Yuki claimed a portion of the coast from Ft. Bragg north to an area slightly north of Rockport.
The Coast Yuki was one of the few native groups in California with a true coastal adaptation; they had
little access to interior resources. The Coast Yuki were linguistically related to a small group living along
the South Eel River north of Potter Valley called the Huchnom. Both of these smaller groups were
related to the Yuki who were centered in Round Valley. The Round Valley Indian Reservation at the
northern end of the valley is the largest contiguous enclave of Indian land in the County and one of the
largest in California. These three groups represent a linguistic isolate language known as Yuki, which has
no known linguistic relatives (Miller 1977).
At the far northern end of the County, above the Coast Yuki, Northern Pomo, and Yuki, several groups
extend south from Humboldt County. These groups are interesting in that they represent the southern
extension of a different cultural area than their southerly neighbors. Pomoan-Yukian groups are
representative of the California Culture as defined by Kroeber (1925). These groups had a mixed
economy based primarily on harvesting acorns and hunting, fishing, and other gathering. The northerly
groups represent an extension of the Northwest Culture Area; the most well known groups in this
Culture Area lie far to the north in Washington and British Columbia and include groups such as the
Klingat and Tillamook, to name two.
17
September 2012

Only one of the northerly groups lies entirely within Mendocino County, the Cahto; their territory was
bounded by Branscomb, Laytonville, and Cummings (Miller 1977). Three other groups, all Athapaskans
peaking like the Cahto, extended just south of the County boundary. These are the Shelter Cove
Sinkyone, the Eel River, and Pitch Wailaki. The North Fork Wailaki were almost entirely in Mendocino
County along the North Fork of the Eel River. Of the five southern Athapaskan groups, the Cahto were
the most closely related from a cultural perspective to the Pomo and are judged primarily a California
Culture Area group; the remaining four are included among the Northwestern California groups, which
were culturally part of the Northwest Culture Area. In truth, Northwestern California is more of an
agglomeration of California and Northwestern cultural characteristics, but their material culture is
sufficiently distinct from the Pomo that they are included in a distinct culture area.
Nearly all of these native groups have living representatives in the County today. The Central Pomo are
represented by Rancherias in Hopland, Manchester, and Point Arena. Northern Pomo groups have
Rancherias in Potter, Redwood, Pinoleville (Ukiah), Guideville (Coyote Valley), and Sherwood. The
Yuki, Huchnom, Coast Yuki, and North Fork Wailaki were placed on the Round Valley Reservation. The
Cahto have a Rancheria at Laytonville. The remaining Athapaskan groups have land set aside for them in
Humboldt County.
Current Status of Reservations and Rancherias

Many Rancherias represent the composite remnants of once populous native villages when the U. S.
Government restricted movement and confiscated their lands in the 1850s. For example, nine separate
tribes at Round Valley including Pomo and Wintu groups were forced to settle there in the Nineteenth
Century; Central Pomo and Northern Pomo live on each others Rancherias, often through
intermarriage. Thus, in land use planning it is often necessary to consult tribal members at several
Rancherias and those living at the Rancheria closest to a proposed project may not be the most
appropriate group(s) to consult. Established in 1856, Round Valley Reservation is the largest in
Mendocino County. The Reservation is a discontinuous assemblage of at least 15 parcels, some of which
extend into Humboldt County. Before the establishment of Round Valley, the Department of Indian
Affairs had established a farm called Nome Cult.
The total acreage of Native American land is subject to change. Since the advent of Indian Gaming,
investment groups may form partnerships with tribal units for the purpose of acquiring property
in locations advantageous for resort-casino operations. Rancheria acreages may also increase as the
result of local action to place lands that were historically in a Rancheria back under trust status. Land
sales within a Rancheria require Bureau of Indian Affairs approval. Not all land within the boundaries
of reservations, are Federal trust lands. Today, Reservations and Rancherias in the County strive to
restore, maintain, and protect their histories. Cultural history is stressed through preservation of tribal
language and ceremonies. Cultural and sacred aspects of the land are also important. Round Valley
Indian Tribes, for example, may consider peaks and high places within the area to be spiritually
significant. Likewise, the acts of hunting, fishing, and gathering are not merely a means of gathering
food or materials; they represent cultural traditions.
18
September 2012

Tribes are also striving to ensure that necessary social services are available. Employment opportunities
at or near their places of residence continue to be a priority for many tribes in Mendocino County.
Employment rates of 43 percent on the Redwood Valley Rancheria and 84 percent on the Round Valley
Reservation were identified in 2000. Many of those who are employed work off their Rancheria or
Reservation lands. Further, local tribes remain concerned about educational opportunities for Rancheria
and Reservation residents along with health and safety issues.
Status of Resource Protection

The process of identifying and mitigating impacts to cultural resources incrementally increases man's
understanding of human and natural environments through time. The largest blocks of land studied in
the County are within Mendocino National Forest. The Bureau of Land Management has conducted
extensive cultural resources surveys in the Cow Mountain Planning Unit and the Geysers Known
Geothermal Resources Area. The Round Valley Reservation was inspected for prehistoric cultural
resources in the 1970s. Several other Reservations or Rancherias have been studied recently as the
result of housing or economic development projects. The California Department of Parks and Recreation
has conducted cultural resources surveys on most if not all of their properties in the County. Many
sections of State highway rights-of-way have been inspected.
Large tracts of land under private ownership in the redwood belt have been inspected in association
with timber harvest plans administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Some State agencies routinely require cultural resources investigations, such as the State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights and the State Land Commission.
Prehistoric archaeological sites subject to intensive study are spread throughout the County. Many
archaeological sites along the Russian River in Coyote Valley were examined in the 1970s (Stoddard, et
al. 1978). A few prehistoric sites in Round Valley and vicinity have been studied. The California
Department of Transportation has excavated prehistoric sites along the State Route 101 right-of-way. A
few prehistoric sites along the coast in MacKerricher State Park presumed associated with the Coast
Yuki were studied in the early 1990s. Isolated prehistoric sites have been examined within the limits of
lands under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Act; most of these are to define site boundaries.
Unless exempted, cultural resources investigations are required on lands subject to disturbance by
public and private projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However,
agricultural cultivation and many other uses are "permitted" and not subject to CEQA requirements.
Very few prehistoric or historic archaeological sites under the Countys CEQA jurisdiction have been
subject to systematic scientific study. With so few cultural resources carefully studied, the prehistory of
the County generally remains not well understood.
19
September 2012
Regulatory Framework
Summarized below are the relevant federal and state regulations as well as local goals and policies
related to cultural resources that are applicable to the Proposed Project/Action.
Federal
Summarized below are the relevant federal regulations related to cultural resources that are applicable
to the Proposed Project/Action.
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, established the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), which contains an inventory of the nations significant prehistoric and historic
properties. Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion
on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria: It is
associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events.
It is associated with significant people in the past.

It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of
construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but
they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria
listed above. Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and
cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have
achieved significance within the past 50 years.
National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA's concern is with the "human environment," defined as including the natural and physical (e.g.
built) environment and the relationships of people to that environment. A thorough environmental
analysis under NEPA should systematically address the "human" -- social and cultural -- aspects of the
environment as well as those that are more "natural," and should address the relationships between
natural and cultural. Culturally valued aspects of the environment generally include historic properties,
other culturally valued pieces of real property, cultural use of the biophysical environment, and such
"intangible" sociocultural attributes as social cohesion, social institutions, lifeways, religious practices,
and other cultural institutions.
State
Summarized below are the relevant state regulations related to cultural resources that are applicable to
the Proposed Project/Action.
20
September 2012

California Register of Historical Resources
As defined by Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall be considered
historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources (CR). The California Register of Historical Resources and many local preservation ordinances
have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model, since the NHPA provides the highest
standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. A resource that meets the NRHP criteria is
clearly significant. In addition, a resource that does not meet the NRHP standards may still be
considered historically significant at a local or state level.
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically
significant. The CEQA guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine if
they meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. If an archaeological site is a historical
resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, potential adverse impacts to it
must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource, but meets the
definition of a unique archeological resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2,
then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.
Local
Summarized below are the relevant established goals and polices related to cultural resources in the
City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino that are applicable to the Proposed Project/Action.
City of Ukiah General Plan
The City of Ukiah has adopted policies and ordinances for the protection and preservation of cultural
resources. The Citys preservation of cultural resources is accomplished through education,
cooperation, and commitment to a program that make sense to the community. The Citys commitment
is to maintain cultural resources as a link to past populations those whose ancestors called the Ukiah
Valley home from time immemorial and those who adopted the Ukiah Valley as part of the growth of
the United States. Over the years, the importance of preserving cultural resources has been viewed as
critical to maintaining history and the quality of life as well as hindering development. However, the
City has adopted measures to protect cultural resources and preserving the past as well as
accommodating the future. The Citys approach is to consider cultural resources as part of the
permitting process. With early planning, the protection of cultural resources can usually be integrated
into project designs in such a way as to avoid or minimize impacts. The City has developed a cultural
resources inventory of known and likely known areas where cultural resources are or likely to be found.
A review of this map, the Proposed Project/Action area would not conflict with, impact or be near any
known cultural resources identified by the City. Prior to any proposed development, project proponents
are required to identify areas of potential conflicts with known cultural resources.
County of Mendocino General Plan
The Mendocino County Archeological Ordinance adopted in 1976 (Mendocino County Code, Title 21)
recognized Native American sites as unique, irreplaceable phenomena of significance in the history of
the County and in the understanding of the cultural heritage of our land. The County Archeological
21
September 2012

Commission conducts CEQA review and recommends mitigation regarding archaeological resources,
taking into account the records search performed by the Northwest Information Center. The
Archaeological Ordinance also implements the Public Resources Code with regard to discovery of
archaeological resources or human remains.
Investigation Methodology and Results

This section summarizes the investigation methods used to determine the potential for cultural
resources to be affected by the Proposed Project/Action.
Northwest Information Center (NWIC) Record Search

On August 24, 2012, a records search was conducted by staff at the NWIC, Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park, California (NWIC File # 12-0047). The record search included the project Area of Potential
Effect (APE) and a 0.25-mile radius outside the project boundaries. The record search included reviewing
pertinent NWIC base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic period maps,
and literature for Mendocino County including current inventories of the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHP), the California Inventory of
Historical Resources, California State Historic Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest.
Review of this information indicates that there have been three recorded cultural resources studies and
two recorded archeological studies that cover less than 10 percent of the Proposed Project/Action area.
This project area contains two recorded archeological resources (P-23-004814 and P-23-004815), both
of which contain Native-American and historic-era cultural material. In addition, the Proposed Project
Action runs adjacent to and crosses the Northwestern Pacific Railroad alignment, portions of which have
been recorded as P-23-003663. Local, state, and federal inventories include no recorded buildings or
structures within the Proposed Project/Action area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base
maps show no recorded buildings or structures.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of a
Northern Pomo language, one of the seven Pomoan languages. (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:273).
Several ethnographic Native American villages and camps (Komli, Kabegilna, Tcioteya, Katili,
Banakaiyau) are known to be located in or adjacent to the proposed project area (Barrett 1908).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native
American resources in this part of Mendocino County have been found in close proximity to sources of
water (including perennial and intermittent streams and springs), near the valley/upland interface, and
near ecotones and other productive environments. The proposed project area is located adjacent to the
Russian River and various tributaries thereof. This portion of Ukiah Valley is known to have a high
potential for containing buried archaeological sites that may show no signs on the surface. Given the
similarity of these environmental factors, coupled with the archaeological and ethnographic sensitivity,
22
September 2012

there is a high potential of identifying unrecorded Native American resources in the proposed project
area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period archaeological
resources within the proposed project area. The 1920 Ukiah 15-minute Corps of Engineers US Army
tactical map depicts several farmsteads in areas where the proposed alignment is planned. In
addition, the proposed project area appears to cross or run in close proximity to portions of the
grade of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. With this in mind, there is a moderate potential of
identifying unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources in the proposed project area.
Survey Methods
The cultural resources investigation also included a field reconnaissance of the Project APE on July 17,
2012 and no cultural resources, including archeological resources P-23-004814 and P-23-004815 were
identified within the Proposed Project/Actions proposed alignment and construction corridor.
Native American Heritage Commission Record Search and Outreach

On July 24, 2012, a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento,
California in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites listed on its Sacred Lands File are within the
current project APE. A response from the NAHC was received on August 9, 2012, stating that a search of
its Sacred Land File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the
immediate project APE. Included with the response was a list of 26 Native American representatives
who may have further knowledge of Native American resources within or near the project APE. To
ensure that all Native American concerns are adequately addressed, letters to each of the listed tribal
contacts were sent on August 17, 2012, requesting any information about the project that these
individuals may have. As of this date, only two responses have been received and which indicated that
they have no specific knowledge of any specific cultural resources sites. See Attachment A.
Recommendations
Based upon this investigation, detailed below are several recommendations and mitigation measures
that should be implemented to ensure that there are no significant impacts to cultural resources that
may exist in the APE as direct and indirect result of the Proposed Project/Action.
Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance of Identified Cultural Resources. During the

engineering and final design phase, a qualified professional archeologist or cultural resources
specialist will provide a pre-construction survey of the exact proposed pipeline alignment and
placement of the project facilities within the proposed construction corridor and ensure that the
construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action will not affect the archeological resources
P-23-004814, P-23-004815, and P-23-003663 as identified by NWIC above. In the unlikely event
that the Proposed Project/Action could affect these resources, the proposed project facilities
shall be constructed in a manner that will avoid damaging these resources. Specifically, the
pipeline shall either be installed by avoidance of the resource by realignment of the pipeline or
23
September 2012

facility around the resource(s) and/or as in the case of crossing the Northwestern Railroad, the
resource shall be avoided by going beneath through the implementation of horizontal
directional drilling (HDD) or another equally effective construction technique. In addition, the
archeological resource sites shall include the installation of barrier fencing or other physical
barriers to prevent construction personnel and vehicles from coming onto the sites during
construction. During construction, the area shall be monitored by a professional archaeologist
to ensure that (1) barrier fencing is maintained, (2) vehicles and workers do in fact remain off
the site, and (3) violations of the exclusion area are reported and infractions are policed in
accordance with treatment of other environmental violations. Any construction or
postconstruction use of the road adjacent to the sites in support of the pipeline shall be
confined to the road which shall be used as is and shall not be modified by grading or
expanded in width.
Halt work if cultural resources are discovered. In the event that any prehistoric or historic
subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within
100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a
qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be
significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section
21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified
archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any
suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to
historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find,
project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried
out.
Halt work if paleontological remains are discovered. If paleontological resources, such as

fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a
qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop
appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City.
Halt work if human remains are found. If human remains are encountered during excavation
activities conducted for the Proposed Project/Action, all work in the adjacent area shall stop
immediately and the Mendocino County Coroners office shall be notified. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted
for recommendations for treatment of the discovered human remains and any associated burial
goods.
24
September 2012
Bibliography
In addition to the archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the
Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed and/or referenced:
Barrett, S.A. 1908 The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1):1-322. University of
California Press, Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corp., New York, 1964).
Carranco, Lynwood. 1986 Redwood Country. Star Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.
Cook, S.F. 1956 The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California. University of
California Anthropological Records 16(3):81-130. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Fickewirth, Alvin A. 1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.
Gary, Mark A. 1989 Tracking Barrett for Anthropology 332: Prehistory of California, David
Fredrickson, Professor (Fall semester).
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe.
1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by
Douglas E. Kyle 1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Hope, Andrew. 2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of
Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1976).
Levene, Bruce, Lana Krasner, Gloria Petrykowski, and Rosalie Zucker. 1977 Mendocino County
Remembered, An Oral History. A Commemoration of the American Bicentennial, Volume II (MZ). Pacific Rim Research, Mendocino, CA.
McClendon, Sally and Robert L. Oswalt 1978 Pomo: Introduction. In California, edited by Robert
F. Heizer, pp. 274-288. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mendocino County Historical Society. 1996 Mills of Mendocino County. Black Bear Press, Caspar,
CA.
Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts. 1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico
Rivera, CA.
25
September 2012
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic
Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation.
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks
and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation. 2012 Historic Properties Directory. Listing by
City (through April 2012). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973 Soil Survey of the
Mendocino County Bottomlands, California: A Special Report. Advanced Unedited Copy. United
States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Portland. (Reprint by Mendocino
County Resource Conservation District, 1979).
Watson, E.B. and R.L. Pendleton. 1916 Soil Survey of the Ukiah Area, California. (Advance
Sheets-Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils, 1914). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Soils, Washington, D.C.
Williams, James C. 1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron
Press, Akron, OH.
Woodbridge, Sally B. 1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle
Books, San Francisco, CA. Works Progress Administration. 1984 The WPA Guide to California.
Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden
State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York).
Agonia, Henry R., Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic
Preservation; Kathryn Gualtieri, State Historic Preservation Officer. An Ethnic Historic Site Survey
for California. December 1988. Website: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/5Views/
Barrett, Samuel A. 1908. The Ethnogeography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University
of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1). Berkeley, California.
Bean, Lowell John, and Dorothea Theodoratus. 1978. Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. In
Robert
F. Heizer, Editor Volume 8, California. William C. Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
California
Historical
Society,
California
Cultural
http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org/ December 2002.
California State Department of Education. 1965. California Information Almanac. California State
Series, Sacramento, California.
26
Directory.
Website:
September 2012
California State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2002 Protecting Archaeological
Sites in Californias Timberlands: A Guide for Licensed Timber Operators and Timberland Owners.
California State Office of Historic Preservation. Web site: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ December

2002.
California State Office of Planning and Research. 1998. General Plan Guidelines. Sacramento,
California.
Elsasser, Albert B. 1978. Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone, Lassik, and Wailaki. In Robert F. Heizer,
Editor Volume 8, California. William C. Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Environmental Science Associates. November 20, 2002. Coyote Valley Rancheria- Environmental
Assessment, Proposed Land Trust Project.
Federal Writers Project. 1945. California A Guide to the Golden State. American Guide Series by
the Works Progress Administration. Hastings House, New York.
Foster, George. 1944. A Summary of Yuki Culture. University of California Anthropological

Records 5:155-244. Berkeley, California.
Fredrickson, David A. 1984. The North Coastal Region. In California Archaeology. Michael J.
Moratto. Academic Press, New York.
Gille, Frank H. 1980. Encyclopedia of California. Frank H. Gilles General Editor Encyclopedia of
the United States. Somerset Publishers, St. Clair Shires, Michigan.
Gudde, Erwin G. 1969. California Place Names [he Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical
Names]. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Heizer, Robert F. (Editor). 1978. California. In William C. Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of
North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Homes, Alice. 1996. Mills of Mendocino County a Record of the Lumber Industry 1852 1996.
Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, and Ethel G. Rensch. 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third
Edition by William N. Abeloe. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Kaplan, Vicki. 1980. An Ethnographic Overview of the Round Valley Indian Reservation. In
Suzanne
Stuart and David A. Fredrickson, A Cultural Resources Study of the Round Valley Indian
Reservation., Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System,
Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, California.
27
September 2012
Kaplan, Vicki, Scott Paterson, and Jerry Cox. 1977. Cultural Resources Overview of Lake
Mendocino Recreation Area. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, California
Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, California.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1903. The Coast Yuki of California. American Anthropologist n.s. 5:729-730.
The Handbook of the Indians of California. 1925. Bureau of American Ethnology 78. Dover
Publications Reprint.
Marschner, Janice. 2000. California A Snapshot in Time 1850. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento,
California.
McLendon, Sally, and Robert Oswalt. 1978. Pomo: Introduction. In Robert F. Heizer, Editor
Volume 8, California. William C. Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. 2001. Draft Ukiah Valley Area
Plan. Ukiah, California.
Mendocino County Historical Society. Ukiah, California.
Meyers, James E. 1978. Cahto. In Robert F. Heizer, Editor Volume 8, California. William C.
Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
Miller, Virginia P. 1978. Yuki, Huchnom, and Coast Yuki. In Robert F. Heizer, Editor Volume 8,
California. William C. Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume
8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
National Park Service. Website: http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/ December 2002.
National Trust for Historic Preservation. Website: http://www.nthp.org/index.html December

2002. Palmer. 1880. History of Mendocino County. Alley Bowen and Co. San Francisco, California.
Redwood Valley Rancheria. 2002. Environmental Assessment for the Redwood Valley Rancheria.
Redwood Valley, California.
Stewart, Suzanne, and David A. Fredrickson. 1980. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Round
Valley
Indian Reservation, Mendocino and Trinity Counties, California. Report on file at the Northwest
Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State
University. Rohnert Park, California.
Stoddard, Steven, Scott Patterson, and David A, Fredrickson. 1978. Lake Mendocino Cultural
Resources Inundation Study. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, California
Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, California.
28
September 2012
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2001. Notice of (NonGaming) and Acquisition Application-Round Valley Indian Tribes of California. Sacramento, CA.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2001. Notice of (NonGaming) and Acquisition Application-Hopland Band of Pomo Indians. Sacramento, CA.
United States Forest Service. 1996. Black Butte River Watershed Analysis.
Note that the Office of Historic Preservations Historic Properties Directory includes National Register,
State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of
Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106
review.
29
September 2012
Attachment A
Native American Correspondence
July 13, 2012

Ms. Leigh Jordan, Coordinator
Northwest Information Center
150 Professional Center Drive, Suite E
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Subject:
Non-Confidential Records Search Request for the City of Ukiahs Proposed Recycled
Water Project, Mendocino County
Dear Ms. Jordan:

SMB Environmental, Inc. (SMB) is assisting the City of Ukiah (City) prepare environmental
documentation for its proposed Recycled Water Project. The City is seeking grant or loan funding from
the State Water Resources Control Board through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program. The
Proposed Project would consist of the approximately 9.4-miles of recycled water pipeline, ranging in size
from 16-8 inches in diameter, from the existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve
approximately 990 acres of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley.
The Proposed Project is located on the Ukiah, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map. Please see
attached Project Map of the proposed pipeline alignment.
We would appreciate your checking your records to see if there are any culturally sensitive areas within
the proposed project alignment or vicinity that could be affected by the construction of this proposed
project. We authorize 4 hours at the regular rate for now, but may also be willing to authorize the rapid
rate, depending on the time and costs.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to your earliest possible reply. If any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 916-517-2189 or at steve@smbenvironmental.com.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
P.O. Box 381 Roseville, CA 95661
www.smbenviromental.com
916-517-2189
July 24, 2012
Ms. Debbie Treadway

Native American Heritage Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 94612
Subject:
Sacred Land Files and Native American Contact List Request for the City of Ukiahs
Proposed Recycled Water Project, Mendocino County
Dear: Ms. Treadway

documentation for its proposed Recycled Water Project. The Proposed Project would consist of the
approximately 9.4-miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from 16-8 inches in diameter from the
Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve approximately 990 acres of agricultural and urban
landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. The Proposed Project is located on the Ukiah,
California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map and is essentially at or near Township 15 N., Range 12W.
MT. D. M. in Mendocino County, California.
We would appreciate your checking the Sacred Lands Files to see if there are any culturally sensitive
areas within the immediate project vicinity. We would also like to receive a list of Native American
organizations that may have knowledge in the area and we will attempt to contact them to solicit their
written input/concerns about the Proposed Project.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

John Feliz Jr. Chairperson
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 39/7901 Hwy 10
Redwood Valley CA 95470
Subject:
Request for Information Regarding Known Cultural Resources Sites for the Proposed
City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project, Mendocino County
Dear Mr. Feliz:

documentation for its proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project
would primarily consist of the construction of an approximately 9.4-mile pipeline system to serve a
combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands in the Ukiah Valley with
approximately 1,375 acre-feet per year (afy) of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys existing
60301 through 60355. The pipeline system would be primarily located within existing paved City
roadways and agricultural service roads through the Ukiah Valley east of Highway 101 and west of the
Russian River. Please see attached Project Map.
The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted about the Proposed Project and provided us
with a list of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural
resources in the project area. As a result, we are requesting that you please provide us with any
information you may have about cultural resources or sites in the project area so that we can determine
ways to protect those sites, including archeological sites and other locations of special value to Native
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Merline Sanchez, Chairperson
Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 339
Talmage, CA 95481
Subject:
Dear Merline Sanchez:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Shawn Padi, Chairperson
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
3000 Shanel Road/98
Hopland, CA 95449
Subject:
Dear Shawn Padi:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Christy Taylor, Chairperson
Laytonville Rancheria/Cahto Indian tribe
P.O. Box 1239
Laytonville, CA 95454
Subject:
Dear Christy Taylor:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

P. Stevenson, Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 1239
Subject:
Dear P. Stevenson:
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Nelson Pinola, Chairperson
Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria
P.O. Box 623
Point Arena, CA 95468
Subject:
Dear Nelson Pinola:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Harriet L. Stanley-Rhoades
Noyo River Indian Community
P.O. Box 91
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Subject:
Dear Harriet L. Stanley-Rhoades:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Leona Williams, Chairperson
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Leona Williams:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Angela James, THPO
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Angela James:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Dave Edmonds, Environmental Director
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Dave Edmonds:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Erika Williams, Section 106 Coordinator
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Erika Williams:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Angela James, THPO
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Request for Information Regarding Known Cultural Resources Sites for the Proposed City of
Ukiah Recycled Water Project, Mendocino County
Dear Pinoleville Pomo Nation:

SMB Environmental, Inc. (SMB) is assisting the City of Ukiah (City) prepare environmental documentation for its
proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would primarily consist of the
construction of an approximately 9.4-mile pipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban
landscape irrigation demands in the Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,375 acre-feet per year (afy) of tertiary
treated recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the
requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 22, Sections 60301 through 60355. The pipeline system would be primarily located within existing
paved City roadways and agricultural service roads through the Ukiah Valley east of Highway 101 and west of the
The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted about the Proposed Project and provided us with a list
of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project
area. As a result, we are requesting that you please provide us with any information you may have about cultural
resources or sites in the project area so that we can determine ways to protect those sites, including archeological
sites and other locations of special value to Native Americans.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to your earliest possible reply. If any questions,
please feel free to contact me at 916-517-2189 or at steve@smbenvironmental.com.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Greg Young, Environmental Coordinator
Potter Valley Tribe
2251 South State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Greg Young:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Salvador Rosales, Chairperson
Potter Valley Tribe
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Salvador Rosales:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Elizabeth Hansen, Chairperson
Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Elizabeth Hansen:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Lois Lockhart, Tribal Administrator
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Lois Lockhart:

approximately 1,375 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah Wastewater
Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water
unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 60301 through
60355. The pipeline system would be primarily located within existing paved City roadways and
agricultural service roads through the Ukiah Valley east of Highway 101 and west of the Russian River.
Please see attached Project Map.
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Zhao Qui, Cultural Resources Coordinator
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Zhao Qui:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Steve Nevarez Jr., Environmental Coordinator
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Steve Nevarez Jr.:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Kenneth Wright, President
Round Valley Reservation/Covelo Indian Community
77826 Hwy 162
Covelo, CA 95428
Subject:
Dear Kenneth Wright:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Dina Bowen-Welsh, Secretary
She Bel Na Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 1613
Subject:
Dear Dina Bowen-Welsh:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Ralph Sepulveda, Chairperson
Stewarts Point Rancheria
1420 Guerneville Road, Ste 1
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Subject:
Dear Ralph Sepulveda:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

P.O. Box 1613
Subject:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Michael Fitzgerral, Chairperson
Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo
190 Sherwood Hill Drive
Willits, CA 95490
Subject:
Dear Michael Fitzgerral:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Emilio Valencia, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Subject:
Dear Emilio Valencia:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

John Feliz Jr. Chairperson
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 39/7901 Hwy 10
Redwood Valley CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Mr. Feliz:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Merline Sanchez, Chairperson
Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians
P.O. Box 339
Talmage, CA 95481
Subject:
Dear Merline Sanchez:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Shawn Padi, Chairperson
3000 Shanel Road/98
Hopland, CA 95449
Subject:
Dear Shawn Padi:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Chairperson
Yokayo Tribe
P.O. Box 362
Talmage, CA 95481
Subject:
Dear Chairperson:
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Chairperson
Yokayo Tribe
P.O. Box 362
Talmage, CA 95481
Subject:
Dear Chairperson:
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Emilio Valencia, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Subject:
Dear Emilio Valencia:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Ralph Sepulveda, Chairperson
Subject:
Dear Ralph Sepulveda:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Nina Hapner, Environmental Planning Department
Subject:
Dear Nina Hapner:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Hillary Renick, THPO
Willits, CA 95490
Subject:
Dear Hillary Renick:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Talisha Melluish, Cultural Resource Specialist
Willits, CA 95490
Subject:
Dear Talisha Melluish:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Michael Fitzgerral, Chairperson
Willits, CA 95490
Subject:
Dear Michael Fitzgerral:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

P.O. Box 1613
Subject:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Kenneth Wright, President
Round Valley Reservation/Covelo Indian Community
77826 Hwy 162
Covelo, CA 95428
Subject:
Dear Kenneth Wright:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Lois Lockhart, Tribal Administrator
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Lois Lockhart:

approximately 1,375 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah Wastewater
Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water
unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 60301 through
60355. The pipeline system would be primarily located within existing paved City roadways and
agricultural service roads through the Ukiah Valley east of Highway 101 and west of the Russian River.
Please see attached Project Map.
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Zhao Qui, Cultural Resources Coordinator
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Zhao Qui:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Steve Nevarez Jr., Environmental Coordinator
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Steve Nevarez Jr.:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Elizabeth Hansen, Chairperson
3250 Road I
Redwood, CA 95470
Subject:
Dear Elizabeth Hansen:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Greg Young, Environmental Coordinator
Potter Valley Tribe
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Greg Young:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Salvador Rosales, Chairperson
Potter Valley Tribe
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Salvador Rosales:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Angela James, THPO
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Request for Information Regarding Known Cultural Resources Sites for the Proposed City of
Ukiah Recycled Water Project, Mendocino County
Dear Pinoleville Pomo Nation:

SMB Environmental, Inc. (SMB) is assisting the City of Ukiah (City) prepare environmental documentation for its
proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would primarily consist of the
construction of an approximately 9.4-mile pipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban
landscape irrigation demands in the Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,375 acre-feet per year (afy) of tertiary
treated recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the
requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 22, Sections 60301 through 60355. The pipeline system would be primarily located within existing
paved City roadways and agricultural service roads through the Ukiah Valley east of Highway 101 and west of the
The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted about the Proposed Project and provided us with a list
of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project
area. As a result, we are requesting that you please provide us with any information you may have about cultural
resources or sites in the project area so that we can determine ways to protect those sites, including archeological
sites and other locations of special value to Native Americans.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to your earliest possible reply. If any questions,
please feel free to contact me at 916-517-2189 or at steve@smbenvironmental.com.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Leona Williams:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Angela James, THPO
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Angela James:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Erika Williams:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject:
Dear Dave Edmonds:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Harriet L. Stanley-Rhoades
Noyo River Indian Community
P.O. Box 91
Subject:
Dear Harriet L. Stanley-Rhoades:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Nelson Pinola, Chairperson
Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria
P.O. Box 623
Point Arena, CA 95468
Subject:
Dear Nelson Pinola:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

Christy Taylor, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1239
Subject:
Dear Christy Taylor:

Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
August 17, 2012

P. Stevenson, Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 1239
Subject:
Dear P. Stevenson:
Americans.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
916-517-2189
8"
8"
8"
8"
1 6"
16"
"
" 12
12"
12"
16"
8"
8"
16"
1 6"
16"
16"
Ukiah
WWTP
12"
12"
12"
1
Miles
Legend
Proposed Pipeline
12" and larger
8" and smaller
Landscape Parcels
Figure 1
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY/

Ukiah Recycled Water Project - IS-MND-Public Draft2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ukiah Recycled Water Project - IS-MND-Public Draft2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

R

SMB Environmental, Inc.

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................2-1

Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences .......................................................3-1

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

average base wastewater flow

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Bay Area Air Basin

California Code of Regulations

Clean Air Act

California Ambient Air Quality Standards

California Environmental Protection Agency

California Water Service Company

State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations

California Department of Transportation

Clean Air Plan

California Clean Air Act

California Code of Regulations

California Department of Fish and Game

California Environmental Quality Act

California Endangered Species Act

California Geological Survey

California Natural Diversity Database

California Native Plant Societys

Federal Clean Water Act

Diesel particulate matter

Department of Toxics Substances Control

Environmental Impact Report

Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Protection Agency

Endangered Species Act

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Flood Insurance Rate Map

gallons per day

gallons per minute

Habitat Conservation Plan

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

International Society of Arboriculture Standards

Equivalent Sound Level

million gallons per day

Mineral Resource Zone 4

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

North Bay Water Recycling Program

National Environmental Quality Act

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Ordinary High Water Mark

Peak wet weather flow

reactive organic gases

Regional Water Quality Control Board

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

State Revolving Funds

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

State Water Resources Control Board

Traffic Analysis Zones

Total Suspended Particles

United States Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wastewater Treatment Plant

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project