Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso 2022-17 - Adopting Neg Dec & Mitigation Monitoring for Upper City View Trail RESOLUTION NO. 2022-'17 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE UPPER CITY VIEW TRAIL PROJECT WHEREAS: 1. The City of Ukiah, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Upper City View Trail Project (SCH No. 2022010241) under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and 2. The Notice of Availability for the public review period for the ISMND, and the Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with the Ukiah City Code and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073: Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the Project parcel, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on January 18, 2022 and March 2, 2022; provided to interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on March 2, 2022; posted on the City's CEQA webpage on January 18, 2022 and March 7, 2022; published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 19, 2022 and March 5, 2022; posted on the Project site and within Low Gap Park on March 2, 2022; and posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing; and 3. The Draft ISMDN determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project should be prepared; and 4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the ISMND, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah (including the ISMND and any comments received) that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment; and 5. The ISMND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Project. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which consists of the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the findings in support hereof, which have been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2. The Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section 7, is set forth in Exhibit 1, and the findings in support hereof are set forth in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16'h day of March, 2022, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Orozco, Rodin, Duenas, and Mayor Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Crane ABSTAIN: None i O. Brown, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk 2 EXHIBIT 1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UPPER CITY VIEW TRAIL PROJECT (01!k City of Ukiah COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Public Draft January 18, 2022 Revised March 7, 2022 Approved by City Council March 16, 2022 SCH No: 2022010241 Prepared by: City of Ukiah Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 Table of Contents I. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 1. Project Location 2 2. Environmental Setting and Background 2 3. Project Components 3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 7 IV. DETERMINATION 9 V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10 1. Aesthetics 10 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 12 3. Air Quality 14 4. Biological Resources 16 5. Cultural Resources 22 6. Energy 25 7. Geology and Soils 26 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 28 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 29 10. Hydrology and Water Quality 33 11. Land Use and Planning 35 12. Mineral Resources 37 13. Noise 37 14. Population and Housing 40 15. Public Services 41 6. Recreation 42 17. Transportation 43 18. Tribal Cultural Resources 45 19. Utilities and Service Systems 46 20. Wildfire 48 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 49 VI. REFERENCES 51 VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 54 ATTACHMENTS A. Existing Photographs B. Ukiah Valley Trail Group Philosophy and Design and Maintenance Standards C. Biological Assessment Report D. Public Comments Received on the Draft ISMND and City Responses I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Upper City View Trail Lead Agency Address and Phone Number: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-6200 Project Contact Person and Phone Number: Neil Davis, Director City of Ukiah Community Services Department (707) 467-5764 ndavis@cityofukiah.com CEQA Contact Person and Phone Number: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager City of Ukiah Community Development Department (707) 463-6268 mirace@cityofukiah.com Project Location: The trail would be located on a City-owned parcel (APN: 001-030-01) currently developed with water tanks, and a portion of the existing City View Trail and Ukiah Municipal Golf Course, located at 599 Park Boulevard, Ukiah. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential (RR) Zoning District: Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay (R1-H) 1 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Location The approximately 46-acre Project site (APN 001-030-01) is situated within the northwestern most portion of the City of Ukiah. The eastern portion of the parcel contains a portion of the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course (599 Park Boulevard) and is also developed with water tanks. The western portion of the parcel is developed with a portion of the City View Trail that begins within Low Gap Park, a County- maintained Park just north of the site. The proposed Upper City View Trail would connect to the existing City View Trail. Figure 1 below provides a location map. 2. Environmental Setting and Background The Project area is situated within the Coast Range geologic province. The North Coast Range is comprised of a geologic feature unique to California, the Franciscan Formation, which dictates the vegetative communities. The Franciscan Formation is comprised of serpentine, sandstone, and other sedimentary rocks. This area is characterized by a Mediterranean climate; the winters are cool and wet, and the summers are hot and dry. Annual average temperatures for this region range from about 30 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The Project is located within the Ukiah Valley in central Mendocino County.The Ukiah Valley is located approximately 30 miles east and inland from the Pacific Ocean. It runs north-south for approximately nine miles, with a maximum width of three miles, with elevations varying from approximately 600-feet above mean sea level up to approximately 3,000 feet in the hills surrounding the City, including the Western Hills. The Russian River enters the valley at the north end and runs south along the valley floor. Ukiah is located along the Highway 101 corridor and near the east/west intersection of Highway 20, two hours north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Incorporated in 1876, Ukiah is the county seat and largest city in Mendocino County. Vegetation communities in the area include mixed oak, sparse redwood forest stands, chaparral, and manzanita, with some sparse redwood groves. The proposed trail will run almost entirely beneath a substantial tree canopy cover of natural woodlands consisting mainly of native tree and understory species. The creek nearest the Project is Orr Creek, approximately 0.3-mile north of the proposed trail alignment. There is also an unnamed Class III watercourse in the north portion of the alignment, near the City View Trail connection. The 2.8-mile existing City View Trail was constructed by the Ukiah Valley Trail Group in 2009 and in 2010 was designated as a park facility in Division 1, Chapter 12, Parks and Recreation Facilities, of the Ukiah City Code (section 1965). The proposed trail route and design was established by the Ukiah Valley Trail Group (UVTG), a volunteer non-profit organization dedicated to preserving, enhancing, and establishing trails in the Inland of Mendocino County. UVTG staff and volunteers have extensive experience in trail design, building, and maintenance. In 2015, the UVTG developed the Low Gap Park Trail Plan which identifies existing trails within the park, issues and recommendations for existing trails, as well as opportunities for new trails. The proposed Upper City View Trail was one of the trails identified in the plan as a new potential trail. 2 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah I Project Components The Project proposes the development of a one-mile loop of narrow-gauge natural surface trail commonly known as a "hiking trail" that would begin and end on the upper leg of the existing 2.8-mile City View Trail. The City View Trail is primarily used for hiking, walking, and trail running and is accessible year-round. The new trail will utilize a series of switchbacks to ascend, then traverse approximately one-half mile before descending to return to the upper leg of City View Trail. Beginning from the northern junction with City View Trail, the proposed trail crosses moderate side slopes and utilizes a series of switchbacks through mixed hardwoods with occasional small redwoods to gain elevation. After gaining approximately 200 feet the trail begins its contouring southerly traverse. The proposed trail crosses an unsanctioned "use" trail that climbs steeply to the Ukiah "U." As the trail approaches the southern boundary of the property it descends and reverses direction twice before reconnecting with the southern end of City View Trail. The proposed trail alignment is shown in Figure 2 below, as well as in Figure 3 which also shows the existing City View Trail. Trail grades will vary according to topography with average grades of 7 to 8 percent, for the majority of the trail, with some shorter trail sections in the steeper areas reaching approximately 12 percent. However, this trail route will ensure that the average grade for the entirety of the trail does not exceed the 10 percent threshold suggested in the UVTG standards. The proposed trail will run almost entirely beneath a substantial tree canopy cover of natural woodlands consisting mainly of native tree and understory species (see Figure 4 below for an example of existing habitat; more photographs are included in Attachment A). In accordance with the UVTG design and maintenance standards, the trail will be 2 to 4 feet wide, back sloped to create an angle of repose to the greatest extent possible, and built with a 3 to 5 percent outslope and rolling dips to allow sheet water drainage. The proposed trail alignment would cross the unnamed Class III watercourse, which is categorized as having no aquatic life present, but shows evidence of being capable of sediment transport to Class I and 11 waters under normal high water flow. UVTG plans to complete the work during the dry season and the UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards intended to reduce erosion will be implemented. The trail will be assessed annually for the first three years to determine if a crossing such as a footbridge is needed; other techniques such as hardening or the use of a culvert may be used if a footbridge is determined to be impractical. See Section VA, Biological Resources, for more information. The proposed trail route and design was established by the UVTG and was selected to maintain consistent slope integrity and to keep disturbances to natural areas at minimal levels. Trimming of encroaching tree branches will be required along portions of the trail. Tree branch pruning, trimming, and root care activities will be limited to those branches that would represent hazards to hikers or cause extensive detours and additional grading for the trail route. The trail crosses a few areas of dense, immature redwood trees of less than 6feet diameter breast height (dbh). Thinning of these small, immature trees will be required to create a trail corridor. Thinning of these dense stands of immature redwoods will reduce fuel load while leaving many small trees on both sides of the trail for continued growth. No trees greater than 6" dbh will be removed for this project. The proposed trail was also designed with input from the Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society, who often collaborates with the UVTG to review trail design to ensure impacts to special status plant species are reduced or avoided. An additional loop (identified in red on Figure 2) was proposed in the original design, but removed from the plan in response to concerns cited by members of the botanical review team in regard to the potential impact to native plants(see Biological Resources section for more information). 3 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah The trail will be built in accordance with the UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards (Attachment B). Construction is anticipated to take approximately two weeks to complete. Trail construction will be completed mostly by hand tools (McLeod, pulaski, axe, pick, pole saw, hand saw, loppers, shovel, etc.). However, different trail construction methods and tools will be utilized to accommodate the varied topography, vegetation, and other natural conditions on the Project site; this may include the occasional use of power equipment tools such as chainsaws, power wheel barrows, vibra-plates, jackhammers, or small trail dozers designed specifically for trail building. First, vegetation and detritus materials will be removed to establish the trail's path and contour. The trail is designed to minimize impacts on this natural vegetation, but the grading required to establish the 2 to 4-foot wide trail at a relatively even grade will require the removal of groundcover and bushes along its entire length. Base cuts will then be made to remove the uppermost organic layer and expose base soils while causing minimal disturbances to trailside banks. This method also allows the construction of the three percent out-slopes (from the inner edge of the trail to the outer edge) and tapered shoulders to allow water to sheet off the trail, decreasing the potential for erosion, as described in the UVTG trail design standards in Attachment B. The proposed trail will be constructed by UTVG volunteers and the California Conservation Corps. Once constructed, UVTG trail maintenance standards require that natural vegetation be permitted to grow back on the sides of the trail and along the shoulder areas to help maintain the trail base and reestablish its original natural appearance. Parking will be provided in the existing Low Gap Park parking lot and the trail will be accessed through the main park entrance. Existing restrooms, trash receptacles and water fountains are provided within the park. The trail is intended for hikers only and will be accessible during regular Low Gap Park hours (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.). The Project will be funded by UVTG through donations collected by the Pacific Medical Redwood Group as a part of UVTG fundraising efforts. Similar to the existing City View Trail, the proposed trail will be predominantly maintained by UVTG volunteers in order to minimize or avoid the use of City Park staff. Figure 1, Project Location Ukiah iigti School" f 3 1 .t .`) Grove Park 1 • - ,� —✓,, Q •7, ..or r,��:, .bfti F.LA 4 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Figure ••• -. Trail Alignment iLeIg Law Gap Park Enhance and ,LF ` �C R - Parking y Alternate Loop Existing Trail $ � r ��� (NotProsed) r UkiahMunidpalGoffCo¢rsep Proposed Trail - •f :-sue- �� Figure1 City View Trail and Proposed Upper City View Trail Proposed Route Upper StudyFinal Initial • Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 4, Example Habitat along Proposed Trail 1 k 6 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Purpose of the Initial Environmental Study: This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the Project, as proposed, would have a significant impact upon the environment. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture & Forestry ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/ Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ® Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance Summary of Findings: The Project proposes the development of a one-mile loop of narrow-gauge natural surface trail commonly known as a "hiking trail" that would begin and end on the upper leg of the existing 2.8-mile City View Trail. The proposed trail route and design was established by the UVTG and was selected to maintain consistent slope integrity and to keep disturbances to natural areas at minimal levels. Tree branch pruning, trimming, and root care activities will be limited to those branches that would represent hazards to hikers or cause extensive detours and additional grading for the trail route. Every effort to re-route the alignment of the trail to avoid the unnecessary removal of trees will be made. The proposed trail was also designed with input from the Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society, who often collaborates with the UVTG to review trail design to ensure impacts to special status plant species are reduced or avoided. The trail will be built in accordance with the UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards (Attachment B). Construction is anticipated to take approximately two weeks to complete. Trail construction will be completed mostly by hand tools (McLeod, pulaski, axe, pick, pole saw, hand saw, loppers, shovel, etc.). However, different trail construction methods and tools will be utilized to accommodate the varied topography, vegetation, and other natural conditions on the Project site; this may include the use of power equipment tools as conditions require and opportunity allows such as chainsaws, power wheel barrows, vibra-plates, jackhammers, or small trail dozers designed specifically for trail building. As described throughout the Initial Study, temporary ground disturbing activities associated with vegetation removal and trail construction could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the aforementioned sections would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 7 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Cumulative impacts are generally considered in analyses of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic. As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would either have a less than significant impact, or less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures on these resources, as described herein. Short-term construction impacts associated with the Project would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area as there are no known past projects nor current projects within the vicinity of the site. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. In summary, based upon the analysis contained within this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, all potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. 8 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X_ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures and project revisions have been identified that would reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Michelle Irace, Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Ukiah mirace@cityofukiah.com 9 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental consequences as a result of the proposed Project. The environmental evaluation relied on the following categories of impacts, noted as column headings in the IS checklist, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where the Project would not result in a significant effect(i.e., the Project impact would be less than significant without the need to incorporate mitigation). "No Impact" applies where the Project would not result in any impact in the category or the category does not apply. This may be because the impact category does not apply to the proposed Project (for instance, the Project Site is not within a surface fault rupture hazard zone), or because of other project- specific factors. 1. Aesthetics AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation 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) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Significance Criteria: Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the Project resulted in the obstruction of any scenic vista open to the public, damage to significant scenic resources within a designated 10 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah State scenic highway, substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings from public views, or generate new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, including that which would directly illuminate or reflect upon adjacent property or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otherwise situated within sight of the Project. Environmental Setting: As discussed in the City of Ukiah's 1995 General Plan, one of the most notable scenic resources in the City limits is the Western Hills. The surrounding hills frame the valley, creating an aesthetic resource for residents and visitors. Views of expansive hillsides to the north, east and south, within the County jurisdiction, also surround the City. Many open space and scenic areas in Mendocino County are protected under easements managed by land trusts, none of which are located within the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Some surrounding hillsides are densely forested with evergreen trees, while others are relatively open in comparison, dominated by mature oak trees set amid scrub and grasslands. Some residential development is visible within the Western Hills from the valley floor. Water in the form of creeks, streams, and rivers is often a prominent feature in the landscape as well. Protecting the natural scenic features has been a priority for the City. The Project site consists of a parcel developed with recreation and public facilities (water tanks, Ukiah Municipal Golf Course and the existing City View Trail). The site is adjacent to Low Gap Park, a developed park with recreation resources, including a skate park, a disc-golf course, playgrounds, tennis courts, an amphitheater, and trails. According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife's BIOS vegetation mapping program, the Project site comprises Evergreen Forest habitat. In addition, the site contains includes native and nonnative annual and perennial grasses, with dense chaparral and mixed hardwood forest throughout. Discussion: (a & c) Less than significant impact. Scenic vistas are typically described as areas of natural beauty with features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops, and natural vegetation that contribute to the landscape's quality. The Western Hills are considered a scenic vista. Generally speaking, public views of the Western Hills are available from roadways, and adjacent residential areas within the valley floor. Conversely, expansive views of the valley are provided from vantage points within the Western Hills, particularly from trails and overlook locations such as those found along existing trails. Almost the entire trail system will be situated beneath the natural forest canopy (see photos in Attachment A) and would not be seen from public vantage points. The fairly narrow (2 to 4-foot) proposed trail has been designed to avoid substantial vegetation and tree removal. Although some removal will be required, it would not result in a substantial impact to views of the Western Hills, as the trail would not be visible from public vantage points within the valley floor, and the trail would be similar in nature to the existing City View Trail, as well as other trails in the area. Similarly, impacts associated with new trail being constructed over a two-week period would be considered temporary and minimal. Lastly, the trail would offer vantage points containing views of valuable aesthetic resources. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas, nor the visual character of the site or area. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) No impact. According to the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no designated state scenic highways within the vicinity of the Project. In addition, there are no highways identified as eligible for state designation. Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Lastly, the City's General Plan, the 11 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah County General Plan does not designate any local scenic roads in the Project area; no impact to scenic resources within a designated scenic corridor would occur. (d) No impact. Construction would take place during daylight hours and no lighting is proposed along the trail. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact RESOURCES.Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ IE rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ IE environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would have a potentially significant impact on agricultural resources if it would convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use, conflict with a Williamson Act contract, or disrupt a viable and locally important agricultural use. The Project would have a potentially significant impact on forestry resources if it would result in the loss, rezoning or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use. Environmental Setting: Early agricultural efforts in the Ukiah Valley included the raising of livestock, and the growing of various grains, hay, alfalfa, and hops. When the Northwestern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1889; prunes, potatoes, pears, and hops could be grown and sent to San Francisco and other regional markets. Wine grapes were planted, and irrigation was practiced on a small scale. Through the 1950's, hops, pears, prunes and grapes were the most widely planted crops in the Ukiah Valley. After the railroad was completed, lumber mills sprang up in the Ukiah Valley and became the 12 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah major industry in Mendocino County as trains took redwood logs and processed boards south to the San Francisco region. Today, much of the active agricultural land is located on the valley floor and lower elevations along the Russian River system. Only a limited percentage of the valley's agricultural lands are currently protected under Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve contracts. According to the County of Mendocino's Public GIS system, there are no Williamson Act contracts within the Project site. There are no zoning districts within the City limits for Agriculture or Timber Preserve. While there is an overlay for agriculture in the Zoning Ordinance, it is not applied over any parcel within the City limits. There are a small number of City parcels which have current agricultural use, such as existing vineyards. However, they are ongoing non-conforming uses within non-agricultural zoning districts. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, the majority of lands within the City of Ukiah are identified as "Urban Built-Up Land". Discussion: (a-e) No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site does not contain Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. However, the site is designated as Grazing Land, which is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock, but the site has not been used for grazing. There are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts on-site or in the immediate vicinity. The Project would not convert Farmland, conflict with existing zoning for agriculture or forest land, and would not involve changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of agricultural resources to non-agriculture uses. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None 13 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 3. Air Quality AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) 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? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would have a significant impact to air quality if it would conflict with an air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant which the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) has designated as non- attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants, or result in emissions that create objectionable odors or otherwise adversely affect a substantial number of people. Environmental Setting: The Project is located within the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, and northern Sonoma Counties, and is under the jurisdiction of the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD). The area's climate is considered Mediterranean, with warm, dry summers and cooler, wet winters. Summer high temperatures average in the 90's with high temperatures on very warm days exceeding 105 degrees. Summer low temperatures range between 50-60 degrees. Winter high temperatures generally range in the 50's and 60's. The average annual temperature is 58 degrees. Winter cold-air inversions are common in the valley from November to February. Prevailing winds are generally from the north. Prevailing strong summer winds come from the northwest; however, winds can come from the south and east under certain short-lived conditions. In early autumn, strong, dry offshore winds may occur for several days in a row, which may cause air pollution created in the Sacramento Valley, Santa Rosa Plain, or even San Francisco Bay Area to move into the Ukiah Valley. The MCAQMD, which includes the City of Ukiah and surrounding areas, is designated as non- attainment for the State Standard for airborne particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) 14 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Particulate matter (PM) has significant documented health effects. The California Clean Air Act requires that any district that does not meet the PM10 standard make continuing progress to attain the standard at the earliest practicable date. The primary sources of PM10 are wood combustion emissions, fugitive dust from construction projects, automobile emissions and industry. Non- attainment of PM10 is most likely to occur during inversions in the winter. Regulation 1 of the MCAQMD contains regulations (known as "Rules") to regulate particulate matter; these Rules prohibit activities that would result in the injury, detriment, or annoyance of a considerable number of people, or which endanger the health and safety of the public. The MCAQMD also provides the following significance thresholds for construction emissions: 1. 54 pounds per day of ROG 1,SEP;(reactive organic gas) 2. 54 pounds per day of NOx sEPl'(oxides of nitrogen as nitrogen dioxide) 3. 82 pounds per day of PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size) 4. 54 pounds per day of PM2_5, L`(airborne particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less) 5. Best Management Practices for Fugitive Dust— PM10 and PM2.5 Discussion: (a-d) Less than significant with mitigation. Typically, short-term construction related air quality impacts from emissions and dust result from large projects requiring a significant amount of grading or new construction, in addition to vehicle trips and operation of diesel equipment. Long-term air quality impacts are typically from land uses that produce a significant amount of emissions, or sources of dust or other airborne irritants. As described in the Project Description, trail construction will be completed with the use of hand tools, and will also minimize the amount of vegetation being removed. Construction of the trail would not require a significant amount of construction trips, as it will only take approximately two weeks and most of the hand tools will be walked in by trail builders. Vegetation will be chipped and re-used on site. If powered tools are needed to clear portions of the alignment, they will be used temporarily and abide by all local regulations intended to address air quality impacts. Specifically, MCAQMD has a set of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) for projects involving new construction, the use of diesel engine equipment, and grading activities that would result in fugitive dust. While many of these regulations do not apply to this type of project, the Project will adhere to all applicable MCAQMD regulations. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1, restricting the burning of removed vegetation, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 related to the use off-road equipment were suggested by the MCAQMD and will be implemented, as appropriate. The nearest uses that are considered "sensitive receptors" (includes schools, child care facilities, health care facilities, senior facilities, and residences) are residences located on Valley View Drive and Maple Avenue, approximately 1,500 feet east of the northern connection to the City View Trail. However, due to the Project's distance from these receptors, limited construction timeframe and implementation of the Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 below, the Project is not anticipated to impact sensitive receptors. In addition, the Project would not exceed the construction thresholds established by the MCAQMD, and air quality impacts associated with short-term construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Once completed, the trail will not result in long-term air quality impacts. The MCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a 15 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The MCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project's individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the North Coast Air Basin's existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the MCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Because each individual construction project is required to be in attainment with the established MCAQMD thresholds, it is not likely that cumulative impacts would be significant. Based on the aforementioned, air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: AQ-1: Vegetation Removal. Vegetation removal methods shall include grinding or chipping larger materials on-site, and/or disposal at the Transfer Station; burning of vegetation shall not be allowed without obtaining the appropriate burn permits. AQ-2: Diesel Engines — Stationary and Portable Equipment and Mobile Vehicles: a. Off-road equipment with auxiliary diesel engines rated at 50 brake horsepower or greater, must have either a valid Air Quality permit, or a state Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Registration. 4. Biological Resources BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) 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 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 16 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ® ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory 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 Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Significance Criteria: Project impacts upon biological resources would be significant if any of the following resulted: substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act (e.g. burrowing owls); substantial effect upon riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the agencies listed above; substantial effect (e.g., fill, removal, hydrologic interruption)upon state or federally protected wetlands; substantially interfere with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources or conflict with a habitat conservation plan. Environmental Setting: Regionally, the Project area (Ukiah Western Hills) has historically been used primarily for recreation, timber harvest, homesite development, and undeveloped open space/wildlife habitat. The hills rise steeply from the valley floor and are predominated by eastern facing slopes. A number of drainages create small sections of north-east and south-east facing slopes. The Project area is almost exclusively in the Quercus (oak) Forest Alliance with areas of Arctostaphylos Shrubland Alliance (consisting of mazanita, chapparal, etc.). In addition, there are small "islands" of Redwood Forrest and Woodland Alliance. According to USDA Forest Service vegetation mapping the regionally dominant vegetation type within the Project area is comprised of Oregon white oak and Pacific Douglas-fir. The nearest creek is Orr Creek, approximately 0.3-mile north of the proposed trail alignment. Additionally, there is an unnamed Class III watercourse in the northern portion of the site, near where the proposed trail would connect to the existing City View Trail. Class 111 watercourses are categorized as having no aquatic life present, but may be capable of sediment transport to Class I and 11 waters under normal high water flow. A Biological Assessment was prepared for the Project by Jacobzsoon and Associates (December, 2021; Attachment C). The purpose of the assessment was to identify sensitive communities within the Study Area (defined as the trail alignment, as well as 100 ft within it) and determine the existence or potential occurrence for special-status species. The Biological Assessment is also designed to address the potential for cumulative impacts to biological resources that may occur as a result of the 17 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Project and to make recommendations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts. The Biological Assessment includes the analysis and comparison of existing habitat conditions within the Study Area with the documented range and habitat requirements of sensitive wildlife species described in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's(CDFW's)California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR) to determine if they would be directly or potentially impacted by the Proposed Project. As a part of the assessment a field survey was conducted on November 18, 2021. Prior to conducting the field survey, available reference materials were reviewed, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the Ukiah 75-minute USGS quadrangle topographic map, and the most recent available aerial imagery. The location of streams and watercourses within the Project vicinity were reviewed using datasets from California Streams and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Databases queried for the occurrence of special-status species include the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Spotted Owl Data Viewer, RareFind and Quick Viewer programs. In addition, a Botanical Survey was completed by the Ukiah Valley Trail Group and Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society (see Appendix F to the Biological Assessment in Attachment C) in accordance with recommendations from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The survey included a review of the USGS quadrangle of the survey area and the eight surrounding quadrangles to identify special status plant species along two potential trail alignments, including the proposed trail corridor. The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, the On-line 8th Edition, and Rarefind via the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), as well as the California Rare Plant Ranks (previously known as CNPS Lists) were also used to develop a list of potentially occurring rare plants in the study area. Additionally, four field surveys were conducted in 2019 along a 20-foot wide corridor from the centerline of the proposed flagged trails on the following dates: March 21; April 11; June 8; and July 19. Field surveys were conducted from early spring to mid-summer to include known blooming and fruiting times of potentially occurring rare species, but also to encompass the blooming period of early annuals, wetland plants, and late blooming herbaceous perennial species (generally March through July). Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Wildlife. According to the biological assessment prepared for the Project, a total of 46 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the larger vicinity of the Project. Of the 46 special-status wildlife species within the vicinity of the Project, 11 special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area based on habitat features present. These species include the following: • Amphibians: red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis); • Birds:northern goshawk(Accipitergentilis), golden eagle(Aquila chrysaetos), osprey(Pandion haliaetus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); • Insects: western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis); and • Mammals: Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti). However, no special status wildlife species were observed within the Study Area during the Biological Assessment. The remaining thirty-five (35) special-status wildlife species documented within the vicinity of the Study Area are unlikely to occur or do not have the potential to occur due to lack of 18 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah required aquatic or vegetative habitat requirements, host plants, and/or lack of nesting habitat. Additionally, the Study Area does not contain any special-status fish species or fish bearing watercourses or waterbodies, and no special-status fish were observed during the Biological Assessment. The nearest fish-bearing watercourse is a Class I watercourse, Orr Creek, located approximately 2,250 feet northeast of the Study Area. Because no special status wildlife species were observed during the field survey, the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to them. However, this does not preclude the possibility of wildlife species being present at the time of construction or being impacted from vegetation removal or other ground disturbing activities. Tree branch pruning, trimming, and root care activities will be limited to those branches that would represent hazards to hikers or cause extensive detours and additional grading for the trail route. Every effort to re-route the alignment of the trail to avoid the unnecessary removal of trees will be made. Once constructed, UVTG trail maintenance standards require that natural vegetation be permitted to grow back on the sides of the trail and along the shoulder areas to help maintain the trail base and reestablish its original natural appearance. Regardless, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 which require pre-construction surveys are proposed to ensure impacts to sensitive species (and their habitat) are reduced to less than significant. As such, impacts to special status wildlife species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Plants. Potentially occurring rare plant species identified in the pre-study investigations were limited to Raiche's Manzanita (Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp raichei) and Redwood lily (Lilium rubescens). Although the trail crosses the Arctostaphylos Shrubland Alliance, subspecies rachei was not found along the alignment. However, on both the main proposed corridor and the secondary additional corridor Redwood lily was found. Locations of the species were geotagged and the trail alignment has been modified to avoid the species. Refer to the location map within the Botanical Survey (Appendix F to the Biological Assessment in Attachment C). An additional loop was proposed in the original design, but removed from the plan in response to concerns cited by members of the botanical review team in regard to the potential impact to Redwood lily and other native plants. To ensure that the Project would not impact Redwood lily, Mitigation Measure 1131O-5 requires pre-construction surveys to identify, flag and avoid (if necessary) the species prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. Impacts to special status plants would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. In summary, Mitigation Measures 131O-1 through 131O-5 are proposed to ensure impacts to sensitive species are reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to special status species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to the complete Biological Assessment in Attachment C for more information, including a complete analysis of impacts to each of these species. (b) Less than significant impact with mitigation. Sensitive natural communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as observed MCV2 alliances or associations with state rarity ranks of S1- S3 and are listed on CDFW's List of California Sensitive Natural Communities. According to the assessment, the Project site contains the following California Sensitive Natural Community, as designated by CDFW: Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance, Oregon white oak forest and woodland (CDFW State Rarity Rank: S3 (Vulnerable)). This community is present within the southeastern portion of the proposed trail alignment (see Map 5 within Appendix D of the Biological Assessment). It is recommended that removal of this species be avoided; however, any removal of the Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) shall be done via consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW Additionally, it is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted for any activities that require vegetation removal between March 1st and August 31st of 19 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah any year, as this community may also provide habitat for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and (See Mitigation Measure BI0-6 and B1O-4). The Project area contains one non-sensitive natural community: Forest & Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland (seudotsuga menziesii P), which contains a CDFW State Rarity Rank of S4 (Apparently Secure). Non-sensitive natural communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, but are important to the local ecology. In addition, as discussed in the Project Description, the proposed trail corridor crosses a number of small Redwood groves with dense over growths of young (less than six inches dbh) trees scattered in the shadier areas of drainages. Some immature Redwoods will be removed in order to accommodate the alignment. Immature Redwood trees are not identified as a sensitive natural community, listed in the CDFW State Rarity Ranking system, nor a species requiring special protections under CEQA, or other local, state or federal regulations. However, as noted above, no trees greater than six inches dbh will be removed. The proposed trail corridor crosses one grove of more mature Redwoods with trees up to 30 inches dbh, but the trail will be diverted around it, thus avoiding impacts to the mature Redwoods. As such, impacts to these species would be less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measures reference above, impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with mitigation. (c) Less than significant impact with mitigation.Aquatic resources, communities, and habitats(e.g. watercourses, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, etc.) are considered sensitive communities and are afforded special protections under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The proposed trail alignment would cross the unnamed Class III watercourse, which is categorized as having no aquatic life present, but shows evidence of being capable of sediment transport to Class I and II waters under normal high water flow. Just below where the trail would cross, the Class III Watercourse reaches a flat area with no clear channel or route of drainage. As such, it effectively dissipates and ends at this location. The flat area extends approximately 100 feet and then the slope begins again, creating a new section of distinct Class III Watercourse. However, there is no connection between the two sections of Class III Watercourses. As such, the City does not propose a crossing at this time. UVTG plans to complete the work during the dry season and the UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards provide guidance for the construction of trails in the Ukiah Valley to reduce erosion (see Attachment B and discussion in Section V.7, Geology and Soils, of this Initial Study). As noted in Mitigation Measure BI0-7, the UVTG will assess the entire trail length each winter for the first three years after project completion. Any areas that are damp enough to show foot created depressions after the trail is dried will be assessed and either crossed with a footbridge such as a wooden walkway known as a "puncheon", be hardened, or use a culvert if a bridge is deemed impractical. If any structures are proposed for placement within the bed or bank in order for the trail crossing, consultation with CDFW shall be required and all necessary permits shall be obtained. In addition, the proposed trail alignment is located approximately 200 feet south of a mapped Riverine Wetland, a Class II tributary to Orr Creek, according to the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (see Map 7 in Appendix D of the Biological Assessment). The wetland is classified as a Riverine habitat(R4SBC). R4SBC is a riverine intermittent system with a streambed and is seasonally flooded. Riverine systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment. However, there are no recommendations for wetlands are necessary at this time, as the proposed Project will not impact this wetland due to its distance and proximity to the trail alignment. 20 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Impacts to aquatic resources would be less than significant with mitigation. (d) Less than significant impact. There are no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites within the Project area. As noted above, there are fish bearing streams on-site. Impacts would be less than significant. (e-f) Less than significant impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans for the City of Ukiah, nor the larger Ukiah Valley that are applicable to the Project. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1: Sensitive Amphibian Species. One (1) special-status amphibian has a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area; red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis). A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking or dewatering activities to determine the presence of Red- belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify additional avoidance measures, if needed. B1O-2: Special-Status Mammals. Five (5) special-status mammal species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include the Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. If evidence of bat roosts is observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, pre-construction bat surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat and den sites. B1O-3: Special-Status Insects. One (1) special-status insect species has moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area; western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). A qualified Biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of special-status insect species and identify additional avoidance measures if needed. If a special-status insect nests are observed, active nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. B1O-4: Nesting Birds. Four(4) special-status avian species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities occurring between March 1 and August 31 of any year. All active bird nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. B1O-5: Special Status Plants. One (1) special status plant, Redwood lily (Lilium rubescens), was observed within the proposed trail alignment and the secondary additional alignment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) protocol-level sensitive plant species surveys for Redwood lily (within the blooming period (generally March-August) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist prior to any ground disturbing activities to verify the presence of special status plants. Plant locations will be flagged and a 25-foot, 50-foot or 100-foot no disturbance zone shall be established to avoid the species. Data shall 21 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and additional mitigation will be identified if needed, in coordination with CDFW and USFWS. 1310-6: Oregon White Oak Forest. Any removal of the Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) shall be done via consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); all work within this community shall adhere to CDFW recommendations. In addition, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted prior to commencing any activities that require vegetation removal between March 1 st and August 31st of any year (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-4). Lastly, although not required, other management considerations for the preservation of this community include thinning or removal of conifer species within the stand in accordance with local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Such thinning could limit the possibility of vegetation type conversion to closed-canopy woodlands and conifer forest and inhibit the development of fuel ladders that increase the potential for stand-replacing fires. 1310-7: Watercourses. The Project shall adhere to UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards for trail construction related to erosion, and all earthwork within or adjacent to (50 feet) any watercourse or other body of water shall adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control (placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc.) and, if possible, work shall be completed while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. The UVTG shall assess the entire trail length each winter for the first three years after project completion. Any areas that are damp enough to show foot created depressions after the trail is dried will be assessed and either crossed with a footbridge such as a wooden walkway known as a "puncheon", or be hardened, or diverted with a culvert if a bridge is deemed impractical. If any structures are proposed for placement within the bed or bank in order for the trail crossing, consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be required, and all necessary permits shall be obtained. 5. Cultural Resources CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Significance Criteria: The proposed Project would significantly impact cultural resources if the significance of a historical or archaeological resource were substantially changed, or if human remains were disturbed. 22 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Under CEQA, cultural resources must be evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). If a cultural resource is determined ineligible for listing on the CRHR the resource is released from management responsibilities and a project can proceed without further cultural resource considerations. As set forth in Section 5024.1(c) of the Public Resources Code for a cultural resource to be deemed "important" under CEQA and thus eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), it must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California History and cultural heritage; or 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; or 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic value; or 4) Has yielded or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Archaeological resources are commonly evaluated with regard to Criteria 4 (research potential). Historic-era structures older than 50 years are most commonly evaluated in reference to Criteria 1 (important events), Criteria 2 (important persons) or Criteria 3 (architectural value). To be considered eligible under these criteria the property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its important qualities. Integrity is judged in relation to seven aspects including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA define procedures, types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15064.5(b) prescribes that project effects that would "cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource"are significant effects on the environment. Substantial adverse changes include both physical changes to the historical resource, or to its immediate surroundings. Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 also defines "unique archaeological resources" as "any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and show that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." This definition is equally applicable to recognizing "a unique paleontological resource or site." CEQA Section 15064.5 (a)(3)(D), which indicates "generally, a resource shall be considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history," provides additional guidance. Assembly Bill 52 (effective on July 1, 2015) requires that before a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project is prepared, the lead agency for the project must seek consultation with tribes associated with the location of the project. To receive referrals, each tribe must have previously made a written request to the lead agency in order to be consulted on projects occurring in their geographic areas of interest. The Guidiville Rancheria of 23 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah California is the only tribe that has made such request. As such, an AB 52 notice was sent to them on September 27, 2021; no responses were received. Environmental Setting: The Ukiah Township lies in a valley of the Russian River, bounded on the north by Calpella Township, on the east by Lake County, on the south by Sanel Township, and on the west by Anderson Township. The City of Ukiah was first settled in 1856 by Samuel Lowry. Initially incorporated into Sonoma County, an independent Mendocino County government was established in 1859 with Ukiah as the chosen county seat. Logging, cattle, and agricultural ventures contributed to the early settlement and growth of Ukiah throughout the remainder of the 19th century and early 20th century. 1889 is the date recorded for the first arrival of the train to Ukiah, quickly resulting in increased settlement of the City and its environs. The City of Ukiah is within the territory of the Northern Pomo. Permanent villages were often established in areas with access to staple foods, often times along eco-tones (transitions between varying environments), with access to good water, and generally flat land (Environmental Science Associates, 2013). The late 19th century saw slow growth in the community, with a slight decline after the turn of the century. The 1906 earthquake damaged a number of Ukiah buildings, particularly in the commercial core, and considerable re-building and remodeling activity occurred after that time. The City appears to have prospered in the following years, through the early 1920's. The City contains a number of Colonial Revival and Craftsman style derivations, popular during this era, that reflect the community's prosperity. An Historical and Architectural Survey Update was last prepared for the City by P.S. Preservation Services in 1999. The survey identified 23 properties with historic importance within the City limits. City Ordinance No. 838 was passed by the City in 1983, requiring that prior to the demolition of any building over 50 years old, the approval of the City Council must be obtained. The ordinance is a positive preservation tool, allowing some review and public input opportunity regarding the potential loss of historically significant buildings. Discussion: (a) No impact. On June 22, 2021, the City requested a records search at the Northwest Information Center(NWIC) located on the campus of Sonoma State University. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation is the official state repository of cultural, archaeological and historical records and reports for an 18-county area that includes Mendocino County. The records search included a review of all study reports on file within a one-half mile radius of the Project area. A review of historic registers and inventories indicate that no historical landmarks or points of interest are present in the Project area. In addition, no National Register listed or eligible properties are located within the Project area. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. No impact. Discussion: (b) Less than significant impact. The NWIC records search also included a search of cultural resources included a one-quarter-mile radius. The records search indicated that a cultural resources study has not been completed on-site. However, as noted in the City's General Plan Historic and Archeological Resources Element (1995), the Project site is not identified as an area of high cultural sensitivity; areas that are most typically culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water. Because the Project has been designed with minimal ground disturbance and the site does not have a high potential for cultural resources to occur, less than significant impacts would occur as a result of the Project. Additionally, construction of the Project will be required to adhere to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (e-f) which specifically addresses what to do in the event that human remains or archeological resources are accidentally discovered. 24 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah As noted above, in accordance with AB 52, a notification proving the opportunity for consultation was sent to the Guidiville Rancheria of California but no response requesting formal consultation was received. Impacts to cultural and archeological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 6. Energy ENERGY. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Result in potentially significant environmental ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ renewable energy or energy efficiency? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would significantly impact energy if construction or operation of the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or if the Project would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Environmental Setting: Senate Bill 100(SB 100, De Leon, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), the state's landmark policy requiring that renewable and zero-carbon energy resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to customers by 2045. The bill was signed into law in 2018 and calls for these resources to replace fossil fuels for generating electricity in the state. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California has already made significant progress toward a clean energy future. Due to many efforts that promote renewable energy, energy efficiency and the storage technologies needed to retire fossil fuel resources, the state's electricity mix is already more than 60 percent carbon free. Approximately 36 percent of that comes from renewable sources, predominantly wind and solar. Specific to construction projects, CARB and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards regulate energy consumption through Green Budling Standards to ensure construction does not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during vegetation removal and trail construction. However, fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest CARB and EPA engine emissions standards which require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Once constructed, the trail would not consume any sources of energy. With adherence to the aforementioned regulations, impacts from the Proposed Project related to energy consumption would be less than significant. 25 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Mitigation Measures: None 7. Geology and Soils GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ❑ ❑ IE 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IE liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ❑ ❑ ❑ IE 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 direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ IE use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to geological or soil resources if it exposed people or structures to seismic risk; ruptured a known fault; produced strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, landslides or substantial soil erosion; is located on expansive soil or unstable ground, or would create unstable ground; or destroyed a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. 26 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Environmental Setting: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Mayacama Fault, which traverses the valley in a generally northwest-southeast direction east of the Project area. Based on California Geological Survey maps and the Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update (prepared by P.M.C., 2003), lands within the Western Hills are identified as being located on a somewhat unstable geologic formation but are not located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone, or in a landslide or liquefaction zone. In addition, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Interactive Fault Map, there are no faults identified within the Project area. The Project area is located at approximately 1,000-1,400 feet in elevation and is situated within the Coast Range geologic province. The North Coast Range is comprised of a geologic feature unique to California, the Franciscan Formation, which dictates the vegetative communities. The Franciscan Formation is comprised of serpentine, sandstone, and other sedimentary rocks. The soils within the Project site are characterized as both Hopland, which consist of consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium and residuum weathered from sandstone or shale on steep hills and slopes (50 to 75 percent), and Maymen soils that are shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in residuum weathered from shale, schist, greenstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These soils have a shallow depth to bedrock. Discussion: (a, c & d) No Impact. As noted above, the Project site does not contain earthquake faults. The site does not contain expansive or unstable soils and is not susceptible to landslides, nor strong seismic ground shaking. Lastly, the Project has been designed with minimal ground disturbance. Impacts to geology and soils related to these issues would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. Development and use of the proposed trail, if not carefully performed, has the potential to cause erosion. Trail grades are typically 7-8 percent, with some switchback grades along the steeper sections of hillside with slopes of 12 percent for very short sections of the trail. The UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards (Attachment B) provide guidance for the construction of trails in the Ukiah Valley to reduce erosion. These standards include, but are not limited to, the following: • Construction of trails that are three feet wide, or less if physical constraints are present, to reduce the disturbance footprint; • Trails should be built with the contour of the topography(± 10%)to allow for sheet flow drainage and minimize concentrated runoff; • Average trail grade of less than10%, with short sections over 10% and followed by a relatively flat section or grade reversal; • Grade of the trail should not be greater than half the grade of the side slope the trail traverses to prevent erosion caused by water flowing down the trail rather than down the hillside; • Maximum trail grades of less than 15% wherever possible to reduce the potential for erosion and user damage; • Incorporation of grade reversals every 10 to 50 feet to provide areas for water to drain off trails; • Outer edges of trails should be built and maintained with a 3-5% outslope to create sheet flow; and • Build in a backslope where the area uphill of the trail is sloped upward from the trail to prevent a waterfall effect that creates concentrated flow on the trail. Trail construction is anticipated to take approximately two weeks and will be scheduled during optimal weather and soil moisture conditions in order to reduce the duration that soils are exposed to water- borne erosion. 27 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah For the above reasons, impacts to geology from the loss of topsoil or erosion would be less than significant. (e) No impact. No septic tanks or other waste water disposal systems are proposed. No impact. (f) Less than significant impact. The geology of the Western Hills area is of the Franciscan Complex that dates to the Jurassic Period, approximately 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago. The Franciscan complex consists of arkosic sandstone interbedded within shale. Arkose is a coarse and well sorted quartz with a fine-grained matrix. Additionally, the Franciscan Complex can include rocks such as chert, serpentinite, basalt, and greenstone. The Franciscan complex, widespread in coastal California, has produced only small collections of significant fossils. Additionally, construction of the trail would only disturb the first few feet of soil where fossils are generally not known to be found. Therefore, the Project would not destroy unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions if it would generate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Environmental Setting: Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere around the world from a variety of sources, including the combustion of fuel for energy and transportation, cement manufacturing, and refrigerant emissions. GHGs are those gases that have the ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, a process that is analogous to the way a greenhouse traps heat. GHGs may be emitted a result of human activities, as well as through natural processes. Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are leading to global climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it comprises the majority of total GHG emissions emitted per year and it is very long-lived in the atmosphere. Typically, when evaluating GHG emissions they are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO2e, which is a 2s Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah means of weighting the global warming potential (GWP) of the different gases relative to the global warming effect of CO2, which has a GWP value of one. In the United States, CO2 emissions account for about 85 percent of the CO2e emissions, followed by methane at about eight percent, and nitrous oxide at about five percent. The state of California has adopted various administrative initiatives and legislation relating to climate change, much of which set aggressive goals for GHG emissions reductions statewide. Although lead agencies must evaluate climate change and GHG emissions of projects subject to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines do not require or suggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or specific thresholds of significance and do not specify GHG reduction mitigation measures. No state agency has developed binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating significant effects in CEQA documents. Thus, lead agencies exercise their discretion in determining how to analyze GHGs. Because there are no adopted GHG thresholds applicable to the Project, and because the Project is considered "small scale", meaning that it does not include new large structures or components requiring significant construction that would result in increased GHGs, the below qualitative analysis is appropriate. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. Although the Project will mostly use hand tools, trail construction activities requiring the use of occasional power tools could result in direct GHG emissions from construction equipment and vehicle trips. However, construction will be temporary (up to two weeks) and subject to EPA and CARB energy efficiency regulations, as well as regulations of the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) intended to reduce dust, air pollution, and emissions. Due to the Project's location, the majority of trail users are expected to access the trailhead by both vehicle and alternate modes of travel (bicycle, on foot, etc.) which will increase vehicle trips to the site over current levels. While the actual number of trail users is not known, the number of users is not anticipated to be significantly higher than the current number of users. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the Project would not result in a significant number of traffic trips or vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation 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? 29 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IE hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Significance Criteria: The Project would result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts if it exposed people to hazardous materials or placed them into hazardous situations; if it released hazardous materials or emissions into the environment or within 0.25 miles of a school; if it is located on a listed hazardous materials site; if it would create a hazard due to its proximity to a public airport or private airstrip; if it would create excessive noise for people in the area; if it would interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan; or if it would expose people or structures to significant risks due to wildland fire. Environmental Setting: Mendocino County has adopted numerous plans related to hazard management and mitigation including, but not limited to: Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Operational Area Emergency Plan, etc. The most recent plan, the Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) was adopted by the County in December, 2020. The MJHMP provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the County, identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property, and provides a mitigation strategy to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. The four cities within Mendocino County, including the City of Ukiah, participated in preparation of the MJHMP to individually assess hazards, explore hazard vulnerability, develop mitigation strategies, and create their own plan for each respective city (referred to as a "jurisdictional annex" to the MJHMP). The City of Ukiah adopted its jurisdictional annex chapter of the MJHMP on November 18, 2020. Hazards identified for the City if Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood and pandemic. Table 1-13 of the City's jurisdictional annex lists each hazard and mitigation action for City of Ukiah. 30 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the City of Ukiah jurisdictional limits. The Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP)was adopted by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. The UKIALUCP identifies areas (known as "compatibility zones") with potential hazards and impacts to persons using or working within the vicinity of the airport. The site does not include any known hazardous waste sites, as mapped by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases, respectively, nor are there any listed sites within the vicinity of the site. All lands within the City of Ukiah are within the jurisdiction of the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. None of the lands within the City of Ukiah are located within a California Department of Forestry(CalFire) State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, some parcels within the western boundary of the City limits, including the Project site, are designated as "Very High" fire severity within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. Construction activities limited to the use of powered equipment, as needed, may include the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of small quantities of common hazardous materials, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, and oils. However, the types and quantities of materials to be used are not expected to pose a significant risk to the public and/or environment and would be managed in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. (c) Less than significant impact. Ukiah High School and Pomolita Middle School are located more than one-half mile away from the proposed trail alignment and as noted above, the use of hazardous materials for construction would be in accordance with all applicable regulations; impacts would be less than significant. (d) No impact. As previously noted, under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control are required to maintain databases of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain such databases on their websites, known as GeoTracker and EnviroStor. According to these databases, the Project site(s)do not contain any listed hazardous sites; no impact would occur. (e) Less than significant impact. The Project parcel is located approximately 1.86 miles northwest of the Ukiah Municipal Airport within the Other Airport Environs (OAE) Compatibility Zone of the UKIACLUP,which is identified as having a low risk level associated with airport operations. Occasional overflights may be intrusive to some outdoor activities but the OAE zone does not contain any regulations regarding intensity of use or other standards specific to airport safety concerns that would be applicable to the Project. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, most land-use categories, including recreation facilities, parks and open land areas are considered normally compatible in the OAE compatibility zone. Based on this information, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. (f) Less than significant impact. There are no components of the Project that would impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. The proposed trail would be accessed from an 31 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah existing park and parking lot. There are no components of the Project that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted MJHMP or other emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (g) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As previously noted, the Project site is designated as having a "Very High" fire severity within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). However, the use of the Proposed trail would not substantially increase the risk of wildfire in the area. Temporary construction activities involving the occasional use of gasoline-powered tools and equipment could introduce new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. For the reasons stated, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. See Section V.20, Wildfire, for more information. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: HAZ-1: Should portable gasoline-powered equipment be used on site, the following firesafe precautions shall be taken: a. Spark arresters are required on all portable gasoline-powered equipment. b. Equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with exhaust systems and spark arresters in proper working order and free of carbon buildup. c. Fuel the equipment in a safe place where spills can be contained and a fire extinguisher is nearby. Use the recommended gas/oil mixture and do not top off. Use a funnel or spout for pouring. Wipe off any spills. d. Do not refuel running or hot equipment. Dispense fuel at least 10 feet from sources of ignition. e. Do not use equipment in areas of dry vegetation. Keep leaves and dry materials away from a hot muffler. f. No smoking or open flame allowed near gasoline-powered equipment. 32 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 10. Hydrology and Water Quality HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site; ii)substantially increase the rate or amount of surface ❑ ❑ ® ❑ runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk ❑ ❑ ❑ release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Significance Criteria: The Project would significantly impact hydrology and water quality if it violated water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degraded surface or groundwater quality; substantially decreased groundwater supplies or impeded sustainable groundwater management; altered drainage patterns in a manner that would cause substantial on- or off-site erosion, polluted runoff or excessive runoff that caused flooding; impeded or redirected flood flows; risked a release of pollutants due to inundation if in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone; or conflicted with a water quality plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Environmental Setting: Average rainfall in Ukiah is slightly less than 35 inches. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter. Rainfall is often from brief, intense storms, which move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months. The Project area includes the Russian River Hydrologic Unit, Upper Russian River Hydrologic Area, Ukiah Hydrologic Subarea. The Russian River is on the State Water Resources Control Board's 33 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah (SWRCB) 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for water temperature and sedimentation/siltation. Sediment impairments in tributaries led to listing the entire Russian River Watershed for sediment. Surface water supplies for the Ukiah Valley include the Eel River, from which water is diverted into the Russian River watershed through the Potter Valley Project, Lake Mendocino, and the Russian River. Groundwater is drawn from the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin is the northernmost basin in the Russian River water system and underlies an area of approximately 60 square miles. Water enters the groundwater system via percolation of surface waters and through the soil. The creeks and streams in the Ukiah Valley provide drainage channels for groundwater recharge, as well as domestic and agricultural water supply. The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including an additional 2,500 and 5,000 new hookup scenarios and determined that there is capacity through the 2045 planning horizon to serve these growth projections. Discussion: (a-b &e) No impact. No groundwater would be used for construction or operation of the trail. Existing restrooms and water faucet facilities are provided in Low Gap Park for trail users; no new facilities are proposed. The Project would not require water to be discharged and groundwater would not be impacted by the Project. No impact. (ci-iii) Less than significant impact with mitigation. As discussed in Section VA, Biological Resources, the proposed trail alignment would cross an unnamed Class III watercourse, which is categorized as no aquatic life present, but shows evidence of being capable of sediment transport to Class I and II waters under normal high water flow. Just below where the trail would cross, the Class III Watercourse reaches a flat area with no clear channel or route of drainage. As such, it effectively dissipates and ends at this location. The flat area extends approximately 100 feet and then the slope begins again, creating a new section of distinct Class I I I Watercourse. However, there is no connection between the two sections of Class III Watercourses. As such, the City does not propose a crossing at this time. However, as described in Section VA Biological Resources and noted in Mitigation Measure BIO-7, should persistent wet areas be noted in the first three years after project completion, the trail will be hardened or a footbridge will be constructed outside of the bed and bank of the watercourse to avoid impacts to it. Standard methods of erosion and sediment control will be implemented to reduce potential sediment loads downstream. If any structures are proposed for placement within the bed or bank in order for the trail to cross the watercourse, consultation with the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required and all necessary permits shall be obtained. UVTG plans to complete the work during the dry season and will implement the UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards which provide guidance for the construction of trails to reduce erosion. Specifically, the trail will be 2 to 4 feet wide, back sloped to create an angle of repose to the greatest extent possible, and built with a 3 to 5 percent outslope and rolling dips. This method also allows the construction of the three percent out- slopes and tapered shoulders that are designed to maintain the original sheet drainage patterns over the trail and reduce erosion and subsequent maintenance see Attachment B and discussion in Section V.7, Geology and Soils, of this Initial Study). Lastly, trail construction is anticipated to take approximately two weeks and will be scheduled during optimal weather and soil moisture conditions in order to reduce the duration that soils are exposed to water-borne erosion. As such, impacts associated with erosion and water quality would be less than significant with mitigation. (d) No impact. The Project is not located within a tsunami hazard zone, nor a flood zone, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: 34 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Implementation of 113I0-7 11. Land Use and Planning LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Significance Criteria: The Project would significantly impact land use if it physically divided an established community or conflicted with a land use plan, policy or regulation intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact, such as the general plan or zoning code. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah includes approximately 4.72 square miles. It serves as the County Seat of Mendocino County, as well as the county's commercial hub. Predominant land uses in the City include single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses ranging from local commercial to service commercial, as well manufacturing, industrial and public facilities. The City of Ukiah is governed by the City's General Plan, which was originally adopted in 1995, and currently in the process of being updated. Because the 2040 General Plan has not been adopted, the 1995 General Plan is the applicable plan relating to land use within the City. More specifically, zoning and land use are governed by the City's Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in Division 9, Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code. The purpose of the Ukiah Zoning Code is to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare. The larger Ukiah Valley is governed by the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP; 2011), which is a comprehensive and long range inter-jurisdictional planning document that represents the vision and foresight of the people who live and work in the Ukiah Valley. This plan governs land use and development on the unincorporated lands in the Ukiah Valley. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. Physical division of an existing community would typically be associated with construction of a new highway, railroad, park or other linear feature being constructed in a manner that would bifurcate an established neighborhood or community. Because the Project site does not contain any residences and the Project proposes to construct an additional loop from an existing trail that would not bifurcate an existing neighborhood or community, the Project would result in the division of an established community. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant. The 46-acre parcel is owned by the City of Ukiah and is currently used for public/recreation uses. Specifically, the eastern portion of the parcel contains a portion of the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course and is also developed with water tanks. The western portion of the parcel is developed with a portion of the City View Trail that begins within Low Gap Park, a County-maintained Park just north of the site. The proposed Upper City View Trail would connect to the existing City View Trail via existing recreational trails connecting to Low Gap Park. Although the parcel is developed with 35 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah municipal and recreational uses, the 46-acre Project site is zoned Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) and carries a General Plan Designation of Rural Residential (RR). The —H Overlay District is intended to encourage planning, design, and development while preserving natural physical features and minimizing potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. Development of public trails are not specifically listed. However, maintenance activities, including vegetation removal and tree pruning, are listed as allowed uses. Because the parcel is City-owned and currently used for recreational and public purposes, it will not be developed with residential development under the R1 H zoning district. The Project would be consistent with on- site and adjacent public/recreation land uses, would not be detrimental to surrounding residences, nor would it prohibit the potential development of residences on privately-owned property in the area. Accordingly, it was determined that the public hiking trail is an "allowed" use and does not require discretionary review under the R1 H zoning district. This determination is consistent with the determination that was made for the original City View Trail, which was developed on the Project site and adjacent R1-H zoned parcel. The Project supports the Parks and Recreation Element of the 1995 General Plan, which encourages maintenance of existing facilities, as well as development of new facilities. Specifically, the Parks and Recreation Element identifies publicly-owned property as preferable lands for developing hiking trails. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the following Parks and Recreation Element goal, policy, and implementation measures relating to the development of trails within the city: Goal PR-9: Establish future routes for public trails in the Planning Area. Policy PR- Make use of existing public lands for public access prior to developing or 9.1: purchasing other private lands for trails. Develop hiking trails, river access, or other trails on existing publicly-owned lands, Implementati lands voluntarily offered to public agencies, or lands converted from a resource on Measure production use to a non-resource production use by way of a discretionary permit PR-9.1(a): approval, prior to purchasing new private lands for trails or developing trails on non-publicly owned lands. Implementati Route selection shall provide for a network of trails, allowing for unconnected on Measure segments due to long-term impediments to the continuous trail —such as private PR-9.1(b): land ownership, environmentally sensitive areas, existing land uses, and public safety— including law enforcement issues. In 2015, the Ukiah Valley Trail Group developed the Low Gap Park Trail Plan, which identifies existing trails within the park, issues and recommendations for existing trails, as well opportunities for new trails; the proposed Upper City View Trail was one of the trails identified in the plan as a new potential trail. Lastly, although the Project is located within the northwestern most portion of the City limits, it supports the Ukiah Valley Area Plan by providing more recreational facilities to serve residents of the larger Ukiah Valley. Based on the aforementioned, the Project is consistent with all applicable land use plans and regulations; the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 36 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 12. Mineral Resources MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Significance Criteria: Impacts to mineral resources would be considered significant if the proposed Project were to result in the loss of a known mineral resource that has value to the region and state or is otherwise locally important as designated on a local land use plan. Environmental Setting: The most predominant of the minerals found in Mendocino County are aggregate resource minerals, primarily sand and gravel, found along many rivers and streams. The Ford Gravel Bars are located in Ukiah, along the Russian River. Discussion: (a-b) No impact. There are no identified mineral resources within the Project area. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None 13. Noise NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Generation of a substantial temporary or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Generation of excessive ground borne vibration ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or ground borne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 37 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it temporarily or permanently exceeded local noise standards in the vicinity of the Project, generated excessive ground borne noise or vibration; or would expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels from public airports or private airstrips. Environmental Setting: The Ukiah City Code does not contain thresholds for analyzing noise impacts from construction-related noise but guidance documents from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration provide information on maximum noise and vibration levels associated with construction equipment and thresholds of significance for analyzing such impacts. Although the Ukiah City Code does not contain thresholds of significance for analyzing construction- related noise, UCC §6054, Construction of Buildings and Projects, states that it shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet(500')therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction type device (between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day) in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the Director of Public works. The UCC's Noise Ordinance (Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6) that establishes ambient base noise level standards that apply to specific zoning districts within the City of Ukiah. These are specific to operation (not construction). "Ambient noise" is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of the Noise Ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen (15) minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources, at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made. Land uses exceeding these standards for long periods of time are considered to be significant. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. Construction activities are generally temporary, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment and generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, during noise- sensitive times of the day, or when construction activity occurs at the same precise location over an extended period of time (e.g., pile driving in one location for 8-10 hours in a day, or over a duration of several successive days). Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term medical and mental care facilities. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, particularly during the nighttime hours. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located on Valley View Drive and Maple Avenue, approximately 1,500 feet east of the northern connection to the City View Trail. Although trail construction is anticipated to be completed by hand tools (McLeod, pulaski, axe, pick, pole saw, hand saw, loppers, shovel, etc.), different trail construction methods and tool will be utilized to accommodate the varied topography, vegetation, and other natural conditions on the Project site; this may include the use of power equipment tools as conditions require and opportunity allows such as chainsaws, power wheel barrows, vibra-plates, jackhammers, or small trail dozers designed specifically for trail building. According to the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (2006), maximum noise levels associated with these tools range from 73 to 89 decibels 38 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah (dBA). The operation of each piece of equipment along the trail alignment would not be constant throughout the day, as equipment would be turned off when not in use. Over a typical work day, equipment would operate at different locations on the Project site and would not always be operating concurrently. There are no quantitative standards for construction noise specified by either the Ukiah General Plan or the UCC. However, UCC Section 6054 restricts construction activities within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Similarly, the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) identifies a daytime noise levels of over 90 dBA for extended periods of time as a noise level where adverse community reaction could occur at residential land uses within 500 feet of the noise. As noted above, the nearest residence is approximately 1,300 ft away from the trail, and noise generated by the Project would be well below the 90 dBA threshold, as the majority of the work would be completed via with hand tools. The occasional use of equipment, such as a jackhammer or other equipment with noise levels up to 89 dBA would not occur within 500 feet of a residence and would not be for prolonged periods of time. Lastly, Project construction will occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance. As such, noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Similar to the discussion in the noise analysis in criteria (a) above, the City does not contain specific standards or thresholds related to groundborne vibration. However, the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual identifies 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) as the level at which potential damage could result to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.' Additionally, Caltrans identifies 0.24 in/sec PPV as the level at which vibration is distinctly perceivable to humans. Based on ground- borne vibration levels for standard types of construction equipment provided by the FTA, of the equipment proposed to be used for Project construction, the use of a vibratory roller/compactor(such as a "vibraplate") would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels (typically 0.210 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet). Due to the Project's proximity to the nearest residence (approximately 1,200 ft) and the fact that the operation of this equipment (with vibration levels below the aforementioned thresholds) along the trail alignment would not be constant throughout the day, the Project would not result in significant groundborne vibration, and impacts would be less than significant. (c) Less than significant impact. The Project parcel is located approximately 1.86 miles northwest of the Ukiah Municipal Airport within the Other Airport Environs (OAE) Compatibility Zone of the UKIACLUP,which is identified as having a low risk level associated with airport operations. Occasional overflights may be intrusive to some outdoor activities but the OAE zone does not contain any regulations regarding intensity of use or other standards specific to airport safety concerns that would ' Peak Particle Velocity is the peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform. Usually expressed in inches/second in the United States. 39 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah be applicable to the Project. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, most land-use categories, including recreation facilities, parks and open land areas are considered normally compatible in the OAE compatibility zone. Based on this information, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 14. Population and Housing POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in ❑ ❑ ❑ an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or ❑ ❑ ❑ IE housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Significance Criteria: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to the local population or housing stock if it directly or indirectly induced substantial unplanned population growth or displaced a substantial number of people or housing such that the construction of replacement housing would be required. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah comprises of approximately 4.72 square miles within Mendocino County. Overall, the City of Ukiah's population has increased moderately over the past nearly 30 years, with a more accelerated increase in the last four years. Projections from the California State University Chico Center for Economic Development- Mendocino County Economic/Demographic Profile show this trend continuing.As described in the City's Housing Element (2019) of the General Plan, the City's annual growth rate between 1990 and 2018 averaged approximately 0.3%. Between 2000 and 2010, the City added 545 residents, or 3.7%, to its population. According to the California Department of Finance, the population in the County of Mendocino was 59,985 in 2018 and 16,226 in the City of Ukiah. The newly released 2020 Census data identifies the City of Ukiah population as 16,607. Discussion: (a-b) No Impact. The Project would not involve the construction of new homes or businesses, or the extension of roads that would induce population growth, nor would the Project displace any people or housing, as no residences are located on-site. No impact. Mitigation Measures: None 40 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 15. Public Services PUBLIC SERVICES.Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant impact to public services if it resulted in a requirement for increased or expanded public service facilities or staffing, including fire or police protection, schools and parks. Environmental Setting: Police protection services for the entire City limits is provided by the Ukiah Police Department, while the Mendocino County Sherriff's Department provides police services for areas outside of the City limits. Fire protection services in the City are provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. Educational facilities in the City are provided by the Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD) and County Office of Education. Additionally, there are several private and charter schools serving residents within the City of Ukiah. As mentioned below in Section 16, Recreation, of this Initial Study, there are 13 City parks, a municipal golf course, and a skate park managed by the City of Ukiah, as well as other recreational facilities in the area. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. Like the existing City View Trail the proposed Upper City View Trail would connect to, the City of Ukiah Police Department and Ukiah Valley Fire Authority will be responsible for emergency response in the Project area. The Project will not have a substantial effect on their ability to serve the area, nor would it result in the need for additional resources. The Project would not affect the number of students served by local schools, nor would it increase the number of new residents to the area, which could require the construction of expanded school facilities. Trail users would utilize the existing parking lot, restroom and water fountain facilities within Low Gap Park, and will therefore not require additional public utilities. The trail will be predominantly maintained by UVTG volunteers in order to minimize or avoid the use of City park staff. 41 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah As such, the Project would not result in 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. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 6. Recreation RECREATION. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation 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? Significance Criteria: Impacts to recreation would be significant if the Project resulted in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration was accelerated or if the Project involved the development or expansion of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the physical environment. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah manages several recreation facilities, including more than 13 City parks. In addition, there are approximately 30 miles of trails located throughout the Ukiah Valley, under County and federal jurisdiction. The eastern portion of the parcel contains a portion of the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course. The western portion of the parcel is developed with a portion of the City View Trail that begins in Low Gap Park just north of the site; the proposed trail would connect to this trail. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. The proposed trail would add approximately one- mile of trail to connect to the existing trail network in Low Gap Park. Users of the trail are likely to be current users of other trails in the area, as the trail will only be accessed from the existing City View Trail. A week-long trail user count of the existing City View Trail showed an average of 50 people a day hiking the trail. UVTG reports that the existing trails are tolerating current use patterns and have not required maintenance due to over use or physical deterioration. Although the proposed trail loop could result in an increase in trail users, it is not anticipated to draw a significant number of new users, as it is likely that the trail would be used by visitors already hiking on existing trails or using other recreation facilities within the park. As such, the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of Low Gap Park or its facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 42 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 17. Transportation TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy ❑ ❑ ® ❑ addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b)Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines§ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 15064.3, subdivision (b), Criteria for Analyzing Traffic Impacts? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Significance Criteria: Impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access. Traditionally, transportation impacts had been evaluated by using Level of Service (LOS) analysis to measure the level of congestion on local roadways. However, on September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, initiating an update to the CEQA Guidelines to change how lead agencies evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA, with the goal to better measure the actual transportation-related environmental impacts of a given project. Starting July 1, 2020, lead agencies are required to analyze the transportation impacts of new projects using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), instead of LOS. VMT measures the amount of additional miles produced by the project. If the project increases car travel onto the roads excessively, the project may cause a significant transportation impact. In 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018)which is intended to provide advice and recommendations for evaluating VMT, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. As discussed further below, the Technical Advisory offers that screening thresholds may be used to identify when land use projects, such as small scale residential projects, should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed traffic study. On behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Fehr & Peers, prepared a Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study (Baseline Study; May, 2020) to provide an overview of SB 743, summarize VMT data available for Mendocino County, discuss alternatives for and recommend VMT measurement methods and thresholds for lead agencies in Mendocino County, 43 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah and recommend transportation demand management (TDM) strategies for reducing VMT on projects in Mendocino County. The following local plans have historically address transportation within the City of Ukiah: 2017 Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Ukiah Safe Routes to School Plan (2014), Mendocino County Rail Trail Plan (2012), Ukiah Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan (2009), and the City of Ukiah General Plan (Circulation and Transportation Element amended in 2004). MCOG's Regional Transportation Plan (2017) and Section 5, Circulation and Transportation, of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (2011) addresses transportation within the larger Ukiah Valley. The Baseline Study incorporated applicable goals and policies from each of these documents into the methodology and analysis when formulating its screening tools. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah generally lies west of U.S. 101 between the U.S. 101/North State Street interchange, and the U.S. 101 /South State Street interchange. Three major interchanges along U.S. 101, Talmage Road, Gobbi Street, and Perkins Street(from south to north), provide access to southern and central Ukiah. The City of Ukiah is developed in a typical grid pattern with streets generally oriented north to south and east to west. Bicycle lanes are located throughout the City and public transit is provided by the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA). The Project site is currently accessed via the Low Gap Park parking lot on Low Gap Road, a City- maintained two-lane road that is developed with pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes. The Nearest MTA bus stop is located at the Ukiah High School, located across the street from Low Gap Park. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. As noted in OPR's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel is listed as a project that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in VMT. In addition, according to the Baseline Study, analysis of smaller, less complex projects can be simplified by using screening criteria. If a project meets any of the criteria outlined in Section 3.3 of the Baseline Study, it may be presumed to cause a less-than- significant VMT impact without further study. Because the Project is a small, simple, low VMT- generating project that involves construction of a trail loop that would connect to an existing trail system and meets the following criteria, impacts would be less than significant: The project generates less than 640 VMT per day and is consistent with the jurisdiction's general plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. As such, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, nor would it conflict with a regional plan or policy related to traffic; impacts would be less than significant. (c-d) Less than significant impact. The proposed trail would be accessed by the existing parking lot and Low Gap Road. Additional street parking is also available. Emergency access is currently provided through existing facilities and the Project does not propose any modifications to those facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 44 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 18. Tribal Cultural Resources TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project cause a substantial adverse change in the Significant Significant Significant significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Impact with Impact Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, Mitigation feature, place,cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discretion and supported by substantial evidence,to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Significance Criteria: An impact to tribal cultural resources would be significant if the Project were to substantially reduce the significance of a tribal cultural resource, a listed or eligible historic resource, or a resource considered significant by a California Native American tribe. Tribal cultural resources include "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe"that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or included in a local register of historical resources. Lead agencies are required to "begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project." The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Environmental Setting: As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, areas that are most typically culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water. Tribes known to be present within the Ukiah area include (but are not limited to) the following: • Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians • Guidiville Indian Rancheria of Pomo Indians • Hopland Band of Pomo Indians • Pinoleville Pomo Nation • Potter Valley Rancheria • Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians • Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians • Yokayo Tribe, not federally recognized Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, no cultural resources were identified within the Project area as a result of the records search, literature review, or archaeological field survey. In addition, due to its topography, the site is considered to have a "low potential" for cultural, archeological, and historic resources. Because the 45 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Project has been designed with minimal ground disturbance and the site does not have a high potential for resources to occur, less than significant impacts would occur as a result of the Project. Regardless, construction of the Project will be required to adhere to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (e-f)which specifically addresses what to do in the event that human remains or archeological resources are accidentally discovered. As noted above, in accordance with AB 52, a notification proving the opportunity for consultation was sent to the Guidiville Rancheria of California but no response requesting formal consultation was received. Based on the aforementioned, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None 19. Utilities and Service Systems UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact project: Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ new or expanded water,wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local ❑ ❑ ❑ standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management ❑ ❑ ❑ and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Significance Criteria: Impacts to utility and service systems would be significant if the Project resulted in the construction or expansion of utilities that could cause significant environmental effects; have insufficient water supplies available to the Project during normal to extremely dry years; resulted in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant; generated solid waste exceeding the capacity 46 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah of local infrastructure or impairing the achievement of solid waste reduction goals; or failed to comply with any management and reduction statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Setting: The majority of City properties are served by City water, sewer, electricity and trash collection as summarized below. Electric. The City of Ukiah's Electric Utility Department provides electric services to properties within the City limits, while Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides services to properties outside of the City. Water. There are five major providers of community water services in the Ukiah Valley. The City of Ukiah serves customers within the City, while Rogina Water Company and Millview, Calpella, and Willow County Water Districts serve the unincorporated areas. The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including an additional 2,500 and 5,000 hookup scenarios and determined that there is capacity through the 2045 planning horizon to serve these growth projections. Sewer and Wastewater. The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) and the City of Ukiah provide public sewer services to customers within their boundaries under the purview of the State Water Quality Control Board. The City's sewage treatment plant and Waste Water Treatment Plant(WWTP), operational since 1958, serves the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. Solid Waste. The Ukiah landfill, outside City limits on Vichy Springs Road, stopped receiving municipal solid waste in 2001 and the City is working on capping the landfill. No new waste generated will be processed through the landfill. Solid waste generated in the Ukiah Valley is exported for disposal to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. The Valley's solid waste disposal system consists of a large volume transfer station, Ukiah Transfer Station, which receives waste for export. Discussion: (a-e) No Impact. Users of the proposed trail would utilize existing infrastructure, including access roads, parking lots, water fountains and restrooms; no additional utilities are needed for the proposed trail. Any waste produced from construction activities would be disposed of at the Ukiah Transfer Station in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. No impact to utilities and service systems would occur. Mitigation Measures: None 47 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 20. Wildfire WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard Significant Significant Significant severity zones, would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Significance Criteria: Impacts to wildfire would be significant if the Project were located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and substantially impaired an emergency response plan; exposed Project occupants to wildfire pollutants or uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to site conditions such as slope and prevailing winds; require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk; or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post-fire runoff, slope instability or drainage changes. Environmental Setting: All lands within the City of Ukiah are within the jurisdiction of the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. None of the lands within the City of Ukiah are located within a California Department of Forestry (CalFire) State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, some parcels within the western boundary of the City limits, including the Project site, are designated as "Very High"fire severity within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA). As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the County's EOP plan and MJHMP address emergency operations, natural disasters (including wildfire), as well as mitigation strategies to reduce potential risks. The City of Ukiah adopted its "jurisdictional annex" chapter of the MJHMP on November 18, 2020. Hazards identified for the City of Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood and pandemic. Table 1-13 of the City's jurisdictional annex lists each hazard and mitigation action for City of Ukiah. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. The proposed trail would be accessed via an existing parking lot and access roads. There are no components of the Project that would conflict with, or impair the adopted MJHMP, EOP, or other adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. 48 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Discussion: (b & d) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project site is located within a designated as having "Very High" fire severity risk within a Local Responsibility Area. However, the development and use of the proposed trail would not substantially increase the risk of wildfire in the area. Temporary construction activities involving the use of gasoline-powered tools and equipment could introduce new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. For the reasons stated, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. See Section 20, Wildfire, for more information. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (C) Less than significant impact. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of HAZA 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation a) Does the project 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ® ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described throughout the Initial Study, temporary ground disturbing activities associated with vegetation removal and trail construction could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, 49 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the aforementioned sections would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Cumulative impacts are generally considered in analyses of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic. As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on these resources with implementation of mitigation measures described herein. Short-term construction impacts associated with the Project would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area as there are no known past projects nor current projects within the vicinity of the site. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 50 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah VI. REFERENCES 1. Alta Archeological Consulting (Alta). Archeological Survey Report (ASR). City of Ukiah Western Hills Annex Ukiah, Mendocino County, California, APNs 001-040-83, 157-070- 01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01, 157-050-09. March, 2021. 2. CalFire State Responsibility Area Viewer http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sraviewer—launch 3. CalFire, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Web Viewer. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ 4. California Air Resources Board (CARB). California Releases Report Charting Path to 100 Percent Clean Electricity. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-releases-report- charting-path-100-percent-clean-electricity 5. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. Earthquake Fault Map, Ukiah. Zones of Required Investigation. http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/UKIAH.PDF . 6. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. U.S. Landslide Inventory Web Application. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=ae120962f459434b8c9 04b456c82669d 7. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ 8. California Department of Finance. American Community Survey. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Reports/Demographic_Reports/American_Community_Survey 9. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bios Vegetation Mapping. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/ 10. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. EnviroStor database https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ 11. California Department of Transportation California State Scenic Highway System map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643bl aaf7000d fcc19983 12. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Discussion Draft Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA, May 2015. 13. City of Ukiah General Plan. Last amended 2019. http://www.cityofukiah.com/documents- and-maps/ 14. City of Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design, W-Trans and Walk Bike Mendocino. August 2015. 51 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 15. City of Ukiah Code. Last amended 2021. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah 16. City of Ukiah. Housing Element Update 2019-2027. Adopted October 23, 2019 and Certified by HCD December 5, 2019.http://www.cityofukiah.com/projects/housing- element-update/ 17. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA- H E P-05-054). https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEI R_References/2006_01_Roadway_Construc tion_Noise_Model_User Guide_FHWA.pdf 18. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/noise- and-vibration 19. Fehr & Peers, on behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study. May 20, 2020. https://www.mendocinocog.org/vehicle-miles-traveled-vmt-regional-baseline-study- completed 20. Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. Biological Assessment for Upper City View Trail Project. December 3, 2021. 21. Landslide Inventory (Beta). California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Isi/ 22. Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG). 2017 Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared by Davey Bates Consulting. Adopted February 5, 2018. https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/742330750/2017+RTP+As+Adopted%28web+forma t%29.pdf 23. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District of the California North Coast Air Basin. Particulate Matter Attainment Plan. January 2005. https://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/agmd/pm-attainment.htmi 24. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District website. http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/diesel-engine-information.html. 25. Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission. Ukiah Municipal Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ukiah-Municipal- Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan-2021.pdf 26. Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Adopted December, 2020. Vol 2, Chapter 1, City of Ukiah Jurisdictional Annex, adopted by the City of Ukiah November 18, 2020. 27. Mendocino County Office of Education. Schools & Districts. https://www.mcoe.us/schools-districts/ 28. Mendocino County Public GIS Portal https://gis.mendocinocounty.org/portal/home/ 29. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov. 52 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 30. Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. December 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 31. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm 32. U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=CA&status=listed 33. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Interactive Fault Map. https://www.usgs.gov/natural- hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qt- science_su pport_page_related_con 34. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetland Habitat Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 35. Ukiah Valley Area Plan, adopted August 2, 2011. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building-services/plans/ukiah- valley-area-plan 36. Ukiah Valley Trail Group, in coordination with Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society. Botanical Survey for Upper City View Trail Project. Winter, 2020. 37. Ukiah Valley Trail Group. Low Gap Park Trail Plan. 2015. 53 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring & Timing Date Responsibility Reporting Implemented Responsibility Air Quality Construction and AQ-1: Vegetation Removal. Vegetation City or City or contractor Throughout ground disturbing removal methods shall include grinding or contractor construction activities could chipping larger materials on-site, and/or result in short-term disposal at the Transfer Station; burning impacts to air of vegetation shall not be allowed without quality. obtaining the appropriate burn permits. AQ-2: Diesel Engines —Stationary and City or City or contractor Throughout Portable Equipment and Mobile contractor construction Vehicles: Off-road equipment with auxiliary diesel engines rated at 50 brake horsepower or greater, must have either a valid Air Quality permit, or a state Portable Equipment Registration Program PERP Registration. Biological Resources Construction and 1310-1: Sensitive Amphibian Species. Qualified City or contractor Prior to any ground disturbing One (1) special-status amphibian has a Biologist groundbreaking activities could moderate or high potential to occur within or dewatering result in impacts to the Study Area; red-bellied newt (Taricha activities sensitive species rivularis). A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking or dewatering activities to determine the presence of Red-belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify 54 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah additional avoidance measures, if needed. 11310-2: Special-Status Mammals. Five Qualified City or contractor Prior to any (5) special-status mammal species have Biologist vegetation moderate or high potential to occur within removal or the Study Area. These species include ground the Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), disturbing North American porcupine (Erethizon activities dorsatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. If evidence of bat roosts is observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, pre- construction bat surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat and den sites. 11310-3: Special-Status Insects. One (1) Qualified City or contractor Prior to any special-status insect species has Biologist vegetation moderate or high potential to occur within removal or the Study Area; western bumble bee ground (Bombus occidentalis). A qualified disturbing Biologist shall survey the area prior to activities any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of special-status insect species and identify additional avoidance measures if needed. If a special-status insect nests are observed, active nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. 55 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah B1O-4: Nesting Birds. Four (4) special- Qualified City or contractor Prior to any status avian species have moderate or Biologist vegetation high potential to occur within the Study removal or Area. These species include northern ground goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle disturbing (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion activities haliaetus), and northern spotted owl (Strix occurring occidentalis caurina). Pre-construction between March surveys shall be conducted by a qualified 1 and August Biologist prior to any vegetation removal 31 or ground disturbing activities occurring between March 1 and August 31 of any year. All active bird nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. B1O-5: Special Status Plants. One (1) Qualified City or contractor Prior to any special status plant, Redwood lily (Lilium Biologist ground rubescens), was observed within the disturbing proposed trail alignment and the activities secondary additional alignment. U.S. Fish between March and Wildlife (USFWS) protocol-level and August sensitive plant species surveys for Redwood lily (within the blooming period (generally March-August) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist prior to any ground disturbing activities to verify the presence of special status plants. Plant locations will be flagged and a 25- foot, 50-foot or 100-foot no disturbance zone shall be established to avoid the species. Data shall be submitted to the CNDDB database and additional mitigation will be identified if needed, in coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and USFWS. 56 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 1131O-6: Oregon White Oak Forest. Any Qualified City or contractor Prior to removal of the Oregon white oak Biologist; CDFW vegetation (Quercus garryana) shall be done via removal consultation with the California between March Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); 1st and August all work within this community shall 31 st of any adhere to CDFW recommendations. In year, and prior addition, nesting bird surveys shall be to removal of conducted prior to commencing any any Oregon activities that require vegetation removal white oak any between March 1 st and August 31 st of time of the year any year (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-4). Lastly, although not required, other management considerations for the preservation of this community include thinning or removal of conifer species within the stand in accordance with local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Such thinning could limit the possibility of vegetation type conversion to closed- canopy woodlands and conifer forest and inhibit the development of fuel ladders that increase the potential for stand- replacing fires. Construction and BIO-7: Watercourses. The Project shall City or City or contractor During ground disturbing adhere to UVTG Design and contractor; construction, activities could Maintenance Standards for trail CDFW if stream and within the result in impacts to construction related to erosion, and all crossing and first three years watercourses earthwork within or adjacent to (50 feet) regulatory after any watercourse or other body of water permits are construction shall adhere to standard methods of required (for assessment erosion and sediment control (placement of potential of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, crossing) silt fencing, etc.) and, if possible, work shall be completed while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. The UVTG shall assess the entire trail 57 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah length each winter for the first three years after project completion. Any areas that are damp enough to show foot created depressions after the trail is dried will be assessed and either crossed with a footbridge such as a wooden walkway known as a "puncheon", or be hardened, or diverted with a culvert if a bridge is deemed impractical. If any structures are proposed for placement within the bed or bank in order for the trail crossing, consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be required and all necessary permits shall be obtained. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction may HAZA: Should portable gasoline- City or City or contractor Throughout involve the use of powered equipment be used on site, the contractor construction gasoline-powered following firesafe precautions shall be tools and taken: equipment g. Spark arresters are required on all potentially portable gasoline-powered introducing new equipment. temporary sources h. Equipment shall be maintained in of ignition that could good working condition, with exhaust increase fire risk. systems and spark arresters in proper working order and free of carbon buildup. i. Fuel the equipment in a safe place where spills can be contained and a fire extinguisher is nearby. Use the recommended gas/oil mixture and do not top off. Use a funnel or spout for pouring. Wipe off any spills. 58 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah j. Do not refuel running or hot equipment. Dispense fuel at least 10 feet from sources of ignition. k. Do not use equipment in areas of dry vegetation. Keep leaves and dry materials away from a hot muffler. I. No smoking or open flame allowed near gasoline-powered equipment. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of the Implementation of 1131O-7 City or City or contractor During Project could result contractor; construction, in erosion and CDFW if stream and within the water quality crossing and first three years impacts regulatory after permits are construction required (for assessment of potential crossing) Wildfire Construction may Implementation of HAZA City or City or contractor Throughout involve the use of contractor construction gasoline-powered tools and equipment potentially introducing new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. 59 Upper City View Trail Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah �wR_ �'s- � � I :,_ ; : . �r==��_ << may' Y p. i 4 , • -_ .. _ - ` rye:. - � � - ��T��:��•Ys:+-�^� � ., � .,. - kkk Al � i , = ���" is-�• s �A y�"'�,='-tea-l ���'�. S j�Vd' '� i1p�•u?- , �i %, . -r } p] — <.,. � ;�:: :; {•: ;ri: _ ::fir, III ~ ■ s;g 7 ATTACHMENT S Ukiah Valley Trail Group Philosophy and Design and Maintenance Standards Trail Philosophy: Central to the Ukiah Valley Trail Group's approach to trails is the recognition that our world is one of finite resources and, since demand for these resources is increasing steadily; insightful management is of utmost concern. The Inland Mendocino County Trail system must be designed to utilize resources in ways that benefit all non-motorized users. This entails providing adequate accommodation and accessibility, rather than focusing on individual user groups. The increased sharing of resources sometimes creates friction between the diverse user groups vying for more trail space. This Trail Plan acknowledges that a certain amount of friction is inevitable and therefore focuses on planned communication to minimize the differences and optimize the benefits derived from these precious resources. Plans for optimal use of trail resources must be in concert with the objective of natural and cultural resource protection. Any decisions on resource use affect not only local residents and visitors,but our natural and cultural habitat as well. If we make responsible decisions concerning preservation of our resources, we will succeed in our custodial duties to the environment while at the same time providing enjoyment for current and future generations. Through well designed, constructed and maintained trails we will accomplish optimal public access while accommodating resource conservation. Providing the public with increased access to trail and greenways is not enough; we must also strive to promote the abundant benefits that derive from them. Trail benefits include recreation, transportation, energy conservation, environment and habitat protection, fire suppression, improved physical and mental health, and local economic benefits. Informing the public of the significant benefits expands public awareness of the advantages that trails and greenways offer to the individual and the community. Gaining public support thereby encourages policy makers to support trails and greenways and to increase funding to better manage the trail system. Improving relationships and interaction between government entities and the private sector will be necessary for the effective development of a well planned and managed trail and green-way system. Open communication between all levels of government and interested parties enhances the finding of common objectives by making individuals and groups part of the solution. Linking communities and trail advocates in trail planning minimizes land use conflicts and allows for optimal resource use. Joint planning emphasizes the development of interconnected trails in natural settings and a united effort creates a stronger voice for advancing trail proposals. Goals: The goals for the Lake Mendocino Trail Plan should include 1) generalized goals for the development of a quality local trail system, 2) specific goals for the Lake Mendocino trail system, 3) goals for how the Lake Mendocino trail system will link, and be a part of, the greater Ukiah Valley Trail System and 4) goals for using trail improvements and quiet-use recreation ethics as a tool for ecosystem restoration and preservation. The general goals that define a quality trail system include: 1-Adequate mileage - Moderate strong bike or horse riders ride 15-20 miles in a day - Endurance riders will ride 100 miles in a day - There are approximately 24 miles of trail in the Ukiah Valley Lake Mendocino currently has approximately 16 miles of trail and is near to maximum capacity. Small increases are necessary but can be mitigated with road closures and road to trail conversions. Employing a"stacked loop" design can maximize the trail experience within the capacity. 2- Connectivity -A single recreation area is unlikely to meet all the community's needs. - Trails that connect the various areas are therefore necessary. - Connectivity allows trails to fulfill a transportation role. - Lake Mendocino Trails do not currently connect with any other trail systems. - Priority should be given to approving trails that link Lake Mendocino to outlying areas. 3-Variety of environments -An example of each of the area's micro-ecosystems should be included, such as Riparian, oak woodland, mixed hardwoods etc. - Trails should include sunny areas, which will be more desirable in the winter, and shady areas for summer use. 4-Variety of trail experiences - Different trail users appreciate different trail characteristics. - Equestrians generally prefer wider trails. - Mountain bikers generally prefer lots of rolling ups and downs with lots of turns. - Runners tend to prefer gentle grades. -Advanced users desire more"technical"or challenging trail -narrower with a rougher, more uneven tread. A quality trail system will provide a variety of trail experiences. A small trail system should focus first on trails that meet the needs of the majority of users. 5-Easy Access/Options -Users need to be able to get from home to trail quickly and start their experience. - The first trail from the trailhead should be an easy trail, wide and smooth - suitable for all users. -As users delve further into the system, the trails should increase in difficulty. - "Stacked loops" of trails allow users to return by a different route while providing a variety of options. 6- Signage/Mapping -All trails should be named and signed. -All trailheads should have an information kiosk. - Maps should be readily available for all trails. 7- Sustainability & Maintenance - Trails need to be well maintained. - Trails designed to sustainable standards require much less maintenance. UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards Definitions Reroute—a trail maintenance project that starts and ends on a single existing trail and abandons the trail between those points will be termed a reroute. Trail -A trail is specifically designed, designated, developed, and maintained as a recreational corridor for the exclusive use of non-motorized vehicles. It is typically not more than 4 feet wide, unpaved and generally requires users to travel single file. Use Trail -A Use Trail is a trail that has been created without a planning process and or approval by the repeated historic exploration of users. Multi-Use Trail -A multi use trail is a trail that is open to non-motorized users including hikers, runners, equestrians, and bicyclists. All trails in the Lake Mendocino property will be multi use unless compelling reasons are presented to necessitate partial closure. (Such as the Shakota trail which is currently closed to equestrians.) Road-Any transportation corridor designed for motor vehicle use and open to motor vehicle use. Although roads may be necessary for maintenance, further road building should be avoided and road closures should be pursued where possible. A road may be used for recreation but is not a trail. Fire Break-Although trails act as small firebreaks and have been known to stop fires and can be used as locations to start backfires, a firebreak is not a trail. Trail Maintenance and Repair 2 -Maintenance and repair of existing trail is performed to return the trail or trail segment to the standards or conditions to which it was originally designed and built, or to improve it to comply with more current design standards to achieve sustainability. The act of maintenance and repair includes but is not limited to: -Removal of debris and vegetation from the trail corridor, clearing encroaching brush and grasses, removing rock slides, etc.- Maintenance of trail tread such as filling ruts and entrenchments; reshaping trail bed, repairing trail surface and washouts; installing rip rap; constructing retaining wall or cribbing -Erosion control and drainage, replacing or installing necessary drainage structures, water bars, culverts; realigning sections of trail to deter erosion or avoid boggy/marshy areas. - Repair or replacement of existing trail structures. - Upgrades and short reroutes to improve sustainability and decrease maintenance needs. Trail tread and slope characteristics 1. Trail Width: Trail beds shall be built and maintained with a goal of being three feet wide. Topographical, vegetation, or resource constraints may require sections that are less than three feet. Rationale: Allows users to pass by each other safely. 2. Rolling"Contour" Trails: Trails shall be built with the contour of the topography(plus or minus 10%)utilizing side-slopes and avoiding flat areas as much as feasible. Rationale: Building trail along fall lines or in flat areas creates erosion. "Contour"trails allow water to sheet off the trail and flow downhill. Keeping trails on hillsides keeps them out of flatter, wetter areas. Trails built in wet areas are not sustainable. Users tend to walk along edge of trails, creating trail widening. Wet areas are more prone to soil compaction and displacement. "Contour trails create changing view sheds that add to the enjoyment of the trail. 3. Average trail grade less than or equal to 10%: The average slope of the trail will be less than or equal to 10%, some slopes will be greater and some less. Side slope, soil type and natural obstacles will determine the grades for each individual section of trail. Sections that are over 10% should be short and followed by a relatively flat section or grade reversal. Rationale: Most soil types can withstand up to 10% grades. Minimizes user-caused erosion. Allows for possible reroutes at a steeper grade if there is a future problem such as a slide. Accommodates undulations/grade reversals. Feels comfortable to most trail users. Grade reversals after steep sections allow the user t recover from the increased effort. 4. Sustainable trail alignment - Trail grade does not exceed"half-rule": The grade of the trail should not be greater than half the grade of the sideslope that the trail traverses. Rationale: Prevents erosion caused by water flowing down the trail rather than flowing down the hillside. Guides individual trail planning segments to fit the topography. 5. Maximum trail grades should be less than 15%: Rationale: Although this rule might occasionally need to be broken, at least for short segments of trail, our observation is that most of the existing trails at Lake Mendocino are sustainable up to a grade of 15%. Higher grades, especially in areas exposed to weather, have suffered more erosion and damage from users. 6. Incorporation of grade reversals: Trails should incorporate frequent grade reversals every 10 to 50 feet, depending on soil type and topography. Rationale: Grade reversals provide areas for water to drain off of trails. As trails age, the shape of the trail bed tends to become concave, leading to the trapping of water. Grade reversals divide the trail into short, individual watersheds. 7. Build in outslope: Outer edges of trails shall be built and maintained so that they create an approximate 3- 5% slope from the inner edge of the trail. Rationale: Allows water to sheet off of trail, decreasing erosion. 8. Build in backslope: Depending on soil stability and composition, the area uphill of the trail shall be sloped extending upward from the trail. Rationale: Prevents a waterfall effect from water coming down the hill and dropping onto the trail tread. 9. Water Crossings: Water crossings should be avoided when possible. Trails shall be designed, built, and maintained to minimize sedimentation in streams. Bridges shall be the ideal with puncheons, culverts or"hardening"being considered should resource limitations, infrequent water flow, or low use combine to make a bridge impractical. Prioritization of water crossings should be considered with high use crossings receiving first resources. Rationale: Minimize impacts to the stream channel and environment. Create a safe and sustainable passages for trail users. Work within limits of resource availability and predicted impacts. Pruning Pruning vegetation is an essential and regular part of trail maintenance, especially in brushy chaparral areas. Multi-use trails should have 10'vertical and 8'horizontal clearance (though there will be exceptions for the sake of protecting a tree or skirting around a large boulder). Too often, trail pruning is accomplished in the most expeditious manner possible -- a branch intrudes within the walking/riding space of the trail and is quickly lopped-off so that it doesn't intrude and the debris is indescriminantly tossed aside. However, our goal in trail maintenance is to maintain a trail in as natural appearance as possible. A quick pruning job deals only with the function of trail maintenance, not the aesthetics. There are 6 elements of acceptable pruning in the State Park System. Each of these elements makes pruning a more tedious maintenance task, but results with a trail that is compatible with the natural environment. Do not toss debris! Branches that are randomly discarded usually end up hanging in adjacent shrubs or trees. These dead branches are both unsightly and create a fire hazard. Place debris out of view. This element requires the extra effort of dragging branches under and around shrubs. Place the butt(cut) end away from the trail. This will help disguise the debris. Each cut branch should be touching the ground to promote decomposition. This means that brush piles are not appropriate. Pruning should be done sensitively so that the trail appears natural and not as if a chain saw just blasted through. Trail users should not be aware that any maintenance work has recently been done. Prune to the collar of any branch stem for the health of the shrub and a more natural looking result. At the base of any branch there is a wide section that contains a plant's natural healing agents. Any pruning performed away from this collar will expose the plant to a greater risk of infection. A cut at the collar will naturally heal. For large branches over 2" in diameter, cut from the bottom, then cut down from the top. This prevents tearing of the bark, reducing infection. 10. References: The following references will be used as resources to establish best practices and resolve questions not covered in the above. Additional references will be added upon availability. Weber, Peter(Ed). 2007 Managing Mountain Biking:IMBA's Guide to Providing Great Riding International Mountain Biking Association. Boulder CO ISBN978- 9755023-1-X Birkby, Robert. 2005 Lightly on the Land: The SCA Trail Building and Maintenance Manual. 2nd edition. The Mountaineers Books. Seattle WA ISBN Felton, Vernon. 2004 Trail Solutions;How to Build Sweet Single Track. Johnson Printing, boulder CO ISBN 0-9755023-0-1 Parker, Troy Scott, 2004. Natural Surface Trails by Design. NatureShape, Boulder,CO. ISBNO-9755872-0-X Steinholz, Robert &Vachowski, Brian. 2001. Wetland Trail Design and Construction. USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program Misoula, MT 8E82A3 Birchard, William &Proudman, Robert 2000 Appalachian Trail: Design, Construction, and Maintenance. 2nd Edition Appalachian Trail Conference Harper's Ferry WV Demrow, Carl & Salisbury, David 1998. The Complete Guide to Trail Building and Maintenance, 3Yd Edition. Appalachian Mountain Club Books. Boston, MA ISBN 1-878239-54-6 ATTACHMENT C JABN & ASSOCIATES, INC. natural resource planning & management Prepared For: ., Michelle Irace, Planning Manager Department of Community ` Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 APN: 001-030-01 and 001-020-12 Prepared by "•* Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Alicia Ives Ringstad Senior Wildlife Biologist Biological Assessment alicia@jaforestry.com Report Date: December 3, 2021 117 Clara Ave. Ukiah,California 95482 707-485-5544 www.jaforestry.com fax:707-485-5577 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Table of Contents Section1.0: Introduction..........................................................................................................................................2 Section 2.0: Regulations and Descriptions................................................................................................................3 2.1 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................................3 2.2 Natural Communities and Sensitive Natural Communities..............................................................................3 2.3 Special-Status Species....................................................................................................................................4 Section 3.0: Field Survey Methodology...................................................................................................................4 3.1 Assessment Methods......................................................................................................................................4 3.2 Database and Resource Descriptions...............................................................................................................4 3.3 Database Resource Assessment......................................................................................................................5 3.4 Biological Communities.................................................................................................................................6 3.4.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities.....................................................................................................6 3.4.2 Sensitive Biological Communities............................................................................................................7 3.5 Special-status Species.....................................................................................................................................8 Section4.0: Study Area Setting................................................................................................................................8 4.1 Climate and Hydrology...................................................................................................................................8 4.2 Topography and Soils.....................................................................................................................................9 4.3 Biota and Land Use........................................................................................................................................9 Section5.0: Field Survey Results.............................................................................................................................9 5.1 Biological Communities.................................................................................................................................9 5.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities...................................................................................................11 5.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities..........................................................................................................12 5.2 Special-status Species...................................................................................................................................12 Section 6.0: Assessment Summary and Recommendations.....................................................................................17 6.1 Natural Communities....................................................................................................................................17 6.2 Special-status Wildlife Species.....................................................................................................................18 6.3 Wildlife Corridors........................................................................................................................................20 6.4 Critical Habitat.............................................................................................................................................20 Section7.0: References..........................................................................................................................................21 Appendix A: Table of Potential for Special-Status Wildlife within the Study Area................................................26 Appendix B: List of Species Observed..................................................................................................................51 AppendixC:Photographs......................................................................................................................................53 AppendixD: Maps................................................................................................................................................59 Appendix E: Supporting Documents.....................................................................................................................60 Appendix F: Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Report...........................................61 Page 1 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Section 1.0: Introduction This biological assessment was prepared by Jacobszoon and Associates Inc. for the City of Ukiah for the proposed development of a one-mile loop of narrow-gauge natural surface trail commonly known as a"hiking trail"that would begin and end on the upper leg of the existing 2.8-mile City View Trail (Appendix D: Map 2, Study Area Map). The project site is located just west of Ukiah, CA within Section 18, Township 15N, Range 12W, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the Ukiah USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, APN: 001-030-01 (Appendix D: Map 1, Vicinity Map Area). The proposed trail will run almost entirely beneath a substantial tree canopy cover of natural woodlands consisting mainly of native tree and understory species. The proposed trail route does not cross blue line drainages or wet areas. In accordance with the Ukiah Valley Trail Group (UVTG) design and maintenance standards, the trail will be 2 to 4 feet wide, back sloped to create an angle of repose to the greatest extent possible and built with a 3 to 5 percent outslope and rolling dips to allow sheet water drainage. The proposed trail route and design was established by the UVTG and was selected to maintain consistent slope integrity and to keep disturbances to natural areas at minimal levels. Trimming of encroaching tree branches will be required along portions of the trail. Tree branch pruning, trimming, and root care activities will be limited to those branches that would represent hazards to hikers or cause extensive detours and additional grading for the trail route. Every effort to re-route the alignment of the trail to avoid the unnecessary removal of trees will be made. However, approximately six immature redwood trees (less than six inches diameter breast height(dbh))would be removed for the alignment to maintain acceptable trail grade standards. The proposed trail was also designed with input from the Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society,who often collaborates with the UVTG to review trail design to ensure impacts to special status plant species are reduced or avoided. An additional loop was proposed in the original design but removed from the plan in response to concerns cited by members of the botanical review team in regard to the potential impact to native plants. Botanical surveys of the proposed trail and the additional loop were conducted on March 21, April 11, April 25, June 8 and July 19, 2021 by members of the Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society. Please see the attached report in Appendix F. The trail building operations have the potential to impact sensitive animal species; therefore, the purpose of this biological assessment was to identify and map areas within the footprint and 100 feet of the proposed trail that are potential sensitive natural communities and to locate special- status animal habitats to determine if they would be directly or potentially impacted by the proposed project. A biological assessment site visit was conducted on November 18,2021. The Study Area referred to within this report comprises the proposed one-mile loop of hiking trail and 100 feet surrounding the proposed trail (Appendix D: Map 2, Study Area Map). This report includes the following: • Regulations and Project Description(Section 2) • Field Survey Methodology (Section 3) • Study Area Setting (Section 4) • Field Survey Results (Section 5) Page 2 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. • Assessment Summary and Recommendations (Section 6) • Table of Special-Status Wildlife within CNDDB nine quads (Appendix A) • List of Species Observed (Appendix B) • Representative Photographs of Study Area(Appendix C) • Supporting Maps (Appendix D) • Supporting Documents (Appendix E) • Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Report (Appendix F) Section 2.0: Regulations and Descriptions 2.1 Regulatory Setting In addition to the requirements of Mendocino County's permitting process, the project shall comply with Federal, State, and local regulations designed to protect sensitive natural resources. The following natural resources are protected under one or more of several Federal and/or State regulations and should be considered when designing and/or implementing the proposed project within the Study Area: Essential Fish Habitat: protected through changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to maintain sustainable fisheries in the United States, administered by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): • Includes habitats (rivers, creeks, estuaries)that may support anadromous fish(fish migrating from ocean habitat into freshwater river habitat), as well as commercially and/or ecologically valuable fishes. Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat: protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): • Includes creeks and rivers (bodies where water flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life), and vegetation adjacent to and associated with (riparian habitat). Waters of the State: protected under the State Water Resources Control Board Waters of the U.S.: protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps): • Includes wetlands, streams, rivers, and other aquatic habitats meeting the guidance issued by the Corps. 2.2 Natural Communities and Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive Natural Communities: protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), administered by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2021): • Includes terrestrial vegetation or plant communities that are ranked by NatureServe and considered"threatened" or"endangered"by CDFW, lists of such are included in List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFW 2021). Page 3 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. 2.3 Special-Status Species Special-status Wildlife Species including Critical Habitat: protected under one or more of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act(CESA), California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or CDFW: • Includes wildlife listed under the ESA and/or CESA, and wildlife listed by CDFW as Species of Special Concern, Fully Protected Species, and/or Special status including Invertebrates, Birds of Conservation Concern listed by USFWS, Species of Concern listed by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). Section 3.0: Field Survey Methodology 3.1 Assessment Methods The biological resource assessment is designed to identify sensitive communities within the Study Area and determine the existence or potential occurrence for special-status species. The assessment is also designed to address the potential for cumulative impacts to biological resources that may occur as a result of the project and to make recommendations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts. The biological resource assessment includes the analysis and comparison of existing habitat conditions within the Study Area and the documented range and habitat requirements of sensitive wildlife species described in CDFW's California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System(CWHR). Jacobszoon& Associates Inc. senior biologist Alicia Ives Ringstad conducted a biological resource assessment of the Study Area on November 18, 2021, consisting of approximately four (4) hours. The Study Area was assessed to document: (1) the on-site natural communities, (2) existing conditions and their ability to provide suitable habitat for any wildlife species, and(3) if sensitive natural or biological communities are present. 3.2 Database and Resource Descriptions Prior to conducting field surveys, available reference materials were reviewed, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)National Wetlands Inventory(NWI), the Ukiah 7.5'-minute USGS quadrangle topographic map, and the most recent available aerial imagery. The location of streams and watercourses within the project vicinity were reviewed using datasets from California Streams and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CAL FIRE). Existing vegetative communities were reviewed using CDFW's Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) data for the potential existence and location of sensitive natural communities including Mendocino Cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) and related vegetation. Where VegCAMP data was not available, existing vegetative communities were reviewed using USDA Forest Service Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) data. Page 4 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Databases queried for the occurrence of special-status species include the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaC), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Spotted Owl Data Viewer, RareFind and Quick Viewer processed and unprocessed data(online edition, v5.96.99). The CNDDB consists of mapped overlays of all known populations of sensitive plants and wildlife. The database is continually updated with new sensitive species population data. For the purpose of this biological assessment, only sensitive wildlife was reviewed(Appendix D, Map 3: CNDDB Vicinity Map). The database is continually updated with new sensitive species population data. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Predicted Habitat Suitability is a dataset accessed through CNDDB BIOS Commercial/Spotted Owl Viewer that represents areas of suitable habitat within species' documented ranges. Examination of the CWHR dataset was applied when: 1) the data is available for the species of concern, and 2)when there is a moderate to high potential for an animal to occur on or within 100 feet of the Study Area. CWHR examines whether the areas being examined in the biological assessment is habitat which may support a species of special concern. Habitat suitability ranks of Low(less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66) and High(greater than 0.66) suitability are based on the mean expert opinion suitability value for each habitat type for breeding, foraging, and cover(CDFW 2021). 3.3 Database Resource Assessment A scoping of the CNDDB was performed to identify existing and historical occurrences of special status wildlife species and sensitive terrestrial communities within the project vicinity. The scoping extended to nine quads surrounding and including the Ukiah 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangles and included the Boonville, Cow Mountain, Elledge Peak, Laughlin Range, Orrs Springs, Potter Valley, Purdy's Gardens and Redwood Valley 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangles. In addition, a 0.25-mile radius scoping area was completed for the identification of northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina,NSO) Activity Centers. No spotted owl territories (Activity Centers) are located within the 0.25-mile buffer. Prior to the site visit, the databases listed above were accessed to determine whether sensitive biological communities, special-status wildlife species or other sensitive areas were documented within the vicinity of the Study Area(Appendix D: Map 3, CNDDB Vicinity Map). During the site visit, existing habitat conditions were evaluated and used to assess the potential for presence of special-status species. The potential for each special-status wildlife species to occur in the Study Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: • No Potential: Habitat on and adjacent to the Study Area is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology,plant community, site history, disturbance regime). • Low Potential: Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the Study Area is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on-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 Study Area is suitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on-site. Page 5 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. • High Potential: All the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the Study Area is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on-site. • Present: Species is observed on the site or has been recorded(i.e. CNDDB) on-site recently. A complete list of all special-status wildlife species and communities listed in the nine-quad scoping of the CNDDB as well as those listed in an official USFWS IPaC search of the project area is included in Appendix A: Scoping Table of Special-Status Species and Communities and Potential to occur within the Study Area, and in supporting documents within Appendix E. 3.4 Natural Communities Natural communities present within the Study Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described by Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), USDA Forest Service Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) system, and the Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition(MCV2 Alliances, CNPS 2021b). However, in some cases it may be necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. The currently accepted vegetation classification system for the state that is standardly used by CDFW and other state and federal agencies, organizations, and consultants for survey and planning purposes is the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV; Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evans 2009). Unlike Holland, this vegetation classification system is based on the standard National Vegetation Classification System(NVCS) and includes alliances (a floristically defined vegetation unit identified by its dominant and/or characteristic species) and associations (the finer level of classification beneath alliance). Although the CNDDB still maintains records of some of the old Holland vegetation types, these types are no longer the accepted standard, and the CDFW Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program(VegCAMP) has published more recent vegetation lists for the state based on a standardized vegetation classification system that is currently being developed for California and which is consistent with the MCV classification system. Global and state rarity rankings have been assigned for various types on the recent VegCAMP lists. 3.4.1 Non-sensitive Natural Communities Non-sensitive natural communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. These communities may, however,provide suitable habitat for some special-status plant or wildlife species, and are described in Section 5.1. Page 6 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. 3.4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as MCV2 alliances or associations with state ranks of S1-S3. Aquatic resources (e.g. watercourses,ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, etc.) are also considered sensitive natural communities and are afforded special protections under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Sources for assessing sensitive terrestrial or aquatic natural communities include Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), List of Vegetation Alliances (CDFW, 2021),A Manual of California Vegetation (CNPS 2021b), and California Streams, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory(NWI). Sensitive Natural Communities CDFW considers any MCV2 alliance or association with a state rank of S1-S3 a sensitive natural community. Global and state rankings are defined below. Global Ranking: • G1-Critically Imperiled: At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity(often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. • G2-Imperiled: At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. • G3-Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. • G4-Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. • G5-Secure: Common; widespread and abundant. State Ranking: • S 1-Critically Imperiled: Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity(often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. • S2-Imperiled: Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. • S3-Vulnerable: Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state. • S4-Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare in the state; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. • S5-Secure: Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined by the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. Page 7 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species' recovery. In many cases,this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species, but which are needed for the species' recovery, are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Aquatic Resources Watercourses and other waterbodies were classified using guidance from the California Forest Practice Rules 2021 (FPR). Wetlands are determined using the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database and are defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual as "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,bogs, and similar areas. Wet areas are areas with observed hydrophytic vegetation and/or other hydrologic indicators that suggest the area is influenced by ponding or flooding for a significant amount of time throughout the growing season. Wet areas should be given the same protections as wetlands for the purposes of this assessment until a wetland delineation is conducted to confirm the presence and extent of wetlands. 3.5 Special-status Species Special-status wildlife species assessed are of limited abundance in California, with known occurrence or distribution in Mendocino County, and were derived from the following lists: • Federal listed or threatened or endangered wildlife or species of concern(FT, FE, FSC) • California State listed or rare, threatened or endangered wildlife or species of concern (SR, ST, SE, SP, SSC) • Board of Forestry Sensitive (BFS) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Status animals: Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern and Watch List (FP, SSC, WL) The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species known to occur within the Study Area and does not assume presence of such wildlife species. If a special-status wildlife species is observed during the site visit, its presence will be recorded and discussed. All wildlife species observed were recorded and are included in Appendix B. Section 4.0: Study Area Setting 4.1 Climate and Hydrology The project site is located just west of Ukiah, CA within Section 18, Township 15N, Range 12W, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the Ukiah USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, APN: 001-030-01 (Appendix D: Map 1, Vicinity Map). The Study Area is located within the Offs Creek—Russian River watershed(HUC-12, 180101100403). The average annual precipitation is 41 to 63 inches, the average annual air temperature is 55-60 degrees F, and the average frost-free period is 240 to 340 days. Page 8 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. 4.2 Topography and Soils The Study Area is located at approximately 1,000-1,400 feet in elevation and is underlain by one (1) soil mapping units, according to the United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey: Map Unit Symbol 151, Hopland-Wohly loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes (Appendix D: Map 4, Soil Map). A description of the soil series is as follows: Hopland-Wohly loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes (Map Unit Symbol 151): This map unit is on hills and mountains. Included in this unit are small areas of Bearwallow, Cassabonne, Hellman and Squawrock soils. The native vegetation is mainly oaks and scattered pockets of Douglas-fir. The elevation range is 500 to 2,500 feet. • Hopland soil is moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. • Wholy soil is moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. 4.3 Biota and Land Use Regionally, the Study Area has historically been used primarily for timber and firewood production, recreation, homesite development, and wildlife habitat(USDA Web Soil Survey, 2021). Section 5 provides a detailed account of the natural communities found on-site, including sensitive and non-sensitive natural communities and additionally the special-status flora and fauna with potential to occur within the Study Area. Section 5.0: Field Survey Results 5.1 Natural Communities The Study Area and immediate surroundings were assessed prior to a site a visit on November 18, 2021 to determine natural communities present and develop a comprehensive list of all wildlife species observed. Natural communities referred to in this report include Holland 1986 descriptions, USFS CALVEG classifications, and the Manual of California Vegetation(MCV2) alliance descriptions. Holland Descriptions: The Study Area is within North Coast coniferous forest and Broadleaved upland forest habitat as best classified by the habitat classification system described by Holland 1986. Descriptions of these habitat types are as follows: • Broadleaved Upland Forest: Stands of evergreen or deciduous, broadleaved trees 5 meters or more tall, forming closed canopies. Many, but not all, with very poorly developed understories. Several are seral to montane conifer forests. It includes the "mixed evergreen forest" of the Coast Ranges. • North Coast Coniferous Forest: Needle-leaved evergreen trees in usually quite dense stands that may attain impressive heights. Usually on well-drained, moist sites within the reach of summer fogs, but not experiencing much winter snow. This type occurs in the wetter parts of the North Coast Ranges. Page 9 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. USFS CALVEG Classifications: According to USDA Forest Service CALVEG mapping delineation, the regionally dominant vegetation type within the Study Area is comprised of Oregon white oak and Pacific Douglas-fir, (Appendix D: Map 5, CALVEG Classification Map). Descriptions of these vegetation types are as follows: • Pacific Douglas-Fir: Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant overstory conifer over a large area in the Mountains, Coast, and Ranges Sections. This alliance has been mapped at various densities in most subsections of this zone at elevations usually below 5600 feet(1708 m). Tanoak(Lithocarpus densiflorus var. densiflorus) is the most common hardwood associate on mesic sites towards the west. Along western edges of the Mountains Section, a scattered overstory of Douglas-fir often exists over a continuous Tanoak understory with occasional Madrones (Arbutus menziesii). Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis)becomes an important hardwood associate on steeper or drier slopes and those underlain by shallow soils. Black Oak(Q. kelloggii) may often associate with this conifer but usually is not abundant. In addition, any of the following tree species may be sparsely present in Douglas-fir stands: Redwood(Sequoia sempervirens), Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa), Incense Cedar(Calocedrus decurrens), White Fir (Abies concolor), Oregon White Oak(Q. garryana) and Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), among others. The shrub understory may also be quite diverse and includes a wide range of shrubs and forbs. • Oregon White Oak: Oregon White Oak(Quercus garryana) is widely distributed from British Columbia to this zone, with outlying scattered populations further east and south to the Sierra Nevada Mountains and southern California. The tree form (Q. g. var. garryana)becomes a local canopy dominant in woodlands of the three sections of this zone across thirty-one subsections, becoming especially prominent in seven of them. Mapped elevations of this type are usually below about 5800 feet (1768 m). Often developing on poor, exposed or droughty soils in inland valleys, foothills or rocky ridges, the Oregon White Oak type also is found in poorly drained areas having occasional standing water or next to stream terraces. On better sites, it is usually out-competed by species such as Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and California Black Oak(Q. kelloggii), often becoming a minor element in mixed hardwood types. Other associated species include other conifers such as Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa), Gray Pine (P. sabiniana) and various Oaks (Quercus spp.). Open sites often have a grass understory. MCV2 Alliances: Natural communities observed were classified using data collected in the field and the Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition(MCV2 Alliances, CNPS 2021b). Two (2) MCV2 Alliance communities (Appendix D: Map 6: MCV2 Classification Map) were observed on site: • Quercus garryana Forest &Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland • Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest&Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland Detailed descriptions of these communities are as follows: Page 10 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Quercus�ryana Forest &Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland: • Characteristics Species: Quercus garryana var.garryana is dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with Juniperous occidentalis, Pinus jeffreyi, Pinus ponderosa, Pinus sabiniana, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus kelloggii and Umbellularia californica. • Vegetation Layers: Trees< 30 m; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is usually open. Herbaceous layer is open to intermittent and mostly grassy. • Membership Rules: o Quercus garryana> 30%relative cover in the tree canopy; >25% absolute cover and lacking an appreciable conifer cover. o Quercus garryana> 30%relative cover in the tree canopy often with other oaks such as Q. kelloggii. • Habitats: Raised stream benches, terraces, slopes. and ridges of all aspects. • State Rarity Rank: S3 • Global Rarity Rank: G4 Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest&Woodland Alliance; Douglas-fir forest and woodland: • Characteristic Species: Pseudotsuga menziesii is dominant or co-dominant with hardwoods in the tree canopy with Abies concolor, Acer macrophyllum, Alnus rhombifolia, Arbutus menziesii, Calocedrus decurrens, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Cornus nuttali, Pinus contorta, Pinus lambertianana, Quercus agrifolia., Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus garryana, Quercus kelloggii, and Sequoia sempervirens. • Vegetation Layer: Trees<75m; canopy intermittent to continuous, and it may be two- tiered. Shrubs are infrequent or common. Herbaceous layer is sparse or abundant. • Membership rules: o Pseudotsuga menziesii> 50%relative cover in the tree canopy and reproducing successfully, though hardwoods may dominate or co-dominate in the subcanopy and regeneration layer;Abies concolor, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Pinus contorta, P.ponderosa, and Sequoia sempervirens<20%relative cover; and Notholithocarpus densiflorus<10%relative cover in the tree canopy. • Habitats: All topographic positions and aspects. Substrates various, including serpentine. • State Rarity Rank: S4 • Global Rarity Rank: G5 5.L I Non-sensitive Natural Communities Non-sensitive natural communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The Study Area is comprised of one (1) non-sensitive natural community, as classified under the MCV2 system: Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest&Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S4 (Apparently Secure) Page 11 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. 5.1.2 Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as observed MCV2 alliances or associations with state ranks of S1-S3 and are listed on CDFW's List of California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2021). Aquatic resources (e.g. watercourses, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, etc.) are also considered sensitive communities and may be afforded special protections under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Sensitive natural communities observed within the Study Area are listed and discussed below: Sensitive Natural Communities: Quercus garryana Forest &Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S3 (Vulnerable). Recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to sensitive natural communities are discussed in Section 6.0, Assessment Summary and Recommendations. Aquatic Resources: Watercourses and waterbodies: The Study Area contains one (1) Class III watercourse that the proposed trail will be crossing. Wetlands: The Study Area is approximately 200 feet south of one (1) Class II watercourse, a tributary to Orrs Creek. This watercourse is mapped as a Riverine Wetland System according to the USFWS National Wetland Inventory(Appendix D: Map 7,NWI mapped wetlands). The wetland is classified as a Riverine System which includes all wetland and deepwater habitats contained within a channel. Riverine Systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment and are afforded special protections under CEQA, Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances as such. Recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to aquatic resources are discussed in Section 6.0,Assessment Summary and Recommendations. 5.2 Special-status Species A total of forty-six(46) special-status wildlife species have been documented within the vicinity of the Study Area. Please refer to Appendix A for a table of all special-status wildlife species which occur within the vicinity of the Study Area and discussion of the potential for each species to occur within the Study Area. Special-status species documented within five miles of the Study Area are depicted in the CNDDB Vicinity map (Appendix D: Map 3, CNDDB Vicinity Map). Of the forty-six (46) special-status wildlife species within the vicinity of the Study Area, eleven (11) special-status wildlife species recorded have a moderate to high potential to occur within the Study Area. The remaining thirty-five (35) special-status wildlife species documented within the vicinity of the Study Area are unlikely to occur or do not have the potential to occur due to one or more of the following reasons: • Aquatic Habitats (e.g., streams, rivers, vernal pools) necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. Page 12 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. • Vegetation Habitats (e.g., forested area, riparian, grassland)that provide nesting and/or foraging resources necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Physical Structures and Vegetation (e.g., caves, old-growth trees)that provide nesting, cover, and/or foraging habitat necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Host Plants (e.g., Cirsium sp.) that provide larval and nectar resources necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Historic and Contemporary Disturbance (e.g., cattle grazing, agriculture) deter the presence of the special-status wildlife species from occupying the Study Area. • The Study Area is outside the documented nesting range of special-status wildlife species. The eleven (11) special-status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area are described in the table below. SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Amphibians red-bellied T. rivularis inhabits coastal High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This newt forests,typically in redwood within the Study Area is species was not observed (Sequoia sempervirens)forest ranked Medium(0.66)to during the biological Taricha habitat although also found in High(1.00)in suitability assessment. Please see rivularis other forest types(hardwood according to the CWHR section 6.2 for further etc.).Adults are terrestrial and Predicted Habitat Suitability recommendations. CDFW: SSC fossorial. Transformed juveniles Map.Aquatic habitat is not leave aquatic environments and present within the Study iUCN: LC go into hiding in underground Area;however,the Study shelters,often until ready to Area may be used for G2 reproduce. Breeding occurs in migration and refugia.There streams often with relatively is a known occurrence of S2 strong flows. this species approximately 600 feet south from the Study Area along Gibson Creek according to CNDDB. Page 13 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Avifauna northern A. gentilis are often found in High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This goshawk dense,mature and old growth within the Study Area is species or nests were stands of conifer and deciduous ranked Medium(0.44)and not observed during the Accipiter habitats.Younger seral stands High(1.00)in suitability biological assessment. gentilis that include larger residual or according to the CWHR Please see section 6.2 defective trees are also used. Predicted Habitat Suitability for further BLM: S Nest often on cooler(northerly Map. There are no stands of recommendations. or easterly)moderate slopes in dense,mature and old CDF: S dense vegetation or within growth conifer or deciduous riparian zones,but close to forest within the Study Area; CDFW: SSC openings.Nest sites are often however,the Study Area is located next to water,which located within conifer and IUCN: LC may provide a break in canopy deciduous forest stands. for easy access to the nest stand USFS: S or may influence microclimate or prey distribution. G5 S3 golden eagle A. chrysaetos is an uncommon High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This permanent resident in northern within the Study Area is species or nests were Aquila California.This species ranges ranked High(0.77)in not observed during the chrysaetos from sea level up to 11,500 feet suitability according to the biological assessment. inhabiting rolling foothills, CWHR Predicted Habitat Please see section 6.2 BLM: S mountain areas, sage juniper Suitability Map.The Study for further flats and desert.This species Area is located within conifer recommendations. CDF: S frequently nests in secluded and deciduous forest stands. cliffs of all heights with CDFW: FP, overhanging ledges and in large WL trees in open areas. IUCN: LC USFWS: BCC G5 S3 osprey P. haliaetus are strictly High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This associated with large,fish within the Study Area is species or nests were Pandion bearing waters,primarily in ranked High(0.66)in not observed during the haliaetus ponderosa pine and mixed suitability according to the biological assessment. conifer stands. Foraging habitat CWHR Predicted Habitat Please see section 6.2 CDF: S consists of open,clear waters, Suitability Map.There are for further rivers,lakes,reservoirs, no stands of dense,mature recommendations. CDFW: WL estuaries,lagoons, swamps, and old growth conifer or marshes, and bays.Diet consists deciduous forest within the IUCN: LC almost exclusively live fish. Study Area;however,the Large trees, snags,and blown- Study Area is located within G5 out treetops are used for cover conifer and deciduous forest and nesting.Nests are located on stands. S4 or near the tops of trees, snags, cliffs, or human-made structures. Page 14 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA northern S. occidentalis caurina are year- Moderate Potential.The Not Observed.This spotted owl round residents in dense, Study Area is approximately species or evidence of structurally complex forests, 3.7 miles southeast from the this species was not Strix primarily with old-growth closest NSO Activity Center observed during the occidentalis conifers.Nests on snags and and 4.5 miles northeast from biological assessment. caurina within tree cavities,and often is the nearest critical habitat as Please see section 6.2 associated with existing identified by the USFWS. for further FT,ST structures(old raptor nests, The Study Area is located recommendations. squirrel nests and A.pomo within suitable habitat CDF: S nests). according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability IUCN:NT Map. The Study Area does not contain large conifers for NABCI: YWL nesting but may provide suitable foraging habitat for G3G4T3 this species. S2 Insects western The habitat for this species is Moderate Potential.The Not Observed.This bumble bee described as open grassy areas, Study Area does not contain species was not urban parks and gardens, open meadows or grassland; observed during the Bombus chaparral and shrub areas,and however,grassland is biological assessment. occidentalis mountain meadows.typically present underneath the Please see section 6.2 nests underground in abandoned conifer and deciduous forest for further State: CE rodent burrows or other cavities canopy. recommendations. Food plants of Bombus USFS: S occidentalis include Ceanothus, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Xerces: IM Cirsium, Geranium, Grindellia, Lupinus,Melilotus,Monardella, G2G3 Rubus, Solidago,and Trifolium. S1 Mammals Sonoma tree A.pomo is distributed along the Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This vole North Coast from Sonoma Habitat within the Study species was not County north to the Oregon Area is not suitable in some observed during the Arborimus border,practically restricted to areas,ranking Low(0.33)to biological assessment. pomo the fog belt in humid coastal Medium(0.66)within the Please see section 6.2 forests consisting of Douglas-fir, conifer forest habitat for further CDFW: SSC grand fir,western hemlock, according to the CWHR recommendations. and/or Sitka spruce.This species Predicted Habitat Suitability IUCN:NT requires Douglas-fir and grand Map. The Study Area does fir needles as a food source and contain Douglas-fir trees and G3 nesting materials.Nests are may provide suitable habitat frequently found in trees along for this species. S3 the bole,in branch crotches,or in the top of snags.Nests are most often found along roads, skid trails,or forest edges; however,they could exist further in the forest with dense canopy. Page 15 of 61 ii JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA North E. dorsatum are commonly Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This American found in coniferous and mixed Habitat within the Study species was not porcupine forested areas, and can also Area is ranked Low(0.33)to observed during the inhabit shrublands,tundra and Medium(0.55)to High biological assessment. Erethizon deserts,albeit less frequently as (0.77)within the conifer Please see section 6.2 dorsatum this species tends to spend much forest habitat according to for further of its time in trees. This the CWHR Predicted Habitat recommendations. IUCN: LC herbivore eats leaves,twigs, and Suitability Map.The Study green plants like Skunk cabbage Area may contain suitable G5 (Symplocarpus foetidus)and habitat for this species. clovers(Trifolium spp.).This S3 species makes its dens in hollow trees,decaying logs and caves in rocky areas. Recognized as primarily solitary and nocturnal, E. dorsatum may be seen foraging during daytime. western red L. blossevillii roosts primarily in Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This bat trees,often 2-40ft above the Habitat within the Study species was not ground from sea level through Area is ranked Medium observed during the Lasiurus mixed conifer forests.Typical (0.55)within the conifer biological assessment. blossevillii habitats include cismontane forest habitat according to Please see section 6.2 woodland,lower montane the CWHR Predicted Habitat for further CDFW: SSC coniferous forest,riparian Suitability Map.The Study recommendations. forests and woodlands. This Area may contain suitable IUCN: LC species prefers habitat edges and habitat for this species. mosaics with trees that are WBWG: H protected from above and open below with open areas for G4 foraging. S3 hoary bat L. cinereus are yearlong Moderate Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This residents of Mendocino County. within the Study Area is species was not Lasiurus This bat is one of the few bats ranked Moderate(0.55) observed during the cinereus knows to both migrate south for within the conifer forest biological assessment. winter and to hibernate locally. habitat according to the Please see section 6.2 CDFW: SSC Hoary bat daytime roosts are CWHR Predicted Habitat for further typically dense foliage of Suitability Map.The Study recommendations. IUCN: LC medium to large sized trees. Area may contain suitable This bat occupies a variety of habitat for this species. WBWG: M habitats including dense forest, forest edges,coniferous forests, G3G4 deserts,and broadleaf forests. S3 Page 16 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA fisher[West P.pennanti are primarily Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This Coast DPS] solitary,except during breeding Habitat within the Study species was not season(February—April and Area is ranked Low(0.33)to observed during the Pekania they inhabit forest stands with Medium(0.66)to High biological assessment. pennanti late-successional characteristics (0.88)within the conifer Please see section 6.2 including intermediate-to-large forest habitat according to for further tree stages of coniferous forest the CWHR Predicted Habitat recommendations. ST and deciduous-riparian areas Suitability Map.The Study with high percent canopy Area may contain suitable CDFW: SSC closure.Den site and prey habitat for this species; availability are often associated however, large old growth USFS: S with these characteristics.P. trees are not present. pennanti use cavities, snags, G5 logs and rocky areas for cover and denning and require large S2S3 areas of mature,dense forest. No special status wildlife species were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment on November 18, 2021. A complete list of all wildlife species observed within the Study Area was compiled during the site visit and is listed in Appendix B. Section 6.0: Assessment Summary and Recommendations 6.1 Natural Communities The Study Area and immediate surroundings were assessed during the biological site assessment on November 18, 2021 to determine natural communities and individual wildlife species present. Natural communities observed were classified using data collected in the field and the Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition(MCV2 Alliances, CNPS 2021b). The Study Area contains one (1) non-sensitive natural community, one (1) sensitive natural community, and one (1) Class III watercourse (Appendix D: Map 5, MCV2 Alliance Classifications). Non-Sensitive Natural Communities: Non-sensitive natural communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. One (1)non- sensitive natural community was observed within the Study Area and are listed below: Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest&Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S4 (Apparently Secure). A detailed description of this natural community is discussed in section 5.1. There are no recommendations for non-sensitive communities. Sensitive Natural Communities: Sensitive natural communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as observed MCV2 alliances or associations with state rarity ranks of S1-S3 and are listed on CDFW's List of California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2021). One (1) sensitive community, as classified under the MCV2 alliance classification system, exist within the Study Area and was observed on-site. More detailed descriptions of these sensitive communities are discussed in Section 5.1.2. Page 17 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Quercus garryana Forest &Woodland Alliance (Oregon white oak forest and woodland): This community has a Global Rarity Rank of G4 (Apparently Secure) and a State Rarity Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). It is recommended that any proposed work within or in the vicinity of this community avoid the removal of Quercus garryana. This community may also provide habitat for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and it is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted for any activities that require vegetation removal between March 1 st and August 31 st of any year. Other management considerations for the preservation of this community include thinning or removal of conifer species within the stand in accordance with local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Such thinning could limit the possibility of vegetation type conversion to closed-canopy woodlands and conifer forest and inhibit the development of fuel ladders that increase the potential for stand-replacing fires. Any removal of Quercus garryana cannot be done without consultation with CDFW, and all work within this community shall adhere to CDFW recommendations. It is the understanding of Jacobszoon& Associates, Inc. that removal of trees 6"DBH and larger is not proposed for the development of the trail. Sensitive Aquatic Communities: Aquatic resources, communities, and habitats (e.g. watercourses,ponds, wetlands,vernal pools, etc.) are considered sensitive communities and are afforded special protections under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Aquatic habitats present within the Study Area could provide suitable aquatic or riparian habitats for sensitive flora and fauna. Watercourses and waterbodies: One (1) Class III watercourse was observed within the Study Area. Recommendations for aquatic resources are listed below: • It is recommended that all earthwork within or adjacent to any watercourse or other body of water adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control and, if possible, to complete all work while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. Wetlands: The Study Area is located approximately 200 feet south of a mapped riverine wetland, a Class II tributary to Orrs Creek, according to the USFWS National Wetland Inventory(NWI) (Appendix D: Map 7,NWI mapped wetlands). The wetland is classified as a riverine habitat (R4SBC). R4SBC is a riverine intermittent system with a streambed and is seasonally flooded. Riverine systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment. There are no recommendations for wetlands are necessary at this time. The proposed project will not impact this wetland. 6.2 Special-status Wildlife Species Eleven(11) special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area based on habitat features present. These species include red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis caurina),western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus porno),North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat(Lasiums blossevillii),hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti).No special status wildlife species were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. Page 18 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Amphibians One (1) special-status amphibian has a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area; red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis). Recommendations for this species are listed below: • It is recommended that the Study Area be surveyed prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine the presence of special-status amphibian species. No special-status amphibian species were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. Avifauna Four(4) special-status avian species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey(Pandion haliaetus), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Additionally, most non-game bird species in California are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)which prohibits the deliberate destruction of active nests belonging to protected species. Groundbreaking activities, specifically vegetation removal, within the Study Area during avian breeding periods have the potential to significantly impact nesting migratory bird species. Recommendations for special-status avian species and migratory bird species are listed below: • It is recommended that all active bird nests not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. • It is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to the commencement of any groundbreaking activities which occur between March 1 st and August 31 st of any year. No avian special-status species were observed within the Study Area during the biological assessment. Fish The Study Area does not contain any special-status fish species or fish bearing watercourses or waterbodies. The nearest fish-bearing watercourse is a Class I watercourse, Orrs Creek, located approximately 2,250 feet northeast of the Study Area. It is recommended that all earthwork within or adjacent to any watercourse or waterbody adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control. Future development within the Study Area does not have the potential to impact special-status fish species. No special-status fish were observed during the biological site assessment. Insects One (1) special-status insect species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area; western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). Recommendations for special-status insect species are listed below: Page 19 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. • If a special-status insect nests are observed, it is recommended that active nests not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. No special-status insects or nests were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. Mammals Five (5) special-status mammal species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include the Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus porno),North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat(Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat(Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti). Recommendations for special-status mammal species are listed below: • If evidence of bat roosts are observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, it is recommended that pre-construction bat surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat. • If evidence of special-status mammal borrows or denning activity is observed, it is recommended that pre-construction surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect den sites. No special-status mammals were observed during the biological site assessment. No evidence of special-status mammal species was observed during the biological site visit. 6.3 Wildlife Corridors No change to foraging or wintering habitat for migratory birds is expected as a result of the proposed trail. Additionally, no significant impacts to migratory corridors for amphibian, aquatic, avian, mammalian, or reptilian species is expected as a result of the proposed project. 6.4 Critical Habitat The Study Area does not contain and is not adjacent to critical habitat for any Federal or State- listed species (Appendix E: USFWS IPAC Official Species List). Page 20 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Section 7.0: References Baicich, P. J., Harrison, J. 0. 2005. Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds (2nd Edition). Princeton University Press. Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr(eds.). 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California(3rd Edition). University of California Press. Barbour, M. G. and J. Major. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 1998. The California Native Plant Society. Behler, J. L. and F. W. King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York,NY. Best, T. L., Kiser, W. M., Freeman, P. W. 1996.Eumops perotis. American Society of Mammalogists. Mammalian Species 534:1-8. Bjornn, T. C., Reiser, D. 1991.Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19. Bourque, R. 2018. Lecture: Spatial Ecology: Movement. Presented at Foothill Yellow-legged Frog: Ecology, Management, and Regulation Workshop. Presented by The Wildlife Society. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2014. CWHR version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Quick Viewer(online edition, v5.96.99). Sacramento, CA. Accessed on November 3, 2021 from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and- Data#43018410-cnddb-quickview-tool California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) BIOS Commercial/Spotted Owl Viewer(online edition, v5.96.99). Sacramento, CA. Accessed on November 3, 2021 from: hgps://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018408-cnddb-in-bios California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)BIOS Commercial/Spotted Owl Viewer(online edition, v5.96.9) California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 2016. Accessed on November 3, 2021 from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018408-cnddb-in-bios California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Streams v3. Last updated on November 20, 2020. Accessed on November 3, 2021 from hqps://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/califomia-streams Page 21 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Updated August 18, 2021. Accessed on November 3, 2021. https://nrtn.dfg ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. September 2003.List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021b.A Manual of California Vegetation (online edition). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed November 3, 2021 from: htlp://vegetation.cgps.org/. Call, M. W. 1978.Nesting Habits and Survey Techniques for Common Western Raptors. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Technical Note.No. 316. 115pp. Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 399pp. Fellers, G. M., Pierson, E. D. 2002.Habitat Use and Foraging Behavior of Townsend's Big- Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in Coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy. 83, Issue 1: 167-177. Available online at: hgps://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/83/1/167/23 72774#3 8014831 Goulsen, D. 2003. Bumblebees: their behavior and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. 2 Vols. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 777 pp. Heinrich, B. 2004. Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 245 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 156 pp. Kupferberg, S. 2018. Lecture: Natural and Unnatural History. Presented at Foothill Yellow- legged Frog: Ecology, Management, and Regulation Workshop. Presented by The Wildlife Society. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Mayer, K. E. and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1988.A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Sacramento, CA. Page 22 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Miller, D. J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California, Fish Bulletin No. 157. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Moyle, P. B., J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wirkamanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. Final report submitted to California Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. 222 pp. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Proposed endangered status for five ESUs of Steelhead and proposed threatened status for five ESUs of steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Federal Register 61(155):41541-61. Pierson, E. D., Rainey, W. E. 1998. Western mastiff bat, Eumops perotis. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California,Bolster, B. C., Ed., 1998. Peterson, R. T. 1990.A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. Remsen, J. V. 1978.Bird species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildlife Management Administrative Report. No. 78(1) 54 pp. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 2021.A Manual of California Vegetation. Online Edition. California Native Plant Society. Accessed on November 15, 2021 from https://vegetation.cnps.org_/ Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe and J.M. Evans. 2009, Second Addition.A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 2008.A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 1995.A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 471 pp. Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York,NY. Squires, J. R., Reynolds, R. T. 1997. Northern Goshawk(Acipiter gentilis), version 2.0. The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca,NY, USA. Accessed on November 15, 2021 from: https:Hdoi.org/l0.2173/bna.298 Stebbins, Robert C, and McGinnis, Samuel M.Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition. (California Natural History Guides). University of California Press. 2012. Page 23 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Thomson, C. R, Wright, A. N., and Shaffer, H. B. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. University of California Press. Oakland, CA. 390 pp. Udvardy, M. D. F. 1994. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North America Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York,NY. 822pp. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2021. Soil compositions for specific locations in the United States. Accessed on November 16, 2021 from: hqps://websoilsurvey.se.egov.usda.gov USDA. Ca1Veg Existing Vegetation: North Coast Mid. Last updated January 18, 2018. Accessed on November 15, 2021. US Climate Data. 2021. Version 3.0. https://www.usclimatedata.com/Accessed November 15, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Twelve month finding for a Petition to List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher(Martes pennanti); proposed rule. Federal Register 69(68): 18769-18792. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Guidelines for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that may Impact Northern Spotted Owls. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC System). Accessed on November 5, 2021 from https://ecos.fvvs.gov/ipac/ U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper. Last updated: October 1, 2020. Accessed on November 16, 2021 from hqps://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mqpper.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Ukiah quadrangle. 7.5 minute topographic map. Waian, L. B., Stendell, R. C. 1970. The white-tailed kite in California with observations of the Santa Barbara population. California Fish and Game 56: 188-198. Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2021. Species Accounts. Accessed on November 5, 2021 from: htlp://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2021. Species Accounts. Accessed on November 5, 2021 from: https://xerceLgrg_/ Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., and K. E. Mayer. 1988. California's Wildlife Volume I— Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California Department of Fish and Game. 272pp. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990a. California's Wildlife Volume II—Birds. State of California Department of Fish and Game. 732pp. Page 24 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990b. California's Wildlife Volume III—Mammals. State of California Department of Fish and Game. 407pp Report Author: Alicia Ives Ringstad Alicia Ives Ringstad received a B.S. in Wildlife Management and Conservation from Humboldt State University in 2007, with studies including plant taxonomy. She is a Consulting Senior Wildlife Biologist with over 15 years professional wildlife biology, forestry,botany and environmental planning experience. Ms. Ives Ringstad provides Botanical surveys and Biological Assessments for large and small projects requiring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), these projects include timber harvesting, land conversion, minor and major subdivisions, and development plans/permits. Ms. Ives Ringstad's experience includes conducting wetland delineations that met the requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report (Y-87-1) Page 25 of 61 Appendix A: Table of Potential for Special-Status Wildlife within the Study Area Page 26 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Amphibians California giant CDFW: California giant salamanders are year-round No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no salamander SSC residents of California and were split into two Area is outside the known recommendations for this species—California giant salamander distribution range for this species. Dicamptodon ensatus IUCN:NT (Dicamptodon ensatus)occurring south of the species according to the Mendocino County line and the coastal giant CWHR Predicted Habitat G3 salamander(Dicamptodon tenebrosus) Suitability Map. occurring in the north.D. ensatus are found in S2S3 meadows and seeps,north coast coniferous forest and riparian forested habitats.D. ensatus occur in wet coastal forests in or near clear, cold permanent and semi-permanent streams and seepages.Adults leave terrestrial habitats to reproduce and both the reproduction and larval stages are aquatic with breeding occurring mostly in the spring. northern red-legged CDFW: R. aurora are often observed within humid No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no frog SSC forests,woodlands,wetlands,grasslands and Area is outside the known recommendations for this stream-sides in northwestern California, distribution range for this species. Rana aurora IUCN: LC usually near dense riparian cover.This species species according to the is generally found near permanent water but CWHR Predicted Habitat USFS: S can be found far from water in damp woods Suitability Map. and meadows during the non-breeding season. G4 Typical habitat types include Klamath/North coast flowing waters,riparian forest and S3 woodland. Page 27 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA foothill yellow-legged *SE/ST The foothill yellow-legged frog is found in or Low Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This frog near rocky streams in a variety of habitats, within the Study Area is species was not observed CDFW: including valley-foothill hardwood,valley- ranked Low(0.33)in during the biological Rana boylii SSC foothill hardwood-conifer,valley-foothill suitability according to the assessment. Please see riparian,ponderosa pine,mixed conifer, CWHR Predicted Habitat section 6.2 for further BLM: S coastal scrub,mixed chaparral,and wet Suitability Map. The Study recommendations. meadow types. Area itself does not contain IUCN:NT streams that would provide * CESA listing status varies by clade as suitable habitat for this USFS: S follows: Southwest/South Coast,West/Central species;however,potential Coast,and East/Southern Sierra clades are suitable winter refugia G3 endangered;northeast/Northern Sierra and habitat may be in a Class II Feather River clades are threatened;listing of tributary to Orrs Creek S3 the Northwest/North Coast clade is not located approximately 200 warranted. feet north of the Study Area. California red-legged FT California red-legged frogs(CRLF)primarily No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no frog inhabit permanent or nearly permanent water Area is outside the known recommendations for this CDFW: sources(quiet streams,marshes,and ponds) distribution range for this species. Rana draytonii SSC containing shorelines with extensive species according to the vegetation.Breeding tends to occur primarily CWHR Predicted Habitat IUCN:VU in ponds,less likely in streams,and happens Suitability Map. from November to April.This ranid frog will G2G3 also use upland habitats outside of the breeding season and may be discovered under S2S3 logs,rocks,and other debris during wet conditions. Page 28 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA red-bellied newt CDFW: T. rivularis inhabits coastal forests,typically in High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This SSC redwood(Sequoia sempervirens)forest habitat within the Study Area is species was not observed Taricha rivularis although also found in other forest types ranked Medium(0.66)to during the biological IUCN: LC (hardwood etc.).Adults are terrestrial and High(1.00)in suitability assessment. Please see fossorial. Transformed juveniles leave aquatic according to the CWHR section 6.2 for further environments and go into hiding in Predicted Habitat Suitability recommendations. G2 underground shelters,often until ready to Map. Aquatic habitat is not reproduce. Breeding occurs in streams often present within the Study S2 with relatively strong flows. Area;however,the Study Area may be used for migration and refugia. There is a known occurrence of this species approximately 600 feet south from the Study Area along Gibson Creek according to CNDDB. Avifauna northern goshawk BLM: S A. gentilis are often found in dense,mature High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This and old growth stands of conifer and within the Study Area is species or nests were not Accipiter gentilis CDF: S deciduous habitats.Younger seral stands that ranked Medium(0.44)and observed during the include larger residual or defective trees are High(1.00)in suitability biological assessment. CDFW: also used.Nest often on cooler(northerly or according to the CWHR Please see section 6.2 for SSC easterly)moderate slopes in dense vegetation Predicted Habitat Suitability further recommendations. or within riparian zones,but close to openings. Map. There are no stands of IUCN: LC Nest sites are often located next to water, dense,mature and old which may provide a break in canopy for easy growth conifer or deciduous USFS: S access to the nest stand or may influence forest within the Study microclimate or prey distribution. Area;however,the Study G5 Area is located within conifer and deciduous forest S3 stands. Page 29 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA tricolored blackbird ST A. tricolor breed and forage in a variety of No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no habitats including salt marshes,moist Area is outside the known recommendations for this Agelaius tricolor BLM: S grasslands,freshwater marshes,bay-shore distribution range for this species. habitats,riparian forests and oak savannahs.A. species according to the CDFW: tricolor use dense riparian vegetation such as CWHR Predicted Habitat SSC Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus)for Suitability Map. Riparian nesting and forage in cultivated fields, forests with dense IUCN: EN wetlands,and feedlots associated with dairy vegetation are not present farms. within the Study Area. NABCL RWL USFWS: BCC G1G2 S1S2 grasshopper sparrow CDFW: A. savannarum are an uncommon and local, No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no SSC summer resident in foothills and lowlands west Area does not have suitable recommendations for this Ammodramus of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada crest from habitat present according to species. savannarum IUCN: LC Mendocino and Trinity Counties south to San the CWHR Predicted Diego County. A. savannarum nests on the Habitat Suitability Map. G5 ground in grasslands,prairie,cultivated fields, Small patches of suitable and grassy clearings in forests;particularly in habitat are present within S3 areas with a variety of grasses and tall forbs the surrounding area. and scattered shrubs for singing perches.Nests are typically found at the base of a small clump of overhanging grass or other vegetation,perhaps in close proximity to other breeding grasshopper sparrows,and this species may double or triple clutch. Page 30 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA golden eagle BLM: S Golden eagles live in open and semi-open High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This country featuring native vegetation across within the Study Area is species or nests were not Aquila chrysaetos CDF: S most of the Northern Hemisphere. They avoid ranked High(0.77)in observed during the developed areas and uninterrupted stretches of suitability according to the biological assessment. CDFW: FP, forest. They are found primarily in mountains CWHR Predicted Habitat Please see section 6.2 for WL up to 12,000 feet,canyonlands,rimrock Suitability Map. The Study further recommendations. terrain,and riverside cliffs and bluffs. Golden Area is located within IUCN: LC eagles nest on cliffs and steep escarpments in conifer and deciduous forest grassland,chapparal, shrubland,forest,and stands. USFWS: other vegetated areas. BCC G5 S3 great egret CDF: S Great egrets live in freshwater,brackish,and No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no marine wetlands.During the breeding season Area is outside the known recommendations for this Ardea alba IUCN: LC they live in colonies in trees or shrubs with distribution range for this species. other waterbirds.The colonies are located on species according to the G5 lakes,ponds,marshes,estuaries, CWHR Predicted Habitat impoundments,and islands. Great egrets use Suitability Map. S4 similar habitats for migration stopover sites and wintering grounds. They hunt in marshes, swamps, streams,rivers,ponds,lakes, impoundments,lagoons,tidal flats,canals, ditches,fish-rearing ponds,flooded farm fields,and sometimes upland habitats. Page 31 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA great blue heron CDF: S Great blue herons live in both freshwater and Low Potential. Habitat Not Present.This species saltwater habitats, and also forage in within the Study Area is was not observed during Ardea herodias IUCN: LC grasslands and agricultural fields,where they ranked Low(0.22)to the biological assessment. stalk frogs and mammals.Most breeding Medium(0.44)in suitability Please see section 6.2 for G5 colonies are located within 2 to 4 miles of according to the CWHR further recommendations. feeding areas,often in isolated swamps or on Predicted Habitat Suitability S4 islands, and near lakes and ponds bordered by Map. The Study Area itself forests. contains no nesting or foraging habitat suited for this species,as the Study Area is located within conifer and deciduous forest stands. western snowy plover FT The Pacific coast population of the snowy No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no plover is defined as those individuals that nest Area is outside the known recommendations for this Charadrius CDFW: adjacent to tidal waters of the Pacific Ocean, distribution range for this species. alexandrinus nivosus SSC and includes all nesting birds on the mainland species according to the coast,peninsulas,offshore islands,adjacent CWHR Predicted Habitat NABCI: bays, estuaries,and coastal rivers.The current Suitability Map. RWL known breeding range of this population extends from Damon Point,Washington,to USFWS: Bahia Magdelena,Baja California,Mexico. BCC The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover breeds primarily on coastal G3T3 beaches from southern Washington to southern Baja California,Mexico.The population S2 breeds above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, sparsely vegetated dunes,beaches at creek and river mouths,and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. Less common nesting habitat includes bluff-backed beaches,dredged material disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds,and river bars. Suitable nesting habitat is distributed throughout the listed range but may be widely separated by areas of rocky shoreline. Page 32 of 61 ii JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA northern harrier CDFW: C. hudsonius are year-long residents of No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no SSC Mendocino and Lake County. They frequent Area does not have suitable recommendations for this Circus hudsonius meadows,alpine meadows,grasslands,open habitat present according to species. IUCN: LC rangelands, desert sinks, fresh and saltwater the CWHR Predicted emergent wetlands and are seldom found in Habitat Suitability Map. G5 wooded areas. This species usually hunts by Small patches of suitable flying low over fields, scanning the ground for habitat are present within S3 small prey. Breeding occurs on meadows and the surrounding area. marshland,both salt and freshwater. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation,usually at marsh edge;nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. western yellow-billed FT Western yellow-billed cuckoos breed in large No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no cuckoo blocks of riparian habitats(particularly Area is outside the known recommendations for this SE woodlands with cottonwoods and willows). distribution range for this species. Coccyzus americanus Dense understory foliage appears to be an species according to the occidentalis BLM: S important factor in nest site selection. This CWHR Predicted Habitat species makes their nests along horizontal Suitability Map. NABCI: branches or the fork of a tree or large shrub, RWL often between 3 to 90 feet(1 to 28 meters). Trees are often oak(Quercus sp.),beech, USFS: S hawthorn(Crataegus sp.)and ash,often with lower story of blackberry,nettles,or wild USFWS: grapes. This species can be found from BCC Southern Humboldt to Southern Mendocino County.Patches of Chico,Yuba City. Santa G5T2T3 Rosa,and Elk Grove. S1 white-tailed kite BLM: S Often found in coastal,valley lowlands and No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no agricultural areas,E. leucurus inhabit Area does not have suitable recommendations for this Elanus leucurus CDFW: FP undisturbed,open grasslands,meadows, habitat present according to species. farmlands,and emergent wetlands.Nests are the CWHR Predicted IUCN: LC often found in isolated,dense-topped trees. Habitat Suitability Map. Small patches of suitable G5 habitat are present within the surrounding area. S3S4 Page 33 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA yellow-breasted chat CDFW: I. virens inhabit riparian thickets of willow and No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no SSC other brushy tangles near watercourses. Area is outside the known recommendations for this Icteria vireos Required habitat for this species is riparian distribution range for this species. IUCN: LC forest,woodland,or scrub.Nests in low,dense species according to the riparian habitat often consisting of willow, CWHR Predicted Habitat G5 blackberry,and wild grape within 1 OR.of the Suitability Map. ground. S3 Lewis' woodpecker IUCN: LC M. lewis often inhabit oak savannahs,broken No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no deciduous,and coniferous habitats.Nests are Area is outside the known recommendations for this Melanerpes lewis NABCI: made at the forest edge(especially ponderosa distribution range for this species. YWL pine)or in groves or scattered trees and species according to the requires snags for nest cavities.M. lewis' CWHR Predicted Habitat USFWS: primary diet consists of insects,nuts,and Suitability Map. BCC fruits. G4 S4 osprey CDF: S P. haliaetus are strictly associated with large, High Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This fish-bearing waters,primarily in ponderosa within the Study Area is species or nests were not Pandion haliaetus CDFW: pine and mixed conifer stands. Foraging ranked High(0.66)in observed during the WL habitat consists of open,clear waters,rivers, suitability according to the biological assessment. lakes,reservoirs, estuaries,lagoons,swamps, CWHR Predicted Habitat Please see section 6.2 for IUCN: LC marshes,and bays.Large trees, snags, and Suitability Map. There are further recommendations. blown-out treetops are used for cover and no stands of dense,mature G5 nesting.Nests are located on or near the tops and old growth conifer or of trees,snags,cliffs,or human-made deciduous forest within the S4 structures. Study Area;however,the Study Area is located within conifer and deciduous forest stands. Page 34 of 61 ill JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA yellow warbler CDFW: S.petechia often inhabits riparian deciduous Low Potential. Habitat Not Observed.This SSC habitats in summer:willows,alders, within the Study Area is species was not observed Setophaga petechia cottonwoods,and other small trees and shrubs ranked Low(0.22)in during the biological USFWS: typical of low,open canopy riparian suitability according to the assessment. Please see BCC woodland. This species will also breed in CWHR Predicted Habitat section 6.2 for further montane shrubbery in open conifer forest.S. Suitability Map;however, recommendations. G5T2T3 petechia migrates through woodland,forest the Study Area does contain and shrub habitats.Nests above ground in a montane shrubs in open to S2 deciduous dappling or shrub. closed conifer and deciduous forest that may be potential habitat for this species. northern spotted owl FT S. occidentalis caurina are year-round Moderate Potential.The Not Observed.This residents in dense, structurally complex Study Area is approximately species or evidence of this Strix occidentalis ST forests,primarily with old-growth conifers. 3.7 miles southeast from the species was not observed caurina Nests on snags and within tree cavities,and closest NSO Activity Center during the biological CDF: S often is associated with existing structures(old and 4.5 miles northeast from assessment.Please see raptor nests, squirrel nests and A.pomo nests). the nearest critical habitat as section 6.2 for further IUCN:NT identified by the USFWS. recommendations. The Study Area is located NABCI: within suitable habitat YWL according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability G3G4T3 Map. The Study Area does not contain large conifers S2 for nesting but may provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Page 35 of 61 ii JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Fish Clear Lake prickly CDFW: The C. asper ssp. is adaptable to environments No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no sculpin SSC ranging from fresh to saltwater,and from Area is outside of the Clear recommendations for this small cool stream to large warm rivers and Lake watershed and the species. Cottus asper ssp. G5T1 lakes. C. asper ssp. has a variety of forms as current known distribution some are coastal, others live in the valley,and for this species according to SNR some are limited to Clear Lake proper.The the FSSC Range Map. coastal forms rarely live in a stream without an estuary and rarely go farther than 50 km upstream though they have been found present over 120 km upstream.In the Central Valley of California these fish inhabit low elevation waters. The limitation to the spread of these fish. In streams these fish use a variety of habitats though good cover or overhanging vegetation is a common thread.Most spawning occurs between February and June.In lakes, juveniles forage around the lake shores and then gradually move into deeper water as they grow. Pacific lamprey AFS:VU E. tridentatus are anadromous,but also with a No Potential. The Study Not Present.There are no number of permanent freshwater resident Area does not contain fish recommendations for this Entosphenus BLM: S populations. This species is parasitic as adults, bearing water bodies species. tridentatus feeding on blood and body fluids of its prey. suitable for this species and CDFW: To breed,E. tridentatus migrate into fresh does provide suitable habitat SSC water and dig nests.Adults die post-breeding. for this species. Larvae/juveniles live 5-6 years in freshwater USFS: S before returning to the ocean. G4 S4 Page 36 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA northern coastal roach CDFW: Roach are found in a wide variety of habitats No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no SSC in the Russian River,including the main river Area does not contain fish recommendations for this Hesperoleucus where there is cover(e.g.,fallen trees)to bearing water bodies species. venustus navarroensis GNRTNR protect them from predators.They are most suitable for this species and abundant,in tributaries with clear well does provide suitable habitat SNR oxygenated,water,dominant substrates of for this species. cobble and boulder,and shallow depths (average 10-50 cm)with pools up to 1 m deep. In the Russian River mainstem,roach are most common around the mouths of tributaries Clear Lake tule perch CDFW: H traskii lagunae are endemic to three(3) No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no SSC highly altered lakes(Clear Laek,Lower Blue Area is outside of the Clear recommendations for this Hysterocarpus traskii Lake,and Upper Blue Lake);however,it is Lake watershed and the species. lagunae G5T2T3 expected that they are only commonly found in current known distribution Upper Blue Lake as the other lakes have for this species according to S2S3 already lost a majority of their native fishes. the FSSC Range Map. Clear Lake and Lower Blue Lake are typically warm(summer temperatures 25-28°C)and shallow,with primarily sandy or soft bottom substrates.Upper Blue Lake is similar but is also clearer and colder.Tule perch are very tolerant of environmental variables;however, low water quality limits their distribution in their historic ranges.A key habitat requirement of H. traskii lagunae is cover,especially for pregnant females and small juveniles.This species is typically found in small shoals in deep(3+m)tule beds,among rocks (especially along steep rocky shores),or among the branches of fallen trees. Russian River tule AFS:VU H. traskii porno inhabits clear, flowing streams No Potential. The Study Not Present.There are no perch and rivers,and occupy deep pools that have Area does not contain fish recommendations for this CDFW: complex cover in the form of aquatic and bearing water bodies species. Hysterocarpus traskii SSC overhanging vegetation.This species is suitable for this species and pomo endemic to the Russian River and the lower does provide suitable habitat G5T4 parts of its tributaries.Mating occurs in July- for this species. Sept.In May-June the female bears 10-60 live S4 fish. Page 37 of 61 ii JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA coho salmon—southern FT O. kisutch are anadromous,migrating and No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no Oregon/northern spawning in streams that flow directly into the Area is outside the known recommendations for this California ESU ST ocean or tributaries of larger rivers. Migration distribution range for this species. peaks around mid-May till mid-June. Coho lay species according to the Oncorhynchus kisutch AFS: TH egg masses(redds),often located between a CWHR Predicted Habitat pop. 2 pool and a riffle.This ESU,includes naturally Suitability Map and the G5T2Q spawned coho salmon originating from coastal FSSC Range Map. streams and rivers between Cape Blanco, S2 Oregon, and Punta Gorda,California. coho salmon—central FE Coho are anadromous,migrating and No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no California coast ESU spawning in streams that flow directly into the Area does not contain fish recommendations for this SE ocean or tributaries of larger rivers. Migration bearing water bodies species. Oncorhynchus kisutch peaks mid-May till mid-June. The fish will suitable for this species and pop. 4 AFS: EN spend two to three years at sea before does provide suitable habitat migrating back to their natal stream to spawn. for this species.According G5T2T3Q Coho lay egg masses(redds),often located to the CWHR Predicted between a pool and a riffle.This ESU, Habitat Suitability Map, S2 includes naturally spawned coho salmon Gibson Creek originating from rivers south of Punta Gorda, (approximately 1,000 feet Ca.to and including Aptos Creek,as well as south)does have Intrinsic such coho salmon originating from tributaries Potential to contain this to San Francisco Bay. species. steelhead—northern FT O. mykiss irideus are anadromous coastal No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no California DPS rainbow trout.As adults,this species requires Area is outside the known recommendations for this AFS: TH high flows,with depths of at least 18cm for distribution range for this species. Oncorhynchus mykiss passage. Clean well-aerated gravel beds, species according to the irideus pop. 16 G5T2T3Q typically in steep,rocky reaches of upper CWHR Predicted Habitat tributaries are needed for spawning.This DPS Suitability Map and the S2S3 includes naturally spawned anadromous O. FSSC Range Map. mykiss originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers in California coastal river basins from Redwood Creek to and including the Gualala River. Page 38 of 61 ii JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA steelhead-central FT O. mykiss irideus are anadromous coastal No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no California coast DPS rainbow trout.As adults,this species requires Area does not contain fish recommendations for this AFS: TH high flows,with depths of at least 18cm for bearing water bodies species. Oncorhynchus mykiss passage. Clean well-aerated gravel beds, suitable for this species and irideus pop. 8 G5T2T3Q typically in steep,rocky reaches of upper does provide suitable habitat tributaries are needed for spawning.This DPS for this species.According S2S3 includes naturally spawned anadromous O. to the CWHR Predicted mykiss originating below natural and manmade Habitat Suitability Map, impassable barriers from the Sacramento and Gibson Creek San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries; (approximately 1,000 feet excludes such fish originating from San south)does have Intrinsic Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their Potential to contain this tributaries. species. chinook salmon— FT The California coastal ESU includes all No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no California coastal ESU naturally spawned populations of Chinook Area is outside the known recommendations for this AFS: TH salmon from the Klamath River(exclusive)to distribution range for this species. Oncorhynchus the Russian River(inclusive).Adult numbers species according to the tshawytscha pop. 17 G5T2Q depend on pool depth and volume,amount of CWHR Predicted Habitat cover,and proximity to gravel.Water Suitability Map and the S2 temperatures greater than 27°C are lethal. FSSC Range Map. Insects obscure bumble bee IUCN:VU Bombus caliginosus inhabits open grassy Low Potential.The Study Not Observed.This coastal prairies and Coast Range meadows. Area does not contain open species was not observed Bombus caliginosus G4? Nesting occurs underground as well as above meadows or coastal prairie during the biological ground in abandoned bird nests.Males patrol and does not provide assessment. Please see S 1 S2 circuits in search of mates. This species is suitable habitat for this section 6.2 for further classified as a medium long-tongued species, species. recommendations. whose food plants include Ceanothus, Cirsium, Clarkia, Keckiella,Lathyrus,Lotus, Lupinus, Rhododendron,Rubus, Trfolium,and Vaccinium. Page 39 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA western bumble bee SCE The habitat for this species is described as Moderate Potential.The Not Observed.This open grassy areas,urban parks and gardens, Study Area does not contain species was not observed Bombus occidentalis USFS: S chaparral and shrub areas,and mountain open meadows or grassland; during the biological meadows.typically nests underground in however,grassland is assessment. Please see Xerces: IM abandoned rodent burrows or other cavities present underneath the section 6.2 for further Food plants of Bombus occidentalis include conifer and deciduous forest recommendations. G2G3 Ceanothus, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, canopy. Cirsium, Geranium, Grindellia,Lupinus, Sl Melilotus, Monardella, Rubus, Solidago,and Trifolium. monarch—California USFS: S D.plexippus are a migratory species,making Low Potential.The Study Not Observed.This overwintering pop. massive migrations from August-October to Area does not contain open species was not observed G4T2T3 hibernate along the California coast and meadows or grasslands and during the biological Danaus plexippus pop. central Mexico.D.plexippus feed on flower does not provide suitable assessment. Please see 1 S2S3 nectar from all milkweeds,dogbane,lilac,red habitat for this species. section 6.2 for further clover, lantana,thistles,goldenrods,blazing recommendations. stars,ironweed and tickseed sunflower.This species can be found in many habitats including fields,meadows,weedy areas, marshes and roadsides. Mollusks western ridged mussel G3 G. angulata inhabits cold creeks and streams No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no from low-to-mid elevations that are seasonally Area does not contain fish recommendations for this Gonidea angulata S 1 S2 and not continuously turbid. G. angulata bearing water bodies species. requires a host species to reproduce and suitable for this species and disperse and can be found in diverse substrates does provide suitable habitat from firm mud to coarse particles. for this species. Gibson Documented fish hosts for this species include Creek(approximately 1,000 hardhead(Mylopharodon conocephalus),pit feet south)may provide sculpin(Cottus pitensis), and Tule perch suitable habitat to contain (Hysterocarpus traski). this species. Page 40 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Mammals pallid bat BLM: S A.pallidus are found in deserts,grasslands, Low Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This shrublands,woodlands,and forests.Most within the Study Area ranks species was not observed Antrozous pallidus CDFW: common in open,forages along river channels. Low(0.11)in suitability during the biological SSC Roosting sites include crevices in rocky according to the CWHR assessment.Please see outcrops and cliffs,caves,mines,basal Predicted Habitat Suitability section 6.2 for further IUCN: LC hollows in large conifers and various human Map. Suitable foraging recommendations. structures such as bridges,barns,and buildings habitat is not present USFS: S (including occupied buildings).Roosts must throughout the Study Area; protect bats from high temperatures. Very and roosting habitat is WBWG: H sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. limited. G4 S4 Sonoma tree vole CDFW: A.pomo lives in humid coastal forests Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This SSC consisting of Douglas-fir,grand fir,western Habitat within the Study species was not observed Arborimus porno hemlock,and/or Sitka spruce.This species Area is not suitable in some during the biological IUCN:NT requires Douglas-fir and grand fir needles as a areas,ranking Low(0.33) assessment. Please see food source and nesting materials.Nests are to Medium(0.66)within section 6.2 for further G3 frequently found in trees along the bole,in the conifer forest habitat recommendations. branch crotches,or in the top of snags.Nests according to the CWHR S3 are most often found along roads, skid trails, Predicted Habitat or forest edges;however,they could exist Suitability Map. The Study further in the forest with dense canopies Area does contain Douglas- making nest identification difficult. This fir trees and may provide species is distributed along the North Coast suitable habitat for this from Sonoma County north to the Oregon species. border,being practically restricted to the fog belt. :` Page 41 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Townsend's big-eared BLM: S C. townsendii is associated with a wide variety Low Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This bat of habitats from deserts to mid-elevation within the Study Area ranks species was not observed CDFW: mixed coniferous-deciduous forest,basal Low(0.11)in suitability during the biological Corynorhinus SSC hollows in large conifers.Females form according to the CWHR assessment. Please see townsendii maternity colonies in buildings,caves and Predicted Habitat Suitability section 6.2 for further IUCN: LC mines and males roost singly or in small Map. Suitable foraging recommendations. groups.Foraging occurs in open forest habitats habitat is not present USFS: S where they glean moths from vegetation. throughout the Study Area; and roosting habitat is WBWG: H limited. G4 S2 North American IUCN: LC E. dorsatum are commonly found in Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This porcupine coniferous and mixed forested areas,and can Habitat within the Study species was not observed G5 also inhabit shrublands,tundra and deserts, Area is ranked Low(0.33) during the biological Erethizon dorsatum albeit less frequently as this species tends to to Medium(0.55)to High assessment. Please see S3 spend much of its time in trees.This herbivore (0.77)within the conifer section 6.2 for further eats leaves,twigs, and green plants like Skunk forest habitat according to recommendations. cabbage(Symplocarpus foetidus)and clovers the CWHR Predicted (Trifolium spp.).This species makes its dens in Habitat Suitability Map. hollow trees, decaying logs and caves in rocky The Study Area may areas. Recognized as primarily solitary and contain suitable habitat for nocturnal,E. dorsatum may be seen foraging this species. during daytime. Page 42 of 61 i:i JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA western mastiff bat BLM: S E.perotis californicus occurs in a wide variety No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no of habitats, including chaparral,coastal and Area is outside the known recommendations for this Eumops perotis CDFW: desert scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest distribution range for this species. californicus SSC and woodland. Roosting sites occur in rocky species according to the outcrops,crevices and cliffs with 50-100% CWHR Predicted Habitat WBWG: H rocky slopes.Day roosts are established in Suitability Map. crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs,trees, G4G5T4 tunnels and buildings with a minimum 2-meter (6.5 foot)drop-off to provide a takeoff or S3S4 launching area.The animals are strong,fast fliers,with a likely extensive foraging range, up to 15 miles from the nearest possible roosting site. Foraging occurs in broad,open areas,woodlands and forest,scrub,chaparral, grassland,riparian and agricultural areas and there is no evidence of this species being habitatspecialists. western red bat CDFW: L. blossevillii roosts primarily in trees,often 2- Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This SSC 40ft above the ground from sea level through Habitat within the Study species was not observed Lasiurus blossevillii mixed conifer forests.Typical habitats include Area is ranked Medium during the biological IUCN: LC cismontane woodland,lower montane (0.55)within the conifer assessment.Please see coniferous forest,riparian forests and forest habitat according to section 6.2 for further WBWG: H woodlands. This species prefers habitat edges the CWHR Predicted recommendations. and mosaics with trees that are protected from Habitat Suitability Map. G4 above and open below with open areas for The Study Area may foraging. contain suitable habitat for S3 this species. hoary bat IUCN: LC L. cinereus are yearlong residents of Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This Mendocino County. This bat is one of the few Habitat within the Study species was not observed Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M bats knows to both migrate south for winter Area is ranked Moderate during the biological and to hibernate locally.Hoary bat daytime (0.55)within the conifer assessment. Please see G3G4 roosts are typically dense foliage of medium to forest habitat according to section 6.2 for further large sized trees. This bat occupies a variety the CWHR Predicted recommendations. S3 of habitats including dense forest,forest edges, Habitat Suitability Map. coniferous forests,deserts,and broadleaf The Study Area may forests. contain suitable habitat for this species. Page 43 of 61 i� `�l JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA little brown bat IUCN: EN M. lucifugus is found in most of the United Low Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This States and Canada, except for the south central within the Study Area is species was not observed Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M and southeastern United States and northern ranked Low(0.33)within during the biological Alaska and Canada.M. lucifugus typically the conifer forest habitat assessment. Please see (San Bernardino G3 lives and feeds in forested areas near or over according to the CWHR section 6.2 for further Mountains population) water. The little brown bat lives in three Predicted Habitat Suitability recommendations. S2S3 different roosting sites throughout the year: Map. Suitable foraging day roosts,night roosts,and hibernation roosts. habitat is not present Stable,ambient temperatures greatly influence throughout the Study Area; site selection. Human-made structures are and roosting habitat is often selected,however both day and night limited. roosts may be found in trees,under rocks,and in piles of wood. Day roosts provide excellent shelter, limited to no light,and typically have southwestern exposure.Night roosts are larger areas these bats can use when outside temperatures necessitate communal congregation for warmth.Hibemaculum habitats tend to include mines and caves and are typically warmer and more humid. Yuma myotis BLM: S M.yumanensis commonly inhabits open Low Potential.Habitat Not Observed.This forests and woodlands from British Columbia within the Study Area is species was not observed Myotis yumanensis IUCN: LC across the western U.S. and south into Baja ranked Low(0.22)within during the biological and southern Mexico. This species will use a the conifer forest habitat assessment.Please see WBWG: variety of lowland habitats from scrub to according to the CWHR section 6.2 for further LM coniferous forest,always near slow-moving or Predicted Habitat Suitability recommendations. standing water habitats.Foraging occurs Map. Suitable foraging G5 almost exclusively over water,with habitat is not present distribution being closely tied to bodies of throughout the Study Area; S4 water. Typical roosting habitat are caves, and roosting habitat is mines,buildings,under bridges and in cliff and limited. tree crevices.Maternity colonies are often in caves,mines,buildings and crevices. Page 44 of 61 i� JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA fisher[West Coast CDFW: P.pennanti are primarily solitary,except Moderate Potential. Not Observed.This DPS] SSC during breeding season(February—April and Habitat within the Study species was not observed they inhabit forest stands with late- Area is ranked Low(0.33) during the biological Pekania pennanti USFS: S successional characteristics including to Medium(0.66)to High assessment. Please see intermediate-to-large tree stages of coniferous (0.88)within the conifer section 6.2 for further BLM: S forest and deciduous-riparian areas with high forest habitat according to recommendations. percent canopy closure.Den site and prey the CWHR Predicted G5 availability are often associated with these Habitat Suitability Map. characteristics.P.pennanti use cavities, snags, The Study Area may S2S3 logs and rocky areas for cover and denning contain suitable habitat for and require large areas of mature,dense forest. this species;however, large old growth trees are not resent. American badger CDFW: T. taxus are most abundant in drier open stages No Potential.The Study Not Present.There are no SSC of most shrub,forest and herbaceous habitats, Area does not have suitable recommendations for this Taxidea taxus with friable soils. T. taxus dig burrows in the habitat present according to species. IUCN: LC friable soils and frequently reuse old burrows. the CWHR Predicted T. taxus are non-migratory and are found Habitat Suitability Map. G5 throughout most of California,except the Small patches of suitable northern North Coast area. habitat are present within S3 the surrounding area. Reptiles western pond turtle BLM: S E. marmorata are associated with permanent Low Potential. Habitat Not Observed.This ponds, lakes, streams, stock ponds,marshes, within the Study Area is species was not observed Emys marmorata CDFW: seasonal wetlands,artificial areas including ranked Low(0.33) during the biological SSC reservoirs or irrigation ditches,or permanent according to the CWHR assessment. Please see pools along intermittent streams in a wide Predicted Habitat Suitability section 6.2 for further IUCN:VU variety of habitats. This species requires Map. There are no recommendations. basking sites in the aquatic environment or watercourses or ponds USFS: S upland,grassy openings with loose soil for located within the Study nesting and overwintering.Nest sites can be Area. The Study Area does G3G4 found within 100 meters of aquatic habitat. not provide suitable habitat for this species. S3 _ Page 45 of 61 Ii; jl JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TERRESTRIAL OR POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AQUATIC HABITAT REQUIREMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA AND COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS Northern Interior Description: An open,fire-maintained scrubby"forest"similar to Knobcone Pine Forest but No Potential.The Study Area Cypress Forest— dominated by one of several Cupressus species. These stands may be as much as 15m tall,but is located predominantly within Terrestrial(Holland usually are lower. cismontane woodland and 1986) valley and foothill grassland Site Factors: On dry,rocky, sterile,often ultramafic soils,frequently associated with Serpentine and does contain Knobcone Chaparral. Intergrades on less sever sites with Upper Sonoran Mixed Chaparral,Montane pine;however,serpentine soil Chaparral,or Knobcone Pine Forest; and on more mesic site with Mixed Evergreen Forest or or chaparral habitat is not Montane Coniferous Forest. present. It is unlikely for this terrestrial community to be Characteristic Species: Cupressus abramsiana(Santa Cruz Mountains,on sandstone), C. bakeri present within the Study Area. (Cascade and northern Sierra Nevada,on serpentine or aerated basic sites), C. macnabiana (North Coast Ranges and northern Sierra Nevada,on serpentine), C. sargentii(North and South Not Present.This community Coast ranges,on serpentine),Pinus attenuata, Quercus durata was not observed during the biological assessment. There Distribution: Scattered through the Siskiyou Mountains,North and South Coast Ranges, are no further recommendations Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada. Combining the four species into a single element is open for this community. to question but does reflect a common pattern of occurring on serpentine or other sterile substrate and moisture status intermediate between mesic Coastal Closed Cone Conifer Forests and xeric Southern Interior Cypress Forests. Serpentine Bunchgrass Description:An open grassland dominated by perennial bunchgrasses. Total cover typically is No Potential.The Study Area (Holland 1986) low but is markedly dominated by native species(usually much more so than in Valley is located within cismontane Needlegrass Grassland or Non-native Grasslands. woodland,broadleaved upland forest and valley and foothill Site Factors:Restricted to serpentine sites. grassland;however, serpentine soil is not present. It is unlikely Characteristic Species:Bromus hordeaceus, Calamagrostis ophiditis, Eschscholtzia californica, for this terrestrial community to Pestuca grayii,Hemizonia luzulaefolia,Lotus subpinnatus,Melica californica, Poa scabrella, be present within the Study Stipa cernua, S. lepida, S.pulchra, Vulpia microstachys Area. Distribution: Scattered widely through the Coast Ranges, less common in the Sierra Nevada and Not Present.This community southern California mountains. was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this community. Page 46 of 61 ii JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Abbreviation Organization FC Federal Candidate FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FPE Federally Proposed for listing as Endangered FPT Federally Proposed for listing as Threatened FPD Federally Proposed for delisting FD Federally Delisted SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SR State Rare SCE State Candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State Candidate for listing as Threatened SCD State Candidate for delisting SD State Delisted AFS_EN American Fisheries Society-Endangered AFS_TH American Fisheries Society-Threatened V AFS_ U American Fisheries Society—Vulnerable BLM_S Bureau of Land Management—Sensitive BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern CDF_S Calif.Dept.of Forestry&Fire Protection—Sensitive CDFW_SSC Calif.Dept.of Fish&Wildlife—Species of Special Concern CDFW_FP Calif.Dept.of Fish&Wildlife—Fully Protected CDFW_WL Calif.Dept.of Fish&Wildlife—Watch List IUCN_CD IUCN—Conservation Dependent IUCN_CR IUCN—Critically Endangered IUCN_DD IUCN—Data Deficient IUCN EN IUCN—Endangered IUCN_EW IUCN—Extinct in the Wild IUCN EX IUCN—Extinct IUCN LC IUCN—Least Concern IUCN NE IUCN—Not Evaluated IUCN_NT IUCN—Near Threatened IUCN_VU IUCN—Vulnerable NABCI_RWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative—Red Watch List NABCI_YWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative—Yellow Watch List NMFS_SC National Marine Fisheries Service—Species of Concern USFS_S U. S. Forest Service—Sensitive USFWS_BCC U. S. Fish&Wildlife Service—Birds of Conservation Concern WBWG—H Western Bat Working Group—High Priority Page 47 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Abbreviation Organization WBWG_MH Western Bat Working Group—Medium-High Priority WBWG_M Western Bat Working Group—Medium Priority WBWG_LM Western Bat Working Group—Low-Medium Priority Xerces: CI Xerces Society—Critically Imperiled Xerces: IM Xerces Society—Imperiled Xerces:VU Xerces Society—Vulnerable Xerces:DD Xerces Society—Data Deficient Global Rank The Global Rank(G-rank)is an indication of the overall condition and imperilment of an element throughout its global range.It is a letter+number score that reflects a combination of Rarity,Threat and Trend factors,with weighting being heavier on the rarity factors. The Global Ranks are assigned by NatureServe in coordination with the state program(s)where the element occurs. GLOBAL RANK DEFINITION GX Presumed Extinct—Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH Possibly Extinct—Known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the species may be extinct or the ecosystem may be eliminated throughout its range,but not enough to state this with certainty. G 1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity(often 5 or fewer populations),very steep declines,very restricted range,very severe threats,or other factors. G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction due to restricted range,very few populations or occurrences(often 20 or fewer),steep declines, severe threats,or other factors. G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a fairly restricted range,relatively few populations(often 80 or fewer),recent and widespread declines,threats,or other factors. G4 Apparently Secure—At fairly low risk of extinction due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences,but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines,threats, or other factors. G5 Secure—At very low risk of extinction due to a very extensive range,abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats. GNR Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed. GU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to a lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. G#G# Range Rank—A numeric range rank(e.g.,G2G3)is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of a taxon or community. G#T# Infraspecific Taxon—The status of infraspecific taxa(subspecies or varieties)are indicated by a"T-rank" following the species'Global Rank. ? Qualifier: Inexact Numeric Rank—A question mark represents a rank qualifier, denoting an inexact or uncertain numeric rank. Page 48 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Q Qualifier: Questionable Taxonomy—The distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon or community at the current level is questionable;resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid,or inclusion of this taxon or type in another taxon or type,with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority(numerically higher)conservation status rank. C Qualifier: Captive or Cultivated Only—The taxon or community at present is presumed or possibly extinct or eliminated in the wild across its entire native range but is extant in cultivation,in captivity,as a naturalized population(or populations) outside its native range,or as a reintroduced population or ecosystem restoration,not yet established. State Rank The State Rank(S-rank)is an indication of the condition and imperilment of an element throughout its range within the state.As with the G-rank,it is a letter+number score that reflects a combination of Rarity, Threat and Trend factors,weighted more heavily on rarity. The State Ranks are assigned by the CNDDB biologists using standard natural heritage methodology. STATE RANK DESCRIPTION SX Presumed Extirpated—Species is believed to be extirpated from the state.Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat,and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. SH Possibly Extirpated(Historical)—Species occurred historically in the state,and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered.All sites are historical;the element has not been seen for at least 20 years,but suitable habitat still exists. S I Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity(often 5 or fewer occurrences)or because of some factor(s)such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range,very few populations(often 20 or fewer), steep declines,or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state. S3 Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range,relatively few populations(often 80 or fewer),recent and widespread declines,or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure—At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the state due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences,but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines,threats,or other factors. S5 Secure—At very low or no risk of extirpation in the state due to a very extensive range,abundant populations or occurrences,and little to no concern from declines or threats. SNR Unranked—State conservation status not yet assessed. SU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to a lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. S#S# Range Rank—A numeric range rank(e.g.,S2S3)is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. ? Qualifier: Inexact or Uncertain—A question mark represents a rank qualifier,denoting an inexact or uncertain numeric rank. Page 49 of 61 i:i JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Potential to Occur: No Potential.Habitat on and within 100 feet adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements(cover, substrate,elevation,hydrology,plant community, site history,disturbance regime). Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present,and/or the majority of habitat on and within 100 feet 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 within 100 feet 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 within 100 feet adjacent to the site is highly suitable.The species has a high probability of being found on the site. Results and Recommendations: Present. Species was observed on the site or has been recorded(i.e. CNDDB,other reports)on the site recently. Not Present. Species is assumed to not be present due to a lack of key habitat components. Not Observed. Species was not observed during surveys. Page 50 of 61 i:; JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Appendix B: List of Species Observed Page 51 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Wildlife Amphibians N/A - Avifauna Corvus corax common raven Junco h emalis dark-eyed junco Melaner es formicivorous acorn woodpecker SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Fish N/A - Insects N/A - Mammals Odocoileus hemionus mule deer Mollusks N/A - Reptiles N/A - Page 52 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Appendix C: Photographs Page 53 of 61 Via, i#{� � yi "dJ• J`�.,.' �:s •� �. �::..�.�. ���`��'t;: ��'ti., �� s �3,.,j•. �. �[.' rf t.i P t' - �.. .BPS s" �-i fjfg/`�y Ow JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES, Photo 2: - _. �,'. r-. .. `=.a���'¢�� �,5%':xs: :,��.. ,: �?.tic .�+.• Example ', ,. -i �n� 1 . 1�-� ��� �-/_tic .. .. •� � �� .�� •i��,t' 4'' habitat present within the Study Area. November 18, 2021 '• ,�{•�'1 •, wY• • JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Photo 3: Example habitat present tA. , within the Study Area. r>' Date: November C ' ►o- :;, ,; , Yeti 18, 2021 zic :,� �. .+.�r.�Y -. ^.-yam ��.�_ (�� �. ���••°z, - Sk- Awl j �, e r.. •�,�yam, ��C j Page 56 of 61 JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. r Photo 4: Example ` habitat present within the Study Area. 4 ,k. Date: November x < r 18, 2021 P Page 57 of 61 y ,a t. K: JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Appendix D: Maps Page 59 of 61 ......;. \'�' y - "'- `-�":' - l� - '-----`-- --- ®i..:• _ men ear �-- - 77 Vie i - - va.�waee .r• r� r� i i ..:.... :.. k - n r• Lore Copyrigf t', 20'13 N"t all Geographic Society,i-cubed LI =v Upper City View Trail Biological Resource Assessment: 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Vicinity l I I i I 0 Property Boundary ( JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. y natural resource planning&management Map• 1 of 7 p 96� 1000 f 96191 r!� 1p00 ,� O �160 ti0' 4� roo 91p, O 80 1��o t ro8o .s Yrzp r36o, , Yr6o r, J r `O O ANOL ,y % tk r Drawn by Evan Carlson 0 125 250 500 Feet I I I I I Contour Property Boundary Trail 100ft Buffer JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. natural reap rce planning&management Map: 2 of 7 ON boylii Emys marmorata ',,,� rivularis _ _ haliaetus _ -• Rana boylii 4, Pleuropogon - Rana boylii _ hooverianus Rana boylii Navar'retia Arctostaphylos leucoeephala Pleuropogon stanfordiana ssp.bakeri hooverianus ssp.raiehei Pleuropogon hooverianus fi . Rana Rana boylii boylii Pleuropogon hooverianus Taricha Rana boylii Rana Rana rivularis boylii Rana boylii boylii Taricha Rana boylii Pleuro o on hooverianus rivularis y Rana boylii _ p 9� Taricha Em s Pleuropogon hooverianus rivularis marmorata Areto im ,l s stanfordiana Rana boylii ssp.raiehei Taricha Taricha Rana boylii rivularis rivularis ••�5 Erethizon dorsatum Rana boylii Limnanthes Da en Taricha rivularis ` Arctostaphylos a stanfordiana ssp.raiehei � Emys marmorata Rana boylii Taricha -- Rana rivularis boylii , Malacohard us Erethizon mendoeinensis dorsatum Rana boylii Rana boylii Grimmia �' torenii Arctostaphylos � �,• ^^- - . stanfordiana ssp.raiehei Upper City View Trail Biological Resource Assessment: 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles CNDDB Vicinity I I I I I Property Boundary Animal(80m) ®Aquatic Comm.(specific) Applicant: City of Ukiah Trail ®Animal(specific) ®Aquatic Comm.(non-specific) Q 5-mile Buffer ®Animal(non-specific) Q Aquatic Comm.(circular) CNDDB Animal(circular) Multiple(80m) = Plant(80m) Terrestrial Comm.(80m) ® Multiple(specific) APN(s): 001-020-12, 001-030-01 ® Plant(specific) ®Terrestrial Comm.(specific) ® Multiple(non-specific) Parcel Area Acreage: 85.97 ® Plant(non-specific) ®Terrestrial Comm.(non-specific) Q Multiple(circular) 9 0 Terrestrial Comm.(circular) ®Sensitive EO's(Commercial only) Sections 18 and 19, T15N, R12W, MDBM 0 Plant(circular) Aquatic Comm.(80m) Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Drawn by Evan Carlson �naturalresourcepla�^'^9&management Map: 3 of 7 3 Soil Map—Mendocino County,Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County,California 3 (City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail) M 479800 479900 480000 480100 48020D 480300 480400 48D500 480600 480700 4808M 48M 481000 39°9'31"N 39°9'31"N le • 8 _8 �O b-. 141 '� t -V 151 0 IL 0 49/ AIL M i A 11 I1� I I 390 9'4"N - -• "' - 39°9'4"N 479800 479900 480000 480100 480200 480300 480400 480500 480600 480700 480800 480900 481000 3 3 M Map Scale:1:6,030 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet. N Meters 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 250 500 1000 1500 Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 1ON WGS84 G}DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/16/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Mendocino County,Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County,California (City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 0 Area of Interest(AOI) Stony Spot 1:24,000. Soils Very Stony Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause ry Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of p Soil Map Unit Points Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed .� Special Point Features scale. Vo Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot _ Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: rwr Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravelly Spot Y Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Lava Flow Background accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. + Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Miscellaneous Water Southwestern Part of Trinity County,California Perennial Water Survey Area Data: Version 16,Sep 6,2021 Rock Outcrop Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Saline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: May 5,2019—Jun 3, 4 Sandy Spot 2019 Severely Eroded Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Sinkhole compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor Slide or Slip shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. oa Sodic Spot U}DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/16/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County,California City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 141 Hopland loam, 30 to 50 34.6 34.9% percent slopes,high ffd 144 Hopland-Maymen-Etsel 2.5 2.6% complex,50 to 75 percent slopes 151 Hopland-Wohly loams,50 to 46.6 47.0% 75 percent slopes 210 Urban land 15.4 15.5% Totals for Area of Interest 99.1 100.0% usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/16/2021 Iiii-I—M Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Q110 G K QG f. f i r NX Upper City View Trail Biological Resource Assessment: 0 100 200 400 Feet CalVeg Classification I I I I 0 Property Boundary 0 Interior Mixed Woodland Applicant: City of Ukiah Trail 0 Oregon White Oak 100ft Buffer 0 Annual Forbs and Grasses APN(s): 001-020-12, 001-030-01 CalVeg Type: 0 Non-Native/Ornamental Grasses Parcel Area Acreage: 85.97 Pacific Douglas-fir 0 Blue Oak Sections 18 and 19, T15N, R12W, MDBM 0 Urban/Developed (General) Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Drawn by Evan Carlson natural resource planning&management Map: 5 of 7 M � r r r- ' A Y } A lot Ir Upper City View Trail Biological Resource Assessment: o goo zoo j Feet MCV2 Community Applicant: City of Ukiah MCV2 Community Trail 0 Douglas-fir forest and woodland 100ft Buffer APN(s): 001-020-12, 001-030-01 0 Oregon white oak forest and woodland Property Boundary Parcel Area Acreage: 85.97 Sections 18 and 19, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle I 'I JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Drawn by Evan Carlson fP...—pl,,ni,9&­9e^1 t Map: 6 of 7 Y f 1 � c� { AV , T f [ o 0 _ �� JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Appendix E: Supporting Documents Page 60 of 61 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview CNDDB 9-Quad Species List 184 records. CA Rare Element ,cientific Name Common Name Element Code Federal State CDFW plant Quad Quad Name Data Status Taxonomic Sort Type Status Status Status Rank Code Animals- LAUGHLIN Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander AAAAH01020 None None SSC - 3912333 RANG U, nprocessed Dicamptodontidae- Dicamptodon ensatus Animals- LAUGHLIN Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Rana aurora northern red-legged frog AAABH01021 None None SSC 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Ranidae-Rana aurora Animals- Rana boylii foothill yellow legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912333 LAUGHLIN Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians RANGE Unprocessed Ranidae-Rana boylii Animals- Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912332 REDWOOD Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians VALLEY Unprocessed Ranidae-Rana boylii Animals- POTTER Ma ed and �[Ranidae nimals-Am hibians- Rana boylii foothill yellow legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC - 3912331 pp p Amphibians VALLEY Unprocessed -Rana boylii Animals- Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912323 ORRS Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians SPRINGS Unprocessed Ranidae-Rana boylii Animals- Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912322 UKIAH Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Unprocessed Ranidae-Rana boylii Animals- COW Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Mapped Ranidae-Rana boylii lAnimals- Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Ranidae-Rana boylii lAnimals- Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912312 EL LEDGE Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians PEAK Un processed Ranidae-Rana boylii Animals- Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC 3912311 PURDYS Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians GARDENS Unprocessed Ranidae-Rana boylii Animals- ELLEDGE Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC - 3912312 PEAK Mapped Salamandridae-Taricha rivularis Animals- Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC - 3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped Salamandridae-Taricha rivularis Animals- COW Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Mapped Salamandridae-Taricha rivularis Mapped Animals-Amphibians- Animals- and Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Salamandridae-Taricha rivularis Animals- FORRS Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Taricha rivularis I I red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC - 3912323 INGS Unprocessed Salamandridae-Taricha rivularis Animals- LAUGHLIN Mapped and Animals-Amphibians- Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC - 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Salamandridae-Taricha rivularis Erd als- POTTER Animals-Birds- Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk ABNKC12060 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY Mapped Accipitridae-Accipiter gentilis https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 1/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Animals- FP, COW Animals-Birds- Birds Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None WL - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Accipitridae-Aquila chrysaetos Animals- FP, PURDYS Animals-Birds- Birds Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None WL - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Accipitridae-Aquila r chrysaetos —1I Animals-Birds- Animals- f PURDYS Birds Circus hudsonius northern harrier ABNKC11011 None None SSC - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Accipitridae-Circus J hudsonius Animals- REDWOOD Animals-Birds- Birds Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite ABNKC06010 None None FP - 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Accipitridae-Elanus leucurus Animals- Animals-Birds-Ardeidae Birds Ardea alba great egret ABNGA04040 None None - - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed -Ardea alba Animals- Animals-Birds-Ardeidae Birds Ardea herodias great blue heron ABNGA04010 None None - - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed -Ardea herodias B�imals- Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ABPBXB0020 None Threatened F 3912331 VALLEY POTTER Mapped Animal -Br ds-Icteridae Animals- POTTER Animals-Birds- Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Icteriidae-Icteria virens Animals- SSCa virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None 3912332 REDWOOD Animals-Birds- Birds [!! VALLEY Icteriidae-Icteria virens Animals- Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals-Birds- Birds Icteriidae-Icteria virens Animals- Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC 3912321 COW Unprocessed Animals-Birds- Birds MOUNTAIN Icteriidae-Icteria virens Animals- Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC 3912312 ELLEDGE Unprocessed Animals-Birds- Birds PEAK Icteriidae-Icteria virens Animals- PURDYS Animals-Birds- Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None WL - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Pandionidae-Pandion haliaetus Animals- Animals-Birds- Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None WL - 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Pandionidae-Pandion haliaetus Animals- POTTER Animals-Birds- Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None WL - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Pandionidae-Pandion haliaetus Animals- POTTER Animals-Birds- Birds Setophaga petechia [yellow warbler ABPBX03010 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY [Unrocessed Parulidae-Setophaga petechia Animals- ELLEDGE Animals-Birds- Birds Setophaga petechia yellow warbler ABPBX03010 None None SSC - 3912312 PEAK ]FUnproce sed Parulidae-Setophaga �U petechia Animals-Birds- Animals- Ammodramus PURDYS Passerellidae- Birds savannarum grasshopper sparrow ][ABPBXA0020 None None SSC - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Ammodramus savannarum Animals- ELLEDGE Animals-Birds-Picidae- Animals IMelanerpes lewis Lewis'woodpecker ABNYF04010 None None 3912312 PEAK Unprocessed Melanerpes lewis Birds https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.htmi 2/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Animals- Animals-Birds-Picidae- Birds Melanerpes lewis Lewis'woodpecker ABNYF04010 None None - - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Melanerpes lewis Animals- Animals-Birds-Strigidae Strix occidentalis Birds caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNS612011 Threatened Threatened - - 3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped -Strix occidentalis caurina Animals- Animals-Birds-Strigidae Strix occidentalis ORRIS Birds caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNS612011 Threatened Threatened - - 3912323 SPRINGS Mapped -Strix occidentalis caurina Animals- Strix occidentalis POTTER Animals-Birds-Strigidae Birds caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNS612011 Threatened Threatened - - 3912331 VALLEY Mapped -Strix occidentalis IL caurina Animals- Strix occidentalis REDWOOD Animals-Birds-Strigidae Birds caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened - - 3912332 VALLEY Mapped -Strix occidentalis caurina Animals- Strix occidentalis LAUGHLIN Animals-Birds-Strigidae Birds caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened - - 3912333 RANGE Mapped -Strix occidentalis caurina Animals- COW Animals-Fish-Cottidae- Fish Cottus asper ssp. Clear Lake prickly sculpin AFC4E02021 None None SSC - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Cottus asper ssp. r HesperoleucusIF IF Animals-Fish- F venustus northern coastal roach AFCJB19031 None None SSC - 3912333 LAUGHLIN Unprocessed Cyprinidaenavarroensis RANGE Hesperoleucus venustus � navarroensis Hesperoleucus Animals-Fish- Animals- venustus northern coastal roach AFCJB19031 None None SSC - 3912323 ORRIS Unprocessed Cyprinidae- Fish navarroensis SPRINGS Hesperoleucus venustus navarroensis Animals-Fish- Animals- I�Hysterocarpus traskii Clear Lake tule perch AFCQK02013 None None E - 391232 COW Mapped Embiotocidae- Fish lagunae MOUNTAIN Hysterocarpus traskii lagunae Animals-Fish- Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None E - 3912321 COW Unprocessed Embiotocidae- Fish porno MOUNTAIN Hysterocarpus traskii L porno Animals-Fish II - Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii Russian River tule perch [FCQK02011 None None SSC - 3912312 ELLEDGE Unprocessed Embiotocidae- Fish pomo PEAK Hysterocarpus traskii porno Animals-Fish- [Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Embiotocidae- sh pomo Hysterocarpus traskii porno Animals-Fish- Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None E - 3912323 ORRIS Unprocessed Embiotocidae- F h pomo SPRINGS Hysterocarpus traskii porno Animals-Fish- Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii [VALLEYOTTER Embiotocidae- Fi i porno Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC - 3912331 Unprocessed Hysterocarpus traskii porno https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 3/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview I Animals-Fish- Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC - 3912332 Unprocessed Embiotocidae- Fish porno [RELDWOOD ALEY Hysterocarpus traskii J L porno Animals-Fish- Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii FRss',anEmbiotocidae- porno River tule perch AFCOK02011 None None SSC - 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Hysterocarpus traskii porno F-- --117— Animals-Fish- Animals- Hysterocarpus traskii PURDYS Embiotocidae- Fish p omo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Hysterocarpus traskii I porno Animals- Entosphenus LAUGHLIN Animals-Fish- Pacific lamprey AFBAA02100 None None SSC - 3912333 Unprocessed Petromyzontidae- Fish tridentatus RANGE Entosphenus tridentatus L_ Eih tridentatus Entosphenus ORRS Animals-Fish- Pacific lamprey AFBAA02100 None None SSC - 3912323 Unprocessed Petromyzontidae- SPRINGS Entosphenus tridentatus Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon-southern Oregon [AFCHA02032 Threatened Threatened - - 3912333 LAUGHLIN Unprocessed Salmonidae- Fish pop.2 /northern California ESU RANGE Oncorhynchus kisutch pop.2 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon-central California AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered - - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Salmonidae- Fish pop.4 coast ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop.4 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon-central California Salmonidae- Fish pop.4 coast ESU AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered - - D3912313 FBOONV]ILLE Unprocessed Oncorhynchus kisutch L pop.4 Animals-Fish- Animals- 0ncorhynchus mykiss steelhead-northern California Salmonidae- AFCHA02090 Threatened None - - 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Fish deus pop. 16 � DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 r Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead-northern California ORRS Salmonidae- Fish irideus pop. 16 DPS AFCHA02090 Threatened None - - 3912323 SPRINGS Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead-northern California LAUGHLIN Salmonidae- Fish irideus pop. 16 DPS AFCHA02090 Threatened None - - 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss L irideus pop. 16 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead-central California FNGEL HIN Salmonidae- irideus pop.8 coast DPS Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.8 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss [steelhead-central California Salmonidae- Fish irideus pop.8 oast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None - - 3912332 [REDWOOD ALLEY Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.8 https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 4/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview I Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss Eteelhead-central California ORRS Salmonidae- Fish irideus pop.8 ast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None El - 3912323 SPRINGS Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.8 Animals-Fish- Animals- 0ncorhynchus mykiss [teelhead-central California Salmonidae- deus pop.8 ast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss Jirideus pop.8 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead central California COW Salmonidae- Fish irideus pop.8 coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None - - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.8 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead-central California FBOONV]ILLE Salmonidae- irideus pop.8 coast DPS Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss IL irideus pop.8 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss [steelhead-central California ELLEDGE Salmonidae- irideus pop.8 ast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None - - 3912312 PEAK Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.8 �� Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus mykiss �teelheacl-central California PURDYS Salmonidae- irideus pop.8 oast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None - - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop.8 r Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus chinook salmon-California PURDYS Salmonidae- Fish tshawytscha pop. 17 coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None - - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop.17 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus chinook salmon-California [3912312 PEAK ELLEDGE Salmonidae- tshawytscha pop. 17 coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None - - Unprocessed Oncorhynchus L tshawytscha pop.17 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus chinook salmon-California AFCHA0205S Threatened None - - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Salmonidae- Fish tshawytscha pop. 17 coastal ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 Animals-Fish- Animals- Oncorhynchus chinook salmon-California LAUGHLIN Salmonidae- Fish tshawytscha pop. 17 coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None - - 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 Animals- PURDYS Animals-Insects-Apidae Insects Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee IIHYM24380 None None E:1 - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped J-Bombus caliginosus Animals- Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee IIHYM24250 None None 3912321 COW [Unprocessed ped and Animals-Insects-Apidae Insects MOUNTAIN -Bombus occidentalis Animals- �� Mapped and Animals-Mammals- Mammals Arborimus porno Sonoma tree vole AMAFF23030 None None SSC - 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Cricetidae-Arborimus porno r— Animals- LAUGHLIN Mapped and EAnimalsMammalsArborimus porno Sonoma tree vole AMAFF23030 None None SSC - 3912333 -Arborimus https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 5/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Animals- POTTER Animals-Mammals- Mammals Arborimus porno Sonoma tree vole AMAFF23030 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Cricetidae-Arborimus pomo Animals-Mammals- Animals- Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None - - 3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped and Erethizontidae-Erethizon Mammals Unprocessed dorsatum Enimals, ELLEDGEAnimals-Mammals- Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None LI - 3912312 PEAK Mapped Erethizontidae-Erethizon dorsatum Animals- Mapped and Animals-Mammals- Mammals I�Erethizon dorsatum „North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None - - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Erethizontidae-Erethizon dorsatum Animals- PURDYS Animals-Mammals- Mammals Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None LI - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Erethizontidae-Erethizon dorsatum Animals- Eumops perotis REDWOOD Animals-Mammals- Mammals californicus western mastiff bat AMACD02011 None None SSC - 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Molossidae-Eumops perotis californicus Animals- REDWOOD Animals-Mammals- Mammals Pekania pennanti Fisher AMAJF01020 None None SSC - 3912332 VALLEY Mapped Mustelidae-Pekania pennanti Animals- POTTER Animals-Mammals- Mammals Pekania pennanti Fisher AMAJF01020 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Mustelidae-Pekania pennanti Animals- PURDYS Animals-Mammals- Mammals Pekania pennanti Fisher AMAJF01020 None None SSC - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Mustelidae-Pekania pennanti EnmmaTIr Animals-Mammals- Taxidea taxus American badger AMAJF04010 None None SSC - 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Mustelidae-Taxidea taxus r Animals- REDWOOD Animals-Mammals- Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC - 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Vespertilioniclae- i Antrozous pallidus Animals- POTTER Animals-Mammals- Mammals (Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Vespertilionidae- L Antrozous pallidus Animals- COW Animals-Mammals- Mammals L Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Mapped Vespertilionidae- Antrozous pallidus Animals- PURDYS F_ Animals-Mammals- Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC - 39,231, GARDENS Unprocessed Vespertilionidae- Antrozous pallidus Animals- Corynorhinus I � PURDYS Animals-Mammals- Mammals townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Vespertilionidae- �r L Corynorhinus townsendii Animals-�Foynorhinus II REDWOOD Md d Animals-Mammals- M immals wnsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC - 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Vespertilionidae- Corynorhinus townsendii https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 6112 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Animals- Corynorhinus POTTER Animals-Mammals- Mammals townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None El - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Vespertilionidae- Corynorhinus townsendii Animals- Corynorhinus LAUGHLIN Animals-Mammals- Mammals townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC - 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Vespertilionidae- Corynorhinus townsendii Enimals, REDWOOD Animals i Mammals- Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat AMACC05060 None None SSC - 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Vespertilionidae- Lasiurus blossevillii Animals- POTTER Animals-Mammals- Mammals Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat AMACC05030 None None - - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Vespertilionidae Lasiurus cinereus Animals- PURDYS Animals-Mammals- Mammals Myotis lucifugus little brown bat AMACC01010 None None - - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Vespertilionidae-Myotis lucifugus Animals- PURDYS Animals-Mammals- Mammals Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis AMACC01020 None None - - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Vespertilionidae-Myotis L yumanensis Animals- COW Animals-Mollusks- Mollusks �Goniclea angulata IL ridged mussel IMBIV19010 None None - - 3912321 MOUNTAIN [Mapped Unionidae-Gonidea IL angulata Animals- COW Mapped and-1 Animals-Reptiles- Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912321 MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys marmorata Animals- Animals-Reptiles- Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys marmorata E ELLEDGE Animals-Reptiles- Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912312 PEAK Mapped Emydidae-Emys marmorata m is Animals-Reptiles- Map ped an Animals Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys marmorata Animals- POTTER Mapped and Animals-Reptiles- Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys i marmorata Animals- ORRS F Animals-Reptiles- Reptiles `Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912323 SPRINGS �Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys � marmorata Animals- REDWOOD Animals-Reptiles- Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - F391:233] VALLEY [Mapped Emydidae-Emys marmorata EReptles Mapped andAnimals-Reptiles- Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys marmorata ERept - Animals-Reptiles- Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC - 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Emydidae-Emys marmorata https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 7/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Community- Northern Interior PURDYS Community-Terrestrial- Terrestrial Cypress Forest Northern Interior Cypress Forest CTT83220CA None None - - 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Northern Interior Cypress Forest Community- Serpentine Serpentine Bunchgrass CTT42130CA None None 3912311 PURDYS Mapped Community-Terrestrial- Terrestrial Bunchg rass GARDENS Serpentine Bunchg rass Plants- PURDYS Plants-Bryophytes- Bryophytes Entosthodon kochii Koch's cord moss NBMUS2P050 None None - 1 B.3 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Funariaceae- Entosthodon kochii Plants- ELLEDGE Plants-Bryophytes- Bryophytes Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia NBMUS32330 None None L 1 B.3 3912312 PEAK Mapped Grimmiaceae-Grimmia L l torenii Plants-Bryophytes- Plants- Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia NBMUS32330 None None - 1 B.3 3912321 COW Mapped Grimmiaceae-Grimmia Bryophytes MOUNTAIN torenii Plants- ORRS Plants-Lichens- Lichens Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen NLLEC5P420 None None - 4.2 3912323 SPRINGS Mapped Parmeliaceae-Usnea longissima Plants- Perideridia gairdneri PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular ssp.gairdneri California Gairdner's yampah PDAPI1N062 None None - 4.2 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Apiaceae-Perideridia gairdneri ssp.gairdneri Plants- LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine PDASTlA010 Endangered Endangered - 1 B.1 3912333 RANGE Mapped Asteraceae- Blennosperma baked Plants- Hemizonia congesta LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular ssp.calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST4R063 None None - 4.3 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Asteraceae-Hemizonia congesta ssp.calyculata Plants- Hemizonia congesta ORRS Plants-Vascular- Vascular ssp.calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST41R063 None None E l L 4.3 3912323 SPRINGS Unprocessed Asteraceae-Hemizonia congesta ssp.calyculata Plants- Hemizonia congesta COW Plants-Vascular- Vascular ssp.calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST4R063 None None - 4.3 3912321 MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Asteraceae-Hemizonia congesta ssp.calyculata Plants- Hemizonia congesta Plants-Vascular- Vascular ssp.calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST41R063 None None E 4.3 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Asteraceae-Hemizonia congesta ssp.calyculata Plants- Hemizonia congesta Plants-Vascular- Vascular ssp.tracyi Tracy's tarplant PDAST4R067 None None - 4.3 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Asteraceae-Hemizonia congesta ssp.tracyi Plants- Hemizonia congesta ENG NIF IPlants-Vascular- ssp.tracyiTracy's tarplant PDAST4R067 None None - . Unprocessed Asteraceae-Hemizonia congesta ssp.tracyi Plants- Plants-Vascular- Vascular Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields PDAST51_010 Endangered Endangered - 1 B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Asteraceae-Lasthenia burkei Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia PDAST5NOF0 None None El 1 B.2 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Asteraceae-Layia septentrionalis Plants- Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leda hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia PDAST5S030 None None - 3 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Asteraceae-Lessingia hololeuca https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.htm1 8/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Plants- REDWOOD Plants-Vascular- Vascular Tracyina rostrata beaked tracyina PDAST9D010 None None - 1 B.2 3912332 VALLEY Unprocessed Asteraceae-Tracyina rostrata Plants- PURDYS Mapped and Plants-Vascular- Vascular [TrIly ina rostrata beaked tracyina PDAST9D010 None None - 1 B.2 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Asteraceae-Tracyina rostrata J Plagiobothrys �r Plants-Vascular- Plants- REDWOOD Vascular lithocaryus Mayacamas popcornflower PDBOROVOPO None None - 1A 3912332 VALLEY Mapped Boraginaceae- Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Plants- Plagiobothrys POTTER Plants-Vascular- Vascular lithocaryus Mayacamas popcornflower PDBOROVOPO None None - 1A 3912331 VALLEY Mapped Boraginaceae- Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Streptanthus Plants-Vascular- Plants- FOU Brassicaceae- glandulosusssp. Hn'sbristlyjewelflowerTAIN Mapped Streptanthusglandulosus hoffmanii ssp.hoffmanii Plants- —1 LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular FBrasenia schreberi watershield PDCA601010 None None - 2B.3 3912333 RANGE Mapped Cabombaceae-Brasenia schreberi Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum PDCPR07080 None None - 2B.3 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Caprifoliaceae-Viburnum ellipticum Plants-Vascular- Plants- Carex comosa bristly sedge PMCYP032Y0 None None - 2B.1 3912321 COW Mapped Cyperaceae-Carex Vascular MOUNTAIN �L comosa Arctostaphylos Plants-Vascular- Plants- FMOOWUNTAINstanfordiana ssp. Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None - 1B.1 3912321 Ericaceae- raichei Mapped Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp.raichei Arctostaphylos IF Plants-Vascular- Plants- ELLEDGE Ericaceae- Vascular stanfordiana ssp. Raiche's manzanita PDERI041 G2 None None - 1 B.1 3912312 PEAK Mapped Arctostaphylos raichei stanfordiana ssp.raichei Arctostaphylos Plants-Vascular- Plants- stanfordiana ssp. Raiche's manzanita PDER1041 G2 None None - 1 B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Ericaceae- Vascular raichei Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp.raichei Arctostaphylos Plants-Vascular- Plants- stanfordiana ssp. Raiche's manzanita PDERI041 G2 None None - 1 B.1 3912323 ORRIS Mapped Ericaceae- Vascular raichei I SPRINGS Arctostaphylos L stanfordiana ssp.raichei Arctostaphylos Plants-Vascular- Plants- URDYS Ericaceae- Vascular stanfordiana ssp. Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None - 1B.1 391231' PGARDENS Mapped Arctostaphylos raichei stanfordiana ssp.raichei Plants- POTTER Plants-Vascular- Vascular Astragalus breweri Brewer's milk-vetch PDFABOF1J0 None None - 4.2 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Fabaceae-Astragalus breweri Plants- Trifolium LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover PDFAB402W0 None None - 1 B.1 3912333 RANGE Mapped Fabaceae-Trifolium buckwestiorum https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.htm1 9/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Monardella viridis green monardella PDLAM180Q2 None None - 4.3 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Lamiaceae-Monardella viridis Plants- Plants-Vascular- Vascular Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells PMLILOV010 None None - 4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Liliaceae-Fritillaria agrestis Plants- Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillary PMLILOVOHO None None 4.3 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants-Vascular- Vascular Liliaceae-Fritillaria purdyi Plants- POTTER Plants-Vascular- Vascular Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillary PMLILOVOHO None None - 4.3 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Liliaceae-Fritillaria purdyi Plants- Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillary PMLILOVOHO None None 4.3 3912332 REDWOOD Unprocessed Plants-Vascular- Vascular VALLEY Liliaceae-Fritillaria purdyi Plants- LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular Fritillaria roderickii Roderick's fritillary PMLILOVOMO None Endangered - 1 B.1 3912333 RANGE Mapped Liliaceae-Fritillaria roderickii Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Lilium rubescens redwood lily PMLIL1AON0 None None - 4.2 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Liliaceae-Lilium rubescens Plants- Mapped and Plants-Vascular- Vascular Limnanthes bakeri Baker's meadowfoam PDLIM02020 None Rare - 1 B.1 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Limnanthaceae- Limnanthes baked Plants- Hesperolinon COW Plants-Vascular- Vascular adenophyllum glandular western flax PDLIN01010 None None - 1 B.2 3912321 MOUNTAIN Mapped Linaceae-Hesperolinon adenophyllum Plants- Hesperolinon POTTER Plants-Vascular- Vascular adenophyllum glandular western flax PDLIN01010 None None El 1 B.2 3912331 VALLEY Mapped Linaceae-Hesperolinon adenophyllum Plants- Hesperolinon LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular adenophyllum glandular western flax PDLIN01010 None None - 1 B.2 F391233]3 RANGE Mapped Linaceae-Hesperolinon adenophyllum Plants-Vascular- Plants- Malacothamnus ELLEDGE Malvaceae- Vascular mendocinensis Mendocino bush-mallow PDMALOQODO None None - 1A 3912312 PEAK Mapped Malacothamnus mendocinensis Plants- Cypripedium ELLEDGE Plants-Vascular- Vascular californicum California lady's-slipper PMORCOQ040 None None E 4.2 3912312 PEAK Unprocessed Orchidaceae- Cypripedium californicum Plants- Cypripedium Plants-Vascular- Vascular californicum California lady's-slipper PMORCOQ040 None None - 4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Orchiclaceae- Cypripedium californicum r Plants-Vascular- Plants- montanum Cypripedium I mountain lady's-slipper PMORCOQ080 None None E 4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Orchidaceae- Vascular L Cypripedium montanum Plants- Cypripedium ORRS Plants-Vascular- Vascular montanum mountain lady's-slipper PMORCOQ080 None None - 4.2 3912323 SPRINGS Unprocessed Orchidaceae- Cypripedium montanum Ean - ELLEDGE Plants-Vascular- Cypripedium ar montanum mountain lady's-slipper PMORCOQ080 None None - 4.2 3912312 PEAK Unprocessed Orchidaceae- VaseCypripedium montanum https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 10/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Plants- ORRS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid PMORC1X050 None None - 1 B.2 3912323 SPRINGS Mapped Orchidaceae-Piperia candida =plantsFPlants-Vascular- Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone PDORO01010 None None - 2B.3 3912311 Mapped Orobanchaceae- GARDENS Kopsiopsis hookeri �I Plants-Vascular l - - Plants- LAUGHLIN Vascular Erythranthe nudata bare monkeyflower PDSCR1B200 None None - 4.3 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Phrymaceae Erythranthe nudata Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Gratiola heterosepala „Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop PDSCROR060 None Endangered 1:1 1 B.2 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Plantaginaceae-Gratiola heterosepala Plants- Pleuropogon ORRS Mapped and Plants-Vascular- North Coast semaphore grass PMPOA4Y070 None Threatened - 1 B.1 3912323 Poaceae-Pleuropogon Vascular hooverianus SPRINGS Unprocessed hooverianus Plants- Pleuropogon Plants-Vascular- Vascular hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass PMPOA4Y070 None Threatened - 1 B.1 3912312 PEAK Mapped Poaceae-Pleuropogon hooverianus Plants- ELLEDGE r Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis Lbristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912312 PEAK I Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon acicularis Plants- Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon acicularis =Plantsl POTTER Plants-Vascular- Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon acicularis Plants- ORRS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912323 SPRINGS Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon acicularis Ean LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Lr Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912333 RANGE Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon acicularis Plants- REDWOOD Plants-Vascular- Vascular 1I Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912332 VALLEY I Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon acicularis Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Plants- Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None - 4.2 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- ascuLeptosiphon acicularis VascuPlants- II LAUGHLIN Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon I PDPLM09150 None None - 4.3 F391 3333 RANGE Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon latisectus Plants- ORRS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad lobed leptosiphon ]EDPLM091 50 None None - 4.3 3912323 SPRINGS Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- r I Leptosiphon latisectus Plants- I POTTER Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon PDPLM09150 None None - 4.3 3912331 VALLEY Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon latisectus https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 11/12 11/3/21, 12:12 PM IMAPS Print Preview Plants- Plants-Vascular- Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon PDPLM09150 None None - 4.3 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Polemoniaceae- Leptosiphon latisectus Navarretia IF Plants-Vascular- Plants- Polemoniaceae- Vascular leucocephala ssp. Baker's navarretia PDPLMOCOE1 None None - 1B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Navarretia leucocephala bakedssp.baked NavarretiaIF Plants-Vascular- Plants- [RAUN GHLIN Polemoniaceae- Vascular leucocephala ssp. Baker's navarretia PDPLMOCOE1 None None - 1B.1 3912333 GE Mapped Navarretia leucocephala bakeri ssp.baked Navarretia Plants-Vascular- Plants- Polemoniaceae- leucocephala ssp. Baker's navarretia PDPLMOCOE1 None None - 1 B.1 3912332 [REDWOOD ALLEY Mapped Navarretia leucocephala baked ssp.baked Plants- Plants-Vascular- Vascular Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup PDRANOL1 JO None None - 4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Ranunculaceae- Ranunculus lobbii Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup PDRANOL1J0 None None Ll 4.2 3912311 GARDENS Unprocessed Ranunculaceae- Ranunculus lobbii Plants- PURDYS Plants-Vascular- Vascular l Ceanothus confusus H Rincon Ridge ceanothus PDRHA04220 None None - 1 B.1 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Rhamnaceae- Ceanothus confusus E - Plants-Vascular- ar Horkelia bolanderi Bolander's horkelia PDROSOW011 None None - 1 B.2 3912311 GARDENS Mapped Rosaceae-Horkelia bolanderi https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.htm1 12/12 pfr pax F7:#i4 uPe NEFm IrE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE '0-9CH 3k$5 Arcata Fish And Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata,CA 95521-4573 Phone: (707)822-7201 Fax: (707)822-8411 In Reply Refer To: November 05, 2021 Consultation Code: 08EACT00-2022-SLI-0041 Event Code: 08EACT00-2022-E-00117 Project Name: City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail Loop Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts)that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 11/05/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2022-E-00117 2 (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List 11/05/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2022-E-00117 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Arcata Fish And Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521-4573 (707) 822-7201 11/05/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2022-E-00117 2 Project Summary Consultation Code: 08EACT00-2022-SLI-0041 Event Code: Some(08EACT00-2022-E-00117) Project Name: City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail Loop Project Type: ** OTHER** Project Description: Hiking Trail Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/039.15503855,-123.22680147989279,14z Ukiah LJk A h r,uI Le .'1' Safes "x+�iylrV�{ Counties: Mendocino County, California 11/05/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2022-E-00117 3 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 8 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Birds NAME STATUS Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123 Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus Threatened Population:Pacific Coast population DPS-U.S.A.(CA,OR,WA),Mexico(within 50 miles of Pacific coast) There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Population:Western U.S.DPS There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Amphibians NAME STATUS California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 11/05/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2022-E-00117 4 Insects NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Burke's Goldfields Lasthenia burkei Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4338 Contra Costa Goldfields Lasthenia conjugens Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7058 Showy Indian Clover Tri folium amoenum Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6459 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. JACOBSZOON&ASSOCIATES,INC. Appendix F: Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Report Page 61 of 61 A Botanical Study of the Upper City View Trail Project Prepared by the Ukiah Valley Trail Group for the City of Ukiah Winter 2020 Table of Contents Introduction and Pre-survey Protocols Methods Vegetation Resu Its Literature Cited Appendix A: List of Potentially Occurring Rare Plants Appendix B: Study Plant List Introduction Trails have a wide variety of benefits including conservation-education achieved by allowing public access to natural spaces. These benefits do come at some environmental cost both during construction and through public use. These costs may include removing plants, disturbing soil, creating erosion and/or sedimentation, and impact on wildlife. It is therefore essential to evaluate the relative costs of the construction, maintenance and use of trails in order to ensure the project provides net benefit with an acceptable degree of mitigated or unmitigated environmental impact. To assist with this evaluation, a study was conducted to identify or rule out the presence of endangered or rare plants that may be disturbed in the pursuit of the public benefit of the proposed Upper City View Trail and Upper City View Trail Lower Leg. Further, this study provides the information to evaluate if the trail should be built, not built, built with modifications, and/or built with mitigations to minimize any potential impacts on plant communities. A survey of plants existing along the proposed trail corridors was conducted and both communities and individual species were identified with a focus on a search for listed species that have been identified as potentially being in the area. A list of plants identified along the corridor is included in Appendix B. i Blue r — Existing City View Trail Yellow — Proposed Upper City View Trail Red — Proposed Upper City View Trail Lower Loop Pre-Survey Investigations In accordance with recommendations from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) a review of the USGS quadrangle of the survey area and the eight surrounding quadrangles was performed by Kerry Heise to identify special status plant species extant, or potentially extant in the identified trail corridor of the proposed Upper City View Trail Project. The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, the On-line 8th Edition, and Rarefind via the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Rare Plant Ranks (previously known as CNPS Lists) were used to develop a list of potentially occurring rare plants in the study area (Appendix A). This list was used by the surveyors to focus their attention on habitats and areas where the likelihood of rare plants was high while concurrently investigating all plants in the study area. Survey Methodology A botanical survey was conducted along a twenty-foot wide corridor from the centerline of the proposed flagged trails. In 2019, surveys were conducted on 3/21, 4/11, 4/25, 6/8, and 7/19. The surveys were floristic in nature and included all vascular taxa encountered within the Upper City View Trail Project alignment. Generally, plant phenology dates for potentially occurring rare species are used to determine the timing and frequency of surveys. Our site visits were conducted from early spring to mid-summer, a period which was broad enough to include known blooming and fruiting times of potentially occurring rare species, but also encompassing the blooming period of early annuals, wetland plants, and late blooming herbaceous perennial species — roughly March through July. The February survey date was deferred due to a late rainy season and subsequent late flowering of plants. The level of effort required per given area and habitat was dependent upon the vegetation and its overall diversity and structural complexity. Surveys across the area followed the proposed trail corridors, and made extensive cross-country travel to thoroughly cover the entire area. No areas of special attention (serpentine, riparian, wetland) were found. Surveyors spent additional time in areas populated with Arctostaphylos but did not locate Arctostaphyios stanfordiana ssp. raichei. Plant materials that could not be identified in the field were collected for later determination in the lab, compared with herbarium samples, or determined by the survey team under better conditions. A team of professional and amateur botanists from the Sanhedrin Chapter of the Native Plant Society including Jen Ridell, Andrea Davis, Jim Xerogeanes, Emily Allen, and Neil Davis performed the surveys. This report is authored by Neil Davis. Vegetation Description The project area is located on the hills to the west of Ukiah. The hills rise steeply from the valley floor and are predominated by eastern facing slopes. A number of drainages create small sections of north-east and south-east facing slopes. The project area is almost exclusively in the Quercus Forest Alliance with very small 'islands" of Redwood Forrest and Woodland Alliance and Arctostaphylos Shrubland Alliance. The following Upper City View project vegetation alliances described below follow the National Vegetation Classification Hierarchy as applied to California vegetation. The description of each alliance is specific to vegetation composition documented during the field surveys. Quercus (agrifolia, douglasii, garryana, kelloggii, lobata, wislizeni) Forest Alliance - Mixed oak forest This vegetation alliance covers approximately 95% of the project area. The proposed trail corridor bisects dense multi-species stands of oaks, madrone, and tanoak. The understory is sparse and leaf letter is predominantly thick. Co-dominate tree species include Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni). Other occurring hardwoods include blue oak (Q. douglasii), Oregon oak (Quercus garryana), Oracle Oak (Quercus Xmorehus), Nutmeg (Torreya californica) and Buckeye (Aesculus californicus). Sequoia sempervirens Forest & Woodland Alliance - Redwood forest and woodland The proposed trail corridor crosses a number of small redwood groves with dense over growths of young (<6"dbh) trees scattered in the shadier areas of drainages. The proposed trail corridor crosses one grove of more mature Redwoods with trees up to 30"dbh. Trail construction will not require removal of any tree greater than 6"dbh. The areas have little diversity. The immature stands are densely populated leaving little room for secondary species. The mature stand has a sparse understory with thick leaf litter. Arctostaphylos (canescens, manzanita, stanfordiana) Shrubland Alliance - Hoary, common, and Stanford manzanita chaparral Characteristic Species Arctostaphylos canescens, Arctostaphylos manzanita or Arctostaphylos stanfordiana is dominant or co-dominant in the shrub canopy with Adenostoma fasciculatum, Arctostaphylos auriculata, Arctostaphylos glandulosa, Arctostaphylos viscida, Baccharis pilularis, Ceanothus spp., Eriodictyon californicum, Heteromeles arbutifolia, Lotus scoparius, Pickeringia montana or Quercus berberidifolia. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including Pinus attenuata, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus douglasii or Quercus wislizeni. Survey Results Potentially occurring rare species identified in the pre-study investigations were limited to Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp raichei and Lilium rubescens. Although the trail crosses the Arctostapylois Shrubland Alliance, subspecies rachei was not found. However, on both the main proposed corridor and the secondary additional corridor Lilium rubescens was found. Locations for the L. rubescens were geotagged. Field visits with the trail designer/builder confirmed the trail can be moved laterally to avoid areas where L rubescens is located. Eighty-nine species were documented during the study period. 34 4011 ■ �� a References Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Brodo I. M., S.D. Sharnoff and Stephen Sharnoff. Lichens of North America. Yale University Press. 2001. Sharnoff, S. 2014. A Field Guide to California Lichens. Yale University Press. CNDDB and CDFW. 2017. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Natural Diversity Database Changes to the CNDDB Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes and Lichens List, July 2017. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp CNPS. 2017. Rare Plant Program, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition,v8-03). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed July 2, 2017]. Doyle W.T. and R.E. Stotler. 2006. Contributions toward a bryoflora of California III. Keys and Annotated Species Catalogue for Liverworts and Homworts. Madrono 53: 89-197. Jepson Flora Project(eds.)2017. Jepson eFora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [accessed on May 1, 2017] Lepig G. and J.W. White. 2006. Conservation of peripheral plant populations in California. Madrono 53: 264-274. McCune B. and Linda Geiser. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. 1997. Norris D.H. and J.R. Shevock. 2004. Contributions toward a bryoflora of California: I. A Specimen- Based Catalogue of Mosses. Madrono 51(1): 1-131. II. A Key to the Mosses 51 (2): 133-269. Sawyer,J.O.,T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, second edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA. v, vnDo � � � -73 Zc1 „ -mm n (-) nnM In D O m �_ (D = C O Q �. r�r � v r v ^� v, Q Q rn-r fD 'a kQ _ O n (D Q O Z3 O O rrb Q Q Q Q rD O r N N Q rrb �r � � r0r ° k Z3 LQ O '_* 3 tn• r> � S Q rip O O-r O -Q O �. O S m m Q -+ r) Q r-r Q a Q o a Q rn O `. ° Q n x o � � rb ° o O Q ° Q Q ° r' S z D rb rD Q M M rD (o n Q Q a -r3° ti L Q Q_ S � o y LnLn n � Q• � a _ kQLn 0 a o0 a ; m N m n O N o- O v v rD rD � Q O o v O O Q O O v 'O D rvr (DD v O rn rvr r+ G r+ Q m m 7 m C 7 v pq rD m C � C 0 0 ( r+ (D f 0- � n m 7 o 0q fl �_ r+ h O O O < rD rD 3 Z v 3 On in o v' rD r+ f n n v 7 - cn SrD 0 N O O O � o • 3 Q v m o m Oq p Z. -W. v m v; p cn cn 7 C v v cn v 5 rD — < o C N 0- �_ cn o Q Q Q lD n o- ai ai Uq v m y r�r cn m v v O v < v o- � rD 3 � Q o- Q rD rrDD = m w m Ln rr h. rNr n O (D m m o rD v 3 rr h O G �_ 0 n < v _ m O_ n m m 3 r+, — 3 Q D m m 9J 3 � i i v (D 7 Ln m m p�j v �' = cn -0 -0 O� �1 m n rD O C m o n o m c S < rD A (D v 3 m rn ,f � cn v �p M ET 0- 0 r+ O C F W W O D r r r D D O � Z D M r T -n0 0 n ; n n m m -n �. o v O o -0 o v — cn in p Lo �_ - �n C p � G v v Ol s cn m v n v r+ r+ + Ln C n � rrDD M n 3 n;' v v m D D wo n m ODD� � m Q- � � � p � � � � � to c) rD v ' v v o n n v n n m m v n �. v m �' Q Q 3 v 3 (D m Gl n QJ N C v n rD nmi m m n m m m v m rt n n n c n m p�j (vD (vD N (D E m � vmmv � � � � rD n � � M A v n v r' n n v m (D n v m rD = m v m m v v m m v m rD m N Q m rD (D v v m m N I— F� OO W W ~ W 4�, W W -P� co W OO co W 00 00 OO OO W -P�- 4�, W OO OO W 00 Gl D N N I� W D F" N N I" W N N fV W N W N N NJ N z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z n o o o o o o o o o r) o o n o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m = = M M M = M M M M = m M = M M M m M M = = M M M M M M H (D m rD m m m m m m m rD m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m D z z Z z Z z z Z Z z Z z z z z z Z z z z z z z Z z z Z Z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o -n o 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o m = = M M M M = M M M = M = m M = M M M M = M = = M M = m = m CA m m m 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 m m m m D ƒ g / 6 � 7 o § 1 fD � \ 0 / � � Q' & a Q / / / \ / g r / 2 % � » \ < § § J 0 G 2 -0 0 r+ £ 2 ƒ E h/ rD LA QL 0 m % ET / R / / cu 2 ° ° g = CL rD« � F ® � 2 7 7 0 c = / (D o 0- w �w \ ƒ W V 00 § ) / Ili § k § / ° (D ° (D 0 g 5' 2 � ) % @ \ � Q © Q Ln 0 2 2 2 / R = 9 f rD rD rD 2 2 2 0 0 0 s e = e rD (D Plant List (Appendix B) Annual Herbs Blennosperma nanum var. nanum Common blennosperma Calandrinia menziesii Red maids Clarkia concinna Red ribbons Clarkia gracilis ssp. sonomensis Sonoma clarkia Collinsia heterophylla Chinese houses Collinsia sparsiflora Few flowered collinsia Collomia sp. Collomia Eschscholzia californica Ca Poppy Lasthenia californica Goldfields Lasthenia californica ssp. californica California goldfields Limnanthes douglasii ssp. nivea Snow white meadowfoam Nemophila heterophylla Canyon nemophila Platystemon californicus Cream cups Plectritis ciliosa Long spurred plectritis Plectritis congests ssp. brachystemon Shortspur seablush Perennial Herbs Anisocarpus madioides Woodland madia Calochortus tolmiei Hairy star tulip Campanula prenanthoides CA Harebell Cardamine californica Bitter cress Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Common soaproot Clinopodium douglasii Yerba buena Cynoglossum grande Houndstongue Delphinium nudicaule Canyon larkspur Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks Dichelostemma ida-maia Firecracker flower Erythronium californicum California fawn lily Eriophyllum lanatum Wooly sun flower Eschscholzia californica California poppy Euphorbia oblongata Eggleaf spurge Fritillaria affinis Checker lily Galium sp. galium Hypericum concinnum gold wire Iris macrosiphon Ground iris Lathyrus vestitus var. vestitus Hillside pea Lilium rubescens Redwood Lily Lithophragma heterophyllum Woodland star Lysimachia latifolia Pacific starflower Micranthes californica Greene's saxifrage Pedicularis densiflora Indian warrior Polygala californica CA Milkwort Mosquito bill, Shooting Primula hendersonii Star Ranunculus occidentalis Western buttercup Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle Scrophularia californica California bee plant Sedum spathulifolium Pacific stonecrop Stachys sp. Hedge Nettle Taraxia ovata Sun cup Triteleia laxa Ithuriel's Spear Viola ocellata Western heart's ease Wyethia glabra Smooth mule ears Grasslike Briza maxima Rattlesnake grass Cynosurus echinatus Hedghog do tail Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye Festuca californica California fescue Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue Luzula comosa Hairy wood rush Forbs Arctostaph los stanfordiana ssp stanfordiana Stanford's Manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp glandulosa Eastwood Manzanita Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise Baccharis pilularis Coyote bush Ceanothus sp. California lilac Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Pickerin is montana Chaparall Pea Rosa gymnocarpa Wood Rose Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison Oak Tree Aesculus californica Buckeye Arbutus menziesii Madrone Northolithcarpus densiflores Tanoak Pinus attenuata Knobcone Pine Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir Quercus a rifolia? Coast Live Oak Quercus berberidifolia Inland Scrub Oak Quercus chrysolepis Canyon Oak Quercus douglasii Blue oak Quercus garryana Oregon oak Quercus keloggii Black Oak Quercus parvula var. shrevei Shreve Oak Quercus wislizeni Interior live oak Quercus Xmorehus Oracle oak Sequoia sempervirens Redwood Torreya californica California nutmeg Umbellularia californica Caliornia Bay Vine Lonicera hespidula Honeysuckle Whipplea modesta Modesty Fern Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern Pentagramma triangularis Goldback fern Polypodium sp. Licorice fern Pol stichum munitum Western Sword fern Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken fern ATTACHMENT D Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Upper City View Trail Project Public Review. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15201 and 15204 discuss public participation regarding the review and evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Negative Declarations. Specifically, Section 15204 states the following: "(a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (b) In reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect, (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." In accordance with CEQA, the City of Ukiah Planning Division prepared a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the proposed Project. The ISMND (State Clearinghouse No. 2022010241) was circulated for public review from January 18, 2022 through February 21, 2022, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. The Notice of Availability for the ISMND was circulated in the following manner: • Uploaded to the State Clearinghouse website on January 17, 2022; • Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project parcel on January 17, 2022; • Emailed to departments and agencies with jurisdiction or interest over the Project on January 18, 2022; • Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 19, 2022; • Posted on the City of Ukiah website on January 18, 2022; and • Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) on January 18, 2022. Response to Comments. The City of Ukiah received two written comments on the Draft ISMND, as shown in Table 1 below. Comments are included in Attachment A. CEQA Guidelines Section City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail ISMND Response to Public Comments 15073 (Public Review of a Proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) does not require a Lead Agency to provide written responses to public comment, with the exception of those raised by a Responsible or public agency. However, the City of Ukiah has chosen to review and respond to all public comments received on the ISMND. Information contained within the below response to comments has been incorporated into the Final Draft ISMND for clarification purposes, as applicable. Additionally, the following non substantive clarifications and edits have been made: • Corrected minor grammatical and typographic errors; • Replaced Figure 2 with an improved location figure that clearly outlines the Project site boundaries, as well as existing and proposed trails; and • Further clarified that the western portion of the site is developed with a portion of the existing City View Trail, while the eastern portion of the site is developed with a portion of the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course. Table 1, Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Commenter Date Received Letter# North Coast Regional 1 Water Quality Control January 27, 2022 Board 2 Bonnie Wildberger February 15, 2022 COMMENT LETTER 1: NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (WATER BOARD) Comment: The Water Board notes that the ISMND states that the Upper City View Trail will cross a Class III watercourse and that the trail will be assessed annually during the winter for three years to determine whether any areas on the trail are wet enough to require an improved crossing. However, the Water Board recommends that the City of Ukiah complete an assessment prior to trail construction to determine whether any water crossing structures are necessary to prevent the trail causing sediment discharges and obtain any required permits prior to construction. The Water Board further notes that if any soil disturbance or work is proposed within the Class III watercourse, including constructing the alignment through it, or if a crossing is determined to be needed, permits and approvals by the Water Board are required. Response: The feature that is identified as a Class III Watercourse in the Biological Assessment and ISMND reaches a flat area with no clear channel or route of drainage just below where the trail would cross. As such, it effectively dissipates and ends at this location. The flat area extends approximately 100 feet and then the slope begins again, creating a new section of distinct Class III waterway. However, there is no connection between the two sections of Class III watercourses. As such, the City does not propose a crossing at this time. However, as noted Mitigation Measure BIO-7 this portion of the trail (and the entire trail length)will be monitored over City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail ISMND Response to Public Comments the next three years to see if a change in condition warrants a crossing. If it is determined that one is needed,the City will notify all applicable regulatory bodies and obtain all necessary permits. On March 2, 2022, City Staff met with the Water Board to discuss their comments, the City's aforementioned approach, and Mitigation Measure BIO-7. The Water Board stated that they are in agreeance with the City's approach and no permits are needed at this time (see email correspondence dated March 2, 2022, included in Attachment A). In response to these discussions, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 has been revised as follows: BIO-7: Watercourses. The Project shall adhere to UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards for trail construction related to erosion, and all earthwork within or adjacent to (50 feet) any watercourse or other body of water shall adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control (placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc.) and, if possible, work shall be completed while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. The UVTG shall assess the entire trail length each winter for the first three years after project completion. Any areas that are damp enough to show foot created depressions after the trail is dried will be assessed and either crossed with a footbridge such as a wooden walkway known as a "puncheon", or be hardened, or diverted with a culvert if a bridge is deemed impractical. If any structures are proposed for placement within the bed or bank in order for the trail crossing, consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be required, and all necessary permits shall be obtained. COMMENT LETTER 2: BONNIE WILDBERGER Comment: The commenter notes that they own the property(identified as the"Wildberger Ranch" that contains the unsanctioned "U" trail) north of the Project and expresses concerns regarding trespass and associated issues, such as people cutting existing fencing and vandalizing property. Specific to the proposed Project, the commenter suggests that fencing be constructed to prevent hikers from trespassing onto their adjacent property from the proposed trail. Response: In an effort to keep trial users on the proposed trail, "no trespassing" signs will be posted where the proposed trail intersects the unsanctioned "U" trail located on the commenter's property. In an effort to reduce environmental impacts, the proposed Project does not include fencing. However, this comment is noted and is included in the public record for City Council consideration. City of Ukiah Upper City View Trail ISMND Response to Public Comments ATTACHMENT A From: Falcone,Gil(dWaterboards To: Michelle Irace Cc: Filak,JordanCslWaterboards Subject: RE: Notice of Availability of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper City View Trail Project Date: Thursday,January 27,2022 4:45:26 PM Attachments: image001.pnng [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Ukiah CEQA response— Upper City View Trail Michelle Irace Planning Manager City of Ukiah mirace(@cityofukiah.com IS/MND: https://files.cega net.opr.ca.gov/275432- 1/attachment/ReWrEv8eOF2uEgNi6tWT3XIODbslzXVGv9HOn3Bx- 44J53neC9XmkmihK6my3UhsnuJxwL64NXdvZVMuO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Dear Michelle Irace, Thank you for providing staff of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) the opportunity to comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of Ukiah's Upper City View Trail, SCH #2022010241. We offer the following comments based on our review of the IS/MND. The ID/MND states that the new Upper City View Trail will cross a Class III watercourse and that the trail will be assessed annually during the winter for three years to determine whether any areas on the trail are wet enough to require an improved crossing structure such as a puncheon bridge, hardened/rocked ford, or culvert crossing. The Regional Water Board recommends that the City of Ukiah complete an assessment prior to trail construction to determine whether any water crossing structures are necessary to prevent the trail causing sediment discharges and obtain any required permits prior to construction. Please note that any soil disturbance in waters of the state, including the Class III watercourse described in the IS/MND, would require a permit from the Regional Water Board. This would include any earthwork/grading necessary to create the new trail alignment through the Class III watercourse. Permits would also be required for any improved water crossings, including puncheon bridges, hardened rocked fords, or culvert crossings. Any work within waters of the state should be performed when the watercourse is dry, or work would be subject to a dewatering plan approved by the Regional Water Board. Regional Water Board permits required for the project may include a 401 Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements. Please feel free to contact us with any permitting questions. For more information about Regional Water Board permits, please visit https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/water_quality_certificat ion Z. Thank you. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Gil Gil Falcone Sr.Environmental Scientist,M.S. Supervisor Southern 401 Certification Unit North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Blvd.,Suite A Santa Rosa,CA 95403-1072 Voice(707) 576-2830 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/ ***The Water Boards are continuing day-to-day work protecting public health, safety, and the environment. However, staff are mostly working remotely and we continue to check email and voicemail regularly. Thank you and stay healthy and safe.*** From: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:39 AM To: Michelle Irace<mirace@cityofukiah.com> Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Upper City View Trail Project EXTERNAL: Hello, The City of Ukiah has prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Upper City View Trail Project. As noted in the attached Notice of Availability (NOA),the IS/MND is available for review online at http://www.cityofukiah.com/cega-review/or in person at our office.The public review period begins today,January 18, 2022 and goes through February 21, 2022. Comments and questions may be submitted via email or mail at the address noted in the NOA. Thank you, C*10tyof Ukiah Michelle Irace, Planning Manager City of Ukiah Community Development Dept. 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah CA 95482 (707)463-6203 From: Falcone,Gil(cDWaterboards To: Michelle Irace Cc: Neil Davis Subject: RE: Upper City View Trail Class 3 Watercourse and Comment on the ISMND Date: Wednesday,March 2,2022 5:11:01 PM Attachments: image001.ona [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Michelle, Thank you for meeting and discussing the trail project. From our discussion of the trail construction, project description, review of current site conditions and photos, the Regional Water Board would not require a waste discharge requirement or 401 certification permit for the project as proposed. If, after years of monitoring the trail, there becomes a need to install a developed crossing of a watercourse or wetland as discussed in Bio-7, the language that is included regarding consultation and possible permitting with the Regional Water Board is sufficient mitigation. Thank you to you and Neil for sharing insightful information about the site. Please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions about this or any other projects relative to creeks or wetlands. Best of luck with this great project! Regards, Gil Gil Falcone Sr.Environmental Scientist,M.S. Supervisor Southern 401 Certification Unit North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Blvd.,Suite A Santa Rosa,CA 95403-1072 Voice(707) 576-2830 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/ ***The Water Boards are continuing day-to-day work protecting public health, safety, and the environment. However, staff are mostly working remotely and we continue to check email and voicemail regularly. Thank you and stay healthy and safe.*** From: Michelle Irace<mirace@cityofukiah.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 3:58 PM To: Falcone, Gil@Waterboards<Gil.Falcone@waterboards.ca.gov> Cc: Neil Davis<ndavis@cityofukiah.com> Subject: Upper City View Trail Class 3 Watercourse and Comment on the ISMND EXTERNAL: Hi Gil, Thank you for your comments on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Upper City View Trail Project, and for taking the time to meet today. As discussed,the feature that was identified as a Class III Watercourse in the Biological Assessment and ISMND (identified in the attached map and shown in the attached figures) reaches a flat area with no clear channel or route of drainage just below where the trail would cross. As such, it effectively dissipates and ends at this location.The flat area extends approximately 100 feet and then the slope begins again, creating a new section of distinct Class III waterway. However, there is no connection between the two sections of Class III watercourses. In the photos you can see that the leaf litter has not been washed from the site this winter, and the only sign of water below the trail is the ferns that are growing in what would be the wettest area below the trail. As such, the City does not propose a crossing at this time. However, as noted Mitigation Measure BIO-7 this portion of the trail (and the entire trail length) will be monitored over the next couple of years to see if a change in condition warrants a crossing. If it is determined that one is needed,the City will notify all applicable regulatory bodies and obtain all necessary permits. Please see revised MM BIO-7 below and let us know if you are comfortable with this language and approach. Please also confirm that no permits are needed at this time to construct the trail (without a bridge or structure)through this area. 1131O-7: Watercourses.The Project shall adhere to UVTG Design and Maintenance Standards for trail construction related to erosion, and all earthwork within or adjacent to (50 feet) any watercourse or other body of water shall adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control (placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc.) and, if possible, work shall be completed while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream.The UVTG shall assess the entire trail length each winter for the first three years after project completion. Any areas that are damp enough to show foot created depressions after the trail is dried will be assessed and either crossed with a footbridge such as a wooden walkway known as a "puncheon", or be hardened, or diverted with a culvert if a bridge is deemed impractical. If any structures are proposed for placement within the bed or bank in order for the trail crossing, consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be required, and all necessary permits shall be obtained. Thank you, Michelle Irace, Planning Manager Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 www.cityofukiah.com/community-development � M lk 7 3 A 4. 7,-123.23048 CTIVE LOG TJVE L.OG y ' w■ ir r,,- , • ,�-:.� =ors ry_ V - ' �. 1•.r;+H'.•..Win• ��1..: �'~• � - - _. F�.{ .� �• k'., _ MTV }��� i I: r . -�- ����. Lam:•: !w ����� - :1FbA. �' �•�-'-X•x��.C_".�. .+tea. � � ,.� `ir..�,. � �- � - ��434 0_ SUM i , j K M1 M.r k 11`7 ��• ', { •'s�' `.`� � it 11 I �I I I ; �i.' Mt :�_�r�-hLR =•+:$ +ems ��.� _ ���' 7°.*,,. -� � �',=, .,.,..•"tom :;i''�`:.�:F'�°.. •'.•a-�,�..:.a;" :. _ 1 1 / I• • �1 1 � I RECEIVED FEB 15 2022 Bonnie Wildberger CrrYOFUKM Ri Highland Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ukiah, CA 95482 February 8, 2022 Michelle ]race, Planning Manager 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: Upper City View Trail Project Dear Ms. Irace: Let me be clear. I and my family are supporters of public lands being made accessible to the public. Hiking in Low Gap Park is great exercise with scenic views and is free to all who wish to venture forth. Our concern with the Upper City View Project is fencing and signage. The Wildberger Ranch, consisting of 940 acres, has been in our family for close to 70 years. In the past, there have been hikers who trespass, damage, set fires on and to our property. Fencing that has been erected has been cut and vandalized; No Trespassing signage has been destroyed. If the Upper City View Trail Project is approved, the City must not only build the trail but commit to erect fencing that inhibits any trespass minded hikers from venturing onto our ranch property. Periodic maintenance must also be provided so that such fencing and signage is kept in good condition to frustrate any potential acts of vandalism. Our ranch borders City property and there have been continuing problems in the past. We are hopeful that if the City mindfully creates this new trail, the necessary precautions will be taken to protect the neighboring parcels. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Very truly, AM U4�- Bonnie Wildberger EXHIBIT 2 FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UPPER CITY VIEW TRAIL PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. The City of Ukiah, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Upper City View Trail Project (SCH No. 2022010241) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2. The Lead Agency (City) consulted with all responsible agencies and trustee agencies. 3. The Draft ISMND was circulated for public review from January 18, 2022 through February 21, 2022. 4. The ISMND analyzed areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions reached within it, the Project would not significantly impact any environmental resources for the following reasons: a. Temporary ground disturbing activities associated with vegetation removal and trail construction could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (Section VIII of the ISMND) would adequately reduce all impacts to less than significant. b. Impacts to Aesthetics, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Recreation, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Public Services would be less than significant. c. The Project would have no impact to Agriculture and Forestry, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Utilities and Service Systems. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the ISMND, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah (including the ISMND and any comments received) that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. 6. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the ISMND, the Project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable. 7. The Notice of Availability for the public review period, and the Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with the Ukiah City Code and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073: Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the Project parcel, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on January 18, 2022 and March 2, 2022; provided to interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on March 2, 2022; posted on the City's CEQA webpage on January 18, 2022 and March 7, 2022; published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 19, Findings to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration For the Upper City View Trail Project 1 2022 and March 5, 2022; posted on the Project site and within Low Gap Park on March 2, 2022; and posted at the Civic Center(glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing. 8. The ISMND and record of proceedings of the decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Community Development Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. 9. On March 16, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public comment and consider approval of the ISMND for the Project. The ISMND was approved by the City Council via Resolution Number 2022-17 and reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Findings to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration For the Upper City View Trail Project 2