Appendix C - Updated Section 106 Cultural Resources Report-Sb2

R
e
c
y
c
l
e
dW
a
t
e
r
PROJECT
Section 106 Cultural

Resources Investigation
Report
April 2015
Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Section 106
Cultural Resources Investigation Report
City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project
Prepared by:
SMB Environmental, Inc.

April 2015
This report contains sensitive data that should not be distributed to the public. Archaeological site information is exempted
from public disclosure under California Government Code 6245 & 6254.10. This report may be provided to those with a
genuine need to know (e.g., regulatory agencies, architects, etc.). Other distribution is not authorized.
April 2015

Table of Contents

Section 1 - Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Project Location and Background ................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................................... 7
Section 2 Proposed Action Description ............................................................................................... 8
2.1 Potential Users and Phasing ........................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Pipeline Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Pump Station ............................................................................................................................ 10
2.4 Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Construction Considerations ........................................................................................................ 11
2.6 Area of Potential Effect ................................................................................................................ 13
Section 3 - Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Archaeology and Prehistory ......................................................................................................... 14
3.2 European History of Mendocino County ...................................................................................... 15
3.3 Ethnography ................................................................................................................................. 17
3.4 Current Status of Reservations and Rancherias ........................................................................... 18
3.5 Status of Resource Protection ...................................................................................................... 19
Section 4 - Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Federal .......................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act ........................................................................................ 21
4.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................................ 21
4.2 State ............................................................................................................................................. 21
4.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources ............................................................................ 21
4.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................................... 22
4.3 Local ............................................................................................................................................. 22
4.3.1 City of Ukiah General Plan ..................................................................................................... 22
4.3.2 County of Mendocino General Plan .................................................................................... 22
Section 5 - Investigation Methodology and Results ............................................................................. 24
April 2015

5.1 Northwest Information Center (NWIC) Record Search ................................................................ 24
5.2 Native American Heritage Commission Record Search and Outreach ......................................... 25
5.3 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................... 25
5.4 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 26
5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 26
Section 6 - Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 30
List of Figures
Figure 1: General Location Map ................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments ................................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Identified Resources in or immediately adjacent to the APE ..................................................... 27
Figure 4: Recommended Archaeological Monitoring within the APE..29
List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters ............................................................................................ 8
Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary ................................................................................. 10
Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities ......................................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Resources Nearby or Present within the APE .....26

Attachment A ....................................................................................... Native American Correspondence
Attachment B...Site Records

April 2015
Section 1 - Introduction
This document is a cultural resources inventory study on the City of Ukiahs proposed Recycled Water
Project (Proposed Project/Action) in Mendocino County, California. This report presents the project
location and background, Proposed Description/Action, area of potential effect, environmental setting,
regulatory framework, and the investigation methods and results of the cultural resources investigation
for the Proposed Project/Action.
The term cultural resources encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and
burial sites. Below is a brief summary of each component:

Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic
resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the
States history and are generally less than 200 years old.

Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures.
Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures.

Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually
associated with indigenous cultures, are interred.
This study was conducted in order to identify cultural resources, which include prehistoric and historic
archeological resources, buildings, structures, and sites of religious or cultural significance for Native
Americans within the proposed project area. Because the Proposed Project/Action may involve the use
of State Revolving Loan Program and/or federal funds, this investigation was conducted in compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36
Code of Federal Register [CFR] Part 800).
1.1
Project Location and Background
As shown in Figure 1, the City is located in Mendocino County in the northern coastal region of
California. The City is situated in the Ukiah Valley approximately 60 miles north of Santa Rosa, 20 miles
south of Willits, and 5 miles southwest of Lake Mendocino, and is surrounded by coastal ranges in
southern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the
east by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above
mean sea level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south
near El Robles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs
north to south through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to
south through the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County.
April 2015
Figure 1 - General Location Map

Originally part of a Mexican Land Grant, the City began its history as a Valley settlement in 1856. Due to
the Citys moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end
of the 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County
(www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood
production plants, in addition to up-and-coming nonagricultural manufacturers.
Surface waters, namely the Russian River and Lake Mendocino, and groundwater are the major water
resources that sustain the people and industries of Ukiah area. The City and several other water service
providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within
their service area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both
irrigate their crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources
have become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-stream flow
requirements for endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies,
including recycled water, has increased.
Environmental groups have increasingly studied how river and groundwater diversions have negatively
affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of
these diversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries) presented the State Board with information that water withdrawn from the
Russian River for frost protection of agricultural crops poses a threat to federally threatened and
endangered salmonids in the Russian River watershed. They documented two episodes of fish stranding
mortality that occurred in April 2008, one on Felta Creek in Sonoma County and the second on the
mainstream of the Russian River near Hopland in Mendocino County (Draft EIR Russian River Frost
Protection Regulation, 2007). NOAA Fisheries requested the State Board take regulatory action
immediately to regulate diversions for frost protection to prevent salmonid mortality. The State Board is
currently considering regulatory action that would deem any diversions for frost protection from March
15 through May 15 unreasonable, unless approved by the State Board through the completion of an
extensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay
of the State Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and
Sonoma Counties.
Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative
water supplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service
providers in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River
and Lake Mendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area
would increase the overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions.
The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent
of the UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City
is limited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly
stringent discharge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be
discharged to the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges
very high quality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which
April 2015

treated effluent can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including
delivery of recycled water to irrigation customers.
1.2
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to replace/augment existing water supplies in Ukiah Valley.
Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water demands for
irrigation and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local agricultural
industry. It would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah
Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP), and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.
April 2015
Section 2 Proposed Action Description

The Proposed Project/Action was developed through an extensive engineering and feasibility study
process, culminating in a recommended or preferred alternative. The basis for the Proposed
Project/Action for this report and environmental analysis is identified as the Preferred Alternative in
Chapter 7 of the Citys February 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. As shown in Figure 2 below, the
Proposed Project/Action would consist of 9.4 -miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8-
to 16-inch to provide recycled water from the Citys existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of
agricultural and urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44
parcels covering 703 acres would be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In
addition, about 284 acres would be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Figure
2 also provides a summary of the recommended phasing for the implementation of the Proposed
Project/Action. Table 1 provides a summary of the key parameters of the overall Proposed
Project/Action. What follows is a discussion of the major features of the Proposed Project/Action.
Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters
Parameter
Number of
Units
Irrigation Demand (AFY)
1,234
Irrigated area Served (Acres)
703
Parcels Provided irrigation (Number)
44
Frost Protection Demand (AFY)
142
Frost Protected land (Acres)
284
Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres)
17
Pipeline Length (Miles)
9.4
Pipeline Diameter (Inches)
8-16
Pump Station
2.1
Potential Users and Phasing
There are two categories of potential users, agricultural and landscape irrigation. The Proposed
Project/Action will be developed in four phases. Figure 3 provides a summary of the recommended
phasing for the implementation of the Proposed Project/Action. Table 2 provides a summary of the
estimated annual demand for recycled water by phase as well as by irrigation and frost protection.

April 2015
Vichy Sp
rings Rd
#
*
#
*
h
Vic
yH
ills
d
ill R
PLSS Boundary
bH
WWTP Facilities
Kno
Ruddick Cunningham Rd
N Main St
Proposed Storage Pond
Rte
Taylor D r
Hwy
#
*
Dr
on Rd
US Hwy 101
Phase 3 and 4 Customers
Phase 2 Customers
Proposed Service Connection
te
Sta
Discharge Location
#
*
Redwood
St
tate
SS
Phase 3 and 4 Pipeline
Phase 2 Pipeline
Talmage Rd State Rte 222
Gielow Ln
Ln
Whitmore
Legend
Phase 1 Customers
Recreati
River R
US Hwy 101
L
gard
Nor
Rd
lle
i
v
on
Bo
Phase 1 Pipeline
Rd
#
*
Toyon R
d
Eunice Ct
#
*
n Ln
Jefferso
st D
#
*
#
*
Laws Ave
re
Firc
#
#*
*
#
*
Airpor t Rd
Beacon Ln
Pomo Dr
Redwood Hwy
Hastings Ave
Wabash Ave
St
#
*
E Gobbi
#
*
Lorraine St
Perry St
S Dora St
Helen Ave
ve
Luce A
Ln
Waugh
Ave
Hillview
Dr
Mendocino
S Orchard Ave
bi S t
E Go b
St
Calvert Dr W Mill S
ins St
t
Leslie S
S Main
ol St S Oak St
S Scho
E Perk
W
at
so
#
*
#
*
Clara Ave
il D
St
t
dley S
W Stan
t
S
rch
W Ch u
y St
W Cla
Redemeyer Rd
Redemeyer Rd
River St
St
Elm
Brush St
Ln
a
Qu
N Oak
Sta
#
*
#
*
# Dora Ave
*
# t Ave
*
Walnu
#
*
Brunner St
Ford St
h St
N Bus
ve
Briggs St
Despina Dr
#Rd
*
A
Maple
ve
yA
nle
Mazzoni St
te St
Ga p
is
Ct
#
# *
*
#
*
# *
#
*
Le
w
ft
Lu
N Sta
#
*
Low
Ford Rd
Empire Dr
253
Howell Creek Rd
#Proposed Storage Pond

#*
*
for Phases 1 and 2
#
*
#
*
O
1,500
Feet
Figure 2
Proposed Action Pipeline
Alignments
3,000 Recycled Water Project, City of Ukiah

Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary
Estimated Recycled Water Demand (AFY)
Irrigation
Phase
Agricultural
Urban
Landscape
Frost
Protection
Total by
Phase
Cumulative
Total
309.2
0.0
94.6
403.8
403.8
210.4
0.0
4.8
215.1
618.9
311.8
22.2
42.3
376.3
995.2
0.0
380.6
0.0
380.6
1,375.8
Total
831.4
402.8
141.7
1,375.8
2.2
Pipeline Facilities
As mentioned above and shown on Figure 2, the proposed recycled water system includes 9.4 miles of
recycled water pipelines ranging between 8 and 16-inches in diameter. The recycled water would be
pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be available up to
the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities. The pipeline will
be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first phase is anticipated
to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be along paved roads.
Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along paved roads,
primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a part of Phase 4
would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to minimize the
total length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral streams
and/or drainages that lead to the Russian River.
2.3
Pump Station
A single pump station is included in the alignment shown in Figure 2 at the Ukiah WWTP. Initially, it is
planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with
spare bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in
Phase 2. Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for
frost protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation.
2.4
Storage Facilities
As also shown on Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action also includes the construction and operation of
a new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a
capacity of approximately 1.6 MG and encompassing approximately 5 acres. The storage pond at the
wastewater treatment plant will accommodate the variation in potential customer demand patterns and
also serve as an equalization basin to buffer the potential variation in effluent flow at the WWTP. In
addition this storage pond, individual farmers will either use their existing storage ponds and/or develop
additional storage ponds on their own. These specific farmer activities are not included in the Proposed
Project/Action.
10
April 2015

Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities
Diameter
(inches)
Length
(miles)
Construction
Schedule
1,300
0.25
2013 - 2014
5,600
1.06
2013 - 2014
6,900
1.31
2013 - 2014
16
5,600
1.06
2019 - 2020
16
4,200
0.80
2019 - 2020
9,800
1.86
2019 - 2020
Phase
Type of Alignment
Ukiah WWTP Site Piping
16
Agricultural Land Service Roads
12
Phase 1 Subtotal
2
Paved Public Street
Phase 2 Subtotal
Length
(feet)
16
9,000
1.70
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
16
4,000
0.76
2025 - 2026
12
400
0.08
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
8
Phase 3 Subtotal
1,000
0.19
2025 - 2026
14,400
2.73
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
12
4,700
0.89
2031 - 2032
Paved Public Street
13,800
2.61
2031 - 2032
Phase 4 Subtotal
18,500
3.50
2031 - 2032
Proposed Project/Action Total
49,600
9.40
2013 - 2032
Note:
1). Laterals to individual agricultural parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer or landowner and are not
included in the lengths presented here.
2.5
Construction Considerations
As shown in Table 3 above, construction of the Proposed Project/Action is expected to begin in the
summer of 2013 and continue over approximately a 20 year period as each of the four phases are
planned to be developed in five (5) year increments beginning in 2013. Construction work will typically
be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly
on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be
constructed primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during
construction will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary
of the construction techniques and activities.
The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover construction
techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50-foot wide
construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction.
However, in most places a 25-foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the
smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 3-5
feet wide and 3-6 feet deep.

11
April 2015
The Proposed Project/Action would also require crossing six small ephemeral creeks and/or
drainages that flow to the Russian River and the existing railroad. Each of the crossings will be
done using trenchless construction techniques in the dry season and will not occur during rainy
weather and during the months between October 15 and through April 1.

Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any
dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and
not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB).

Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring
brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to
characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that each phase of the
project would be constructed by two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of
approximately 500-1,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging
areas for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that
would minimize hauling distances and long-term disruption.

Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project/Action.
Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or
disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for
this project. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-
concrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project/Action could
generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions
for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may
include, but not limited to:
Track-mounted excavator
Backhoe
Grader
Crane
Dozer
Compactor
Trencher/boring machine
End and bottom dump truck
Front-end loader
Water truck
Flat-bed delivery truck
Forklift
Compressor/jack hammer
12
April 2015
Asphalt paver & roller
Street sweeper
It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific
details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor. However, this description
provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated
with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are
generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the Citys design standards or
established ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not
described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any
minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.
2.6
Area of Potential Effect
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Proposed Project/Action is defined as the geographic area or
areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of
cultural resources as defined above. Trenching for installing the recycled water pipelines would typically
require a width of three feet and a vertical depth of approximately six feet; therefore the vertical APE
would be typically six feet. For this Proposed Project/Action, an APE of 50-foot wide corridor (25-foot
radius from centerline) would be assumed to accommodate for areas for staging and spoils. Depending
upon the width of the roadway and the size of pipe, a narrower horizontal APE with an average width of
12.5 feet extending through the right-of-way could be realized. The storage pond would occupy up to
12.5 acres on the 40-acre parcel the City recently acquired adjacent and to the south of the Ukiah
WWTP. This APE also includes a 10-foot buffer around those improvements for spoils and staging.
Excavation of the storage pond is estimated to be approximately 6 feet deep.
13
April 2015
Section 3 - Environmental Setting

What follows is a discussion of the regional environmental setting for cultural resources in Ukiah, Ukiah
Valley and portions of Mendocino County.
3.1
Archaeology and Prehistory
Generally, the prehistory of the Ukiah Valley within Mendocino County is not well known. No peer-
reviewed documents have been published since the seminal study presented by Fredrickson in 1984.
The Northwest Information Center at California State University, Sonoma indicated that approximately
4,320 archaeological sites from both prehistoric and historic eras have been catalogued or listed. The
most frequent form of cultural resource study is the surface inspection and these vary widely with
respect to project methodology.

The coastal region of Mendocino County exhibits two, perhaps three, different forms of cultural
adaptations. The Coast Yuki north of Fort Bragg lived on the coast year-round, with their major villages
set back from the coast within sheltered areas. The Northern Pomo were a riverine-adapted people who
made seasonal treks to the coast, set up seasonal camps, harvested their seafood, and returned home.
Large, complex village sites have not been found often on the coast between Fort Bragg and the Navarro
River, unless they pre-date Northern Pomo habitation. The Central Pomo south of the Navarro lived in
permanent villages and seasonal camps on the coast.

The redwood belt in central Mendocino County was used for short-term purposes by individuals or
groups passing through the region; however, no prehistorical Mendocino County groups lived
permanently or even seasonally in this zone. The Central and Northern Pomo maintained large villages
along the Russian River and its larger tributaries. These peoples made seasonal encampments in upland
areas but were primarily a riverine adapted people. The Yuki were also a riverine group, but with a
substantial mountain adaptation living along the Middle and South Forks of the Eel and Black Butte
Rivers. They made extensive use of the mountainous lands surrounding them. Their linguistic relatives,
the Huchnom, lived along the South Eel. The Huchnom's territory was limited. It appears that all of their
major villages were located along the South Eel, with the mountainous regions used for short trips to
gather specific resources. Of all the Yuki groups, they were most similar to the Pomo, and interacted
with the Potter and Redwood Valley Pomo group extensively.

Much the same can be said for Cahto groups living along Ten Mile Creek. Separate from the Yuki, the
Cahto integrated well with their Pomo neighbors, living along those major watercourses within their
territory with a highly variable food base. The North Fork Wailaki were a riverine people with an
adaptation different from their more southerly neighbors. Theirs was a largely salmon oriented
economy, supplemented by local resources such as acorn harvesting, gathering, and hunting. Large
villages were established along the major watercourses, with seasonal camps and special use sites
located in the upland regions of their territory. Remaining Athapaskan-speaking groups along the
northern boundary of the County are more aptly discussed within the context of Humboldt County.
Their material culture and economic adaptations are similar to the North Fork Wailaki.

14
April 2015

The time depth of human occupation of Mendocino County is uncertain. Human occupation is reported
in the Clear Lake Basin and in Sonoma County around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.5 In Humboldt County,
the time depth of human occupation along the coast is not more than a few thousand years; however,
prehistoric occupation on the interior ridges separating Shasta County may have occurred perhaps 8,000
years ago. Similar time depth is reported for the Eel River region. The oldest occupation in Round Valley
is about 3,000 years ago, but occupation in the surrounding hills and drainages extends back to
approximately 8,000 years ago. Although the Russian River was very heavily used, occupation has not
been reported before 5,000 years ago.

Human occupation along the coast, in both Northern and Central Pomo controlled territory, appears
roughly contemporaneous with that of the Russian River. It has been suggested that the lack of antiquity
for human occupation along the coast may be in part a result of rising sea levels that inundated older
archaeological sites. While there is no evidence for this, it does offer a plausible explanation for why the
coast of northern California lacks significant time depth of human occupation.
3.2
European History of Mendocino County
The European history of Mendocino County began many decades before the Bear Flag Revolt of 1848.
The earliest known incursions into the County by Europeans were in the 1820s. Several pre-Eighteenth
Century Spanish coastal explorations were undertaken, including one by Cabrillo, but there is no
evidence that any of these landed on the coast of Mendocino County to establish permanent
settlements. In the early decades of the Nineteenth Century, the Russian Empire established a number
of settlements in northwestern Sonoma County centered on Fort Ross. The Russians were not satisfied
to merely exploit their immediate surroundings and they conducted extensive explorations of the
interior. A qualified scientist accompanied each exploration and, as a result, the National Academy of
Sciences in Leningrad has near unparalleled collections of Coastal California ethnographic and botanical
materials. One of these explorations, circa 1828, traveled up the Russian River into Mendocino County
and then east to Clear Lake, describing either Mt. Lassen or Mt. Shasta to the north. Very little of this
information has been translated. Working with new translated information, Werner (1977) prepared a
short summary and bibliography of these explorations.

In the 1820s and 1830s, the County was visited, perhaps annually, by bands of English, French Canadian,
and American fur trappers. Never staying long in one place, these men were hunters and trappers and
only incidentally explorers. Spain, and subsequently Mexico, had many settlements in what was known
as Alta Californiaan area roughly corresponding to the coastal strip of modern California as far north
as central Sonoma County, where a mission and small presidio were established. By the 1840s, Sonoma
and Napa counties were carved into large land grants and, late in that decade, two ranchos were
established in southern Mendocino County: Rancho de Sanel at Hopland and Yokaya in the Ukiah Valley
(Marschner 2000:195).

Neither Spanish nor Mexican influence extended into Mendocino County beyond establishing the two
land grants. Neither grant was developed or confirmed by the U.S. government (Marschner 2000:196).
15
April 2015

However, Fernando Feliz did receive a patent for some 17,000 acres in Sanel Valley after receiving the
Rancho de Sanel land grant from the Mexican government (Hoover, et al. 1966:196). There were no
established cities or towns until 1859, and, owing to an extremely sparse population, the County was
administered by Sonoma County. In the 1840s, Rafael Garcia was using Point Arena for cattle grazing
and claimed to have a rancho but it was never named or confirmed.

The first region in Mendocino County to develop was the coast. In the 1850s, the County's fishing and
lumber industries were established. Harbors were established at the mouths of the Noyo, Navarro, and
Albion Rivers, with the Noyo an early center for fishing. The ports on the Navarro and Albion Rivers were
developed to serve a burgeoning lumber industry (Gille 1980:331). Other coastal areas were also subject
to intensive activities associated with this industry; Point Arena was reputedly the busiest town between
San Francisco and Eureka.

By the 1880s, the California Lumber Company had established 20 mills along the coast connected by
narrow gauge railroads to each other and the numerous small towns (Usal, Rockport, Hardy Creek,
Westport, Cleone, Fort Bragg, Noyo, Caspar, Mendocino City, Little River, Albion, Navarro, Greenwood,
Elk River, and Gualala). Some of these towns have completely disappeared, while others have managed
to survive as small rural communities. The Town of Mendocino has been designated by the State of
California as a special community pursuant to the Coastal Act in recognition of an existing balance of
residential, commercial and visitor serving facilities. The Town of Mendocino remains a visitor
destination for its historic significance and natural beauty.

The U. S. government originally established Fort Bragg, named after General Braxton Bragg of Mexican
War fame, as an Army fort on what was to be the Mendocino Indian Reservation. The fort was
established within the City limits of a thriving community. In the 1850s, the Union Lumber Company had
established lumber mills within in the City of Fort Bragg and in 1922 established the first private nursery
in California, the first private venture of its type in the State (Hoover, et al 1966:199). In the
1850s, the California Western Railroad connected the City to Willits; this railroad survives to this day as
the popular Skunk Train.

Inland towns were established at Ukiah, Hopland (called Sanel as late as 1859), and the town of Willits,
established circa 1865. Kirk Brier first settled Willits in Little Lake Valley in 1865, but the town was
named after Hiram Willits who bought Brier out and then helped with incorporation in 1888. The first
settler in the Ukiah area was S. Lowry, who established himself there by 1856. He sold his land to A. T.
Perkins, and in 1859 the tiny hamlet of some 100 people was selected as the County seat. In 1894, the
State Fish and Game Commission took over a fish hatchery begun in 1894 by the Northwestern Pacific
Railway. In 1898, the International Geodetic Association established one of four International Latitude
Observatories in the Ukiah area. In 1900, C. A. Purdy established a preserve for native western
wildflowers, bulbs, shrubs, and trees. This area east of Ukiah is known as Purdys Garden; the
internationally known facility was gone by the 1960s (Hoover, et al. 1966:196-197).

16
April 2015

The Ukiah area is also the location of Vichy Springs, one of the oldest continuously operating hot springs
resorts in the country (Hoover, et al. 1999), beginning as a resort circa 1888 as Doolan Ukiah Vichy.
Vichy Springs is recognized as a State historical landmark (Number 980). Other mineral spring resorts in
the County include Orrs Springs west of Ukiah and Duncan Springs south of Hopland. The Sun House in
Ukiah is also a State listed historical landmark (Number 926).

These inland interior areas were very remote; in the Boonville locality a unique dialect of English was
begun called Boontling, one of the very few recognized dialects of English. The rugged interior of the
County within the Redwood belt remains a sparsely settled region to this day. Population centers in the
region are small, with Boonville, Navarro, and Comptche in the south, and Branscomb in the north.
Boonville was founded in 1864 as Kendall City. Navarro or 'Navarra' appears on a Rancho Diseno map of
1844, but after statehood the post office in this location was called Wendling, until 1914 when it was
changed to Navarro. Branscomb was settled relatively late, in 1895 when the post office was
established.

The major industry of the interior was logging and supporting facilities with light retailing in the small
towns. The industry led to the establishment of Philo, Yorkville, and other towns in this portion of the
County. Agricultural activities were undertaken in the larger valleys, for example Anderson Valley
around Boonville and Yorkville. More recently, in the southern end of the County vineyards in some
areas have replaced fruit trees. The first major crop in the Hopland area, planted by Stephen Warren
Knowles in 1858, was hops and by the early 1900s, hops were replaced by pears and later vineyards. The
Potter, Redwood, and Coyote Valleys north, northeast, and east of Ukiah were heavily agricultural with
some logging in the first two. Coyote Valley, flooded in 1958 by Lake Mendocino behind Coyote Dam,
was also heavily agricultural and the first vineyard in Mendocino County was begun here in the 1880s
(Patterson, et al. 1977). The Ukiah Valley remains primarily an agricultural area although light industry
and commercial development has increased since the Second World War. Round Valley, about 30 miles
northeast of Willits, is also heavily agricultural with some logging in the northern end. Local tradition has
the last fast draw duel in California occurring in the streets of Covelo circa 1908.
3.3
Ethnography
The entire southern third of Mendocino County was the home of groups of Central Pomo. To the north
of the Central groups lie the Northern Pomo, who controlled a strip of land extending from the coast to
Clear Lake in Lake County. The northern groups controlled the coast from the Navarro River north to
Cleone and from just north of Anderson Valley to Sherwood Valley. Coyote, Yokayo, Redwood, and
Potter Valleys were within their territory. The Northern Pomo were the most populous native linguistic
groups in the County. The Pomo were a Hokan language group, judged one of the oldest linguistic
families in the State (McLendon and Oswalt 1977).

The Coast Yuki claimed a portion of the coast from Ft. Bragg north to an area slightly north of Rockport.
The Coast Yuki was one of the few native groups in California with a true coastal adaptation; they had
little access to interior resources. The Coast Yuki were linguistically related to a small group living along
the South Eel River north of Potter Valley called the Huchnom. Both of these smaller groups were
17
April 2015

related to the Yuki who were centered in Round Valley. The Round Valley Indian Reservation at the
northern end of the valley is the largest contiguous enclave of Indian land in the County and one of the
largest in California. These three groups represent a linguistic isolate language known as Yuki, which has
no known linguistic relatives (Miller 1977).

At the far northern end of the County, above the Coast Yuki, Northern Pomo, and Yuki, several groups
extend south from Humboldt County. These groups are interesting in that they represent the southern
extension of a different cultural area than their southerly neighbors. Pomoan-Yukian groups are
representative of the California Culture as defined by Kroeber (1925). These groups had a mixed
economy based primarily on harvesting acorns and hunting, fishing, and other gathering. The northerly
groups represent an extension of the Northwest Culture Area; the most well known groups in this
Culture Area lie far to the north in Washington and British Columbia and include groups such as the
Klingat and Tillamook, to name two.

Only one of the northerly groups lies entirely within Mendocino County, the Cahto; their territory was
bounded by Branscomb, Laytonville, and Cummings (Miller 1977). Three other groups, all Athapaskans
peaking like the Cahto, extended just south of the County boundary. These are the Shelter Cove
Sinkyone, the Eel River, and Pitch Wailaki. The North Fork Wailaki were almost entirely in Mendocino
County along the North Fork of the Eel River. Of the five southern Athapaskan groups, the Cahto were
the most closely related from a cultural perspective to the Pomo and are judged primarily a California
Culture Area group; the remaining four are included among the Northwestern California groups, which
were culturally part of the Northwest Culture Area. In truth, Northwestern California is more of an
agglomeration of California and Northwestern cultural characteristics, but their material culture is
sufficiently distinct from the Pomo that they are included in a distinct culture area.

Nearly all of these native groups have living representatives in the County today. The Central Pomo are
represented by Rancherias in Hopland, Manchester, and Point Arena. Northern Pomo groups have
Rancherias in Potter, Redwood, Pinoleville (Ukiah), Guideville (Coyote Valley), and Sherwood. The
Yuki, Huchnom, Coast Yuki, and North Fork Wailaki were placed on the Round Valley Reservation. The
Cahto have a Rancheria at Laytonville. The remaining Athapaskan groups have land set aside for them in
Humboldt County.
3.4
Current Status of Reservations and Rancherias
Many Rancherias represent the composite remnants of once populous native villages when the U. S.
Government restricted movement and confiscated their lands in the 1850s. For example, nine separate
tribes at Round Valley including Pomo and Wintu groups were forced to settle there in the Nineteenth
Century; Central Pomo and Northern Pomo live on each others Rancherias, often through
intermarriage. Thus, in land use planning it is often necessary to consult tribal members at several
Rancherias and those living at the Rancheria closest to a proposed project may not be the most
appropriate group(s) to consult. Established in 1856, Round Valley Reservation is the largest in
Mendocino County. The Reservation is a discontinuous assemblage of at least 15 parcels, some of which
18
April 2015

extend into Humboldt County. Before the establishment of Round Valley, the Department of Indian
Affairs had established a farm called Nome Cult.

The total acreage of Native American land is subject to change. Since the advent of Indian Gaming,
investment groups may form partnerships with tribal units for the purpose of acquiring property
in locations advantageous for resort-casino operations. Rancheria acreages may also increase as the
result of local action to place lands that were historically in a Rancheria back under trust status. Land
sales within a Rancheria require Bureau of Indian Affairs approval. Not all land within the boundaries
of reservations, are Federal trust lands. Today, Reservations and Rancherias in the County strive to
restore, maintain, and protect their histories. Cultural history is stressed through preservation of tribal
language and ceremonies. Cultural and sacred aspects of the land are also important. Round Valley
Indian Tribes, for example, may consider peaks and high places within the area to be spiritually
significant. Likewise, the acts of hunting, fishing, and gathering are not merely a means of gathering
food or materials; they represent cultural traditions.

Tribes are also striving to ensure that necessary social services are available. Employment opportunities
at or near their places of residence continue to be a priority for many tribes in Mendocino County.
Employment rates of 43 percent on the Redwood Valley Rancheria and 84 percent on the Round Valley
Reservation were identified in 2000. Many of those who are employed work off their Rancheria or
Reservation lands. Further, local tribes remain concerned about educational opportunities for Rancheria
and Reservation residents along with health and safety issues.
3.5
Status of Resource Protection
The process of identifying and mitigating impacts to cultural resources incrementally increases man's
understanding of human and natural environments through time. The largest blocks of land studied in
the County are within Mendocino National Forest. The Bureau of Land Management has conducted
extensive cultural resources surveys in the Cow Mountain Planning Unit and the Geysers Known
Geothermal Resources Area. The Round Valley Reservation was inspected for prehistoric cultural
resources in the 1970s. Several other Reservations or Rancherias have been studied recently as the
result of housing or economic development projects. The California Department of Parks and Recreation
has conducted cultural resources surveys on most if not all of their properties in the County. Many
sections of State highway rights-of-way have been inspected.

Large tracts of land under private ownership in the redwood belt have been inspected in association
with timber harvest plans administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Some State agencies routinely require cultural resources investigations, such as the State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights and the State Land Commission.

Prehistoric archaeological sites subject to intensive study are spread throughout the County. Many
archaeological sites along the Russian River in Coyote Valley were examined in the 1970s (Stoddard, et
al. 1978). A few prehistoric sites in Round Valley and vicinity have been studied. The California
19
April 2015

Department of Transportation has excavated prehistoric sites along the State Route 101 right-of-way. A
few prehistoric sites along the coast in MacKerricher State Park presumed associated with the Coast
Yuki were studied in the early 1990s. Isolated prehistoric sites have been examined within the limits of
lands under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Act; most of these are to define site boundaries.
Unless exempted, cultural resources investigations are required on lands subject to disturbance by
public and private projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However,
agricultural cultivation and many other uses are "permitted" and not subject to CEQA requirements.
Very few prehistoric or historic archaeological sites under the Countys CEQA jurisdiction have been
subject to systematic scientific study. With so few cultural resources carefully studied, the prehistory of
the County generally remains not well understood.

20
April 2015
Section 4 - Regulatory Framework

Summarized below are the relevant federal and state regulations as well as local goals and policies
related to cultural resources that are applicable to the Proposed Project/Action.
4.1
Federal
Summarized below are the relevant federal regulations related to cultural resources that are applicable
to the Proposed Project/Action.
4.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, established the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), which contains an inventory of the nations significant prehistoric and historic
properties. Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion
on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria: It is
associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events.

It is associated with significant people in the past.
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of
construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but
they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria
listed above. Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and
cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have
achieved significance within the past 50 years.
4.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA's concern is with the "human environment," defined as including the natural and physical (e.g.
built) environment and the relationships of people to that environment. A thorough environmental
analysis under NEPA should systematically address the "human" -- social and cultural -- aspects of the
environment as well as those that are more "natural," and should address the relationships between
natural and cultural. Culturally valued aspects of the environment generally include historic properties,
other culturally valued pieces of real property, cultural use of the biophysical environment, and such
"intangible" sociocultural attributes as social cohesion, social institutions, lifeways, religious practices,
and other cultural institutions.
4.2
State
Summarized below are the relevant state regulations related to cultural resources that are applicable to
the Proposed Project/Action.
4.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources
As defined by Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall be considered
historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
21
April 2015

Resources (CR). The California Register of Historical Resources and many local preservation ordinances
have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model, since the NHPA provides the highest
standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. A resource that meets the NRHP criteria is
clearly significant. In addition, a resource that does not meet the NRHP standards may still be
considered historically significant at a local or state level.
4.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically
significant. The CEQA guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine if
they meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. If an archaeological site is a historical
resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, potential adverse impacts to it
must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource, but meets the
definition of a unique archeological resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2,
then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.
4.3
Local
Summarized below are the relevant established goals and polices related to cultural resources in the
City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino that are applicable to the Proposed Project/Action.
4.3.1 City of Ukiah General Plan
The City of Ukiah has adopted policies and ordinances for the protection and preservation of cultural
resources. The Citys preservation of cultural resources is accomplished through education,
cooperation, and commitment to a program that make sense to the community. The Citys commitment
is to maintain cultural resources as a link to past populations those whose ancestors called the Ukiah
Valley home from time immemorial and those who adopted the Ukiah Valley as part of the growth of
the United States. Over the years, the importance of preserving cultural resources has been viewed as
critical to maintaining history and the quality of life as well as hindering development. However, the
City has adopted measures to protect cultural resources and preserving the past as well as
accommodating the future. The Citys approach is to consider cultural resources as part of the
permitting process. With early planning, the protection of cultural resources can usually be integrated
into project designs in such a way as to avoid or minimize impacts. The City has developed a cultural
resources inventory of known and likely known areas where cultural resources are or likely to be found.
A review of this map, the Proposed Project/Action area would not conflict with, impact or be near any
known cultural resources identified by the City. Prior to any proposed development, project proponents
are required to identify areas of potential conflicts with known cultural resources.
4.3.2
County of Mendocino General Plan
The Mendocino County Archeological Ordinance adopted in 1976 (Mendocino County Code, Title 21)
recognized Native American sites as unique, irreplaceable phenomena of significance in the history of
the County and in the understanding of the cultural heritage of our land. The County Archeological
Commission conducts CEQA review and recommends mitigation regarding archaeological resources,
taking into account the records search performed by the Northwest Information Center. The
22
April 2015

Archaeological Ordinance also implements the Public Resources Code with regard to discovery of
archaeological resources or human remains.
23
April 2015
Section 5 - Investigation Methodology and Results

This section summarizes the investigation methods used to determine the potential for cultural
resources to be affected by the Proposed Project/Action.
5.1
Northwest Information Center (NWIC) Record Search
On August 24, 2012, a records search was conducted by staff at the NWIC, Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park, California (NWIC File # 12-0047). As an update, a second records search was conducted by
staff at NWIC on August 14, 2014. (NWIC File #14-0177). The record search included the project Area of
Potential Effect (APE) and a 0.5-mile radius outside the project boundaries. The record search included
reviewing pertinent NWIC base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic
period maps, and literature for Mendocino County including current inventories of the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHP), the California Inventory
of Historical Resources, California State Historic Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical
Interest.

Review of this information indicates that there have been three recorded cultural resources studies and
two recorded archeological studies that cover less than 10 percent of the Proposed Project/Action area.
This project area contains two recorded archeological resources (P-23-004814 and P-23-004815), both
of which contain Native-American and historic-era cultural material. In addition, the Proposed Project/
Action runs adjacent to and crosses the Northwestern Pacific Railroad alignment, portions of which have
been recorded as P-23-003663. Local, state, and federal inventories include no recorded buildings or
structures within the Proposed Project/Action area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base
maps show no recorded buildings or structures.

At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of a
Northern Pomo language, one of the seven Pomoan languages. (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:273).
Several ethnographic Native American villages and camps (Komli, Kabegilna, Tcioteya, Katili,
Banakaiyau) are known to be located in or adjacent to the proposed project area (Barrett 1908).

Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native
American resources in this part of Mendocino County have been found in close proximity to sources of
water (including perennial and intermittent streams and springs), near the valley/upland interface, and
near ecotones and other productive environments. The proposed project area is located adjacent to the
Russian River and various tributaries thereof. This portion of Ukiah Valley is known to have a high
potential for containing buried archaeological sites that may show no signs on the surface. Given the
similarity of these environmental factors, coupled with the archaeological and ethnographic sensitivity,
there is a high potential of identifying unrecorded Native American resources in the proposed project
area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period archaeological
resources within the proposed project area. The 1920 Ukiah 15-minute Corps of Engineers US Army
24
April 2015

tactical map depicts several farmsteads in areas where the proposed alignment is planned. In addition,
the proposed project area appears to cross or run in close proximity to portions of the grade of the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad. With this in mind, there is a moderate potential of identifying unrecorded
historic-period archaeological resources in the proposed project area.

5.2
Native American Heritage Commission Record Search and Outreach
On July 24, 2012, a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento,
California in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites listed on its Sacred Lands File are within the
current project APE. A response from the NAHC was received on August 9, 2012, stating that a search of
its Sacred Land File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the
immediate project APE. Included with the response was a list of 26 Native American representatives
who may have further knowledge of Native American resources within or near the project APE. To
ensure that all Native American concerns are adequately addressed, letters to each of the listed tribal
contacts were sent on August 17, 2012, requesting any information about the project that these
individuals may have. As of this date, only two responses have been received and which indicated that
they have no specific knowledge of any specific cultural resources sites. See Attachment A. In addition,
this outreach was updated and the NAHC sent an updated list on August 22, 2014. On September 4,
2014, SMB sent letters to each of the listed tribal contacts. To date, only one response was receives (see
Attachment A). SMB has provided follow-up contacts, but no cultural resources or issues have been
identified.
5.3
Survey Methods
Approximately 25% of the APE has been previously subject to either intensive pedestrian survey or
subsurface testing. Supplemental field inspection was carried out during this investigation to ensure an
intensive level of pedestrian surface coverage in all portions of the APE not covered in fill or pavement.
Survey coverage is depicted in Figure 6. The survey method involved walking two parallel transects
along previously uninspected segments of the proposed pipeline route. The planned five-acre storage
pond just south of the existing wastewater treatment plant was covered with systematic transects
spaced no more than 15 meters apart. The survey was most recently updated and completed by
professional archaeologists Thad Van Bueren, Mariko Falke and Nic Grosjean on April 4, 5, and 11 in
2015.
Portions of the APE covered in fill or pavement were surveyed by inspecting the most proximal exposure
of soil to the proposed pipeline route. Attention focused on the examination of soils as well as
systematic coverage with parallel transects on both sides of the proposed pipeline route, often involving
inspection of soils along the sides of roads. Shovel probes were placed at five meter intervals along
each transect in areas where the ground surface was obscured by dense grass or other herbaceous
ground cover. The survey sought evidence of past human land uses older than 50 years. Particular
attention was given to bones, flaked and ground stone tools, other prehistoric artifacts, shellfish, fire
affected rock, historic artifacts, anthropic soils, cultural features, and distinctive vegetation such as
exotic plants and/or native plants nurtured by aboriginal people.
25
April 2015
5.4
Summary of Findings
No cultural resources, including archeological resources P-23-004814 and P-23-004815 were identified
within the Proposed Project/Actions proposed alignment and construction corridor. Three previously
recorded archaeological resources are present in the APE (Table 4). The locations of those resources are
provided in Figure 3. Each resource is briefly described here and records for them are supplied in
Appendix B.
Table 4. Resources Nearby or Present in the Project/Action APE
Primary
Number
Trinomial
Description
References
Comment
P-23-4814 CA-MEN-3454 Oak Manor Park Low-density lithic scatter;
Wills 2009
historic- era refuse scatter
P-23-4815 CA-MEN-3455 Ukiah
Wills 2009
Low-density lithic scatter with
Sports
groundstone fragments; historicComplex
era refuse scatter
P-23-3663 CA-MEN-3111H Northwestern
Two crossings within APE
Lortie 1998
Pacific Railroad

The archaeological resource present in Oak Manor Park (P-23-4814) is a multicomponent site, which
consists of a historic-era refuse scatter and a sparse lithic scatter. The archaeological resource adjacent
to the Ukiah Sports Complex (P-23-004815) is a multicomponent site consisting of a sparse lithic scatter
with groundstone fragments, and a sparse historic-era artifact scatter. The historic-era resource (P-23-
003663) is a portion of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad alignment.
5.5
Conclusions and Recommendations
This investigation was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Register [CFR] Part 800). Based upon
this investigation, the Proposed Action would not have an adverse effect on any known cultural
resources. Specifically, the proposed Project would have:
No Adverse Effect on any known Historical Resources or Properties;
No Adverse Effect on any known Archeological Resources; and
No Adverse Effect on any known Burial Sites.
While every effort has been made to comprehensively identify all of the archaeological resources
present within the Proposed Project/Action's APE, there is always some chance that buried or concealed
sites may be present. That provision is particularly applicable to those portions of the APE owned by the
City where archaeological deposits may be buried under existing fill and/or paving. To further reduce
the potential to affect any of these resources, the following several recommendations and mitigation
measures should be implemented to ensure that there are no adverse effects to cultural resources that
may exist in the APE as direct and indirect result of the construction and/or operation of the Proposed
Project/Action.
26
April 2015
Figure 3 - Identified Resources in or immediately adjacent to the APE.
Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance of Identified Cultural Resources. During the

engineering and final design phase, a qualified professional archeologist will provide a pre-
construction survey of the exact proposed pipeline alignment and placement of the project
facilities within the proposed construction corridor and ensure that the construction activities of
the Proposed Project/Action will not affect the archeological resources P-23-004814, P-23-
004815, and P-23-003663 as identified by NWIC above. In the unlikely event that the Proposed
Project/Action could affect these resources, the proposed project facilities shall be constructed
in a manner that will avoid damaging these resources. Specifically, the pipeline shall either be
installed by avoidance of the resource by realignment of the pipeline or facility around the
resource(s) and/or as in the case of crossing the Northwestern Railroad, the resource shall be
avoided by going beneath through the implementation of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) or
another equally effective construction technique.

Archaeological Monitoring. A qualified professional archeologist shall monitor all trenching and
other subsurface ground disturbance (e.g., bore hole pits created for directional drilling)
performed within 250 feet of Gibson Creek, Mill Creek, Orrs Creek, Robinson Creek, and
archaeological sites P-23-004814 and P-23-004815 (See Figure 4). The lateral trench extending
east of the main line just south of East Gobbi Street also should be monitored due to sensitivity
for both prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits.

Halt work if cultural resources are discovered. In the event that any prehistoric or historic
subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within
100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a
qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be
significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section
21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified
archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any
suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to
historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find,
project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried
out.
Halt work if human remains are found. If human remains are encountered during excavation
activities conducted for the Proposed Project/Action, all work in the adjacent area shall stop
immediately and the Mendocino County Coroners office shall be notified. If the Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted
for recommendations for treatment of the discovered human remains and any associated burial
goods.
28
April 2015
Figure 4 - Recommended Archaelogical Monitoring within the APE
Section 6 - Bibliography
In addition to the archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the
Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed and/or referenced:
Bailey, E. H., editor
1966
Geology of Northern California. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin

190. Sacramento.
Barrett, Samuel A.
1908
The Ethnogeography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of

California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1):1-332.
Berkeley.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase

1974
Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
California Department of Transportation

2009
State Route 222, Route Relinquishment Project, Historic Property Survey

Repport, Post Miles R 0.27/2.15, Mendocino County, EA 03-0R0040. California
Department of Transportation, Marysville, California.
California Office of Historic Preservation

1998
1914
California Register of Historical Resources. State Office of Historic Preservation,

Sacramento.
Carpenter, Aurelius O.
History of Mendocino and Lake Counties. Historic Records Company, Los Angeles.
Chestnut, V. K.
1902
Plants Used by the Indians of Mendocino County, California. U.S.D.A. Division of

Botany, Washington, DC.
Elmendorf, William W.
1964
Linguistic Expansions and Contractions in Northwestern California. Paper

presented at the Conference on Central and Southern California Areal Prehistory,
University of California, Berkeley.
Essig, E.O.
1933
The Russian Settlement at Ross. California Historical Quarterly 12:191-216.
Fredrickson, David A.
1973
Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1984
The North Coast Region. In California Archaeology by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 471-
30
April 2015

527. Academic Press, Orlando.
Gifford, Edward W.
1939
The Coast Yuki. Anthropos 34:292-375.
Halpern, Abraham M.
1964
A Report on a Survey of Pomo Languages, edited by William Bright. University

of California Publications in Linguistics 34. Berkeley.
Harrington, M. R.
1948
An Ancient Site at Borax Lake, California. Southwest Museum Papers 16:1-126.
Hildebrandt, W. R., and L. K. Swenson

1982
Prehistoric Archaeology. In Cultural Resources Overview for the Mendocino National

Forest and East Lake Planning Units, BLM, California Volume I: Ethnography and
Prehistory by H. McCarthy, W. R. Hildebrandt, and L. K. Swenson. Mendocino
National Forest, Willows, CA.
Jones and Stokes Associates

2000
Volumes I, II, and III: Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Williams
Communications Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Point Arena
to Robbins and Point Arena to Sacramento, California. On File, Northwest
Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Rohnert
Park, California.
Kroeber, Alfred A.
1925
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Washington, DC.
Kuchler, A.W.
1977
The Map of the Natural Vegetation of California. Department of Geography,

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Layton, Thomas N.
1990
Western Pomo Prehistory: Excavations at Albion Head, Nightbirds Retreat, and

Three Chop Village, Mendocino County. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 32,
University of California, Los Angeles.
McLendon, Sally, and Robert L. Oswalt

1978
Pomo: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California,

edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 274-288. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Meighan, Clement W.
1955
Archaeology of the North Coast Ranges. University of California Archaeological

Survey Reports 30:1-39. Berkeley.
31
April 2015

Meighan, Clement W., and C. V. Haynes
1970
The Borax Lake Site Revisited. Science 167(3922):1213-1221.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984
California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Munz, Phillip A., and David D. Keck

1959
A California Flora. University of California Press,
Berkeley Origer, Thomas
1987
Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast Ranges of California: The

Application of Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Papers in Northern California
Anthrolopology 1. University of California, Berkeley.
1991
An Archaeological Survey of the Redwood Business Park south of Ukiah,

Mendocino County, California. On File, Northwest Information Center, California
Historical Resources Information System, Rohnert Park, California.
Oswalt, Robert L.
1964
The Internal Relationships of the Pomo Family of Languages. Proceedings of the

35th International Congress of Americanists 2:413-427. Mexico City.
Palmer, Lyman L.
1880
History of Mendocino County. Alley, Bowen and Company, San Francisco.
Pastron, Allen G., and Jonathon Goodrich

2003
Phase I Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Improvement Project Area Located in the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County,
California. Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Ukiah, California.
Porter, S. C., and G. H. Denton

1967
Chronology of Neoglaciation in the North American Cordillera. American Journal

of Science 265:177-210. Roop, William
1976
Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Despina Drive Extension Request No. 15100.

On File, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources
Information System, Rohnert Park, California.
Simons, Dwight D., Thomas N. Layton, and Ruthann Knudson

1985
A Fluted Point from the Mendocino County Coast, California. Report on file,
Northwestern Information Center, California Historical Resources Information
System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
32
April 2015

Soule, W.
1975
Archaeological Investigations at MEN-584, Mendocino County, California.

Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Sacramento State University,
Sacramento.
Stewart, Omer C.
1943
Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. University of California Publications in

American Ethnology and Archaeology 40(2):29-62. Berkeley.
Van Bueren, Thad M., Shannon Carmack, and Francesca Smith

2010
Draft Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Fort Bragg Coastal Restoration
and Trail Project, City of Fort Bragg, Mendocino County, California. Submitted to the
City of Fort Bragg, CA.
White, Greg
1989
A Report of Archaeological Investigations at Eleven Native American Coastal

Sites, MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, California. Submitted to
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Wills, Wesley
2009a
A Cultural Resources Study for the Recycled Water and Stormwater

Development Project in the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California.
Prepared for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa,
California.
2009b
A Cultural Resources Study for the Groundwater Capacity Restoration Project, City of
Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. Prepared for the City of Ukiah, Ukiah, California.
33
April 2015
Attachment A
Native American Correspondence

August 5, 2014
Ms. Debbie Treadway
Native American Heritage Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
Sacramento, CA 94612

Subject:
Sacred Land Files and Native American Contact List Request for the City of Ukiahs
Proposed Recycled Water Project, Mendocino County

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

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to your earliest possible reply. If any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 916-517-2189 or at steve@smbenvironmental.com.

Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal

P.O. Box 381 Roseville, CA 95661
www.smbenviromental.com
916-517-2189

Example of Letter Sent to Tribes

September 4, 2014
Erika Carson, THPO
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA 95482

Subject:
Request for Information Regarding Known Cultural Resources Sites for the Proposed
City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project, Mendocino County

Dear Erika Williams:
SMB Environmental, Inc. (SMB) is assisting the City of Ukiah (City) prepare environmental
documentation for its proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project
would primarily consist of the construction of an approximately 9.4-mile pipeline system to serve a
combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands in the Ukiah Valley with
approximately 1,375 acre-feet per year (afy) of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys existing
Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary
recycled water unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections
60301 through 60355. The pipeline system would be primarily located within existing paved City
roadways and agricultural service roads through the Ukiah Valley east of Highway 101 and west of the
Russian River. Please see attached Project Map.
The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted about the Proposed Project and provided us
with a list of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural
resources in the project area. As a result, we are requesting that you please provide us with any
information you may have about cultural resources or sites in the project area so that we can determine
ways to protect those sites, including archeological sites and other locations of special value to Native
Americans.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to your earliest possible reply. If any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 916-517-2189 or at steve@smbenvironmental.com.

Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal

P.O. Box 381 Roseville, CA 95661
www.smbenviromental.com
916-517-2189
Attachment B
Site Records

August 14, 2014
NWIC File No.: 14-0177
Steve Brown
SMB Environmental
P.O. Box 381
Roseville, CA 95661
steve@smbenvironmental.com
Re: Record search results for the City of Ukiahs Proposed Recycled Water Project,
Mendocino County.
Dear Mr. Brown:
Per your request received by our office on August 7, 2014, an update to a previous
records search (NWIC File No. 12-0047) was conducted for the above referenced project
by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference
cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Mendocino
County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological
resources and historical buildings and/or structures.
Review of this information indicates that there have been seven cultural resource
studies that cover approximately 10% of the Proposed Recycled Water project area.
Those marked with an asterisk (*) were not included in the prior search. Please see the
attached studies listing for further details.
Report
Number
S-000444
S-013223
S-022736
S-026863
S-036124
*S-036144
*S-036551
Author
Year
William Roop
Thomas M. Origer
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Allen G. Pastron and Jonathan Goodrich
Wesley Wills
Wesley Wills
CALTRANS
1976
1991
2000
2003
2009
2009
2009
This project area contains two recorded archaeological resources (P-23-004814

and P-23-004815; both of which contain Native-American and historic-era cultural
material). In addition, the proposed project area crosses the Northwestern Pacific
Railroad alignment, portions of which have been recorded as (P-23-003663). There are
no changes from the previous search.
The State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory (OHP HPD)
(which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State
Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National
Register of Historic Places) lists no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed
project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded
buildings or structures within the proposed project area.
At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area
were speakers of the Northern Pomo language, part of the Pomoan language family
(Mclendon and Oswalt 1978: 273). There are several Native American resources
(villages and camps) in or adjacent to the proposed project area referenced in the
ethnographic literature [Komli, Kabegilna, Tcioteya, Katili, Banakaiyau] (Barrett 1908).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with
known sites, Native American resources in this part of Mendocino County have been
found in close proximity to sources of water (including perennial and intermittent streams
and springs), near the valley/upland interface, and near ecotones and other productive
environments. The proposed project area is located adjacent to the Russian River and
various tributaries thereof. This portion of Ukiah Valley is known to have a high potential
for containing buried archaeological sites that may show no signs on the surface. Given
the similarity of one or more of these environmental factors, there is a high potential of
identifying unrecorded Native American resources in the City of Ukiahs Proposed
Recycled Water project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period
archaeological resources within the proposed project area. The 1920 Ukiah 15-minute
Corps of Engineers US Army tactical map depicts several farmsteads in areas where the
proposed alignment is planned. In addition, the proposed project area appears to cross or
run in close proximity to portions of the grade of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. With
this in mind, there is a moderate potential of identifying unrecorded historic-period
archaeological resources in the City of Ukiahs Proposed Recycled Water project area.
The Ukiah and Elledge Peak USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangles fails to
depict any buildings or structures within the City of Ukiahs Proposed Recycled Water
project area; therefore, there is a low possibility of identifying any buildings or structures
45 years or older within the proposed project area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There are two recorded archaeological resources (P-23-004814 and P-23004815) and one historic-era resource (P-23-003663) in the proposed project area. It is
recommended that a professional archaeologist assess the resources and provide
project-specific recommendations. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the
Secretary of Interiors Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2)
There is a high potential of identifying additional Native American
archaeological resources and a moderate potential of identifying historic-period
archaeological resources in the project area. We recommend a qualified archaeologist
conduct further archival and field study to identify cultural resources. Field study may
include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or
geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the
presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet
the Secretary of Interiors Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
3) We recommend you contact the local Native American tribes regarding
traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the
vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at
(916)373-3710.
4) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the
minimum age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is
recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the
architecture and history of Mendocino County. Please refer to the list of consultants who
meet the Secretary of Interiors Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
5) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only
those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered
comprehensive.
6) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should
be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid
altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has
evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel
should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or
obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing
shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period
resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with
square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
7) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR
523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic
Preservations website: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1069
8) Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource
reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic
Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be
available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical
resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have
historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American
Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
9) The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California
Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to
maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and
federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers,
and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the
interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such
recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State
Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHPs regulatory authority under federal
and state law.
Thank you for using our services.
questions, (707) 588-8455.
Please contact this office if you have any
Sincerely,
Mark Castro
Researcher
2009
2009
S-036124
S-036144
Page 1 of 1
2009
2003
S-026863
S-036551
2000
S-022736
Other - Project
#NT203-32/09
1991
S-013223
Year
1976
Other IDs
S-000444
Report No.
California Department of
Transportation
Wesley Wills
Wesley Wills
Allen G. Pastron and

Jonathan Goodrich
Jones & Stokes

Associates, Inc.
Thomas M. Origer
William Roop
Author(s)
NWIC 14-0177 The City of Ukiah's Proposed Recycled Water Project
Report List
State Route 222, Route Relinquishment

Project, Historic Property Survey Report, Post
Miles RO.27/2.15, Mendocino County, EA 030R0040
A Cultural Resources Study for the Recycled

Water and Stormwater Development Project,
City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California
A Cultural Resources Study for the

Groundwater Capacity Restoration Project, City
of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California
Phase I Cultural Resources Evaluation of the

Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement
Project Area, Located in the City of Ukiah,
Mendocino County, California
Volumes I, II and III: Final Cultural Resources

Inventory Report for the Williams
Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable
System Installation Project, Point Arena to
Robbins and Point Arena to Sacramento,
California
An Archaeological Survey of the Redwood

Business Park, South of Ukiah, Mendocino
County, California
Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Despina

Drive Extension-Req. No. 15100.(letter report).
(letter report).
Title
California Department of
Transportation
Anthropological Studies Center
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Archeo-Tec
Jones & Stokes Associates,

Inc.
Affiliation
NWIC 8/14/2014 10:10:46 AM
23-004812, 23-004813, 23004816
23-001013, 23-001020, 23004814, 23-004815
06-000283, 06-000586, 23001012, 23-001031, 23-001791,

23-003125, 23-003463, 23003663, 28-000028, 28-000175,
28-000463, 28-001186, 48000072, 48-000211, 48-000546,
48-000549, 49-000195, 49000334, 49-000423, 49-000867,
49-001196, 49-001225, 49001232, 49
Resources

Site Record: 23-003663

METADATA SHEET
P-12-000717
P-21-002618
** P-23-003663
P-49-002834
This resource is the Northwest Pacific Railroad; it crosses county lines and has therefore been
assigned Primary and Trinomial Numbers in each of those counties. A portion of the record that
applies to each county can be found in the Primary file for each county.
There are several disjointed resources associated with this railroad. All railroad segments,
grades, trestles, culverts, and crossings that are associated with this railroad have been, or will be,
subsumed into the appropriate county Primary Number.
Any buildings such as, but not limited to, depots and stations, will be assigned individual
Primary Numbers. Any buildings that have previously been assigned an individual Primary or HRI
Number will retain their numbers but will reference the main Northwest Pacific Railroad Primary
Number files.
The following Trinomial and Primary Numbers have been assigned and the resource records
are filed in the Primary Number files within each county:
P-12-000717/CA-HUM-726H
P-21-002618/CA-MRN-699H
P-23-003663/CA-MEN-3111H
P-49-002834/CA-SON-2322H
24, 2014
Date: September
25 November
2014
NWIC Staff:Annette
C.Mikulik
Neal
P-23-003663
(intro to 1 of 16 supplement)
P-23-003663
P-23-003663
P-23-003663
P-23-003663
------- 4 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 5 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 6 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 7 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 8 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 9 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 10 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 11 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 12 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 13 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 14 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 15 of 16
P-23-003663
------- 16 of 16
P-23-003663
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
P-23-003663



Appendix C - Updated Section 106 Cultural Resources Report-Sb2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix C - Updated Section 106 Cultural Resources Report-Sb2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R

Section 106 Cultural

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

SMB Environmental, Inc.

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Project Location and Background

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Figure 1 - General Location Map

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Purpose and Need

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Section 2 Proposed Action Description

Irrigation Demand (AFY)

Irrigated area Served (Acres)

Parcels Provided irrigation (Number)

Frost Protection Demand (AFY)

Frost Protected land (Acres)

Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres)

Pipeline Length (Miles)

Pipeline Diameter (Inches)

Potential Users and Phasing

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Proposed Storage Pond

Phase 3 and 4 Customers

Proposed Service Connection

Phase 3 and 4 Pipeline

Talmage Rd State Rte 222

#Proposed Storage Pond

3,000 Recycled Water Project, City of Ukiah

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Ukiah WWTP Site Piping

Agricultural Land Service Roads

Paved Public Street

Agricultural Land Service Roads

Agricultural Land Service Roads

Paved Public Street

Agricultural Land Service Roads

Paved Public Street

Paved Public Street

Paved Public Street

Proposed Project/Action Total

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

End and bottom dump truck

Flat-bed delivery truck

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Asphalt paver & roller

Area of Potential Effect

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report

Section 3 - Environmental Setting

Archaeology and Prehistory