Banning City Council
August 27, 2024

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Abronia villosa var. aurita/
chaparral sand-verbena 1B.1/None/None (Jan)Mar-Sep/245-5250 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Desert dunes. Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Acanthoscyphus parishii
var. cienegensis/
Cienega Seca oxytheca
1B.3/None/None (May)Jun-Sep/
6905-8040
Joshua tree "woodland",
Pinyon and juniper
woodland, Upper montane
coniferous forest (granitic,
sandy).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Allium marvinii/
Yucaipa onion 1B.2/None/None Apr-May/2495-3495 Chaparral (clay, openings). Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat present.

Antennaria marginata/
white-margined everlasting 2B.3/None/None May-Aug/
6955-11000
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Arenaria lanuginosa var.
saxosa/
rock sandwort
2B.3/None/None Jul-Aug/
4775-8530
Subalpine coniferous forest,
Upper montane coniferous
forest. Mesic, Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Astragalus hornii var. hornii/
Horn's milk-vetch 1B.1/None/None May-Oct/
195-2790
Meadows and seeps,
Playas. Alkaline, Lake
Margins
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Astragalus lentiginosus var.
borreganus/
Borrego milk-vetch

4.3/None/None Feb-May/
100-2935
Mojavean desert scrub,
Sonoran desert scrub.

Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae/
Coachella Valley milk-vetch
1B.2/None/FE Feb-May/
130-2150
Desert dunes, Sonoran
desert scrub (sandy).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Astragalus pachypus var.
jaegeri/
Jaeger's milk-vetch
1B.1/None/None Dec-Jun/
1200-3200
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland. Rocky
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Atriplex coronata var.
notatior/
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
1B.1/None/FE Apr-Aug/
455-1640
Playas, Valley and foothill
grassland (mesic), Vernal
pools. Alkaline
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Atriplex parishii/
Parish's brittlescale 1B.1/None/None Jun-Oct/
80-6235
Chenopod scrub, Playas,
Vernal pools. Alkaline
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
839
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii/
Davidson's saltscale
1B.2/None/None Apr-Oct/
35-655
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
scrub. Alkaline
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Boechera parishii/
Parish's rockcress 1B.2/None/None Apr-May/
5805-9810
Pebble (Pavement) plain,
Pinyon and juniper
woodland, Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Carbonate (sometimes),
Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Boechera peirsonii/
San Bernardino rockcress 1B.2/None/None Mar-Aug/8860-10500 Subalpine coniferous forest
(rocky).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Botrychium crenulatum/
scalloped moonwort 2B.2/None/None Jun-Sep/
4160-10760
Bogs and fens, Lower
montane coniferous forest,
Marshes and swamps
(freshwater), Meadows and
seeps, Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Brodiaea filifolia/
thread-leaved brodiaea 1B.1/CE/FT Mar-Jun/
80-3675
Chaparral (openings),
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Playas,
Valley and foothill
grassland, Vernal pools.

Clay (often)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Calochortus palmeri var.
palmeri/
Palmer's mariposa-lily
1B.2/None/None Apr-Jul/
2330-7840
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows
and seeps. Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Calochortus plummerae/
Plummer's mariposa-lily 4.2/None/None May-Jul/
330-5580
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Valley and foothill
grassland. Granitic, Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Castilleja lasiorhyncha/
San Bernardino Mountains
owl's-clover
1B.2/None/None May-Aug/
4265-7840
Chaparral, Meadows and
seeps, Pebble (Pavement)
plain, Riparian woodland,
Upper montane coniferous
forest. Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
840
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Castilleja montigena/
Heckard's paintbrush 4.3/None/None May-Aug/
6400-9185
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Pinyon and juniper
woodland, Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Caulanthus simulans/
Payson's jewelflower 4.2/None/None (Feb)Mar-May (Jun)/295-7220 Chaparral, Coastal scrub.

Granitic, Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis/
smooth tarplant
1B.1/None/None Apr-Sep/
0-2100
Chenopod scrub, Meadows
and seeps, Playas, Riparian
woodland, Valley and
foothill grassland. Alkaline
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Chorizanthe leptotheca/
Peninsular spineflower 4.2/None/None May-Aug/
985-6235
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane coniferous
forest. Granitic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi/
Parry's spineflower
1B.1/None/None Apr-Jun/
900-4005
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill
grassland. Openings,
Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Chorizanthe xanti var.
leucotheca/
white-bracted spineflower
1B.2/None/None Apr-Jun/
985-3935
Coastal scrub (alluvial fans),
Mojavean desert scrub,
Pinyon and juniper
woodland. Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Deinandra mohavensis/
Mojave tarplant 1B.3/CE/None (Jan-May) Jun-Oct/2100-5250 Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Riparian scrub. Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Deinandra paniculata/
paniculate tarplant 4.2/None/None (Mar)Apr-Nov/
80-3085
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal
pools. Sandy (sometimes),
Vernally Mesic (usually)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Delphinium parishii ssp.
subglobosum/
Colorado Desert larkspur

4.3/None/None Mar-Jun/
1970-5905
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Pinyon and
juniper woodland, Sonoran
desert scrub.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
841
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Delphinium parryi ssp.
purpureum/
Mt. Pinos larkspur

4.3/None/None May-Jun/
3280-8530
Chaparral, Mojavean desert
scrub, Pinyon and juniper
woodland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Diplacus clevelandii/
Cleveland's bush
monkeyflower

4.2/None/None Apr-Jul/
1475-6560
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest.

Disturbed areas (often),
Gabbroic, Openings, Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Diplacus johnstonii/
Johnston's monkeyflower 4.3/None/None May-Aug/
3200-9580
Lower montane coniferous
forest (disturbed areas,
gravelly, roadsides, rocky,
scree).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Dodecahema leptoceras/
slender-horned spineflower 1B.1/CE/FE Apr-Jun/
655-2495
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub
(alluvial fans). Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Eriastrum densifolium ssp.
sanctorum/
Santa Ana River woollystar
1B.1/CE/FE Apr-Sep/
300-2000
Chaparral, Coastal scrub
(alluvial fans). Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Erigeron breweri var.
jacinteus/
San Jacinto Mountains
daisy

4.3/None/None Jun-Sep/
8860-9515
Subalpine coniferous forest,
Upper montane coniferous
forest. Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Eriogonum kennedyi var.
alpigenum/
southern alpine buckwheat
1B.3/None/None Jul-Sep/
8530-11485
Alpine boulder and rock
field, Subalpine coniferous
forest. Granitic, Gravelly
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Eriogonum umbellatum var.
minus/
alpine sulfur-flowered
buckwheat

4.3/None/None Jun-Sep/
5905-10065
Subalpine coniferous forest,
Upper montane coniferous
forest. Gravelly
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Eriophyllum lanatum var.
obovatum/
southern Sierra woolly
sunflower

4.3/None/None Jun-Jul/
3655-8205
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest. Loam,
Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
842
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Erythranthe diffusa/
Palomar monkeyflower 4.3/None/None Apr-Jun/
4005-6005
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest. Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Galium angustifolium ssp.
jacinticum/
San Jacinto Mountains
bedstraw
1B.3/None/None Jun-Aug/
4430-6890
Lower montane coniferous
forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Galium californicum ssp.
primum/
Alvin Meadow bedstraw
1B.2/None/None May-Jul/
4430-5580
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest. Granitic,
Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Galium jepsonii/
Jepson's bedstraw 4.3/None/None Jul-Aug/
5055-8205
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest. Granitic,
Gravelly (sometimes), Rocky
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Galium johnstonii/
Johnston's bedstraw 4.3/None/None Jun-Jul/
4005-7545
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Pinyon
and juniper woodland,
Riparian woodland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Gentiana fremontii/
Fremont's gentian 2B.3/None/None Jun-Aug/
7875-8860
Meadows and seeps
(mesic), Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Gilia leptantha ssp.
leptantha/
San Bernardino gilia
1B.3/None/None Jun-Aug/
4920-8400
Lower montane coniferous
forest (gravelly, sandy).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Heuchera parishii/
Parish's alumroot 1B.3/None/None Jun-Aug/
4920-12470
Alpine boulder and rock
field, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Subalpine
coniferous forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest.

Carbonate (sometimes),
Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
843
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Hordeum intercedens/
vernal barley 3.2/None/None Mar-Jun/
15-3280
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland (depressions,
saline flats), Vernal pools.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula/
mesa horkelia
1B.1/None/None Feb-Jul (Sep)/
230-2660
Chaparral (maritime),
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub. Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Hulsea vestita ssp.
callicarpha/
beautiful hulsea

4.2/None/None May-Oct/
3000-10005
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest. Granitic,
Gravelly (sometimes), Rocky
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Hulsea vestita ssp. parryi/
Parry's sunflower 4.3/None/None Apr-Aug/
4495-9500
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Pinyon and juniper
woodland, Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Carbonate (sometimes),
Granitic (sometimes),
Openings, Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Hulsea vestita ssp.
pygmaea/
pygmy hulsea
1B.3/None/None Jun-Oct/
9300-12795
Alpine boulder and rock
field, Subalpine coniferous
forest. Granitic, Gravelly
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Imperata brevifolia/
California satintail 2B.1/None/None Sep-May/
0-3985
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Meadows and seeps (often
alkali), Mojavean desert
scrub, Riparian scrub.

Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Juglans californica/
Southern California black
walnut

4.2/None/None Mar-Aug/
165-2955
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Riparian woodland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Juncus duranii/
Duran's rush 4.3/None/None Jul-Aug/
5800-9200
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Meadows and seeps,
Upper montane coniferous
forest. Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
844
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri/
Coulter's goldfields
1B.1/None/None Feb-Jun/
5-4005
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt), Playas, Vernal
pools.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii/
Robinson's pepper-grass

4.3/None/None Jan-Jul/
5-2905 Chaparral, Coastal scrub. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat present.

Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellatum/
ocellated Humboldt lily

4.2/None/None Mar-Jul(Aug)/
100-5905
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Riparian woodland.

Openings
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Lilium parryi/
lemon lily 1B.2/None/None Jul-Aug/
4005-9005
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Meadows and seeps,
Riparian forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest.

Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Malaxis monophyllos var.
brachypoda/
white bog adder's-mouth
2B.1/None/None Jun-Aug/
7220-9000
Bogs and fens, Meadows
and seeps, Upper montane
coniferous forest. Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Mentzelia tricuspis/
spiny-hair blazing star 2B.1/None/None Mar-May/
490-4200
Mojavean desert scrub.

Gravelly, Sandy, Slopes,
Washes
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Monardella macrantha ssp.
hallii/
Hall's monardella
1B.3/None/None Jun-Oct/
2395-7200
Broadleafed upland forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Valley and
foothill grassland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Monardella nana ssp.
leptosiphon/
San Felipe monardella
1B.2/None/None Jun-Jul/
3935-6085
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Muhlenbergia californica/
California muhly 4.3/None/None Jun-Sep/
330-6560
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Meadows and seeps.

Mesic, Seeps, Streambanks
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
845
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Muilla coronata/
crowned muilla 4.2/None/None Mar-Apr(May)/
2200-6430
Chenopod scrub, Joshua
tree "woodland", Mojavean
desert scrub, Pinyon and
juniper woodland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Myosurus minimus ssp.
apus/
little mousetail

3.1/None/None Mar-Jun/
65-2100
Valley and foothill
grassland, Vernal pools
(alkaline).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Nama stenocarpa/
mud nama 2B.2/None/None Jan-Jul/15-1640
Marshes and swamps (lake
margins, riverbanks).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Navarretia fossalis/
spreading navarretia 1B.1/None/FT Apr-Jun/
100-2150
Chenopod scrub, Marshes
and swamps (shallow
freshwater), Playas, Vernal
pools.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Oreonana vestita/
woolly mountain-parsley 1B.3/None/None Mar-Sep/
5300-11485
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Subalpine coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest. Gravelly
(sometimes), Talus
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Oxytropis oreophila var.
oreophila/
rock-loving oxytrope
2B.3/None/None Jun-Sep/
11155-12470
Alpine boulder and rock
field, Subalpine coniferous
forest. Gravelly
(sometimes), Rocky
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Packera ionophylla/
Tehachapi ragwort 4.3/None/None Jun-Jul/
4920-8860
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest. Granitic,
Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Parnassia cirrata var. cirrata/
San Bernardino grass-ofParnassus
1B.3/None/None Aug-Sep/
4100-8005
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Meadows and seeps,
Upper montane coniferous
forest. Mesic, Streambanks
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Petalonyx linearis/
narrow-leaf sandpaperplant2B.3/None/None
(Jan-Feb)
Mar-May
(Jun-Dec)/-
80-3660
Mojavean desert scrub,
Sonoran desert scrub.

Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
846
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Piperia leptopetala/
narrow-petaled rein orchid 4.3/None/None May-Jul/
1245-7300
Cismontane woodland,
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum/
white rabbit-tobacco
2B.2/None/None (Jul)Aug-Nov(Dec)/
0-6890
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Riparian woodland.

Gravelly, Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Quercus engelmannii/
Engelmann oak 4.2/None/None Mar-Jun/
165-4265
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Riparian
woodland, Valley and
foothill grassland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Rupertia rigida/
Parish's rupertia 4.3/None/None Jun-Aug/
2295-8205
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows
and seeps, Pebble
(Pavement) plain, Valley and
foothill grassland.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Saltugilia latimeri/
Latimer's woodland-gilia 1B.2/None/None Mar-Jun/
1310-6235
Chaparral, Mojavean desert
scrub, Pinyon and juniper
woodland. Granitic (often),
Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes), Washes
(sometimes)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Sedum niveum/
Davidson's stonecrop 4.2/None/None Jun-Aug/
6810-9845
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Subalpine coniferous
forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest. Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Senecio astephanus/
San Gabriel ragwort 4.3/None/None May-Jul/1310-4920
Chaparral, Coastal bluff
scrub. Rocky, Slopes
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Sidalcea hickmanii ssp.
parishii/
Parish's checkerbloom
1B.2/CR/None (May)Jun-Aug/
3280-8200
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
847
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Sidalcea malviflora ssp.
dolosa/
Bear Valley checkerbloom
1B.2/None/None May-Aug/
4905-8810
Lower montane coniferous
forest (meadows, seeps),
Meadows and seeps,
Riparian woodland, Upper
montane coniferous forest
(meadows, seeps).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Sidalcea neomexicana/
salt spring checkerbloom 2B.2/None/None Mar-Jun/
50-5020
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane coniferous
forest, Mojavean desert
scrub, Playas. Alkaline,
Mesic
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Sidotheca caryophylloides/
chickweed oxytheca 4.3/None/None Jul-Sep(Oct)/3655-8530 Lower montane coniferous
forest (sandy).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Silene krantzii/
Krantz's catchfly 1B.2/None/None Apr-Sep/
10615-11515
Alpine dwarf scrub.

Gravelly (usually), Rocky
(sometimes), Sandy (usually)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Solorina spongiosa/
fringed chocolate chip
lichen
2B.2/None/None Blank/
9500-9500
Meadows and seeps,
Subalpine coniferous forest
(seeps). Carbonate
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Streptanthus bernardinus/
Laguna Mountains
jewelflower

4.3/None/None May-Aug/
2200-8205
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Streptanthus campestris/
southern jewelflower 1B.3/None/None (Apr)May-Jul/
2955-7545
Chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Pinyon
and juniper woodland.

Rocky
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum/
San Bernardino aster
1B.2/None/None Jul-Nov/
5-6695
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Lower
montane coniferous forest,
Marshes and swamps,
Meadows and seeps, Valley
and foothill grassland
(vernally mesic).

Streambanks
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Taraxacum californicum/
California dandelion 1B.1/None/FE May-Aug/5315-9185
Meadows and seeps
(mesic).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.
848
Appendix C: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated

Scientific Name /
Common Name CRPR / CESA / FESA
Blooming Period/
Elevation Range
(AMSL; In Feet)
Habitat/
Microhabitat Occurrence
Tortula californica/
California screw moss 1B.2/None/None Blank/35-4790
Chenopod scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland. Sandy
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

Trichocoronis wrightii var.
wrightii/
Wright's trichocoronis
2B.1/None/None May-Sep/
15-1425
Marshes and swamps,
Meadows and seeps,
Riparian forest, Vernal
pools. Alkaline
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

CRPR-CALIFORNIA RARE PLANT RANK
1A- Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2A- Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere 2B- Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3- Review List: Plants about which more information is needed 4- Watch List: Plants of limited distribution

0.1-Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2-Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3-Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)

STATE DESIGNATIONS CE-STATE ENDANGERED

FEDERAL DESIGNATION FE-FEDERALLY ENDANGERED, FT-FEDERALLY THREATENED 849
850
APPENDIX C-Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species Status: Federal/State Habitat/Micro Habitat Potential to Occur Amphibians
Rana muscosa
southern mountain yellow-legged frog
Endangered/WL Aquatic. Often encountered within a few feet of water.

Tadpoles may require 2 - 4 yrs to complete their aquatic development.

No suitable habitat
present.

Spea hammondii
western spadefoot None/ SSC
Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley & foothill
grassland, Vernal pool, Wetland. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.

No suitable habitat
present.

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
cooper’s hawk None/ WL
Cismontane woodland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, upper montane coniferous forest. Nest sites mainly in riparian growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains; also, live oaks.

No suitable habitat
present.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird None/Threatened
Freshwater marsh, marsh & swamp, swamp, wetland. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony.

No suitable habitat
present.

Aimophila ruficeps canescens
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
None/WL Chaparral, coastal scrub. frequents relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches.

No suitable habitat
present.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle None/FP
Broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, great basin grassland, great basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, pinon & juniper woodlands, upper montane coniferous forest, valley & foothill grassland. Cliffwalled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas.

No suitable habitat
present.

Artemisiospiza belli belli
Bell's sparrow None/ SSC Chaparral, coastal scrub. No suitable habitat present.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl None/None/S
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, great basin grassland, great basin scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, valley & foothill grassland. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel.

No suitable habitat
present.

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk None/WL Great Basin grassland, great basin scrub, pinon & juniper woodlands, valley & foothill grassland.

No suitable habitat
present.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk None/Threatened
Great Basin grassland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, valley & foothill grassland. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.

No suitable habitat
present.
851
APPENDIX C-Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species Status: Federal/State Habitat/Micro Habitat Potential to Occur Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus wren None/ SSC
Coastal scrub. Wrens require tall opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. No suitable habitat
present.

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened/Endangered
Riparian forest. Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

No suitable habitat
present.

Cypseloides niger
black swift None/SSC
Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep canyons and sea-bluffs above the surf; forages widely.

No suitable habitat
present.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite None/FP
Cismontane woodland, marsh & swamp, Riparian woodland,
valley & foothill grassland, wetland. Open grasslands,
meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, densetopped trees for nesting and perching.

No suitable habitat
present.

Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow flycatcher Endangered/Endangered Riparian woodland. No suitable habitat present.

Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark None/ WL
Marine intertidal & splash zone communities, meadow & seep.

Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.

No suitable habitat
present.

Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat None/ SSC
Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. nests in low, dense riparian, consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages and nests within 10 ft of ground.

No suitable habitat
present.

Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike None/ SSC
Broadleaved upland forest, desert wash, Joshua tree
woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, pinon & juniper woodlands, riparian woodland, Sonoran desert scrub. Prefers open country for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting.

No suitable habitat
present.

Plegadis chihi
white-faced ibis None/ WL Marsh & swamp, wetland. Dense tule thickets for nesting, interspersed with areas of shallow water for foraging.

No suitable habitat
present.

Polioptila californica californica
coastal California gnatcatcher Threatened/ SSC Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas and slopes.

No suitable habitat
present.

Progne subis
purple martin None/ SSC
Broadleaved upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest.

Nests in old woodpecker cavities mostly; also in human-made structures. Nest often located in tall, isolated tree/snag.

No suitable habitat
present.

Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler None/ SSC
Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Frequently found nesting and foraging in willow shrubs and thickets, and in other riparian plants including cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders.

No suitable habitat
present.
852
APPENDIX C-Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species Status: Federal/State Habitat/Micro Habitat Potential to Occur Toxostoma lecontei
Le Conte's thrasher None/SSC
Desert wash, Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub.

Commonly nests in a dense, spiny shrub or densely branched cactus in desert wash habitat, usually 2-8 feet above ground.

No suitable habitat
present.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo Endangered/Endangered
Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.

No suitable habitat
present.

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
yellow-headed blackbird None/SSC Marsh & swamp, wetland. Nests only where large insects such as Odonata are abundant, nesting timed with maximum emergence of aquatic insects.

No suitable habitat
present.

Fish
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop
10 steelhead - southern California
DPS
Endangered/Candidate
Endangered
Aquatic, south coast flowing waters. Southern steelhead likely have greater physiological tolerances to warmer water and more variable conditions.

No suitable habitat
present.

Rhinichthys osculus ssp8
Santa Ana speckled dace None/ SSC
Aquatic, south coast flowing waters. Requires permanent flowing streams with summer water temps of 17-20 C. Usually inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffles.

No suitable habitat
present.

Insect
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
None/Candidate
Endangered
Grasslands, shrublands, and chapparal. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

No suitable habitat
present.

Diplectrona californica
California diplectronan caddisfly None/None Aquatic. No suitable habitat present.

Halictus harmonius
haromonius halictid bee None/None Chapparal No suitable habitat present.

Palaeoxenus dohrni
Dohrn's elegant eucnemid beetle None/None Chapparal No suitable habitat present.

Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis Coachella
Valley jerusalem cricket None/None Desert dunes. Found in the large, undulating dunes piled up at the north base of Mt San Jacinto.

No suitable habitat
present.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat None/ SSC
Chaparral, coastal scrub,desert wash, Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean desert scrub , Riparian woodland , Sonoran desert scrub , Upper montane coniferous forest , Valley & foothill grassland. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

No suitable habitat
present.
853
APPENDIX C-Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species Status: Federal/State Habitat/Micro Habitat Potential to Occur Chaetodipus californicus femoralis
Dulzura
pocket mouse
None/ SSC Chaparral, Coastal scrub, valley & foothill grassland. Attracted to grass-chaparral edges.

No suitable
burrows/ habitat
present.

Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern
San Diego pocket mouse None/ SSC Chaparral, coastal scrub. Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in association with rocks or coarse gravel.

No suitable
burrows/habitat
present.

Chaetodipus fallax pallidus
pallid San Diego pocket mouse None/ SSC
Desert wash, Pinon & juniper woodlands, Sonoran desert
scrub. Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in association with rocks or coarse gravel.

No suitable
burrows/habitat
present.

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's
big-eared bat None/ SSC
Broadleaved upland forest , chaparral , chenopod scrub , Great Basin grassland , Great Basin scrub , Joshua tree woodland , Lower montane coniferous forest , meadow & seep , Mojavean desert scrub , riparian forest , riparian woodland , Sonoran desert scrub , Sonoran thorn woodland , upper montane
coniferous forest , valley & foothill grassland. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites limiting.

Extremely sensitive to human disturbance.

No suitable habitat
present.

Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Endangered/Candidate
Endangered Coastal scrub. Needs early to intermediate seral stages. No suitable habitat present.

Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' kangaroo rat Threatened/Threatened Coastal scrub, valley & foothill grassland. Prefers buckwheat, chamise, brome grass and filaree. Will burrow into firm soil.

No suitable
burrows/habitat
present.

Glaucomys oregonensis californicus
San Bernardino flying squirrel None/SSC
Broadleaved upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest.

Needs cavities in trees/snags for nests and cover. Needs nearby water.

No suitable habitat
present.

Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat None/ SSC
Desert wash. Roosts in trees, particularly palms. Forages over water and among trees. No suitable habitat
present.

Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
lesser long-nosed bat Delisted /SSC
Mojavean desert scrub , Sonoran desert scrub , upper Sonoran scrub. Caves and mines are used as day roosts. Caves, mines, rock crevices, trees and shrubs, and abandoned buildings are used as night roosts for digesting meals. Nectar, pollen, and fruit eating bat; primarily feeding on agaves, saguaro, and organ pipe cactus.

No suitable habitat
present.
854
APPENDIX C-Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species Status: Federal/State Habitat/Micro Habitat Potential to Occur Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit None/ None Coastal scrub. Coastal sage scrub habitats in Southern California.

No suitable habitat
present.

Neotamias speciosus speciosus
lodgepole chipmunk None/ None
Chaparral , upper montane coniferous forest. Habitat is usually lodgepole pine forests in the San Bernardino Mts and
chinquapin slopes in the San Jacinto Mts.

No suitable habitat
present.

Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat None/ SSC
Coastal scrub. Moderate to dense canopies preferred. They are particularly abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes.

No suitable habitat
present.

Nyctinomops femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat None/ SSC Joshua tree woodland, Pinon & juniper woodlands, riparian scrub, Sonoran Desert scrub. Rocky areas with high cliffs.

No suitable habitat
present.

Onychomys torridus ramona
southern grasshopper mouse None/ SSC Chenopod scrub. No suitable habitat present.

Perognathus longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse None/ SSC
Coastal scrub. Open ground with fine, sandy soils. May not dig extensive burrows, hiding under weeds and dead leaves
instead.

No suitable habitat
present.

Taxidea taxus
American badger None/ SSC
Alkali marsh, broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, desert dunes, desert wash, freshwater marsh, grassland, lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub, Montane dwarf scrub, Pavement plain, Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

No suitable habitat
present.

Xerospermophilus tereticaudus
chlorus
Palm Springs round-tailed ground
squirrel
None/ SSC
Chenopod scrub , Sonoran desert scrub. Prefers open, flat, grassy areas in fine-textured, sandy soil. Density correlated with winter rainfall.

No suitable habitat
present.

Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern California legless lizard None/ SSC
Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Variety of habitats; generally in moist, loose soil. They prefer soils with a high moisture content.

No suitable habitat
present.

Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake None/ SSC Generalist reported from a range of scrub and grassland habitats, often with loose or sandy soils.

No suitable habitat
present.

Aspidoscelis hyperythra
orange-throated whiptail None/ WL
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Prefers
washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and
rocks. Perennial plants necessary for its major food: termites.

No suitable habitat
present.

Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
coastal whiptail None/ SSC Ground may be firm soil, sandy, or rocky. No suitable habitat present. 855
APPENDIX C-Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species Status: Federal/State Habitat/Micro Habitat Potential to Occur Charina umbratica
southern rubber boa None/Threatened
Meadow & seep , riparian forest , riparian woodland, upper montane coniferous forest , wetland. Found in vicinity of streams or wet meadows; requires loose, moist soil for
burrowing; seeks cover in rotting logs, rock outcrops, and under surface litter.

No suitable habitat
present.

Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake None/ SSC
Chaparral, Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub.

Occurs in rocky areas and dense vegetation. Needs rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects.

No suitable habitat
present.

Diadophis punctatus modestus
San Bernardino ringneck snake None/ None Avoids moving through open or barren areas by restricting movements to areas of surface litter or herbaceous veg.

No suitable habitat
present.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard None/SSC
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, desert wash, pinon & juniper woodlands, riparian scrub, riparian woodland, valley & foothill grassland. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

No suitable habitat
present.

Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
coast patch-nosed snake None/ SSC Coastal scrub. Require small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites.

No suitable habitat
present.

Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake None/ SSC
Marsh & swamp , riparian scrub , riparian woodland, Wetland.

Highly aquatic, found in or near permanent fresh water. Often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.

No suitable habitat
present.

State Abbreviations
• FP: Fully Protected
• S: Sensitive
• SSC: Species of Special Concern
• WL: Watch List
856
Appendix C
Cultural Resource Inves�ga�on
857
USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle: Beaumont, CA
Level of Investigation: CEQA Phase I
Key Words: City of Banning; APN 538-280-001; 7.5 acres
Cultural Resource Investigation for the Banning NP-2
Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project,
City of Banning, Riverside County, California
Andrew DeLeon
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
3550 East Florida Avenue, Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
Prepared For
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
November 2023
draft
858
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The City of Banning (City) proposes construction of a reservoir and booster pump station for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project is within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 (approximately 7.51 acres) located east of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the city of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Under contract to Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) conducted a cultural resource investigation of the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency for compliance with CEQA.

This report summarizes the methods and results of the cultural resource investigation including a records search and literature review, communication with Native American tribal representatives, and an archaeological survey of the Project area. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the potential for the proposed Project to impact historical resources eligible for or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

The literature and records search at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System indicates 46 cultural resources have been documented within a

0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified cultural resources is within the Project area.

As part of the cultural resource investigation, Æ sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a search of the Sacred Lands File. Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Per the NAHC’s request, Æ contacted Native American individuals and organizations to elicit information on Native American resources within the Project area, if any. Of the 11 groups and/or individuals contacted, Æ received responses from representatives of two tribes—Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians. Their comments are summarized in the report that follows.

Æ Archaeologist Andrew DeLeon completed an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey of the approximately 7.5-acre Project area on August 23, 2023. No cultural resources were encountered within the Project area during the survey. The terrain throughout most of the Project area has been previously plowed and disturbed. In addition, geological data indicate no Ab (buried) horizons, which typically have an environment conducive to preserving buried archaeological deposits. Due to the low likelihood that archaeological deposits or features will be found during construction, no further cultural resource management of the Project area is recommended.

However, if potentially significant archaeological materials are encountered during construction activities, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site and assess the significance and integrity of the find. Additionally, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an accidental discovery of human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 859
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project iii Field notes documenting the current investigation are on file at Æ’s Hemet office. A copy of this report will also be submitted to the Eastern Information Center. 860
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project iv

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................1

1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...............................................................................1

1.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ......................................................1

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...............................................................................4 2 SETTING.......................................................................................................................5

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..........................................................................5

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING...................................................................................5

2.2.1 Early Archaic Period (circa 9500–7000 B.P.)............................................6

2.2.2 Middle Archaic Period (circa 7000–4000 B.P.).........................................6

2.2.3 Late Archaic Period (circa 4000–1500 B.P.).............................................7

2.2.4 Saratoga Springs Period (circa 1500–750 B.P.).........................................7

2.2.5 Late Prehistoric Period (circa 750–410 B.P.) ............................................7

2.2.6 Protohistoric Period (circa 410–180 B.P.).................................................7

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING .............................................................................8

2.3.1 Cahuilla....................................................................................................8

2.3.2 Serrano.....................................................................................................9

2.3.3 Cupeño...................................................................................................10

2.4 HISTORICAL SETTING...................................................................................10

2.4.1 Local History..........................................................................................11 3 CULTURAL LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH........................................13

3.1 HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW ..........................................................................15 4 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................16 5 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS.........................18

5.1 SURVEY METHODS .......................................................................................18

5.2 SURVEY RESULTS .........................................................................................18 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................20 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................21

APPENDIX
A Native American Communications
861
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project v

FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Riverside County, California ...................................................2 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Beaumont 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle......................................................................................................3 Figure 5-1 Overview from northwest corner of Project area, facing southeast......................18 Figure 5-2 Overview from southeast corner of Project area facing northwest.......................19 Table 3-1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies in the 0.5-Mile Search Radius.....................13 Table 3-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the 0.5-Mile Search Radius..........................................................................................................14 862
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 1 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Banning (City) proposes construction of a reservoir and booster pump station for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project area is within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 538-280-001 (approximately 7.51 acres) located east of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the city of Banning, Riverside County, California. Under contract to Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) conducted a cultural resource investigation of the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency for compliance with CEQA.

Æ Principal Investigator M. Colleen Hamilton (M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist [RPA] 12588), was responsible for overall quality control for the Project. Æ Senior Archaeologist Joan George (B.S., RPA 28093) served as project manager. Fieldwork was conducted by Æ Associate Archaeologist Andrew DeLeon (M.A., RPA 17087).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project is within the southwestern portion of the city of Banning in Riverside County (Figure 1-1). Specifically, the Project is within Section 8 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1-2). The elevation is approximately 2,400 feet above mean sea level.

The Project involves construction of a booster pump facility and reservoir tank. The station will consist of a housing facility designed to contain vertical turbine pumps capable of transmitting 2,500 gallons of non-potable water per minute. The associated reservoir tank is an above-ground structure which will store approximately 60,910 gallons of non-potable water during operation.

All these facilities are water system improvements needed to supply non-potable water to Lions Park, Banning High School, Dysart Park, and the Sun Lakes development near Highland Home Road. The maximum depth of ground disturbance during Project construction is not expected to exceed 10 feet. Project construction is expected to disturb only approximately 0.5 acres of the total parcel.

1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

1.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
The Project requires discretionary approval from the City and is therefore subject to the requirements of CEQA. The CEQA Statute and Guidelines directs lead agencies to determine whether a project will have a significant impact on historical resources. A cultural resource considered “historically significant” is considered a “historical resource,” if it over 50 years of age and is included in a local register of historical resources or is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under any one of the following criteria (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15064.5):
863
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 2 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Riverside County, California. &

PROJECT

VICINITY
0 5 10
o Kilometers
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Feet
0 5 10
Miles
Scale: 1:250,000
National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

PROJECT VICINITY
864
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Beaumont 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
o
Township 3 S./Range 1 E., Section 8
Beaumont (1953, photorevised
1988),CA 7.5' USGS Topographic
Quadrangle

PROJECT AREA
865
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 4

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or,

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Compliance with CEQA’s cultural resource provisions typically involves several steps. Briefly, archival research and field surveys are needed, and identified cultural resources are inventoried and evaluated in prescribed ways. Prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, as well as standing structures, buildings, and objects deemed historically significant and sufficiently intact (i.e., historical resources), must be considered in project planning and development.

A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR §15064.5[b]) and the lead agency is responsible for identifying potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource (14 CCR §15064.5[b]4).

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documents the results of a cultural resource investigation of the proposed Project area. Chapter 1 has described the Project and its location, defined the scope of the cultural resource investigation, and stated the regulatory context. Chapter 2 summarizes the natural and cultural setting of the Project area and surrounding region. Chapter 3 presents the results of the archaeological literature and records search. Chapter 4 summarizes the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Native American communications. The field survey methods and results are discussed in Chapter 5. Cultural resource management recommendations are provided in Chapter 6, and bibliographic references are cited in Chapter 7. Results of the SLF search and correspondence with Native American groups are included as Appendix A.
866
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 5 2 SETTING
This chapter describes the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical cultural setting of the Project to provide a context for understanding the nature and significance of cultural resources identified within the region. Prehistorically, ethnographically, and historically, the nature and distribution of human activities in the region have been affected by such factors as topography and the availability of water and natural resources. Therefore, prior to a discussion of the cultural setting, the environmental setting of the area is summarized below.

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project is in western Riverside County and is situated on the interfluvial plain immediately north of Smith Creek. Annual precipitation in the area ranges from 18 to 20 inches. Surrounding sediments are composed of older Quaternary Alluvium deposits, derived as fan deposits from the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and possibly from the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. The Project lies within the South Coast Bioregion and is sparsely vegetated with scrub brush and grasses and populated by a variety of reptiles, small mammals, birds, and insects.

The natural setting of the Project area has been summarized by McLean et al. (2006). The Project is located in the San Gorgonio Pass (elevation 2,616 feet), which forms a natural break between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. It is an east-west trending lowland between the two mountain ranges. The surface of the lowland is composed of alluvial fan deposits, mainly from the San Bernardino Mountains. The northern foothills are underlain by upper Cenozoic nonmarine and marine sedimentary deposits (Morton 1999).

The San Bernardino Mountains are in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province (Norris and Webb 1990:330). The Transverse Ranges are an east-west trending mountain range at the northeast end of the Los Angeles Basin. This range has some of the highest peaks south of the Sierra Nevada range (Norris and Webb 1990:330). The San Bernardino Mountains are about 65 miles long and 30 miles wide at their widest point. The San Jacinto Mountains are the northernmost of the Peninsular Ranges, which run 900 miles from Southern California to the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula. At an elevation of 10,834 feet, San Jacinto Peak is the highest peak in the range (California State Parks 2002).

Soils in the Project area, as mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, include two soil series. The Greenfield and Ramona soils are Alfisols, a taxonomic class of soil that typically retains water well for three months out of the year during warm seasons, which fosters sufficient plant growth (Soil Survey Staff 1999). None of the soil series mapped in the Project area include buried A (Ab) horizons.

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
The prehistory of inland Southern California is less thoroughly understood than in the adjacent desert and coastal regions. This is partially a result of historical circumstances, such as ease of access, the location of universities, and public versus private land ownership, and partly due to 867
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 6 the nature of archaeological research in these interior valleys and mountains of Southern California (Goldberg and Arnold 1988). In the absence of absolute chronological indicators for inland sites, researchers generally employ typological cross-dating from either coastal or desert sequences, often as the sole means for assigning age to archaeological sites within the interior valleys, including the Project area.

Two large reservoir projects, Perris Reservoir project (O’Connell et al. 1974) and Eastside Reservoir project (ESRP) (Goldberg et al. 2001), generated large data sets to provide a basis for resolving some of these regional chronological sequencing problems. It is difficult to extrapolate the geographic extent of the prehistoric cultural patterns discerned from excavations at these two reservoirs, which are 12 miles apart in central western Riverside County. The ESRP is approximately 16 miles southwest of the Project, and it is almost certain that prehistoric patterns are similar to those discerned for the ESRP studies.

This discussion of the Project’s prehistoric cultural setting is drawn from the cultural sequence developed for the ESRP. This chronology was based first on artifact cross-dating, and then refined with radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dates (Onken and Horne 2001; Robinson 1998, 2001); however, the ESRP chronology draws heavily on a cultural sequence defined by Warren (1984) for Southern California, which is based largely on archaeological work conducted in the Colorado and Mojave deserts. Because Warren’s chronology used period names that suggest links to the Mojave, these were replaced in the ESRP chronology by value neutral terms.

Because no sites dating to the Paleoindian Period (circa 12,000–9500 before present [B.P.]) have been documented within the region, the discussion below begins with the Early Archaic Period.

2.2.1 Early Archaic Period (circa 9500–7000 B.P.)
During this period, the environment of the interior deserts was more favorable for human occupation than the cismontane valleys of Southern California, where the Project is located.

Populations in the interior valleys would have been tethered to the few reliable, drought-resistant water sources such as Lake Elsinore, Mystic Lake, and possibly the Cajalco Basin. In general, small, highly mobile groups traveled widely, utilizing highly portable tool kits to procure and process critical resources, with brief and anticipated intervals of seasonal sedentism near predictable water locations. Due to isolated locations where the conditions for occupation were met, Early Archaic Period sites are rare compared to later periods of prehistory (Goldberg et al. 2001; Grenda 1997; Horne and McDougall 2008; McDougall 1995).

2.2.2 Middle Archaic Period (circa 7000–4000 B.P.)
A gradual transition from wet pluvial conditions to arid desert conditions during the Early Holocene marks the transition to the Middle Archaic Period. Middle Archaic Period sites in Southern California include two in the ESRP, one at Lake Elsinore, the Stahl Site in Owens Valley, desert sites in Death Valley, Salt Springs, and at Pinto Basin in Joshua Tree National Park. Middle Archaic Period sites are associated with the margins of pluvial lakes and with nowextinct springs. Pinto-series projectile points, a type of basally notched or bifurcate base dart point, are the most distinctive artifact type of this period (Justice 2002). Other artifacts found at Middle Archaic Period sites include leaf-shaped bifacial knives, split cobble choppers and scrapers, scraper-planes, and small milling slabs and manos. With a few exceptions in the ESRP 868
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 7 area and the Stahl Site, most sites of this age are small surface deposits of lithic artifacts, suggestive of temporary and perhaps seasonal occupation by small groups of people.

2.2.3 Late Archaic Period (circa 4000–1500 B.P.)
The Late Archaic Period was one of cultural intensification coinciding with the Little Pluvial, a period when increased moisture allowed for more extensive occupation of the region. Sedentism likely increased during this period, with large occupation sites located adjacent to permanent water sources such as perennial springs and streams. Projectile points diagnostic of this period include Humboldt, Gypsum, and Elko-series dart points (Warren 1984), although Rose Spring arrow points appeared late within this period in the deserts. The mortar and pestle, used for processing acorns and hard seeds, also first appeared. A warming and drying trend began around 2100 B.P., leading to intensification of use of certain resources (Goldberg et al. 2001).

2.2.4 Saratoga Springs Period (circa 1500–750 B.P.)
Occupants of the region continued to adapt to the arid environment in the deserts (Warren 1984).

Lake Cahuilla likely refilled the Coachella Valley around 1450 B.P. and was the focus of exploitation of fish and wetland resources. Occupation around large local water sources declined as these dried, however, and people became tethered to springs (Goldberg et al. 2001). Cultural trends continued from the Late Archaic Period, as Saratoga Springs projectile points, also associated with early use of the bow and arrow, appeared. The sparse assemblages found within the region obscure the timing of local adoption of the bow and arrow (Goldberg et al. 2001).

Shoshonean language speakers likely moved into Southern California at this time. Brown and Buff Ware pottery first appeared on the lower Colorado River at about 1200 B.P. and started to diffuse across the California deserts by about 1100 B.P. (Moratto 1984). The warmer and drier Medieval Warm Period set in throughout the Southwest by about 1060 B.P. (Stine 1994; Warren 1984) and led to the withdrawal of Native American populations from marginal desert areas.

2.2.5 Late Prehistoric Period (circa 750–410 B.P.)
A period of lower temperatures and increased precipitation known as the Little Ice Age resulted in increased resource productivity in the region and subsequent population increase. Cottonwood Triangular points appear in inland assemblages and Obsidian Butte glass became much more common (Goldberg et al. 2001). Lake Cahuilla began to recede (Waters 1983), and the large Patayan populations occupying its shores moved westward to areas such as Anza Borrego, Coyote Canyon, the Upper Coachella Valley, the Little San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Jacinto Plain (Wilke 1976). The final recession of Lake Cahuilla, which had occurred by approximately 400 B.P., resulted in a population shift away from the lakebed into the Peninsular Ranges to the west and the Colorado River regions to the east.

2.2.6 Protohistoric Period (circa 410–180 B.P.)
Sedentism intensified during the Protohistoric Period. Increased hunting with bow and arrow and widespread exploitation of acorns, other hard nuts, and berries (indicated by the abundance of mortars and pestles) provided reliable and storable food resources. Reliable food sources likely prompted the establishment of small, completely sedentary villages with resource catchment areas around them (True 1966, 1970). Ceramic technology first appeared in the region around 869
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 8 350 B.P. Cottonwood Triangular points were supplemented by Desert Side-notched points. This period ended in 1769 A.D. when Spanish settlement began in Upper California.

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Project area lies immediately west and north of the Morongo Indian Reservation. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians are a mixture of several different groups of California Native Americans, including Cahuilla, Serrano, and Cupeño. The native languages spoken by these groups are all part of the larger Takic family of Uto-Aztecan languages. An ethnographic overview of each of these groups is provided below.

2.3.1 Cahuilla
Ethnographically, the Project area lies within the traditional territory of the Pass (or Wanakik) Cahuilla. A wealth of information exists regarding traditional and historic Cahuilla society and culture (Bean 1978; Bean and Toenjes 2011). The Cahuilla language, divided into Desert, Pass, and Mountain dialects, has been assigned to the Cupan subfamily of the Takic branch of the UtoAztecan linguistic family. Territory traditionally claimed by the Cahuilla was topographically complex, including mountain ranges, passes, canyons, valleys, and desert. Bean (1978) described it as, “. . . from the summit of the San Bernardino Mountains in the north to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains in the south, a portion of the Colorado Desert west of Orocopia Mountain to the east, and the San Jacinto Plain near Riverside and the eastern slopes of Palomar Mountain to the west.”
The Cahuilla in precontact times had nonpolitical, nonterritorial patrimoieties that governed marriage patterns, as well as patrilineal clans and lineages. The Cahuilla words for these moieties mean “Coyote” and “Wildcat.” The Cahuilla had “political-ritual-corporate units (clans) composed of 3 to 10 lineages, dialectically different, named, claiming a common genitor, with one lineage recognized as the founding one” (Bean 1978). Clans owned a large territory in which each lineage owned a village site with specific resource areas. Clan lineages cooperated in defense, in large communal subsistence activities, and in performing rituals. Founding lineages often owned the office of ceremonial leader, the ceremonial house, and a ceremonial bundle (Bean 1978). Settlements, occupied by one or more lineages, could be politically autonomous or allied with several villages under one chief. The hereditary chiefs had religious, economic, and military power and were role models for their people. They were aided in their duties by one or more assistants. The chiefs and their families, along with the very wealthy, were the elites of the society. The acquisition of wealth was important, but the acquisition of extreme material wealth was prevented by the custom of burning or burying the possessions of the deceased.

The Cahuilla were, for the most part, hunting, collecting, harvesting, and protoagricultural peoples. A diverse habitat provided an immense variety of floral resources, which the Cahuilla used for food, medicine, and manufacture of tools and shelter (Bean 1978:578). Acorns, screw beans, mesquite, pinyon, cactus fruits, seeds, wild berries, tubers, roots, and greens were valuable food resources. Acorns and hard berries were pounded in stone mortars, while hard seeds were ground on stone metates. Softer foods, like honey mesquite, were pounded in wooden mortars. Various basket and pottery forms were used to process and cook plant foods. Stonelined pit ovens were used to cook yucca, agave, and tule-potatoes. At ancient Lake Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley, periods of high lake stands brought Cahuilla from the mountain areas 870
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 9 down to the valley floor to exploit the freshwater aquatic resources such as fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and shoreline vegetation (Wilke 1976:8, from Blake 1856:98).

Cahuilla pottery was manufactured by the coil method and paddle-and-anvil technique and was often painted or incised. Their pottery forms included cooking pots, ollas, bowls, dishes, and tobacco pipes. Basketry was produced by a stitched coil method, and forms included flat plates or trays for winnowing seeds, both shallow and deep baskets, conical baskets, and round flatbottomed baskets, which were often decorated with cosmological motifs (Bean 1978:579).

Arrow-shaft straighteners were made of soapstone and incised with designs that reflected ownership. Bows were made of willow or mesquite and were strung with mescal fiber or sinew.

Ceremonial items included charmstones, bull-roarers, clappers, rattles, feathered headdresses, wands, and eagle feather skirts and capes. Clothing included sandals made of mescal fiber, rabbit skin or other hide blankets, and skirts made of tule, or the soft inner bark of mesquite or cottonwood.

2.3.2 Serrano
The Serrano, or “mountaineers” in Spanish, occupied the territory of the San Bernardino Mountains east to Mount San Gorgonio, the San Gabriel Mountains west to Mount San Antonio, and portions of the desert to the north and the fringe of the San Bernardino Valley to the south (Kroeber 1925:615–616). Numbering no more than perhaps 1,500 people, the Serrano were scattered over a rugged, expansive landscape. The Serrano were Shoshonean peoples, speakers of languages in the Takic subfamily of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family, and their ancestors are presumed to have entered Southern California some 1,500 years ago from the Great Basin (Kroeber 1925:578–579). Their most intensive cultural contacts were with the Pass Cahuilla, who occupied the territory to the southeast, and the Gabrielino, who occupied the lands westward to the Pacific coast.

Serrano clans were politically autonomous and both patrilineal and exogamous. A moiety structure conditioned Serrano social life, all clans belonging to either the Coyote or Wildcat moiety. These moieties were exogamous. Each Serrano clan had a hereditary leader, or kika, and an assistant who was a ceremonial leader, or paha (Strong 1929:17–18). These individuals were central to the ritual life of the Serrano, providing leadership during yearly ceremonial periods.

Kroeber (1925:617) indicated that villages were generally where streams emerged from the foothills. Bean et al. (1981:85–86) indicated groups of lineages lived in villages at the valley margins in the winter and in smaller encampments at higher elevations in the summer. Proximity to water sources and adequate arrays of resources predictably dictated settlement location choices. Bean et al. (1981:85) noted also that individual homes were quite scattered across the landscape in order to ensure privacy, to the extent that some “villages” covered up to 5 square miles. This clearly has important implications for archaeological interpretations of occupation sites.

Subsistence during winter months consisted mostly of reliance on stored foods (acorns, pinyon nuts, mesquite beans) and some fresh meats and greens. In the spring, agave, cacti, greens, and a mix of game provided the bulk of the food resources. Many fruits and seeds became available during the summer months, but perhaps the richest season was autumn, when major harvests of acorns, pinyon nuts, mesquite beans, and screwbeans occurred, and when communal rabbit hunts took place in the context of much feasting and ritual activity (Bean et al. 1981:86–87). In 871
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 10 addition to occupation sites and food procurement sites, rock cairns (“offerings” places along trails), cupule petroglyph sites, hot springs (sacred areas), sources of lithic materials suitable to produce stone tools and other artifacts, and trails represent important land uses by the Serrano.

2.3.3 Cupeño
The Cupeño are considered one of the smallest linguistic groups in Southern California (Bean and Smith 1978). The traditional territory of the Cupeño is located near the headwaters of the San Luis Rey River in northern San Diego County. Today, there are several Native American groups (Pala Band of Luiseño Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians) that include Cupeño members. As discussed by Bean and Smith (1978:588), Cupeño social organization reflects an amalgamation of several different groups that dates back at least 800 years. Cahuilla elements of social organization found among the Cupeño include exogamous moieties, patrilineal clans, and ceremonial exchange parties. The Cupeño also practice some Chingichngish religious rituals that were acquired from the Luiseño, with additional ceremonies adopted from the Ipai.

Ethnographic information on the Cupeño indicates that clans owned the most productive foodgathering spots with communal ownership of intervening areas for hunting and gathering. The head of each clan lived in the clan’s ceremonial dance house and was responsible for keeping the clan bundle. A hereditary office that usually passed from father to eldest son, the duties of the clan leader included controlling trade with non-Cupeño groups, overseeing the production and distribution of goods, regulating intra- and interclan relationships, and organizing ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978:588–589). Clan leaders could also be shamans.

In terms of ritual, the most significant ceremonies for the Cupeño were those held in connection with deaths in the clan. Immediately following the death of an individual, the body was burned.

This was followed by the burning of the deceased’s possessions a few weeks to several months later. An annual or biannual image-burning ceremony was held at a later point, in which images of all those who had died since the last ceremony were burned (Bean and Smith 1978:589).

Another ceremony held in memory of the dead was the eagle-killing ritual, which was held once a year.

2.4 HISTORICAL SETTING
The Spanish occupation of Alta California and the founding of the San Diego de Alcalá mission in San Diego occurred in 1769 resulting availability of written records. The following historic context of California was taken primarily from Clark and Smallwood (2015). Exploration of the California coast in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the basis for the Spanish claim to the region. In the eighteenth century, Spain recognized that to strengthen its claim, it would have to settle Alta California to preclude encroachment by the Russians and British traders. Therefore, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, Spain and the Franciscan Order founded a series of presidios, or military camps, and 21 missions along the California coast, beginning at San Diego in 1769. The Spanish also carried out exploratory expeditions into the interior regions, including the Mojave Desert, to identify travel routes to the coast and to establish interior agricultural settlements.
872
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 11 With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, California formally became an American territory, and two years later, on September 9, 1850, California became the thirty-first state in the Union. Between those two years came a large influx of eastern immigrants seeking their fortunes; the catalyst for this influx was James Marshall’s 1848 discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill (Starr 2005). The population and wealth in the early statehood years were concentrated in the northern part of the state. Ranching was the main occupation in the southern counties providing meat and supplies to the north. The floods and drought of the 1860s brought that era to a close, and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 opened California to agricultural settlement.

Southern California was promoted as an ideal agricultural area, with fertile soil and a mild climate. Contemporary reviews of California painted beautiful pictures that appealed to both Americans and Europeans alike. There were three land booms tied to railroad expansion:
(1) after the transcontinental railroad was completed, enabling easy travel to California; (2) late 1870s after the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) was completed; and (3) 1886–1888, when the Santa Fe transcontinental line was completed. Competition between these lines incited a rate war, and both tourists and potential settlers took advantage of the low fares to come to California (Lech 2004:222).

2.4.1 Local History
Banning is located in the San Gorgonio Pass, the principle opening between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south that allows east-west travel between the coast and desert regions. Therefore, it was the route of early trails and stage roads, as well as the SPRR and Interstate 10.

Banning, originally Moore City, was founded in early 1877, near the “confluence” of the railroad and the flume (Lech 2004:254). By July of the same year, the name was changed to Banning.

The 1886 Land Office map clearly shows Banning located north of the SPRR, as a town of about four blocks east-west and three blocks north-south. The Banning Land and Water Company flume is depicted traveling north from town along what is now San Gorgonio Avenue. Grain fields and isolated cabins and houses are depicted around Banning, particularly southwest of town. The Bradshaw Stage Route, which was located north of Banning, is no longer shown on the map (General Land Office 1886). The first commercial grain crop was barley; subsequently both oats and wheat were also successful cash crops (Hughes 1938:205). At the same time that farmers and ranchers settled in Banning, it also became known as a health resort. In 1888, the town was described as “unsurpassed” as a resort, with water “as pure as ever flowed from Nature’s fountain” (quoted in Lech 2004:259). In 1890, the Sisters of St. Joseph founded the St.

Boniface Indian School near Banning (Deferrari 1942:541).

Incorporated in 1913, Banning was similar to many other small towns throughout Southern California and the country, proud of every achievement, eager for further growth and development in a positive way, and full of hope for the future. Banning continued to grow both as an agricultural area and as a resort. In the 1920s, Banning’s population was around 3,000 (Banning Chamber of Commerce 1927). In that decade, almond trees, at the peak of their success in California, were grown on approximately 1,000 acres in and around Banning; the area was considered the largest almond-growing region in Southern California (Holtzclaw 2005:25, 41). 873
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 12 At the same time, Banning had maintained its reputation as a “health haven . . . as attested by the sanitariums and private rest homes in and near the city” (Hughes 1938:205).

In 1931, the news of the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) was well-received in Banning. In anticipation of the economic boost the city would receive, “Banning staged a victory jubilee in celebration of the voting of bonds for aqueduct construction” (Hughes 1938:59). The MWD field headquarters were located at the intersection of San Gorgonio Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad.

Construction work for MWD headquarters began in 1932. Through the years of the Great Depression, Banning was home to the MWD engineer’s field office. In addition, the concrete testing laboratory was located in Banning. Boring the San Jacinto Tunnel began in 1933 and continued until the “holing through” on November 18, 1938. During these seven years, the headquarters provided a boost to the local economy, as did the construction workers who lived in the town and commuted to work.

At the beginning of World War II, General George C. Patton established the Desert Training Center in the Mojave Desert in eastern Riverside and San Bernardino counties. In Banning, a 1,000-bed hospital, aid station, and artillery range contributed to the training effort. During the war, 1.6 million people moved to California to work in war industries, and many of the servicemen trained in the state settled in Banning after the war was over (Starr 2005:237). By 1962, California had the highest population of any state.

Banning’s growth continues to rise into the present day due to investments in capital improvements projects, which include over 1,673 new housing units (City of Banning 2023).

Currently, the city of Banning is home to an estimated population of 30,683, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2022).
874
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 13 3 CULTURAL LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH
On August 9, 2023, prior to the field survey of the Project area, Æ conducted a literature and records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resource Information System, housed at the University of California, Riverside. The objective of this records search was to determine whether any prehistoric or historical cultural resources had been recorded previously within the Project area and a 0.5-mile search radius of the proposed Project.

Results of the records search indicated eight cultural resource studies have been conducted previously within the 0.5-mile search radius (Table 3-1). Three of the previous studies involved the Project area. As a result, 100 percent of the Project area has been investigated previously.

Table 3-1
Previous Cultural Resource Studies in the 0.5-Mile Search Radius EIC
Reference
# Authors(s) Date Title
RI-02210 Underwood, J., J. Cleland, C.

M. Wood, and R. Apple
1986 Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey Report for the US Telecom Fiber Optic Cable Project, from San
Timoteo Canyon to Socorro, Texas; The California
Segment
RI-07339a Tang, Bai “Tom”, Josh
Smallwood, and Melissa
Hernandez
2007 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties:

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Recycled
Water System, City of Banning, Riverside, California
RI-08374 Eckhardt, William T., Stacie
Wilson, Carol Serr, and
Karolina Chmiel
2009 Final—Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed SCE Devers to Valley Substation Project, Riverside
County, California: Volume I
RI-08449a Tang, Bai “Tom”, Michael
Hogan, Josh Smallwood, and
Terri Jacquemain
2004 Cultural Resources Technical Report City of Banning General Plan
RI-08668 Bonner, Wayne H. and
Arabesque Said
2011 Letter Report: Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidates
IE24909-H
RI-08978 DeCarlo, Matthew M. 2013 Cultural Resources Inventory of Late Engineering Construction Components, Southern California
Edison (SCE) Devers-Palo Verde 2 (DPV2) Project,
Riverside County, California
RI-09167 McLean, Roderic, Natalie
Brodie, Jacqueline Hall,
Shannon Carmack, Phil
Fulton, Ingri Quon, Erin
Martinelli, Richard Erickson,
and Jay Michals
2013 Cultural Resources Assessment and Class III Inventory Volume I West of Devers Project San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California.

RI-09540a Brunzell, David 2013 Cultural Resources Assessment Rancho San Gorgonio Planned Community Project City of Banning,
Riverside County, Riverside County, California
a - Study overlaps with the Project area.
875
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 14 The records search resulted in the identification of 46 previously recorded cultural resources within the 0.5-mile search radius. All five of the archaeological resources are historical: one water diversion system, one concrete foundation, one refuse scatter, one rubble deposit, and one concrete well box. In addition, 41 built-environment resources were identified within the

0.5-mile search radius (Table 3-2). None of the previously recorded cultural resources are documented within the Project area.

Table 3-2
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the 0.5-Mile Search Radius Primary Trinomial Description
Historic Resources
33-014366 CA-RIV-7815 Water diversion system
33-014367 CA-RIV-7816 Concrete foundations
33-014368 CA-RIV-7817 Refuse scatter
33-025807 — Concrete and masonry rubble
33-025814 — Concrete well box
Built-Environment Resources
33-009150 — Vernacular wood frame house
33-009159 — 1915 Vernacular wood frame house
33-015809 — 1950 California Ranch–style house
33-015810 — 1950 California Ranch–style house
33-015811 — 1947 Doolittle House
33-015813 — 1947 Altered Spanish Eclectic–style house
33-015814 — 1947 Vernacular-style house
33-015815 — 1959 California Ranch–style house
33-015816 — 1959 California Ranch–style house
33-015817 — 1960 California Ranch–style house
33-015818 — 1956 California Ranch–style house
33-015819 — 1959 California Ranch–style house
33-015820 — 1926 Craftsman Bungalow–style house
33-015821 — 1959 California Ranch–style house
33-015822 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015823 — 1957 California Ranch–style house
33-015824 — 1950s California Ranch–style house
33-015825 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015826 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015827 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015828 — 1947 California Ranch–style house
33-015829 — 1960 California Ranch–style house
33-015830 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015831 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015833 — 1940s Minimal Traditional–style house
876
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 15 Table 3-2
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the 0.5-Mile Search Radius Primary Trinomial Description
33-015835 — 1959 California Ranch–style house
33-015837 — 1950 California Ranch–style house
33-015838 — 1961 California Ranch–style house
33-015839 — 1951 Vernacular-style commercial building
33-015840 — 1958 Vernacular-style house
33-015841 — 1950s California Ranch–style house
33-015842 — 1958 California Ranch–style house
33-017729 — 1960s Vernacular-style house
33-017731 — 1962 California Ranch–style house
33-017732 — 1962 California Ranch–style house
33-017733 — 1967 Vernacular-style farmhouse
33-017734 — 1967 Vernacular-style farmhouse
33-017742 — 1955 Cinder block commercial building
33-017744 — 1965 Commercial building
33-017745 — 1960s Commercial building
33-017748 — 1950s Vernacular-style commercial building

3.1 HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW
A series of historical maps were consulted to assess land use and development in the Project area. Maps consulted included USGS topographic quadrangle maps: San Jacinto 1901 30 minute, Southern California 1901 30 minute, Banning 1943 (photorevised 1952) 15 minute, Beaumont 1953 (photorevised 1988) 7.5 minute, Banning 1956 (photorevised 1961) 15 minute, and Santa Ana 1965 30 minute.

The Southern Pacific Railroad appears north of the Project area on all of the examined maps. All of the maps after 1901 also exhibit several buildings outside of the Project area north and south of modern-day Lincoln Street. The structures also appear on aerial photographs, viewed on historicaerials.com/viewer, as early as 1966. No other buildings, structures, or features of interest are shown in the Project area on any of the historical maps or photographs examined. 877
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 16 4 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS
Æ contacted the NAHC on June 22, 2023, for a review of their SLF to determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religious or sacred activity) are present within or adjacent to the Project area. The NAHC responded on July 19, 2023, stating the SLF search was completed with negative results. The NAHC requested Æ contact Native American individuals and organizations to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the proposed Project, if any.

Upon review of the Native American contact list and after removing redundancies, Æ narrowed the list to 11 individuals and organizations traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic region of the Project area. Æ sent out Project scoping letters via email and U.S.

Postal Service on September 8, 2023, describing the Project and asking these individuals and organizations for their input. Copies of the letters, the list of contacts, and received responses are included in Appendix A. Æ sent follow up email correspondence on September 22, 2023, to the organizations who had not responded to the initial request on September 8, 2023.

Individuals/organizations contacted include:
• Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Amanda Vance, Chairperson of the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians • Doug Welmas, Chairperson of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians • Bobby Ray Esparza, Cultural Director for the Cahuilla Band of Indians • Ray Chapparosa, Chairman of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians • Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• John Gomez, Environmental Coordinator for the Ramona Band of Cahuilla • Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians • Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
• Cultural Committee of the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 878
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 17 As of October 17, 2023, Æ has received two responses. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians notes the Project falls within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and a records check of the tribal registry indicates this area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources.

Therefore, the Tribe requests: A cultural resources inventory of the Project area by a qualified archaeologist before any development activities occur in the area, copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with the Project, and a copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the Information Center.

The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians are unaware of any cultural resources that would be affected by the Project but wish to be contacted immediately if any resources are discovered during development. Complete responses from each Tribe are in Appendix A. 879
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 18 5 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
This chapter details the methods and results of the intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area.

Approximately 90 percent of the Project area was accessible during the survey. The intensive survey was completed by Æ Archaeologist Andrew DeLeon on August 23, 2023.

5.1 SURVEY METHODS
DeLeon began the survey on the northwest corner of the Project area (Figure 5-1). From there, the survey proceeded southward. The survey was conducted in 15-meter transects oriented north–south, moving eastward through the Project area. While surveying, DeLeon photographed the Project area at various locations to document its current condition.

5.2 SURVEY RESULTS
The entire Project area is highly disturbed and appears to have been previously plowed. There are several dirt pathways along the perimeters of the Project area, which are also visible on aerial satellite imagery. The center area of the Project appears to have been used as a staging area in the past, and the ground surface soils in that area contained more gravel. DeLeon also observed several pieces of asphalt debris on the northeastern edge of the Project which appear to have been dumped, as no other evidence of roadway or pavement debris was observed anywhere else Figure 5-1 Overview from northwest corner of Project area, facing southeast. 880
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 19 within the Project area. The Project area also encompasses part of a steep drainage running along the eastern edge. The drainage channel was approximately 40 feet deep with steep sidewalls and was unable to be surveyed on foot.

Visibility throughout the Project area was generally poor at 15 percent, as the ground surface was covered in straw grasses, ragweed, and dove weed (Figure 5-2). The eastern side of the Project area contained patches of California buckwheat. When possible, DeLeon inspected exposed areas of soil within the Project area that consisted of a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam.

The topography of the Project is relatively flat and uniform. DeLeon observed sparce patches of modern refuse throughout the Project area. No cultural resources were encountered within the Project area during the survey.

Figure 5-2 Overview from southeast corner of Project area facing northwest. 881
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 20 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Æ did not encounter any cultural resources within the Project area during the intensive pedestrian survey. The entire Project area is highly disturbed and appears to have been previously plowed.

Geological data indicate that soil series mapped within the Project area contain no Ab (buried) horizons which often produce an environment conducive to intact buried archaeological deposits.

While the Greenfield and Ramona soil series contain well-developed A and B horizons, the integrity of those stratigraphic layers is questionable considering modern disturbances. Due to the low likelihood that archaeological deposits or features will be found during construction, no further cultural resource management of the Project area is recommended.

It should be noted that the Project is within Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian’s Traditional Use Area and the Tribe requested a copy of the records search, survey reports, and site records from the Information Center, copies of any cultural resource documentation generated from the current Project, and shapefiles of the Project area. The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians are unaware of any cultural resources that would be affected by the Project but wish to be contacted immediately if any resources are discovered during development.

If potentially significant archaeological materials are encountered during any future construction activities, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site and assess the significance and integrity of the find. If intact and significant archaeological remains are encountered, the impacts of the Project must be mitigated appropriately. Any such discoveries, and subsequent evaluation and treatment, should be documented in a cultural resource report, which should be submitted to the EIC for archival purposes.

Additionally, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an accidental discovery of human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

Finally, if the Project area is expanded to include areas not covered by this survey or other recent cultural resource studies, additional cultural resource studies may be required. 882
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 21 7 REFERENCES
Banning Chamber of Commerce
1927 Banning, California Banning, California. On file, Hemet Public Library. Banning Library District.

Bean, Lowell J.
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Cupeño. In California, Vol. 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 558-591. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and James Toenjes
2011 Native American Ethnographic Context. In Chuckwalla Valley Prehistory Trails Network Cultural Landscape: Historic Context, Research Questions, and Resource Evaluation Criteria. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbard, California. Aspen Environmental Group, Agoura Hills, California for submittal to California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

Bean, Lowell J., Sylvia B. Vane, Michael K. Lerch, and Jackson Young 1981 Native American Places in the San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, California. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, South Zone Contracting Office, Arcadia, California.

California State Parks
2002 Mount San Jacinto State Park and Wilderness. Electronic document, https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/636/files/MtSanJacintoSPFinalWebLayout2018.pdf, accessed September 9, 2023.

City of Banning
2023 City of Banning: Housing Element Information. Electronic document, http://www.banning.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/9072/Housing-ElementInformation-Sheet accessed August 30, 2023. City of Banning.

Clark, Tiffany, and Josh Smallwood
2015 Cultural Resources Report for the Proposed Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District South Norco Channel, Line S-1 in the City of Norco, Riverside County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Pasadena, California.

Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, California. 883
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 22 Deferrari, Roy J.
1942 Essays on Catholic Education in the United States. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.

General Land Office
1886 Township No. 3 South, Range No. 1 East, San Bernardino Meridian, surveyed 1885.

U.S. Surveyor General’s Office, San Francisco, California.

Goldberg, Susan K., and Jeanne E. Arnold
1988 Prehistoric Sites in the Prado Basin, California: Regional Context and Significance Evaluation. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Sonora, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Goldberg, Susan K., Cynthia J. Klink, Jill Onken, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Mark C. Robinson, Melinda C. Horne, and Rebecca L. McKim
2001 Synthesis of Findings. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV. Applied EarthWorks Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Grenda, Donn R.
1997 Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. SRI Technical Series 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Holtzclaw, Kenneth M.
2005 Banning. In Images of America. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall
2008 CA-RIV-6069: Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Western Riverside County, California, with contributions by Jill A. Onken, Nancy Valente, Suzanne Griset, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, and R. Scott Anderson. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Hughes, Tom
1938 History of Banning and San Gorgonio Pass, in Two Parts. Banning Record Print, Banning, California.

Justice, Noel D.
2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
884
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 23 Lech, Steve
2004 Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–1893. Published by the author, Riverside, California.

McDougall, Dennis P.
1995 Metropolitan Water District Eastside Reservoir Project: Summary of Emergency Investigations of Historic Properties, Prehistoric Site CA-RIV-5786. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

McLean, Roderic, Shannon Carmack, Jay Michalsky, and Judith Marvin 2006 A Study of the Past in San Timoteo Canyon and San Gorgonio Pass: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Oak Valley Substation Project, Riverside County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Southern California Edison, Rosemead.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Morton, Douglas M.
1999 Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the Santa Ana 30' × 60' Quadrangle, Southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-172.

Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

O’Connell, James F., Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King, and Carol L. Mix (editors) 1974 Perris Reservoir Archeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archeological Report No.

14. Sacramento.

Onken, Jill A., and Melinda C. Horne
2001 Chronosequencing. In Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan E. Rapp and Susan K.

Goldberg, pp. 91–169. MWD Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Robinson, Mark C.
1998 Arrow Points from the Eastside Reservoir Project: Typology and Chronology in the Late Prehistoric of Riverside County, California. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Eugene.
2001 Units of Analysis. In Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan E. Rapp and Susan K.

Goldberg, pp. 171–199. MWD Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.
885
Cultural Resource Investigation Banning NP2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 24 Soil Survey Staff
1999 Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. 2nd ed. Agricultural Handbook, Vol. 436. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Starr, Kevin
2005 California: A History. Modern Library, New York.

Stine, Scott
1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time.

Nature 369:546–549.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 26(1):1–358. University of California Press, Berkeley.

True, Delbert L.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California. Los Angeles.
1970 Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs 1. University of California, Los Angeles.

U.S. Census Bureau
2022 Quickfacts Banning City, California. Electronic document, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/banningcitycalifornia, accessed August 30, 2023.

Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, pp. 339–430. Academic Press, New York.

Waters, Michael R.
1983 Late Holocene Lacustrine Chronology and Archaeology of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, California. Quaternary Research 19(3):373–387.

Wilke, Philip J.
1976 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California. Riverside. 886

APPENDIX A
Native American Communications
887

LIST OF NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS AND RECORD OF RESPONSES Name Date Responses
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin
THPO
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
September 8, 2023
September 15, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Email response received from Claritsa Duarte- Cultural Resources Analyst. The tribe states that the project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Records check of the ACBCI registry indicates this area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. The tribe requests a cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist before any development activities in this area—copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project. A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center.

Amanda Vance
Chairperson
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
September 8, 2023
September 11, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Email response received from Geramy Martin, Tribal Secretary. The tribe states they are unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project. However, if AE should discover any cultural resources during the development of this project, please contact their office immediately for further evaluation.

Doug Welmas
Chairperson
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

BobbyRay Esparza
Cultural Director
Cahuilla Band of Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Ray Chapparosa
Chairperson
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scope letter sent via post.

Follow up message via phone call, left voicemail. No response received.

Ann Brierty
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.
888
Name Date Responses
Jill McCormick
Historic Preservation Officer
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

John Gomez
Environmental Coordinator
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scope letter sent via post and email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Lovina Redner
Tribal Chair
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Joseph Ontiveros cc Jessica Valdez
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.

Cultural Committee
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
September 8, 2023
September 22, 2023
Scoping letter sent via email.

Follow up sent via email. No response received.
889
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-657-5390 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Date: 6/22/23
Project: City of Banning Np-2 Booster Pump Station Reservoir Project County: Riverside
USGS Quadrangle Name: Beaumont
Township: 3S Range: 1E Section(s): 8
Company/Firm/Agency: Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Contact Person: Andrew DeLeon
Street Address: 3550 East Florida Avenue, Suite H
City: Hemet Zip: 92544
Phone: (951) 766-2000 ext.520
Fax: (951) 766-0020
Email: [email protected]
Project Description: The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station over an approximately 7.51 acre area. Ground disturbance is expected as a result of construction activities.
890
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

July 19, 2023
Andrew DeLeon
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: City of Banning Np-2 Booster Pump Station Reservoir Project, Riverside County Dear Mr. DeLeon:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

ACTING CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
891
Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Last Updated Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians F Reid Milanovich, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264
(760) 699-6800 (760) 699-6919 [email protected] Cahuilla Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians F Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264
(760) 699-6907 (760) 699-6924 [email protected] Cahuilla Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
F Amanda Vance, Chairperson 84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
(760) 398-4722 (760) 369-7161 [email protected] Cahuilla Cabazon Band of Mission Indians F Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Indio, CA, 92203
(760) 342-2593 (760) 347-7880 [email protected] Cahuilla Cahuilla Band of Indians F BobbyRay Esaprza, Cultural
Director
52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Band of Indians F Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-5549 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Cahuilla Band of Indians F Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 CA Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 972-2568 (951) 763-2808 [email protected] Cahuilla 6/28/2023 Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
F Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
(760) 782-0711 (760) 782-0712 Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission Indians F Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 [email protected] Cahuilla Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
F Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 261-0254 historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
F Jordan Joaquin, President,
Quechan Tribal Council
P.O.Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366
(760) 919-3600 executivesecretary@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
F Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman -
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366
(928) 210-8739 culturalcommittee@quechantribe.
com
Quechan 5/16/2023
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
7/19/2023
Counties
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Kern,Los Angeles,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 07/19/2023 07:54 AM
1 of 2
892
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
7/19/2023
Ramona Band of Cahuilla F John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla 8/16/2016 Ramona Band of Cahuilla F Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson P.O. Box 391670 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 763-4105 (951) 763-4325 [email protected] Cahuilla Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539
(951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 [email protected] Cahuilla Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581
(951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 [email protected] Cahuilla Luiseno
7/14/2023
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians F Cultural Committee, P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA, 92274
(760) 397-0300 (760) 397-8146 CulturalCommittee@torresmartineznsn.gov Cahuilla Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resour Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed City of Banning Np-2 Booster Pump Station Reservoir Project, Riverside Coun Record: PROJ-2023-003574
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Riverside
NAHC Group: All
Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San DiegoImperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 07/19/2023 07:54 AM
2 of 2
893
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Ray Chapparosa
Chairperson
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
P.O. Box 189,
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Chapparosa:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
894
Project location map for the Project - AE4506.
0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
03S 01E, 8
Beaumont (1979), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle

PROJECT AREA
895
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Cultural Committee
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Cultural Committee:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
896
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Joseph Hamilton
Chairperson
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
897
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Robert Martin
Chairperson
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Martin:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
898
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Reid Milanovich
Chairperson
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive,
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Milanovich:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
899
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Joseph Ontiveros
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 487,
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Ontiveros:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
900
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Lovina Redner
Tribal Chair
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Ms. Redner:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
901
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Daniel Salgado
Chairperson
Cahuilla Band of Indians
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Salgado:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
902
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Manfred Scott
Acting Chairman
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Scott:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
903
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Amanda Vance
Chairperson
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Ms. Vance:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
904
3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 8, 2023
Doug Welmas
Chairperson
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway,
Indio, CA, 92203
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California.

Dear Mr. Welmas:

On behalf of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resource study for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Sation and Reservoir Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of a reservoir and booster pump station within Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001 on approximately 7.51 acres west of 22nd Avenue and immediately south of Lincoln Street in the City of Banning. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Banning is the lead CEQA agency. As indicated on the attached map, the Project is located within Sections 8 and 17, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Beaumont, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 46 cultural resources have been documented within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area. None of these previously identified resources falls within the Project area. Æ was contracted to perform an archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on August 23, 2023.

Transects spacing was 15 meters. No cultural resources were observed during the survey.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Results of the search indicate there are no known Native American cultural resources within the Project area. Should your records show that cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or via letter expressing your concerns. You may also e-mail me at [email protected]. If I do not hear from you within the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,
Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
905
Dear Jessica Cochrane,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area.A records check of the ACBCI registry indicates this area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. In consultation, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
Applied Earthworks
Jessica Cochrane
3550 E. Florida Ave
Hemet, CA 92544
September 15, 2023
Re: Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 883-1134. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Claritsa Duarte
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
03-020-2023-004
*A cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities in this area.
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center.
906

AUGUSTINE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
84-481 Avenue 54, Coachella CA 92236
Telephone: (760) 398-4722
Fax (760) 369-7161
Tribal Chairperson: Amanda Vance
Tribal Vice-Chairperson: Victoria Martin
Tribal Secretary: Geramy Martin
Date: 09/11/2023
Dear: Jessica Cochrane, BA
Staff Archaeologist
Applied EarthWorks, Inc
SUBJECT: Cultural Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California Thank you for the opportunity to offer input concerning the development of the aboveidentified project. We appreciate your sensitivity to the cultural resources that may be impacted by your project and the importance of these cultural resources to the Native American peoples that have occupied the land surrounding the area of your project for thousands of years.

Unfortunately, increased development and lack of sensitivity to cultural resources have resulted in many significant cultural resources being destroyed or substantially altered and impacted.

Your invitation to consult on this project is greatly appreciated.

At this time, we are unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project, however, in the event, you should discover any cultural resources during the development of this project please contact our office immediately for further evaluation.

Very truly yours,
Geramy Martin, Tribal Secretary
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
907
Appendix D
Energy Tables
908
NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project
Fuel
On-Road Construction Trips1 1,922 Gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment2 18,388 Gallons
Diesel Total 20,310 Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips1 1,777 Gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 - Gallons
Gasoline Total 1,777 Gallons
Consumption
Table 1 – Total Construction-Related Fuel Consumption
Diesel
Gasoline
Notes:

1. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod for construction in 2024 and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 web based data for South Coast Air Basin. See Table 2 for calculation details.

2. Off-road mobile source fuel usage based on a fuel usage rate of 0.05 gallons of diesel per horsepower (HP)-hour, based on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9‐3E.

3. All emissions from off-road construction equipment were assumed to be diesel. 909
Trips Trip length
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Fuel Efficiency
(trips) (miles) (miles) (mpg) (Fuel) (gallon)
Worker2,3 2,438 18.5 45,094 25.9 Gasoline 1,777
Vendor4 1,350 10.2 13,770 7.5 Diesel 1,912
Hauling5 40 1.5 60 6.0 Diesel 10
Annual Fuel Usage1
Table 2 – On-Road Construction Trip Estimates
NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project
Notes:

1. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod output for construction and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 web based data for 2024 in South Coast Air Basin.

2. Worker trips were assumed to be 100% gasoline powered vehicles.

3. Per CalEEMod, worker Trips were assumed to be 25% LDA, 50% LDT1, and 25% LDT2.

4. Vendor trips were assumed to be 50% MHDT and 50% HHDT, split evenly between the MHDT and HHDT construction categories.

5. Per CalEEMod, hauling trips were assumed to be 100% HHDT.

Trip Type
910
Appendix E.1
Supplemental Geotechnical Inves�ga�on
911
912
41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 ■ Murrieta, California 92562 ■ Telephone 951.304.2300 ■ www.geoconinc.com Project No. T2305-22-10G
February 9, 2023
TriPointe Homes
1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 600
Corona, California 92879
Attention: Mr. Michael Heishman, Director of Land Development Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

OFFSITE BOOSTER PUMP STATION

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Heishman:

In accordance with our Work Order Authorization, dated December 20, 2022, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation for the booster pump station located south of the intersection of Lincoln Street and Adams Street in the City of Banning, California.

The accompanying geotechnical report presents the results of our study and includes our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the proposed booster station site. Based on the results of our 2018 geotechnical investigation, our 2021 geotechnical update, and this study, it is our opinion that the sites are suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.

Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Very truly yours,
GEOCON WEST, INC.

Luke C. Weidman Andrew T. Shoashekan
GIT 891 PE 93940
Joseph J. Vettel Lisa A. Battiato
GE 2401 CEG 2316
LCW:ATS:LAB:JJV:hd
Distribution: Addressee (email)
MDS Consulting, Inc. Attention: Barrett Bruchhauser
913
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - i - February 9, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE...................................................................................................................... 1

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ 2

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING......................................................................................................................... 3

4. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS .................................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf) ............................................................................................. 3

4.2 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof) ............................................................................................ 3

5. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................... 4

6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................... 4

6.1 Surface Fault Rupture................................................................................................................. 4

6.3 Expansive Soil ............................................................................................................................ 6

6.4 Hydrocompression...................................................................................................................... 7

6.5 Landslides................................................................................................................................... 7

6.6 Slope Stability............................................................................................................................. 7

6.7 Rock Fall Hazards....................................................................................................................... 7

6.8 Tsunamis and Seiches................................................................................................................. 7

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 8

7.1 General........................................................................................................................................ 8

7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................... 9

7.3 Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 10

7.4 Earthwork Grading Factors....................................................................................................... 12

7.5 Utility Trench Backfill.............................................................................................................. 12

7.6 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13

7.7 Foundations and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ............................................................................. 15

7.8 Lateral Resistance..................................................................................................................... 17

7.9 Preliminary Pavement Design .................................................................................................. 18

7.10 Concrete Flatwork .................................................................................................................... 20

7.11 Temporary Excavations and Shoring........................................................................................ 21

7.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection..................................................................................... 22

7.13 Plan Review.............................................................................................................................. 23

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

REFERENCES
914
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - ii - February 9, 2023

MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 through A-3, Logs of Borings
Figures A-4, Log of Boring (Geocon, 2018)

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Figure B-1, Compaction Characteristics Using Modified Effort Test Results Figures B-2 through B-4, Consolidation Test Results
Figures B-5 through B-7, Direct Shear Test Results
Figures B-8 through B-10, Laboratory Test Results (Geocon, 2018)

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
915
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 1 - February 9, 2023

UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a supplemental geotechnical investigation for booster pump station improvements located south of the intersection of Lincoln Street and Adams Street in Banning, California, as depicted on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. A booster pump station and reservoir tank are proposed at the project location.

The purpose of the investigation was to perform an assessment of the geologic conditions, identify potential geologic hazards, collect material samples, perform laboratory testing on select samples, and, based on the conditions encountered, provide recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of constructing the improvements at the site as presently proposed.

The site was originally explored by Geocon on August 28, 2018, including the drilling of one geotechnical boring within the booster pump station site, as documented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (dated September 20, 2018). The boring log associated with the previous drilling is included in Appendix A with pertinent laboratory data included in Appendix B. An Updated Geotechnical Investigation (dated April 2, 2021) was prepared to satisfy 2019 CBC requirements.

This supplemental investigation included performing a site reconnaissance and Underground Service Alert mark out and notification, drilling and logging of three geotechnical borings, performing laboratory testing, performing geotechnical analyses, reviewing published geotechnical/geologic reporting and data, and preparing of this report. A summary of the information reviewed for this study is presented in the List of References. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are depicted on the Geologic Map (Figure 2). A detailed discussion of the field investigation, including boring logs is presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained from the exploratory borings to evaluate maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, corrosivity, consolidation characteristics, in-situ and remolded shear strength properties, and in-situ moisture content and dry density. Details of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. 916
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 2 - February 9, 2023

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The booster pump station site is located on a vacant lot immediately south of Lincoln Street and its intersection with Adams Street at latitude 33.9214 degrees and longitude -116.8979 degrees. The lot has been vacant and relatively natural since at least 1966. Site elevations range from a high of 2,405 feet MSL at the northwestern corner to a low of 2,400 feet MSL in the southeastern corner.

Montgomery Creek channel is at an approximate elevation of 2,375 feet MSL approximately 120 feet east of the booster station pad.

Based on the Preliminary Site Plan Segment-B Booster Station (MDS, 2020c), we understand that the proposed construction at the booster station will generally consist of a booster station building that will house three booster pumps and appurtenant systems. Proposed ancillary improvements include a sidewalk ALONG Lincoln Street, an aggregate access road from Lincoln Street A transformer and electrical conduit, sewer sump, and valve vault and valves, will be located outside of the booster station building. The booster station building and lot will be surrounded by a 6-foot masonry block wall with 24-inch tubular steel fence along the block wall. Based on the Lincoln Street NP Booster and Reservoir Site Plan (Steven Andrews Engineering, 2022), we understand the proposed reservoir tank at the booster pump station site will be a 24-foot-diameter and 24 feet tall bolted steel tank with 12-inch-diameter inlet and outlet systems.

Preliminary structural loading information for the booster station building and reservoir tank has not been provided to us at this time. We expect the proposed booster station building will be a masonry block building supported by conventional shallow foundations with a slab-on-grade floor, and the reservoir tank will be a bolted steel tank constructed on a shallow perimeter ring and slab foundation system. We expect that column loads for the proposed booster station will be up to 25 kips and wall loads will be up to 3 kips per linear foot. We expect the reservoir tank perimeter ring loads will be up to 3 kips per linear foot. If the booster station or reservoir details or loading vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to evaluate the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
917
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 3 - February 9, 2023

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is located in the San Gorgonio Pass at the northern margin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges (San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains) and on the east by the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges Province extends southward into Mexico and westward past the Channel Islands. Geologic units within the Peninsular Ranges consist of granitic and metamorphic bedrock highlands and deep and broad alluvial valleys.

Locally, the sites lie within the valley between the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains, west of the San Gorgonio River. Active drainages such as Smith and Montgomery Creeks flow southeast from the north before merging along the base of the San Jacinto mountains and continuing east to join the San Gorgonio River. This broad valley is filled with older alluvial fan materials consisting of sand, gravel and granitic detritus shed from the San Bernardino Mountains dissected by active stream channels with sand and gravel deposits.

4. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
Site geologic materials encountered consist of topsoil and Pleistocene-age Young Alluvial Fan Deposits and Older Alluvial Fan Deposits. Across the site, topsoil was encountered within the upper 1 foot in all borings, however due to the thickness of the soil, it is not a mapped geologic unit.

Geologic units and descriptions follow that of Dibblee (2003). Descriptions of the soil and geologic conditions are shown on the boring logs located in Appendix A and are generally described herein in order of increasing age.

4.1 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf)
Young Alluvial Fan Deposits were encountered below the topsoil to a depth of 5 feet in Boring B-5.

These deposits consist primarily of clayey sand. The unit can be characterized as loose, dry , and is yellowish brown. Varying amounts of gravel may exist within the unit.

4.2 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
Older Alluvial Fan Deposits were encountered below the topsoil and Young Alluvial Fan Deposits to the maximum depths explored.. These deposits consist of silty sand with lesser amounts of poorly-graded sand, clayey sand, silty sand, and sandy clay, which is characterized as dense to very dense / hard, dry to damp, and is various shades of brown, with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. 918
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 4 - February 9, 2023

5. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. We obtained well data from the California Water Library Well 03S01E14A at the site of the pump station. The well depth is reported to be 735 feet deep, screened from 460 to 680 feet and have a water depth of 425 feet. (DWR, 2021).

Based on the valley geometry and sediments, we expect similar groundwater conditions throughout the project areas. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result.

6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

6.1 Surface Fault Rupture
The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults.

The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (Bryant and Hart, 2007). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive.

The site is not located within a State of California Fault Hazard Zone. The mapped fault closest to the project is the San Gorgonio Pass fault which is located approximately 4,900 feet north of the booster pump station (Treiman, 1994). Faults within a 50-mile radius of the site are listed in Table 6.1a.

Historic earthquakes in southern California of magnitude 6.0 and greater, their magnitude, distance, and direction from the site are listed in Table 6.1b.
919
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 5 - February 9, 2023
Table 6.1a
Active Faults within 50 Miles of the Site
Fault Name
Maximum
Magnitude
(Mw)
Geometry
(Slip
Character)
Slip
Rate
(mm/yr)
Information
Source
Distance
from
Site (mi)
Direction
from Site
San Gorgonio Pass 7.0 THRUST n/a a 1 N
South Branch San Andreas 7.5 RL-SS 24.0 a 12 E
Pinto Mountain 7.2 LL-SS 2.5 a 12 NE
San Jacinto (Clark) 7.2 RL-SS 12.0 a 14 SW
San Jacinto (Casa Loma) 6.9 RL-SS 12.0 a 16 SW
North Branch San Andreas 7.4 RL-SS 30.0 a 17 E
San Andreas (San
Bernardino) 7.5 RL-SS 24.0 a 18 NW
Johnson Valley 6.7 RL-SS 0.6 a 29 NE
North Frontal 7.2 R 1.0 a 30 N
Burnt Mountain 6.5 RL-SS 0.6 a 31 NE
Lenwood 7.5 RL-SS 0.6 a 31 NE
Helendale 7.3 RL-SS 0.6 a 31 N
Elsinore (Wildomar) 6.8 RL-SS 5.0 a 32 SW
Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy) 6.8 RL-SS 5.0 a 34 SW
Glen Helen 6.7 RL-SS 12.0 a 36 NW
San Andreas Coachella
Valley Branch 7.2 RL-SS 25.0 a 37 SE
Hildago/Calico 7.3 RL-SS 0.6 a 43 NE
Camp Rock/Emerson 7.0 RL-SS 0.6 a 44 NE
Chino 6.7 RL-R-O 1.0 a 46 W
San Jacinto (Coyote Creek) 6.8 RL-SS 4.0 a 47 SE
Cucamonga 6.9 R 5.0 a 49 NW
Geometry: BT = blind thrust, LL = left lateral, N = normal, O = oblique, R = reverse, RL = right lateral, SS = strike slip.

Information Sources: a = Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated June; b = online Fault Activity Map of California website, maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, as of 1/2017. n/a = data not available
920
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 6 - February 9, 2023
Table 6.1b
Historic Earthquake Events with Respect to the Segment-B/C Booster Site Earthquake Date of
Earthquake Magnitude Distance to Epicenter(Miles)
Direction to
Epicenter (Oldest to Youngest)
Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 23 WNW
Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 67 WSW
Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 144 WNW
San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 95 WNW
Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 71 W
Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 70 WNW
Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 31 NE
Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 20 N
Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 98 WNW
Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 58 NE
Ridgecrest China Lake Fault July 5, 2019 7.1 135 NNW

6.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not.

The current standard of practice as outlined in the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (SCEC, 1999) requires a liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.

According to the Riverside County Information Technology Map My County online GIS system, the site is located within areas mapped as having a “moderate” potential for liquefaction.

Due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the dense nature of alluvial soils, neither liquefaction nor seismic “dry-sand” settlement is a design consideration for the site.

6.3 Expansive Soil
The surficial soils at the site generally consist of silty sand. Laboratory testing of site soils indicated these soils are “non-expansive” (Expansion Index [EI] less than 20) as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1803.5.3, with an Expansion Index of 7 and 11 for the site which is classified as ‘very low’ (EI between 0 and 20) in accordance with ASTM D4829.
921
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 7 - February 9, 2023

6.4 Hydrocompression
Hydrocompression is the tendency of unsaturated soil structure to collapse upon wetting resulting in the overall settlement of the affected soil and overlying foundations or improvements supported thereon. Potentially compressible soils underlying the site are typically removed and recompacted during remedial site grading. However, if compressible soil is left in-place, a potential for settlement due to hydrocompression of the soil exists.

We tested soil samples obtained during our investigation of the sites for hydrocompression, which exhibited a collapse potential of approximately 2.2 percent under high-pressure loading conditions.

We expect remedial grading and appropriate drainage measures will effectively reduce the collapse potential of site soils that could impact proposed improvements.

6.5 Landslides
The site is located within a broad alluvial valley. No hills are located on or adjacent to the site.

No landslides are geologically mapped in the descending slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains to the south (Dibblee, 2004). The potential for landslides at the site is not a design consideration.

6.6 Slope Stability
Based on the relatively level topography at the project site, the proposed grading of the site is not expected to include the construction of significant cut or fill slopes. In general, permanent, graded fill slopes constructed of on-site soils with gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter and vertical heights of 5 feet or less are expected possess factors of safety of 1.5 or greater.

6.7 Rock Fall Hazards
The project area is located within a broad valley. No hill slopes or boulders are situated above the sites.

Therefore, rock fall is not considered a hazard for the sites.

6.8 Tsunamis and Seiches
A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The first order driving force for locally generated tsunamis offshore southern California is expected to be tectonic deformation from large earthquakes (Legg, et al., 2002). The site is located 56 miles from the nearest coastline with two mountain ranges between at an elevation of more than 2,000 feet MSL, therefore, the risk associated with tsunamis is not a design consideration.

A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced ground displacement. The project sites are not located adjacent to a body of water, therefore, seiches are not a design consideration for the sites.
922
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 8 - February 9, 2023

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

7.1.1 Neither soil nor geologic conditions were observed which would preclude the construction of improvements at the site as presently proposed, provided that the recommendations of this report are followed and implemented during design and construction.

7.1.2 Potential geologic hazards at the sites consist of seismic shaking. Based on our investigation and available geologic information, active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not present underlying or trending toward the sites.

7.1.3 Samples tested for hydrocompression exhibited some collapse potential under high-pressure loading conditions. We expect remedial grading and appropriate drainage measures will effectively reduce the collapse potential of site soils that could impact proposed improvements.

7.1.4 The upper portion of the young alluvial fan deposits are considered unsuitable for the support of newly compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements. Remedial grading of the surficial soils will be required as discussed herein. New compacted fill and competent undisturbed alluvial fan deposits are considered suitable to support the proposed improvements.

7.1.5 The laboratory tests indicate that the site soils are non-expansive, and have a “very low” expansion potential (expansion index of 0 to 20) in accordance with ASTM D4829.

The foundation recommendations in this report assume that the structures are founded in non-expansive material. Additional testing should be conducted during earthwork to confirm the expansion potential and additional recommendations provided, as needed.

7.1.6 Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the engineering properties of the compacted fill in planned improvement areas. Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein.

7.1.7 Proposed structures can be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab floors.

7.1.7 Once design or civil grading plans are made available, the recommendations within this supplemental report should be reviewed and revised, as necessary. Additionally, as the project design progresses toward a final design, changes in the design, location, or elevation of any proposed improvement should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to evaluate the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. 923
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 9 - February 9, 2023

7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics

7.2.1 The in-situ soils at the site should generally be excavatable with moderate to heavy effort, using conventional earth moving equipment in proper functioning order.

7.2.2 Based on the material classifications and laboratory testing by Geocon, site soils generally possess a “very low” expansion potential, expansion index (EI) of 0 to 20, and are considered “non-expansive” as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2.2 presents soil classifications based on the EI.

TABLE 7.2.2

SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Classification 2019 CBC Expansion Classification 0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive
51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High

7.2.3 Excavations on the order of 3 feet or less are expected to meet finished grades for the site.

Excavations should be performed in conformance with Cal-OSHA requirements. Some of the site soils may have little cohesion and may be subject to caving in un-shored excavations.

The contractor should evaluate the necessity for layback of vertical cut areas.

7.2.4 Laboratory testing of select soil samples indicate that site soils possess a sulfate content of

0.0014 percent (14 parts per million [ppm]) equating to a S0 sulfate exposure to concrete structures, as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318-19. Table 7.2.4 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318-19.

The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
924
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 10 - February 9, 2023 TABLE 7.2.4

REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE

EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Exposure
Class
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (SO4)
Percent
by Weight
Cement
Type (ASTM C150)
Maximum
Water to
Cement Ratio
by Weight1
Minimum
Compressive
Strength (psi)
S0 SO4<0.10 No Type Restriction N/A 2,500
S1 0.10<SO4<0.20 II 0.50 4,000
S2 0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45 4,500
S3 SO4>2.00
Option 1 V+Pozzolan
or Slag 0.45 4,500
Option 2 V 0.40 5,000

7.2.5 Laboratory testing indicates the site soils have a minimum electrical resistivity of 3,500 ohm-cm, possess 72 parts per million (ppm) chloride, 14 ppm sulfate, and have a pH of 7.1.

As shown in Table 7.2.5, the sites would not be classified as “corrosive” to buried improvements in accordance with the Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2021).

TABLE 7.2.5

CALTRANS CORROSION GUIDELINES
Corrosion
Exposure
Resistivity
(ohm-cm) Chloride (ppm) Sulfate (ppm) pH
Corrosive <1,500 500 or greater 1,500 or greater 5.5 or less

7.2.6 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned.

7.3 Grading

7.3.1 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon.

7.3.2 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C and the Grading Ordinances of the City of Banning.

7.3.3 Prior to commencing grading operations, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with a representative of the City of Banning, owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
925
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 11 - February 9, 2023

7.3.4 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris, trash, and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. If encountered, rock over 6 inches in diameter should be screened and removed, and not used in the fill.

7.3.5 The topsoil and upper portion of the alluvial fan deposits within a 1:1 (h:v) projection of the limits of grading should be removed to expose competent alluvium. Removals should extend at least 5 feet below existing grades or 3 feet below the bottom of the planned foundations, whichever is deeper. Removal bottoms should extend until encountering alluvium with 85 percent or greater relative compaction when compacted to the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. Removals in pavement and walkway areas should extend at least 2 feet beneath the pavement or flatwork subgrade elevation. Areas of loose, dry, or compressible soils will require deeper excavation and processing prior to fill placement. The actual depth of removal should be evaluated by the engineering geologist during grading operations. Where over excavation and compaction is to be conducted, the excavations should be extended laterally a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the foundation footprint or for a distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is greater. The bottom of the excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least 1 foot, moisture conditioned near to slightly above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted.

7.3.6 Geocon should observe the removal bottoms to check the competence of the exposed soil.

Deeper excavations may be required if dry, loose, soft, or porous materials are present at the base of the removals.

7.3.7 The fill placed within 3 feet of proposed foundations should possess a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less).

7.3.8 If perched groundwater or saturated materials are encountered during remedial grading, extensive drying and mixing with dryer soil may be required, if the saturated material is to be utilized as fill material in achieving finished grades. The excavated materials should then be moisture conditioned near to slightly above optimum moisture content prior to placement as compacted fill.

7.3.9 The site should be brought to finish grade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Oversize materials (greater than 6 inches in dimension) should be removed from the excavated soils prior to use as fill. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and moisture conditioned near to slightly above optimum moisture content as evaluated by ASTM D1557.

Fill materials placed below the recommended moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. 926
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 12 - February 9, 2023

7.3.10 If required, import fill should consist of granular materials with a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less), non-corrosive, generally free of deleterious material, and contain rock no larger than 6 inches. Geocon should be notified of the import soil source and should be afforded the opportunity to perform laboratory testing of the import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as fill material.

7.4 Earthwork Grading Factors

7.4.1 Estimates of shrinkage factors are based on empirical judgments comparing the material in its existing or natural state as encountered in the exploratory excavations to a compacted state. Variations in natural soil density and in compacted fill density render shrinkage value estimates as rough approximations. As an example, the contractor can compact the fill to a dry density of 90 percent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density. Thus, the contractor has an approximately 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Due to the variations in the actual shrinkage/bulking factors, a balance area should be provided to accommodate variations.

7.5 Utility Trench Backfill

7.5.1 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the City of Banning and the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). The pipes should be bedded with well-graded crushed rock or clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe.

The use of well-graded crushed rock should be used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved import soil. Backfill of utility trenches should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter. The use of 2-sack slurry and controlled low strength material (CLSM) are also acceptable as backfill. However, consideration should be given to the possibility of differential settlement where the slurry ends and earthen backfill begins. These transitions should be minimized and additional stabilization should be considered at these transitions.

7.5.2 Utility trench backfill should be played in layers no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Utility backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density and moisture conditioned near to slightly above optimum moisture content as evaluated by ASTM D1557. Backfill at the finish subgrade elevation of new pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Backfill materials placed below the recommended moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. 927
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 13 - February 9, 2023

7.6 Seismic Design Criteria

7.6.1 Table 7.6.1 summarizes site-specific seismic design criteria for the booster station site, obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The data was calculated using the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented below are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).

TABLE 7.6.1
2019 CBC BOOSTER STATION SITE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration
– Class B (short), SS

2.160g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration
– Class B (1 sec), S1

0.743g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.2 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.7* Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS

2.593g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (1 sec), SM1

1.264g* Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS

1.728g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1

0.843g* Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40)
*Based on NEHRP-2015

7.6.2 Table 7.6.2 summarizes site-specific design criteria for the tank structure at the booster station site, obtained from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard D100, Section 13, Seismic Design of Water Storage Tanks, (Based on ASCE 7-10). We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 13.2.4 of the AWWA Standard D100. The values presented below are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
928
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 14 - February 9, 2023 TABLE 7.6.2

AWWA BOOSTER STATION RESERVOIR SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value AWWA D100 Reference
Site Class D Section 13.2.4
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration
– Class B (short), SS

1.750g Figure 5
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration
– Class B (1 sec), S1

0.750g Figure 6
Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 26
Site Coefficient, FV 1.500 Table 27
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS

1.750g Section 13.2.7.2 (Eqn 13-5)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (1 sec), SM1

1.125g Section 13.2.7.2 (Eqn 13-6)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS

1.167g Section 13.2.7.3 (Eqn 13-7)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1

0.750g Section 13.2.7.3 (Eqn 13-8)

7.6.3 Table 7.6.3 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16.

TABLE 7.6.3
2019 CBC BOOSTER STATION SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.883 Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground
Acceleration, PGAM

1.059g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)

7.6.4 The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to the 2019 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spread, and seismic settlements.

We understand the intent of the Building code is to maintain “Life Safety” during an MCE event.
929
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 15 - February 9, 2023

7.6.5 Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update; 4.2.0). The result of the deaggregation analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is characterized as a 7.06 magnitude event occurring at a hypocentral distance of 8.75 kilometers from the site.

7.6.6 Conformance to the criteria in the tables presented herein for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

7.7 Foundations and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

7.7.1 The foundation recommendations presented herein are applicable to the proposed booster building and perimeter ring foundations of the reservoir tank subsequent to the recommended remedial grading operations assuming that the building is founded in soils with an expansion index of 50 or less. If soils with a higher expansion potential are placed within 3 feet of finish grade, then Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations. We anticipate that proposed structures will be supported on foundations deriving support in newly placed engineered fill.

7.7.2 Foundations for the structures may consist of either continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. A graphic depicting the foundation embedment is provided below.

WALL FOOTING

CONCRETE SLAB

FINISHED PAD GRADE

FOUNDATION

EMBEDMENT

FOUNDATION

EMBEDMENT

FOUNDATION
WIDTH

CLEAN SAND

VAPOR BARRIER

COLUMN FOOTING

CLEAN SAND

VAPOR BARRIER

FOUNDATION
WIDTH

FOUNDATION

EMBEDMENT
Wall/Column Footing Detail
930
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 16 - February 9, 2023

7.7.3 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, concrete slabs-on-grade for the structures should be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches center-to-center in both directions. The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slab for supporting equipment, water tank and storage loads. A thicker concrete slab may be required for heavier loading conditions. To reduce the effects of differential settlement on the foundation system, thickened slabs and/or an increase in steel reinforcement can provide a benefit to reduce concrete cracking offset.

7.7.4 Following remedial grading, foundations for the structures at the sites may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.

7.7.5 The maximum expected static settlement for the planned structures supported on conventional foundation systems with the above allowable bearing pressures, and deriving support in engineered fill is estimated to be ¾ of an inch and to occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet.

7.7.6 Once the design and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the estimated settlements within this report can be reviewed and revised, if necessary.

7.7.7 Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, one near the top and one near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings and slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer.

7.7.8 Foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by a qualified representative of Geocon, prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.

7.7.9 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity-controlled environment. 931
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 17 - February 9, 2023

7.7.10 The bedding sand thickness should be evaluated by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 4 inches. Placement of 3 inches and 4 inches of sand is common practice in southern California for 5-inch and 4-inch-thick slabs, respectively.

The foundation engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures that may be utilized to assure proper curing of the slab to reduce the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans.

7.7.11 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.

7.7.12 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular where re-entrant slab corners occur.

7.7.13 Geocon should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.

7.8 Lateral Resistance

7.8.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys poured neat against newly compacted fill or dense alluvial materials. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
932
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 18 - February 9, 2023

7.8.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.38 should be used for design.

7.8.3 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.

7.9 Preliminary Pavement Design

7.9.1 The final pavement design should be based on R-value testing of soils at the subgrade following grading at the site. Paved areas at the sites should be designed in accordance with the City of Banning Street Standards when final Traffic Indices and R-Value test results of subgrade soil are completed. Roadway classifications and traffic indices are based on the County of Riverside Ordinance 461. The civil engineer should evaluate the final traffic index for the pavements. Based on the soils classifications, we used an assumed R-value of 30 for the preliminary pavement design recommendations. Preliminary flexible pavement sections and an alternative full-depth aggregate base section are presented in Table 7.9.1, based on the County of Riverside Ordinance 461 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

TABLE 7.9.1

PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Road
Classification/Use
Assumed
Traffic
Index
Assumed
Subgrade
R-Value
Asphalt
Concrete
(Inches)
Aggregate
Base
Materials
(Inches)
Full-Depth
Aggregate
Base
Materials
(Inches)
Local Street / Parking
Areas / Light Duty
Vehicles

5.5 30 3.0 7.0 14
Collector / Medium
Duty Vehicles 7.0 30 4.0 9.5 18
Industrial Collector /
Heavy Duty Vehicles 8.0 30 5.0 10.5 20

7.9.2 The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content.

7.9.3 The aggregate base materials and asphalt concrete materials should conform to Section 200-2 and Section 203-6, respectively, of the Greenbook. Base materials should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726. 933
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 19 - February 9, 2023

7.9.4 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 7.9.4.

TABLE 7.9.4

RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 125 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi
Traffic Category, TC A, C, and D
Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 10, 100, and 700

7.9.5 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 7.9.5.

TABLE 7.9.5

RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches)
Access Lanes (TC=A) 5.5
Entrance / Driveway Aprons (TC=C) 7.0
Heavy Truck Areas (TC=D) 8.0

7.9.6 The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). Base material will not be required beneath concrete improvements.

7.9.7 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 9-inch-thick slab would have an 11-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein.
934
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 20 - February 9, 2023

7.9.8 In order to control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab in accordance with the referenced ACI report.

7.9.9 Performance of the pavements is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement surfaces will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. Drainage from landscaped areas should be directed to controlled drainage structures. Landscape areas adjacent to the edge of asphalt pavements are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the underlying permeable aggregate base and cause distress. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, consideration should be given to incorporating measures that will significantly reduce the potential for subsurface water migration into the aggregate base. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the level of the base materials.

7.10 Concrete Flatwork

7.10.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein assuming the subgrade materials possess an Expansion Index of 50 or less. Subgrade soils should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction at a moisture content near to slightly above optimum as determined by ASTM D1557. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and when in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with 6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches center-to-center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the earthwork section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted, and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements.

7.10.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade or differential settlement. The steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. 935
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 21 - February 9, 2023

7.10.3 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs because of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, concrete slabs will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics.

Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.

7.11 Temporary Excavations and Shoring

7.11.1 Excavations on the order of 5 to 10 feet in vertical height are expected during remedial grading and the construction of utilities. The contractor’s competent person should evaluate the necessity for lay back of vertical cut areas. Vertical excavations up to 5 feet may be attempted where loose soils or caving sands are not present, and where not surcharged by existing structures or vehicle/construction equipment loads.

7.11.2 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet will require sloping or shoring measures in order to provide a stable excavation. Due to the existing improvements within the roadways, we expect that shoring will be needed.

7.11.3 We expect that braced shoring, such as conventionally braced shields or cross-braced hydraulic shoring, will be utilized; however, the selection of the shoring system is the responsibility of the contractor. Shoring systems should be designed by a California licensed civil or structural engineer with experience in designing shoring systems.

7.11.4 We recommend that an equivalent fluid pressure based on the table below be utilized for design of shoring. These pressures are based on the assumption that the shoring is supporting a level backfill and there are no hydrostatic pressures above the bottom of the excavation.

TABLE 7.11.4

RECOMMENDED SHORING PRESSURES

HEIGHT OF
SHORED

EXCAVATION
(FEET)

EQUIVALENT FLUID

PRESSURE
(Pounds Per Cubic Foot)
(ACTIVE PRESSURE)

EQUIVALENT FLUID

PRESSURE
(Pounds Per Cubic Foot)
(AT-REST PRESSURE)
Up to 10 30 50
936
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 22 - February 9, 2023

7.11.5 Active pressures can only be achieved when movement in the soil (earth wall) occurs.

If movement in the soil is not acceptable, such as adjacent to an existing structure or where braced shoring will be utilized, the at-rest pressure should be considered for design purposes.

7.11.6 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground, construction equipment, vehicular traffic, or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project progresses.

7.11.7 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of the shoring adjacent to roadways or driveway areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf, acting as a result of an assumed 300 psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. Higher surcharge loads may be required to account for construction equipment.

7.11.8 It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment.

Some deflection will occur. We recommend that the deflection be minimized to prevent damage to existing structures and adjacent improvements. Where public right-of-ways are present or adjacent offsite structures do not surcharge the shoring excavation, the shoring deflection should be limited to less than 1 inch at the top of the shored embankment.

Where offsite structures are within the shoring surcharge area, we recommend the beam deflection be limited to less than ½ inch at the elevation of the adjacent offsite foundation, and no deflection at all if deflections will damage existing structures. The allowable deflection is dependent on many factors, such as the presence of structures and utilities near the top of the embankment and will be assessed and designed by the project shoring engineer.

7.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection

7.12.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.

7.12.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 937
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - 23 - February 9, 2023

7.12.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement’s subgrade and base course.

We recommend that area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material.

7.12.4 If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to infiltration devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeology study at the site. Downgradient and adjacent structures may be subjected to seeps, movement of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration.

7.13 Plan Review

7.13.1 Geocon should be provided the opportunity to review the structural foundation plans prior to final submittal to verify substantial conformance with the recommendations of this report. 938
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-18 February 9, 2023

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in this investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that expected herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of their representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

The requirements for concrete and rebar presented in this report are preliminary recommendations from a geotechnical perspective. The Structural Engineer should provide the final recommendations for structural design of concrete and reinforcing steel for foundation systems, floor slabs, exterior concrete, or other systems where concrete and reinforcing steel are utilized, in accordance with the latest version of applicable codes.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations.

If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project Geotechnical Engineer of Record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 939
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-18 February 9, 2023

REFERENCES

1. American Concrete Institute, 2006, Report 302.2R-06, Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials, undated.

2. American Concrete Institute, 2010, Report 360R-10, Guide to Design of Slabs-on-Ground, undated.

3. American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, Report by ACI Committee 318-19.

4. Bryant, W.A., and E.W. Hart, 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California:

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps; California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, 54 p.

5. Boore, D. M. and G. M Atkinson, Ground-Motion Prediction for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 S, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 99-138, February 2008.

6. California Building Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2.

7. California Geological Survey (CGS), Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, from USGS/CGS Seismic Hazards Model, CSSC No. 03-02, 2003.

8. California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping-Ground Motion Page, 2003, CGS Website: www.conserv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap.

9. California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years; http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html

10. California Department of Conservation (CA DC), 2010, Fault Activity Map of California online database, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed October 24.

11. California Department of Conservation (CA DC), 2015a, Landslides online database, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps, accessed October 24.

12. California Department of Conservation (CA DC), 2015b, Regulatory Maps online database, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps, accessed October 24.

13. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion and Structural Concrete Field Investigation Branch, dated January.

14. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2021, Water Data Library online database, www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/.

15. Dibblee, Thomas. F. Jr., 2004, Geologic Map of the Cabazon Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Dibblee Foundation DF-119.
940
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-18 February 9, 2023

16. Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr., 2003, Geologic Map of the Beaumont 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Dibblee Foundation Report DF-114.

17. Geocon West, Inc., 2021, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Non-Potable Water Improvements, Atwell Development, Banning, California, Project No. T2305-22-10g, dated April 2.

18. Geocon West, Inc., 2018, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Non-Potable Water Improvements, Atwell Development, Banning, California, Project No. T2305-22-10g, dated September 20.

19. Legg, M. R., J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis, Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, dated January.

20. MDS Consulting, Inc., 2020c, Preliminary Site Plan Segment-B Booster Station, 2-Sheets, dated September 8.

21. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2018, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction “Greenbook,” Published by BNi Building News.

22. Riverside County Integrated Project, 2018, County of Riverside General Plan, dated December 8.

23. Steven Andrews Engineering, Lincoln Street NP Booster and Reservoir Site Plan, dated March 3, 2022.

24. Treiman, J.A., 1994, The San Gorgonio Pass, Banning and Related Faults, Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Evaluation Report FER-235, 47p., 12 plates (1:24,000).

25. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA and 2 Periods of Spectral Acceleration, 2002, USGS Website: www.earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps.

26. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2021, U.S. Seismic Design Maps online database, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. 941
SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, 2018

VICINITY MAP

BOOSTER PUMP STATION

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
FEBURARY 2023 PROJECT NO. T2305-22-10G FIG. 1
SCALE: 1” = 2,400’
LCW

SEGMENT B BOOSTER STATION SAN GORGONIO AVENUE
942
PROJECT NO. T2305-22-10G FIG. 2

BOOSTER PUMP STATION AND RESERVOIR

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA

GEOLOGIC MAP
Source: Steven Andrews Engineering, Lincoln Street NP Booster and Reservoir Site Plan, dated March 3, 2022. LCW

GEOCON LEGEND
Locations are approximate
……. BORING LOCATION
FEBRUARY 2023
……. BORING LOCATION (GEOCON, 2018)
Qf ……. YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS
B-5
B-5
B-3
B-2
B-1
Qf
……. PROJECT LIMITS
SCALE: 1” = 12’
B-3
Qof ……. OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS
Qof
Qof
Qof
……. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT
943

APPENDIX A
944
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - A- February 9, 2023

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION
Geocon performed a field investigation in 2018 as part of a larger geotechnical study for the non-potable off-site water improvements, as documented in our referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (dated September 20, 2018). This study included the drilling of one hollow stem auger boring at the booster pump station site and is included as Figure A-4.

The field investigation for this study was conducted on January 4, 2023, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and the drilling of three exploratory borings. The borings were drilled to the maximum depth explored of approximately 50½ feet below the existing ground surface utilizing a truck mounted hollow-stem augur drill rig. We collected bulk samples, and relatively undisturbed samples from the borings by driving a 3-inch O. D. California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows from a 140-pound auto-hammer falling 30 inches. The California Modified Sampler was equipped with 1-inch high by 2
3 /8-inch inside diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing.

Relatively undisturbed samples and bulk samples of disturbed soils were transported to our laboratory for testing.

The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Figures A-1 through A-4 present logs of both the current borings and the boring excavated in 2018. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. Figure 2 indicates the approximate locations of the borings.
945
B-1@0-5
[email protected]
B-1@5
[email protected]
B-1@10
B-1@15
B-1@20
B-1@25
89-11"
90-9"
81-12"
84-10"
84-12"
75-11"
50-6"

99.9 98.9
115.1
124.6
117.5
117.8
121.9
SM
SM
SP
SM
SP

5.1 9.4

3.0 2.4

5.3 3.7

3.7 TOPSOIL
Silty SAND, loose, wet, dark brown; fine to medium sand; some coarse sand
OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty SAND, very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown; fine to medium sand; some coarse sand
- Becomes light reddish brown
- Becomes yellowish brown; few gravel
- Becomes fine to coarse sand; little gravel; few larger clasts - Becomes strong reddish brown; little larger clasts
- Becomes yellowish brown
- Some larger clasts
Poorly graded SAND, very dense, slightly moist, reddish to yellowish brown; medium to coarse sand; little fine sand; some gravel; some larger clasts; slightly oxidized
Silty SAND, very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown; fine to coarse sand; some gravel; moderately oxidized
- Completely weathered granitic clasts
Poorly graded SAND, very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown; medium CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS) GROUNDWATER
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B-1, Page 1 of 2
GEOCON (P.C.F.)

DATE COMPLETED

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
SAMPLE
NO.
(BLOWS/FT.)
T2305-22-10G BOOSTER PUMP TANK BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
2405

HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PENETRATION MOISTURE
BY: Weidman
1/4/23
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY
ELEV. (MSL.)

EQUIPMENT
BORING B-1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

T2305-22-10G
946
B-1@30
B-1@35
B-1@40
B-1@45
B-1@50
89-10"
50-6"
82-10"
50-6"
50-4"
105.9
111.6
119.6
118.3

93.7 SM

4.1 3.5

10.3 3.5

5.2 to coarse sand;few fine sand; some gravel; few larger clasts; slightly oxidized
Silty SAND, very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown with olive brown; fine to coarse sand; little gravel; little larger clasts; moderately oxidized - Less silt; some larger clasts; some manganese staining; weathered clasts - Little manganese stainging; some gravel
- Poor recovery; little cohesion
Total Depth 50'-4"
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140-lb. hammer falling 30" by auto-hammer Backfilled on 01/04/2023
CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS) GROUNDWATER
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B-1, Page 2 of 2
GEOCON (P.C.F.)

DATE COMPLETED

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
SAMPLE
NO.
(BLOWS/FT.)
T2305-22-10G BOOSTER PUMP TANK BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
2405

HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PENETRATION MOISTURE
BY: Weidman
1/4/23
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY
ELEV. (MSL.)

EQUIPMENT
BORING B-1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

T2305-22-10G
947
[email protected]
B-2@5
B-2@5-10
[email protected]
B-2@10
B-2@15
B-2@20
B-2@25
73-12"
81-11"
92 51
75 78-11"
84-11"
108.3
114.4
130.8
119.3
120.1
119.3
117.9
SM
SM

11.9 7.8

3.9 4.9

3.4 7.1

4.4 TOPSOIL
Silty SAND, loose, wet, dark brown; fine to medium sand; few coarse sand OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty SAND, very dense, slightly moist, dark reddish brown; fine to medium sand; little coarse sand; moderately oxidized
- Becomes strong reddish brown; little larger clasts
- Becomes yellowish brown; some coarse sand; slightly oxidized - Becomes medium dense; fine to coarse sand; little gravel; some larger clasts
- Becomes dense; slightly more oxidized
- Becomes dark reddish brown; moderately oxidized; fine to coarse sand; little gravel; many large clasts in various stages of weathering - Larger quartz clast in shoe
Total Depth 25'-11"
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140-lb. hammer falling 30" by auto-hammer Backfilled on 01/04/2023
CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS) GROUNDWATER
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B-2, Page 1 of 1
GEOCON (P.C.F.)

DATE COMPLETED

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
SAMPLE
NO.
(BLOWS/FT.)
T2305-22-10G BOOSTER PUMP TANK BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
2405

HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PENETRATION MOISTURE
BY: Weidman
1/4/23
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY
ELEV. (MSL.)

EQUIPMENT
BORING B-2
... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

T2305-22-10G
948
B-3@2-7
[email protected]
B-2@5
[email protected]
B-3@10
B-3@15
B-3@20
B-3@25
82-12"
50-6"
80-12"
87-12"
58 50-6"
87-12"
109.5

90.2 117.9
120.9
114.2
113.4
119.7
SM
SM

7.2 7.4

4.9 2.1

5.3 7.0

3.3 TOPSOIL
Silty SAND, loose, moist, dark brown; fine to medium sand; little coarse sand
OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Silty SAND, very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown; fine to coarse sand - Becomes dark reddish brown; few larger clasts; slightly oxidized - Becomes strong reddish brown; moderately oxidized; poor recovery - Becomes fine to medium sand; some coarse sand; little larger clasts; clusters of olive brown
- Becomes yellowish to reddish brown; less silt; large clasts in various stages of weathering
- Becomes medium dense, light reddish brown; slightly oxidized; fine to medium sand; few coarse sand; trace larger clasts
- Becomes very dense, strong reddish brown; little coarse sand; moderately oxidized
- Becomes yellowish to reddish brown; very little silt; fine to coarse sand; little gravel; few larger clasts
Total Depth 26'
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140-lb. hammer falling 30" by auto-hammer Backfilled on 01/04/2023
CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS) GROUNDWATER
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B-3, Page 1 of 1
GEOCON (P.C.F.)

DATE COMPLETED

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
SAMPLE
NO.
(BLOWS/FT.)
T2305-22-10G BOOSTER PUMP TANK BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
2404

HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PENETRATION MOISTURE
BY: Weidman
1/4/23
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26 RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY
ELEV. (MSL.)

EQUIPMENT
BORING B-3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

T2305-22-10G
949
B-5@0-5
B-5@5
B-5@5-10
B-5@10
B-5@15
B-5@20
B-5@25
92/11"
74 50/6"
50/6"
50/6"
119.8
117.7
120.2
SP
SC
SC
SM
SP
CL
SP

7.8 6.7

4.9 TOPSOIL
Poorly-graded SAND, loose, dry, yellowish brown; fine to medium sand with occasional coarse sand; trace gravel; trace silt; rootlets YOUNG ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qf)
Clayey SAND, loose, dry, dark yellowish brown; fine to medium sand with occasional coarse sand; trace gravel; trace silt
OLDER ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (Qof)
Clayey SAND, very dense, dry, brown; fine to coarse sand; gravel; trace calcium carbonate
Silty SAND, very dense, dry, strong brown; medium sand with occasional coarse sand; trace mica; granitic clast; gravel
Poorly-graded SAND, very dense, dry, strong brown; fine sand; trace mica Sandy CLAY, hard, dry to damp, reddish brown; pores and pinholes; little coarse sand; trace calcium carbonate
Poorly-graded SAND, very dense, dry, strong brown; fine to coarse sand; trace fine gravel
Total Depth 26'
Groundwater not encountered
Penetration resistance for 140-lb. hammer falling 30" by auto-hammer Backfilled on 08/28/2018
CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)

GROUNDWATER
Figure A-4, Log of Boring B-5 (Segment-B/C Booster Station Site), Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P.C.F.)

DATE COMPLETED

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
SAMPLE
NO.
(BLOWS/FT.)
T2305-22-10G BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
2398

HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PENETRATION

MOISTURE
BY: A. Shoashekan
8/28/2018
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26

RESISTANCE

DRY DENSITY
ELEV. (MSL.)

EQUIPMENT
BORING B-5 (Segment-B/C Booster Station Site)
... CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

T2305-22-10G
950

APPENDIX B
951
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - B- February 9, 2023

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM), Caltrans test methods, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested to evaluate maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, corrosivity, consolidation characteristics, remolded and in-situ shear strength properties, and in-situ moisture and density content.

The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Figures B-1 through B-10. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. 952
Sample No:
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
Preparation Method:

Project No.: T2305-22-10G
B2@5-10 Silty SAND (SM), reddish brown
Dry Density 128.0 123.7 128.0 123.2
A
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 128.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 9.0 Wet Density 140.3 138.2 139.0 130.2
Moisture Content 9.6 11.8 8.6 5.7
Weight of Container 258.1 260.0 258.4 258.8
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 704.8 595.3 705.0 865.5
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 747.9 634.7 743.5 899.9
Net Weight of Soil 2119 2088 2100 1967
Weight of Mold 4257 4257 4257 4257
5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6377 6345 6357 6224
TEST NO. 1 2 3 4
Checked by: ATS

COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS USING
MODIFIED EFFORT TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California ASTM D-1557
February 2023 Figure B-1
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
S.G. 2.65 S.G. 2.7 S.G. 2.75
953
Project No.: T2305-22-10G
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.

B2@5-10

SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)

INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)

FINAL MOISTURE
(%)
Silty SAND (SM),
reddish brown 114.1 10.1 16.3
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California
Checked by: ATS
ASTM D-2435
February 2023 Figure B-2
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
954
Project No.: T2305-22-10G
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California
Checked by: ATS
ASTM D-2435
February 2023 Figure B-3
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.

B2@10

SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)

INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)

FINAL MOISTURE
(%)
Silty SAND (SM),
yellowish brown 106.2 4.9 16.6
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
955
Project No.: T2305-22-10G
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California
Checked by: ATS
ASTM D-2435
February 2023 Figure B-4
WATER ADDED AT 4.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.

B3@15

SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)

INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)

FINAL MOISTURE
(%)
Silty SAND (SM), light
reddish brown 103.0 5.3 18.4
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
956
Project No.: T2305-22-10G

18.6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: ATS

20.7 February 2023 Figure B-5
Ultimate 9 38 Final Moisture Content (%) 20.4

32.9 37.1
Peak 21 38 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf) f (o
) Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 32.6
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 99.5 96.6 100.1 Silty SAND (SM), yellowish brown
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 8.4 9.1 9.4
Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.05 Depth (ft) 5 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.82 2.34 3.97 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05

3.98 Boring No. B1 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1@5 Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.83 2.35

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
957
Project No.: T2305-22-10G

15.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: ATS

13.2 February 2023 Figure B-6
Ultimate 99 34 Final Moisture Content (%) 18.5

39.4 66.3
Peak 102 36 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf) f (o
) Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 71.0
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.1 92.8 114.2 Silty SAND (SM), reddish brown
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 11.9 11.9 11.7
Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.05 Depth (ft) 2.5 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.78 2.17 3.53 Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05

3.85 Boring No. B2 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. [email protected] Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.90 2.20

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
958
Project No.: T2305-22-10G

3.10 Boring No. B2 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B2@5-10 Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.79 2.06

0.05 Depth (ft) 5-10 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.77 2.05 3.10 Sample Type: Bulk Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.05 0.05 Soil Identification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Silty SAND (SM), reddish brown
Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.0 9.0 8.9
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.1 116.0 115.9

53.5 52.7
Peak 256 30 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2 C (psf) f (o
) Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 53.9
Ultimate 226 30 Final Moisture Content (%) 15.0 12.5
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Booster Pump Station
Atwell Development
Banning, California Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: ATS

14.1 February 2023 Figure B-7

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
959

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

NON-POTABLE OFF-SITE WATER

IMPROVEMENTS

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
ATS SEPTEMBER, 2018 PROJECT NO. T2305-22-10g FIG B-8

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY

AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D1557
Sample No. Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% of dry wt.)
B-1 @ 0-5’ Silty SAND (SM) trace gravel, Strong Brown 125.0 9.2 B-4 @ 0-5’ Silty SAND (SM) with gravel, Olive Brown 129.6 7.6 B-5 @ 0-5’ Clayey SAND (SC) trace gravel, Yellowish
Brown 131.7 7.1
B-9 @ 1-5’ Silty GRAVEL with sand (GM), Dark Yellowish
Brown 151.3 2.7

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D4829
Sample No.

Moisture Content After Test
Dry Density
(pcf)
Expansion
Before Test (%) After Test (%) Index
B-2 @ 0-5’ 8.5 13.4 114.7 0
B-5 @ 0-5’ 9.0 15.3 112.7 11
B-5 @ 5-10’ 8.5 15.5 115.5 7

SUMMARY OF CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
Sample No. Chloride Content
(ppm)
Sulfate Content
(%) pH Resistivity(ohm-centimeter)
B-2 @ 0-5’ 100 0.000 7.1 10,000
B-5 @ 0-5’ 72 0.001 7.1 3,5000
Chloride content determined by California Test 422.

Water-soluble sulfate determined by California Test 417.

Resistivity and pH determined by Caltrans Test 643.
960

SAMPLE DRY DENSITY INITIAL FINAL
ID (PCF) MOISTURE (%) MOISTURE (%)
B-5 @ 5' SM 119.8 7.8 14.5

SOIL TYPE
WATER ADDED AT 2 KSF

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

NON-POTABLE OFF-SITE WATER IMPROVEMENTS

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
ATS SEPTEMBER, 2018 PROJECT NO. T2305-22-10g FIG B-9

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
Percent Consolidation
Consolidation Pressure (ksf)
961
SAMPLE INITIAL DRY INITIAL FINAL C 
ID DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE (%) MOISTURE (%) (psf) (deg)
*B-5 @ 0-5' SC 117.0 7.5 13.1 270 30
B-7 @ 10' SP-SM 110.9 3.9 16.0 490 40
*Sample remolded to approximately 90% of the test maximum dry density at optimum moisture content.

SOIL TYPE
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Shear Stress (psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
NON‐POTABLE OFF‐SITE WATER IMPROVEMENTS

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER, 2018 FIG B-10

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ATS PROJECT NO. T2305-22-10g
962

APPENDIX C
963
Geocon Project No. T2305-22-10G - C- February 9, 2023

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR

BOOSTER PUMP STATION

ATWELL DEVELOPMENT

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T2305-22-10G
964
GI rev. 07/2015

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL

1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.

1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.

1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.

2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.

2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography.

2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 965
GI rev. 07/2015

2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.

2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.

2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.

3. MATERIALS

3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.

3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size.

3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.

3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.

3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.

3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 966
GI rev. 07/2015
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.

3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.

3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.

3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition

4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED

4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.

4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.
967
GI rev. 07/2015

4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.

TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant
Finish Grade Original Ground
Finish Slope Surface
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur Varies
“B”
See Note 1
No Scale
See Note 2
1 2
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.

4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.
968
GI rev. 07/2015

5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.

5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.

6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL

6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.

6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.

6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.

6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.

Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.
969
GI rev. 07/2015

6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.

6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.

6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.

6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.

6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.

6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.

6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.
970
GI rev. 07/2015

6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.

The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.

6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.

6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.

6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.

6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection 971
GI rev. 07/2015
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.

6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.

6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.

6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.

6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.

7. SUBDRAINS

7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.

972
GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL

7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.

973
GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL

7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.

7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.

Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. 974
GI rev. 07/2015

7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.

TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL

7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.

975
GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL

7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.
976
GI rev. 07/2015

8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING

8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.

8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.

8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.

8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.

8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.

8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:

8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:

8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method.
977
GI rev. 07/2015

8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).

8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.

8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.

9. PROTECTION OF WORK

9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.

9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.

10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS

10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.

10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. 978
Appendix E.2
Paleontological Resource Assessment
979
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the
Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project City of Banning, Riverside County, California
Chris Shi and Aimee Montenegro
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
133 N. San Gabriel Boulevard, Suite 201
Pasadena, CA 91107
Prepared For
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
December 2023
draft
980
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
At the request of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) assessed the potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project (Project) in the city of Banning within Riverside County, California. The Project involves the construction of a booster pump facility and reservoir tank on approximately

7.51 acres of land in southwest Banning. Æ prepared this Paleontological Resource Assessment (PRA) in partial satisfaction of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

The City of Banning is the lead agency for CEQA compliance.

This PRA was completed from a combination of desktop studies and fieldwork. The desktop studies included a review of published and unpublished literature and maps as well as museum records searches. The purpose of these studies was to identify the geologic units in the Project area and to determine whether previously recorded paleontological localities occur either within the Project area or within the same geologic units nearby but outside the Project area. As a result of the desktop studies and fieldwork, Æ has determined that the Project area has High A, High B, and Low Sensitivity based on Riverside County’s sensitivity rankings.

Æ recommends preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) by a qualified professional paleontologist (Paleontological Principal Investigator, Project Paleontologist) as defined by mitigation paleontology industry standards and/or the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The PRIMP will specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. For instance, Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training should be prepared prior to the start of Project-related ground disturbance and presented in person to all field personnel to describe the types of paleontological resources that may be found and the procedures to follow if any are encountered. The Project-specific PRIMP also will indicate where construction monitoring will be required and the frequency of required monitoring (i.e., full-time, spot-checks, etc.). to ensure adverse impacts to paleontological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level in accordance with CEQA. 981
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project iii

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................1

1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION ..........................................................................1

1.3 KEY PERSONNEL .................................................................................................1

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION....................................................................................4 2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................5

2.1 STATE......................................................................................................................5

2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act.........................................................5

2.1.2 CEQA Implementation.................................................................................5

2.2 LOCAL ....................................................................................................................6

2.2.1 County of Riverside .....................................................................................6

2.2.2 City of Banning............................................................................................6 3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ........................7

3.1 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ..................................................................................7

3.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND CLASSIFICATION OF
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ............................................7 4 METHODS.........................................................................................................................9

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEWS AND MUSEUM RECORDS SEARCHES..................9

4.2 FIELD SURVEY......................................................................................................9 5 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY...........................................................................10

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.......................................................................................10

5.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA......................11

5.2.1 Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)................................................................11

5.2.2 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf) ...........................................................13

5.2.3 Alluvial Wash Deposits (Qw) ....................................................................13 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS............................................................................................14

6.1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.................................................................................14

6.2 RECORDS SEARCHES........................................................................................14

6.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................................14

6.4 DETERMINATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE
POTENTIAL WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA....................................................17 7 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................20 8 REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................21 APPENDIX A: Qualifications of Key Personnel
982
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project iv

FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Riverside County, California......................................................2 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Beaumont 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle .............3 Figure 5-1 Geologic map for the Project area and vicinity .....................................................12 Figure 6-1 Overview of the Project area from the south, facing northwest ............................16 Figure 6-2 Overview of Montgomery Creek from the southeast corner of the Project area, facing northwest..........................................................................16 Figure 6-3 Detailed view of an approximately 8-foot-thick section of the southwest bank of Montgomery Creek at the east-central border of the Project area showing deposits of Qw...........................................................................17 Figure 6-4 Paleontological sensitivity of the Project area .......................................................18 Table 3-1 Paleontological Sensitivity Classifications.............................................................8 Table 6-1 Fossil Localities Reported near the Project Area..................................................15 983
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 1 1 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) assessed the potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project (Project) in the city of Banning within Riverside County, California (Figure 1-1). Æ prepared this Paleontological Resource Assessment (PRA) in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Banning (City) is the lead agency for CEQA compliance.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project will be constructed on approximately 7.51 acres of land on the south side of West Lincoln Street, east of South 22nd Avenue in the southwestern portion of Banning. Specifically, the Project area is mapped in the southeast quarter of Section 8 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East, as shown on the Beaumont, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1-2).

The Project involves construction of a booster pump facility and reservoir tank. The station will consist of a housing facility designed to contain vertical turbine pumps capable of transmitting 2,500 gallons of nonpotable water per minute. The associated reservoir tank is an aboveground structure that will store approximately 60,910 gallons of nonpotable water during operation. All these facilities are water system improvements needed to supply nonpotable water to Lions Park, Banning High School, Dysart Park, and the Sun Lakes development near Highland Home Road.

The maximum depth of ground disturbance during Project construction is not expected to exceed 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Project construction is expected to disturb only approximately 0.5 acres of Assessor’s Parcel Number 538-280-001.

1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION
This PRA is designed to accomplish several goals: (1) identify the geologic units within the Project area and assess their paleontological resource potential; (2) determine whether the Project has the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources; (3) provide Project-specific management recommendations for paleontological resources, as necessary; and (4) demonstrate compliance with state laws and local regulations. Section 1.4 describes the ways in which this PRA meets the stated goals.

1.3 KEY PERSONNEL
Qualifications for Æ’s key paleontology personnel can be found in Appendix A. Æ Paleontology Program Manager Amy Ollendorf served as the Principal Investigator for the paleontological investigation. She oversaw each task required for this PRA, including quality control. Ollendorf qualifies as a principal investigator for paleontology per industry standards (Murphey et al., 2019). She has interdisciplinary doctor of philosophy and master of science degrees involving geology and a bachelor of science degree in geology and anthropology (double major), all of which focused on paleontological subject matter. Ollendorf is the principal investigator for 984
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 2 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Riverside County, California. &

PROJECT

VICINITY
0 5 10
o Kilometers
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Feet
0 5 10
Miles
Scale: 1:250,000
National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

PROJECT VICINITY
985
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Beaumont 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
o
Township 3 S./Range 1 E., Section 8
Beaumont (1953, photorevised
1988),CA 7.5' USGS Topographic
Quadrangle

PROJECT AREA
986
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 4 paleontology on Æ’s 2021–2024 California Statewide Paleontological Resource Use Permit (CA-21-06P) from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). She also is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 12588) with over 40 years of experience.

Æ Senior Paleontologist Chris Shi completed the desktop research and wrote the PRA with contributions from Æ Cross-Trained Field Technician Aimee Montenegro. Shi has the necessary qualifications to meet the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP; 2010) and industry standards (Murphey et al., 2019) for a qualified professional paleontologist and is another principal investigator for paleontology on Æ’s BLM permit. He has a master’s degree in geology with a focus on paleobotany, and additional graduate studies in invertebrate paleontology. Additionally, he has over 14 years of experience in geology and paleontology, including the past 7 years in paleontological monitoring, recovery, and preparation of fossil remains, laboratory analysis, and report preparation. Montenegro has a bachelor’s degree in anthropology as well as 6 years of professional paleontological experience, including management of museum fossil collections and paleontological monitoring.

Æ Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst Cari Inoway and Æ Senior Paleontologist/GIS Analyst Melissa Macias prepared the figures for the report in coordination with Shi. Æ Paleontological Technician Andrew Vasquez completed the paleontological field survey.

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 1 has described the Project, defined the purpose of the investigation, and provided a description of Æ’s key personnel for this PRA. Chapter 2 discusses the regulatory framework governing the Project. Chapter 3 presents the paleontological sensitivity criteria and resource guidelines used for this assessment. Chapter 4 provides the methods employed, and Chapter 5 describes the geology and paleontology of the Project area. The results of the desktop studies, and paleontological sensitivity assessment are presented in Chapter 6. Management recommendations can be found in Chapter 7, and references cited are listed in Chapter 8.

Appendix A provides qualifications of key personnel.
987
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 5 2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are considered nonrenewable because when they are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. As such, paleontological resources are afforded protection under various federal, state, and local laws. This Project is not subject to federal laws.

Consequently, all resources are protected under only state and local laws, as described in the following sections.

2.1 STATE
California is among the states that protect significant paleontological resources. CEQA is the legal framework through which this protection is accomplished. Enacted in 1970, CEQA does not directly regulate land uses but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of unavoidable environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts.

2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act
This Project is subject to Section 15002(a)(3) of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3), which states one of the basic purposes of CEQA is the intention to “prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.” Therefore, CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project.

If a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. Specifically, Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, poses the question, “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” If paleontological resources are identified as being within the proposed project area, the sponsoring agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects.

The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource.

2.1.2 CEQA Implementation
Guidelines for implementation of CEQA are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq., which requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. The various agencies within state government all have their own guidance documents to assist with CEQA compliance. The City is the government agency responsible for CEQA compliance for the Project.
988
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 6

2.2 LOCAL
In addition to state-level implementing regulations, policies, and guidance, various counties and municipalities throughout California also have developed environmental goals, policies, and guidance that pertain to paleontological resources. The following sections list all relevant goals, objectives, and policies.

2.2.1 County of Riverside
There are several policies covering paleontological resources within the County of Riverside (County) General Plan, Multipurpose Open Space (OS) Element (Riverside County Planning Department, 2015:OS-51):

OS 19.6: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has high paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) shall be filed with the Riverside County Geologist prior to site grading. The PRIMP shall specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

OS 19.7: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has low paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, no direct mitigation is required unless a fossil is encountered during site development. Should a fossil be encountered, the Riverside County Geologist shall be notified and a paleontologist shall be retained by the project proponent. The paleontologist shall document the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on the site and establish appropriate mitigation measures for further site development.

OS 19.8: Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has undetermined paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS-8, a report shall be filed with the Riverside County Geologist documenting the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on site and identifying mitigation measures for the fossil and for impacts to significant paleontological resources prior to approval of that department.

OS 19.9: Whenever paleontological resources are found, the County Geologist shall direct them to a facility within Riverside County for their curation, including the Western Science Center in the City of Hemet.

2.2.2 City of Banning
The City’s General Plan does not include any goals or policies pertaining to paleontological resources. As such, this PRA provides recommendations based on the County’s guidelines where relevant.
989
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 7 3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
Protection of paleontological resources requires assessment of the potential for geologic units to yield significant paleontological resources that could be directly or indirectly impacted or destroyed during Project development. Successful protection also involves the formulation and implementation of appropriate management measures to mitigate impacts. Mitigation measures are proportional to the potential of individual areas to yield intact and significant paleontological resources.

3.1 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The SVP guidelines define paleontological resources as fossils and fossiliferous deposits (SVP, 2010). Fossils are the evidence of once-living organisms as preserved in the rock record. They include both the lithified remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). In general, the SVP considers fossils to be greater than 5,000 years old (older than middle Holocene1
) and to typically be preserved in sedimentary rocks, although certain volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks may be fossiliferous if formed under certain conditions.

Well-preserved and identifiable individual fossils are considered significant paleontological resources if they are a type specimen, rare, a complete specimen, or part of an important diverse fossil assemblage. Of particular importance are fossils found in situ, or undisturbed from their primary geologic context. These fossils are important because they are used to examine evolutionary relationships, provide insight on the development of and interaction between biological communities, establish time scales for geologic studies, and for many other scientific purposes, including investigation into paleoenvironments and paleoclimates (Scott and Springer, 2003; SVP, 2010). Among the various types of fossils, intact and in situ vertebrate fossils are usually assigned a greater significance than other types as they are comparatively rare.

Consequently, more attention tends to be placed on the recovery of vertebrate fossils than other types.

3.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND CLASSIFICATION OF

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY
Most professional paleontologists in California adhere to the guidelines set forth by the SVP (2010) and industrywide standards (Murphey et al., 2019) to determine the course of paleontological mitigation for a given project unless specific city, county, state, or federal guidelines are available. The City does not have its own paleontological sensitivity guidelines.

However, the County has developed a system that establishes detailed protocols for the assessment of the paleontological sensitivity of a project area and outlines measures to follow in 1 Middle Holocene: the Holocene Epoch is subdivided into early (11,700 to 8,200 years ago), middle (8,200 to 4,200 years ago), and late (4,200 years ago to present) subepochs, (Cohen et al., 2023). The Quaternary Period also includes the older Pleistocene Epoch, which is also subdivided into early (2.6 million to 1.8 million years ago), middle (1.8 million to 77,400 years ago), and late (77,400 to 11,700 years ago) subepochs (Cohen et al., 2023). 990
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 8 order to mitigate adverse impacts to known or unknown fossil resources during project development (County of Riverside, 2015). Therefore, this PRA utilizes the County’s ranking system and mitigation measures.

Following the County’s established process, baseline information is used to assign the paleontological sensitivity of a geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) to one of four categories— Low, Undetermined, High A (Ha), and High B (Hb) (County of Riverside, 2015). Table 3-1 below shows the criteria for the categories in comparison with those of the SVP as well as mitigation recommendations for each category.

Table 3-1
Paleontological Sensitivity Classifications
Sensitivity/Potential
County of
Riverside SVP Criteriaa Mitigation Recommendationsb
High A
High B
High Rock units from which vertebrate or
significant specimens of other fossil
types have been recovered are
considered to have a high potential.

Rock units with high potential also
may include rock units that are
temporally or lithologically suitable for
the preservation of fossils (e.g., Middle
Holocene and older, argillaceous and
carbonate-rich paleosols, fine-grained
marine sandstones, etc.). Rock units
with High B Sensitivity are considered
to have high potential at depths greater
than 4 feet bgs.

Retain a qualified paleontologist and
typically complete a field survey,
PRIMP, and on-site construction
monitoring. Any significant
specimens discovered during
monitoring will need to be prepared,
identified, and curated into a
museum. A final report documenting
the significance of the finds will also
be required.

Undetermined Undetermined In some cases, available literature on a particular rock unit will be scarce and a
determination of whether or not it is
fossiliferous or potentially fossiliferous
will be difficult to make. Under these
circumstances, further study is needed
to determine the unit’s paleontological
resource potential.

A field survey is required to further
assess the unit’s paleontological
potential. The survey may provide
data for development of a PRIMP
prior to construction.

Low Low Rocks units from which few fossils have
been recovered or generally unsuitable
for preservation of fossils are
considered to have a low potential.

These units typically yield fossils only
on rare occasions and under unusual
circumstances (e.g., basalt flows,
recent colluvium, etc.).

Mitigation is not typically required;
however, if an unanticipated
paleontological resource is
encountered, a qualified professional
paleontologist (Principal
Investigator, Project Paleontologist)
may need to evaluate the resource to
consider mitigation.

N/A No Potential Rock units that have no potential for
paleontological resources are those that
are formed under or exposed to
immense heat and pressure, such as
high-grade metamorphic rocks and
plutonic igneous rocks.

No mitigation required.
a - Criteria based on County of Riverside (2015) and SVP (2010). b - Recommendations based on County of Riverside (2015). 991
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 9 4 METHODS
This PRA was completed through desktop studies and a field survey. The twofold purpose of the off- and on-site research was: (1) to identify the geologic units in the Project area and immediate vicinity to determine whether previously recorded paleontological localities occur either within the Project area or within the same geologic units elsewhere nearby and (2) to determine the sensitivity of the geologic units in the Project area for their potential to yield paleontological resources.

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEWS AND MUSEUM RECORDS SEARCHES
In many areas, the near-surface layers of sediments and sedimentary rocks are broken down and converted to soil (pedogenesis) through chemical and physical weathering processes (Boggs, 2012). During pedogenesis, any fossils preserved within the near-surface layers often are destroyed or rendered unrecognizable. Therefore, intact and identifiable fossils are unlikely to be found in soil. Reviews of relevant geologic maps, regional geological publications, and unpublished reports are necessary to ascertain the geology and stratigraphy of a project area to determine the potential for significant subsurface paleontological resources.

To supplement the map and literature reviews, Æ requested searches of records of the invertebrate and vertebrate collections maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) and the Western Science Center of Hemet (WSC). Æ also completed online searches of two databases readily available to the public—the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) and the database maintained by the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). All records searches were completed to identify known fossil localities within or near the Project area. In addition to the museum records searches, Æ examined the geotechnical investigation report for the Project (Weidman et al., 2023).

4.2 FIELD SURVEY
Prior to the field survey, Æ examined recent aerial photographs of the entire Project area in Google Earth to determine likely locations of geologic outcrops and potential survey routes.

Andrew Vasquez conducted the paleontological field survey for the Project on August 31, 2023, alongside Æ Associate Archaeologist Andrew DeLeon, who conducted the cultural field survey.

The purpose of the survey was to confirm presence or absence of exposed fossils on the ground surface and to evaluate geologic exposures for their potential to yield subsurface fossil material.

Vasquez started the survey at the northwest corner of the Project area and walked 15-foot north– south transects proceeding eastward. Vasquez completed the survey with a combination of close visual inspection and spot-checking. Close visual inspection was conducted where the ground surface was visible and intact sediments were exposed, including the West. Lincoln Street rightof-way and the streambed and banks of Montgomery Creek along the east boundary of the Project area. Vasquez spot-checked the remainder of the Project area where the ground surface was obscured by vegetation. He used a cellular Global Positioning System receiver to navigate through the Project area, kept notes on the geology observed, and took photographs to document the survey. Any fossils encountered were to be field-documented and not collected. 992
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 10 5 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
The following sections provide the geological context of the Project area, descriptions of the geologic units mapped as surface exposures within the boundaries of the Project area, and units exposed nearby and thought to be present in the subsurface. The section also includes any paleontological information reported from the units.

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Project area is in the northwest portion of the San Gorgonio Pass, which forms a major geologic divide between the Transverse Ranges and the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic provinces (California Geological Survey, 2002)2. North of the San Gorgonio Pass, the Transverse Ranges are an east–west-trending series of mountain ranges and valleys, which extend from the Northern Channel Islands in the west to the San Bernardino Mountains in the east (California Geological Survey, 2002). South of the San Gorgonio Pass, the Peninsular Ranges consist of several northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by valleys, extending from the Southern Channel Islands in the west to the Salton Trough in the east (California Geological Survey, 2002). The San Gorgonio Pass represents the single largest discontinuity along the San Andreas Fault, resulting from a system of irregular and discontinuous right-lateral, reverse, thrust, and oblique-normal faults (Yule, 2009). Together, these faults contribute to uplifting the San Bernardino Mountains and overall movement between the North American plate and the Pacific plate (Spotila et al., 1998).

The Banning Fault lies approximately 4 miles north of the Project area, dividing the basement rocks in the region into the Peninsular Ranges Assemblage south of the fault and the San Gabriel Mountains Assemblage north of the fault (Morton et al., 2006a, 2006b). In the vicinity of the Project area, rocks of the Peninsular Ranges Assemblage date from the Paleozoic to the present, with most of the assemblage represented by the Mesozoic3 Peninsular Ranges batholith and prebatholithic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks (Jahns, 1954; Morton et al., 2006b).

Thick sequences of Cenozoic4 sediments and sedimentary rocks have accumulated above these, including the early Pliocene to early Pleistocene San Timoteo Formation and various Pleistocene 2 A geomorphic province is a region of unique topography and geology that is readily distinguished from other regions based on its landforms and tectonic history (American Geological Institute, 1976). 3 Mesozoic Era: Approximately 252 to 66 million years ago, subdivided into three periods—Triassic (252– 201 million years ago), Jurassic (201–145 million years ago), and Cretaceous (145–66 million years ago) (Cohen et al., 2023). 4 Cenozoic Era (formerly Tertiary): 66 million years ago to present, subdivided into three periods—Paleogene (66– 23 million years ago), Neogene (23–2.6 million years ago), and Quaternary (2.6 million years ago to present).

The Paleogene Period is subdivided into the Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene epochs; the Paleocene Epoch lasted from approximately 66 to 56 million years ago, the Eocene Epoch lasted from approximately 56 to 34 million years ago, and the Oligocene Epoch lasted from approximately 34 to 23 million years ago. The Neogene Period is subdivided into the Miocene and Pliocene epochs; the Miocene Epoch lasted from approximately 23 to 5.3 million years ago and the Pliocene Epoch lasted from approximately 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago. The Quaternary Period is subdivided into the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs; the Pleistocene Epoch, or last Ice Age, lasted from approximately 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago when the Holocene Epoch began; all dates according to Cohen et al. (2023).
993
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 11 and Holocene sedimentary units (Dibblee and Minch, 2003; Lancaster et al., 2012). The highly fossiliferous San Timoteo Formation is particularly well exposed in the badlands 4–5 miles westsouthwest of the Project area.

5.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA
The Project area is mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 by Dibblee and Minch (2003) and more recently at a scale of 1:100,000 by Lancaster et al. (2012) as part of the Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California (Bedrossian et al., 2012). Figure 5-1 is based on Lancaster et al. (2012) as it is the most recent map, but the following subsections may provide additional information on equivalent units from Dibblee and Minch (2003) where relevant. According to Lancaster et al. (2012), three geologic units are mapped in the Project area and vicinity: middle to late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits (Qof), early to middle Holocene young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf), and late Holocene alluvial wash deposits (Qw).

The geotechnical investigation report summarizes the findings from four borings completed at the northwest corner of the Project area, which reached depths of 26–50 feet bgs (Weidman et al., 2023). No geotechnical borings were completed elsewhere within the Project area.

5.2.1 Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
According to Lancaster et al. (2012), middle to late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits (Qof) are mapped in the west to southwest and central to southeast portions of the Project area. These deposits consist of slightly to moderately consolidated and moderately dissected silts, sands, gravels, cobbles, and boulders issued from a confined valley or canyon. The unit may be temporally and lithologically equivalent to Pleistocene units Qof and Qf by Dibblee and Minch (2003), who note the grains are mostly composed of gneissic and plutonic detritus derived from the San Bernardino Mountains.

All boring logs from the geotechnical report show a 0.5–1.0-foot-thick layer of topsoil consisting of silty sand (Weidman et al., 2023). In three of the borings (B-1, B-2, and B-3), beds of dense brown clayey sand occur just below the topsoil and extend down to the maximum depths. The authors interpreted these to be deposits of Qof from Dibblee and Minch (Weidman et al., 2023).

One of the borings near the northernmost edge of the Project area (B-5) also shows loose dark yellowish brown clayey sand below the topsoil from 0.5 to 5.0 feet bgs, which the authors interpreted as Qf from Dibblee and Minch (2023). The dense brown clayey sand beds occur throughout the remaining depth. Based on the boring locations, the dense beds may be equivalent to Qof from Lancaster et al. (2012). However, the loose beds they observed may instead be equivalent to the Holocene unit Qyf from Lancaster et al. (2012) rather than the Pleistocene unit Qf mapped by Dibblee and Minch (2003), which the latter interpret to cover the entire ground surface of the Project area. This is described in further detail under the next subsection.

Unit Qof is potentially fossiliferous because Pleistocene alluvial deposits are well documented to have yielded a wide variety of megafauna as well as numerous invertebrate and plant taxa throughout inland valleys of Riverside and San Bernardino counties (Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Scott, 2007; Springer et al., 2009). Additionally, the slightly older San Timoteo Formation, which is lithologically similar to unnamed Pleistocene alluvial deposits, occurs in the badlands to the west-southwest of the Project area (not shown in Figure 5-1). Numerous fossils of megafauna 994
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 12 Figure 5-1 Geologic map for the Project area and vicinity. o 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Meters
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
mmacias 12/1/2023
W Williams S t
W Nicolet St
Roberge Ave
N 20th S t
Park Ave
W George S t
W Wilson St
W Ramsey S t
Montgomery Creek
10 W Lincoln S t
Rainbow Ln
W Westward Ave
Lovell S t
S 22nd S t
San Bernardino Fwy
Dysart Park
W Williams St
N 14th S t
W George S t
W Nicolet St
N 16th St
W Hays S t N 10th St
W Ramsey S t
W Wilson St
Montgomery Creek
10 W Westward Ave
W Lincoln S t
S 12th S t
San Bernardino
Qof
Qof
Qof
Qof
Qof
Qof
Qof
Qw
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qw
Project Area
Geologic Units
Qw Alluvial wash deposits
(late Holocene)
Qyf Young alluvial fan deposits
(early to middle Holocene)
Qof Old alluvial fan deposits
(middle to late Pleistocene)
Source - Lancaster et al. (2012)
Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc,
METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA,
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar
Scale: 1:12,000
995
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 13 and microfauna have been reported from this highly fossiliferous unit (Frick, 1921; Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Albright, 1999).

5.2.2 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
Lancaster et al. (2012) show an approximately 250-foot-wide wedge of early to middle Holocene young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) that bifurcates the Project area from the northwest corner through the south-central portion. They describe the deposits as unconsolidated to slightly consolidated and undissected to slightly dissected silts, sands, gravels, cobbles, and boulders issued from a confined valley or canyon. The unit is temporally and lithologically equivalent to Holocene unit Qa from Dibblee and Minch (2003). However, Dibblee and Minch do not map Qa within the Project area; rather, they mapped this unit 0.75 miles to the southeast.

The loose dark yellowish brown clayey sand seen in Boring B-5 of the geotechnical report more closely matches the descriptions of Qyf from Lancaster et al. (2012) and Qa from Dibblee and Minch (2003) than Qf from the latter, as both units are described as “unconsolidated” and “unindurated,” which contrasts from “weakly indurated” in the case of Qf (Weidman et al., 2023).

The early Holocene beds of Qyf are potentially fossiliferous, but those that are middle Holocene in age are typically too young for fossilization (Scott and Springer, 2003; Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010). These Holocene deposits may overlie Pleistocene deposits at unknown depths with greater likelihood of preserving fossils, as described above for the adjacent unit Qof.

5.2.3 Alluvial Wash Deposits (Qw)
Late Holocene alluvial wash deposits (Qw) are mapped within Montgomery Creek, which occurs along the east boundary of the Project area (Lancaster et al., 2012). This unit consists of unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels deposited in recently active stream and river channels.

The unit is temporally and lithologically equivalent to Holocene unit Qg from Dibblee and Minch (2003), not shown in the Project area but mapped 1.25 miles to the southeast.

Unit Qw or its equivalent is not observed in the geotechnical investigation as the borings were only conducted in the northwest corner of the Project area and not where the unit is mapped along the east border (Weidman et al., 2023). More so than Qyf, the late Holocene Qw is too young for fossilization (Scott and Springer, 2003; Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010) but may overlie deposits with greater likelihood of preserving fossils such as Qyf or Qof. 996
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 14 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This chapter reports on the results of the desktop studies and fieldwork completed for this Project. Paleontological sensitivity rankings also are assigned to the geologic units mapped at the ground surface as well as those likely present at unknown depths based on the available information.

6.1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
The geotechnical investigation for the Project included excavation of four hollow-stem auger borings (B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-5 [completed in 2018]) to depths of 26–50 feet bgs in the northwest corner of the Project area (Weidman et al., 2023). From the boring logs, a layer of topsoil with loose silty sand is present at 0.5–1.0 feet bgs, followed by dense clayey sand that the authors refer to as older alluvial fan deposits (Qof; Dibblee and Minch, 2003), which extend to the maximum depths of the borings. The only exception to this is in Boring B-5, which shows loose clayey sand interpreted as younger alluvial fan deposits (Qf; Dibblee and Minch, 2003) at

0.5–5.0 feet bgs between the topsoil and unit Qof. As discussed in the previous chapters, the Qof and Qf units of Dibblee and Minch (2003) may be equivalent to Qof and Qyf of Lancaster et al. (2012), respectively. No paleontological resources were encountered in the geotechnical borings.

6.2 RECORDS SEARCHES
The UCMP online database does not list any localities within a 10-mile radius of the Project area. The WSC records search does not list any localities within or near the Project area. Records search results from the PBDB and NHMLAC are detailed below in Table 6-1, which shows all listings within a 10-mile radius of the Project area. The PBDB online database does not list any fossil localities from Pleistocene alluvial deposits within the Project area but shows numerous localities from the upper member of the badlands 4–5 miles west-southwest of the Project area.

This unit is included in the search as it is lithologically similar to the various unnamed Pleistocene alluvial deposits of Riverside County. The San Timoteo Formation localities are documented in published paleontological literature, including Frick (1921), Reynolds and Reynolds (1991), and Albright (1999), in which numerous fossil vertebrates are described. The NHMLAC records search results do not report any localities within the Project area, although several nearby localities to the south-southwest are listed from geologic units similar to those mapped in or in the vicinity of the Project area.

6.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Æ’s close examinations of the surficial geology in the Project area were limited due to low ground visibility—overall approximately 15 percent (Figure 6-1). The ground surface was mostly obscured by vegetation, although Vasquez observed sediments in occasional patches of barren landscape, such as dirt recreational paths, and within the streambed and banks of Montgomery Creek. Much of the ground surface in the Project area likely has been previously disturbed by plowing. Because of the previous disturbances throughout most of the Project area, much of the geologic information from the survey came from stratigraphic observations within exposures along Montgomery Creek (Figure 6-2).
997
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 15 Table 6-1
Fossil Localities Reported near the Project Area
Locality No. Geologic Unit (Date) Taxa Depth
Approx.

Distance from
Project Area
San Timoteo Badland
Localitiesa
San Timoteo
Formation, upper
(Pleistocene)
Osteichthyes (bony fish)
Gasterosteus (stickleback)
Equus (horse)
Bison antiquus (ancient bison)
Megalonyx (ground sloth)
Mammuthus columbi
(Columbian mammoth)
Dipodomys (kangaroo rat)
Numerous other megafauna and
microfauna
Unknown 4–5 miles
LACMb VP 1782 Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Camelidae (camel family) Unknown 5 miles
LACMb VP 4540 Unknown formation,
gravel pit
(Pleistocene)
Equidae (horse family) Unknown 7 miles
LACMb VP 7618–7622,
(CIT) 132, 133
San Timoteo
Formation
(Pliocene to
Pleistocene)
Equidae (horse family)
Camelidae (camel family)
Surface 7 miles
LACMb VP 1653,
LACM IP 437
Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Squatina (monkfish)
Gasterosteus (stickleback)
Sobobapteron kirkbyae
(protoorthopteran insect)
Unknown 8 miles
a - PBDB.
b - NHMLAC collection.

Within the streambed and banks of the creek, Vasquez observed deposits of light gray (10YR 7/2) poorly sorted coarse-grained sand with angular gravel and pebbles at the north end of the Project that gradually shifted to brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) fine-grained sand toward the south end of the Project area (Figure 6-3). The depth of the streambed relative to the surrounding terrain ranged from 5 to 15 feet, deeper toward the south. Vasquez did not observe any vertical changes in lithology within the exposures. He observed refuse throughout the Project area with the heaviest concentrations found near Lincoln Street. Lastly, he encountered modern animal bones near burrows but did not observe any paleontological resources during the field survey. 998
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 16 Figure 6-1 Overview of the Project area from the south, facing northwest.

Figure 6-2 Overview of Montgomery Creek from the southeast corner of the Project area, facing northwest.
999
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 17 Figure 6-3 Detailed view of an approximately 8-foot-thick section of the southwest bank of Montgomery Creek at the east-central
border of the Project area showing deposits of Qw.

6.4 DETERMINATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL

WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Using information obtained from the desktop studies and field survey, Æ determined the paleontological resource potential of the Project area. Æ’s paleontological sensitivity rankings follow the County of Riverside (2015) classification system. Based on the findings, Æ recommends the assignment of High A Sensitivity to locations mapped as Qof, High B Sensitivity to locations mapped as Qyf, and Low Sensitivity to locations mapped as Qw in the Project area (Figure 6-4).
1000
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Banning NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 18 Figure 6-4 Paleontological sensitivity of the Project area. o 0 50 100 150 200 250
Meters
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
mmacias 12/1/2023
Montgomery Creek
W Lincoln S t
Montgomery Creek
Project Area
Paleontological Sensitivity
High A
High B
Low
Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, County of San
Bernardino, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap,
Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land
Scale: 1:3,000
1001
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 19 Æ’s desktop studies indicate Qof deposits mapped in the west and southwest portions of the Project area as well as in the center to southeast corner have a high potential of preserving significant paleontological resources. Weidman et al. (2023) described sediments matching the descriptions of Qof at a depth of 0.5–1.0 feet bgs, just below topsoil, in the northwest corner of the Project area. However, apart from a few locations without vegetation such as the previously disturbed dirt roads, Æ did not observe any diagnostic exposures of Qof deposits during the survey. Therefore, our ranking for Qof is based on the desktop studies alone. Similarly, Æ did not observe any diagnostic exposures of Qyf during the survey. Based on the desktop studies, these deposits have a low to moderate potential of preserving significant paleontological resources.

The geotechnical boring data from Weidman et al. (2023) shows deposits matching the descriptions of Qyf within the upper 5 feet near the north border of the Project area. These are immediately underlain by deposits of Qof. As such, locations mapped as Qyf may have a high potential for preserving significant paleontological resources at depths greater than 4 feet bgs.

Lastly, during the survey, Æ observed deposits of Qw, considered to have low potential for paleontological resources, within the streambed and banks of Montgomery Creek. Based on the thickness of the exposures within the creekbed and the lack of any changes in lithology within the exposures, Project-related ground-disturbing activities as presently proposed within locations mapped as Qw are unlikely to affect any fossiliferous deposits to a maximum depth of 15 feet bgs. Observations from construction monitoring can help to further refine the geology within the Project area.
1002
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 20 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Æ concludes that construction activities may impact significant paleontological resources in various locations throughout the Project area. Æ’s desktop studies and field survey indicate the Project area has High A, High B, and Low Sensitivity for paleontological resources.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits and consistent with applicable policies (County of Riverside, 2015), Æ recommends a PRIMP be prepared by a qualified professional paleontologist (Paleontological Principal Investigator, Project Paleontologist) as defined by mitigation paleontology industry standards (Murphey et al., 2019) and/or the SVP (2010). The PRIMP will specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. For instance, Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training should be prepared prior to the start of Project-related ground disturbance and presented in person to all field personnel to describe the types of paleontological resources that may be found and the procedures to follow if any are encountered.

The Project-specific PRIMP also will indicate where construction monitoring will be required and the frequency of required monitoring (i.e., full-time, spot-checks, etc.). In addition to construction monitoring procedures, a PRIMP also will provide details about fossil collection, analysis, and preparation for permanent curation at an approved repository, such as the NHMLAC or WSC. Lastly, the PRIMP describes the different reporting standards to be used, such as monitoring with negative findings versus monitoring resulting in fossil discoveries. 1003
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 21 8 REFERENCES CITED
Albright, B. L., III. 1999. Magnetostratigraphy and biochronology of the San Timoteo Badlands, southern California, with implications for local Pliocene–Pleistocene tectonic and depositional patterns. Geological Society of America Bulletin 111:1265–1293.

American Geological Institute. 1976. Dictionary of geological terms. Anchor Press, Garden City, New York, 472 pp.

Bedrossian, T. L., P. D. Roffers, C. A. Hayhurst, J. T. Lancaster, and W. R. Short. 2012. Geologic compilation of Quaternary surficial deposits in southern California. CGS Special Report 217 (revised). California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Sacramento, California, 25 pp.

Boggs, S., Jr. 2012. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. 5th Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 585 pp.

California Geological Survey. 2002. California geomorphic provinces. California Geological Survey Note 36. California Department of Conservation, Sacramento.

Cohen, K. M., S. C. Finney, P. L. Gibbard, and J.-X. Fan. 2023. The ICS international chronostratigraphic chart v2023/04 (2013; updated). Episodes 36:199–204. Available at http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2023-04.pdf.

County of Riverside. 2015. Cultural and Paleontological Resourcesin Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Riverside County General Plan Updated Project, General Plan Amendment No. 960. Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside, California.

Dibblee, T. W., Jr., and J. A. Minch. 2003. Geologic map of the Beaumont quadrangle, Riverside County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-114. Santa Barbara County Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.

Frick, C. 1921. Extinct vertebrate faunas of the badlands of Bautista Creek and San Timoteo Cañon, southern California. University of California Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geology 12(5):277–424.

Jahns, R. H. 1954. Geology of the Peninsular Range Province, Southern California and Baja California. California Division of Mines Bulletin 170:9–52.

Lancaster, J. T., C. A. Hayhurst, and T. L. Bedrossian. 2012. Preliminary Geologic map of quaternary surficial deposits in Southern California: Palm Springs 30' × 60' quadrangle, CGS Special Report 217, Plate 224. California Geological Survey.

Morton, D. M., F. K. Miller, P. M. Cossette, and K. R. Bovard. 2006a. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' × 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217.
1004
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the NP-2 Booster Pump Station and Reservoir Project 22 Morton, D. M., F. K. Miller, P. M. Cossette, and K. R. Bovard. 2006b. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' × 60' quadrangles, California: geology and description of map units, version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1217.

Murphey, P. C., G. E. Knauss, L. H. Fisk, T. A. Deméré, and R. E. Reynolds. 2019. Best practices in mitigation paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History No. 47, 43 pp.

Reynolds, R. E., and R. L. Reynolds. 1991. The Pleistocene Beneath Our Feet: Near-surface Pleistocene Fossils in Inland Southern California Basins; pp. 41–43 in M. O. Woodburne and R. E. Reynolds (eds.), Inland Southern California: the Last 70 Million Years. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California.

Riverside County Planning Department. 2015. Riverside County General Plan. Riverside, California.

Scott, E. 2007. Paleontology review, Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, Calimesa and Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California. Submitted April 30, 2007, to P&D Consultants.

Scott, E., and K. Springer. 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in California. The Environmental Monitor Fall 2003.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Available at https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2022. 11 pp.

Spotila, J. A., K. A. Farley, and K. Sieh. 1998. Uplift and erosion of the San Bernardino Mountains associated with transpression along the San Andreas fault, California, as constrained by radiogenic helium thermochronometry. Tectonics 17(3):360–378.

Springer, K., E. Scott, J. C. Sagebiel, and L. K. Murray. 2009. The Diamond Valley Lake ocal fauna: late Pleistocene vertebrates from inland southern California; pp. 217–235 in L. B.

Albright, III (ed.) Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Biostratigraphy in Honor of Michael O. Woodburne. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65, Flagstaff.

SVP. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Available at http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/MemberEthics/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. 11 pp.

Weidman, L. C., J. J. Vettel, A. T. Shoasheken, and L. A. Battiato. 2023. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Offsite Booster Pump Station, Atwell Development, Banning, California. GEOCON West, Inc., Murrieta, Califoria. Prepared for TriPointe Homes, Corona, California.

Yule, D. 2009. The enigmatic San Gorgonio Pass. Geology 37(2):191–192. 1005

APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
1006
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS CHRISTOPHER SHI Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager
Areas of Expertise
• Paleontological resource technical
and project management
• CEQA/NEPA compliance
Years of Experience
• 14
Education
Ph.D., Geology (studies), UCLA,
2012-2016
M.S., Geology, UCLA, 2011
B.S., Biology, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2006
Registrations/Certifications
• Paleontologist Consultants List,
Santa Cruz County (2022-present)
• Certified Paleontologist, Orange
County (2020-present)
• Qualified Paleontologist, Riverside
County (2019-present)
Permits
• Field Director, California BLM
Statewide Paleontological Permit
CA-21-06P
Classes/Training
• OSHA Excavation Competent
Person Seminar, Mar. 11, 2019
• OSHA Hazardous Waste
Operations Worker (HAZWOPER)
Training, 40-Hour, January 20-23,
2020 and 8-Hour Refreshers,
January 21, 2021, June 10, 2022,
and June 20, 2023

Professional Experience
2020– Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Pasadena, California.
2018–2020 Associate Paleontologist/Project Manager, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Pasadena, California.
2016–2018 Paleontological Laboratory and Field Technician, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Pasadena, California.
2017–2018 Lead Paleontology Monitor, Rincon Consultants, Los Angeles, California.

Technical Qualifications
Mr. Shi is a paleontologist and geologist with 14 years of experience in paleontology, evolutionary biology, mineralogy, and sedimentary geology, and meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s (SVP) standards for a qualified professional paleontologist/project paleontologist/principal investigator. He has a background in plant and invertebrate taphonomy, and his master’s thesis focused on the characterization of fossilized Eocene ferns using a novel threedimensional imaging technique. Additionally, Mr. Shi spent several years working toward a Ph.D. in geology with research focused on the link between the trend in changing seawater chemistry and the evolution of the first animals to develop shells from calcium carbonate during the Cambrian explosion. He has completed several professional publications and presentations throughout his career.

Mr. Shi completes various tasks within the Paleontology Program of Applied EarthWorks. He coordinates and schedules paleontological monitors throughout Æ’s 5 offices. In the field, Mr. Shi’s responsibilities include stratigraphic analyses, geological and paleontological data collection, bulk-sediment sampling, collection paleontological resources, and documentation of fossil localities. In the lab, Mr. Shi picks microvertebrate fossils, identifies, analyzes, and prepares collected fossils for permanent curation, including jacketing of large vertebrate specimens. Mr. Shi also regularly completes paleontological desktop literature and map reviews and coordinates with various paleontology curators for museum records searches; authors paleontology monitoring plans, inventory and evaluation reports, resource impact management plans, and worker environmental awareness training materials. In the past, Mr. Shi served as Æ’s lead monitor on construction monitoring projects for utility, transportation, and residential and commercial development projects.

1007

CHRISTOPHER SHI
Selected Project Experience
San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan Line E Project, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California.

Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2023). Will oversee ground-reconnaissance field survey and complete Paleontological Resource Assessment report (PRA) for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: Albert A. Webb Associates for City of San Jacinto.

California High-Speed Rail Construction Package 1, Madera and Fresno Counties, California. Project Manager (2023-present). Æ is providing multi-year paleontological monitoring during construction of the 32-mile segment from Avenue 19 in Madera County to East American Avenue in Fresno County with 12 grade separations, two viaducts, one tunnel, and a major crossing over the San Joaquin River. Overseeing paleontological resource monitoring for construction, completing daily quality control of field forms, and preparing biweekly summaries of fieldwork for client. Completing for CEQA compliance (California High-Speed Rail Authority) and NEPA compliance (Federal Railroad Administration). Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Mehrten, Laguna, Tulare, Turlock Lake, Riverbank, and Modesto Formations; North Merced Gravel; and Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: formerly Tutor Perini Zachry Parsons, currently Wong+Harris, JV.

South Coast 101 HOV Lanes Segment 4D-4E North Project, Santa Barbara County, California. Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2023–present). Completed Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for construction of a 3.2-mile HOV lane on South Coast 101 in Montecito. Will oversee Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and paleontological resource monitoring for construction for CEQA compliance.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Casitas Formation, Pleistocene marine terrace deposits, Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium, and Holocene beach deposits. Client: ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. for California Department of Transportation.

State Route 46 Widening Project, Wye Section, San Luis Obispo County, California. Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2023–present). Completed PMP and oversaw WEAP for improvements along a

3.7-mile segment of State Route 46, including the interchange with State Route 41 north of Cholame. Overseeing paleontological resource monitoring for construction for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Temblor, Monterey, and Paso Robles Formations, and Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. for California Department of Transportation.

Eastern Municipal Water District Good Hope and Mead Valley Water-System Improvements Project, Riverside County, California. Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2023). Co-authored paleontological technical memorandum for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: Albert A. Webb Associates for County of Riverside.

Westside Purple Line Extension Section 3 Project, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California.

Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2022-present). Oversaw and provided paleontological resource monitoring for construction over a 2.56-mile extension of the Purple Line along Wilshire Boulevard, including construction of two underground stations, for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units:

Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: Kleinfelder for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2023). Oversaw and provided paleontological resource monitoring for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: Kleinfelder for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 600 Tank Farm Road Project, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Project Paleontologist/Project Manager (2023-present). Completed (PMP) and will oversee WEAP training and paleontological resource monitoring for construction for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: CoVelop, Inc.

Fairmead Landfill Expansion, City of Chowchilla, Madera County, California. Principal Paleontologist/Project Manager (2020-2023) and Project Manager (2019-2020). 121-acre fossil-rich landfill.

Oversaw Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training and paleontological resource monitoring 1008

CHRISTOPHER SHI
Selected Project Experience (continued)
for construction. Oversaw and assisted in identification and preparation of approximately 4,000 fossil specimens housed in the County of Madera’s temporary repository as well as transfer of all significant specimens to the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley for accessioning. Completed quarterly paleontological findings reports for 2019 –2022 and annual reports for 2019 –2022 for CEQA compliance.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Turlock Lake, Riverbank, and Modesto Formations. Client: County of Madera.

Other Paleontological Research and Experience
Æ Annual Paleontologist/Cross-Trained Monitor Training. Senior Paleontologist (2020-present).

Collaborated for the creation and implementation of an annual training program for all paleontological and crosstrained monitors. Topics varied by year: 2020 introduction to geology and paleontology, with an emphasis on fossil identification and field techniques; 2021 sedimentary geology, geologic descriptions, and field monitoring forms; 2022 federal and state laws and regulations regarding paleontology. Monitors completed two hours of training per session plus assessments, such as a quiz, sediment samples, or essay, and received a certificate of completion. Training sessions are ongoing and must be completed each year in order to mobilize for fieldwork.

Co-collaborators were Melissa Macias and Amy Ollendorf.

Ph.D. Studies.

Establishing a link between the trend in changing seawater chemistry and the evolution of the first animals that built shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate during the Cambrian explosion. Advisor: Dr. Bruce N.

Runnegar
M.S. Thesis.

Demonstrating the application of confocal laser scanning microscopy in the characterization of a fossil fern from the Eocene. Advisor: Dr. J. William Schopf
Relevant Publications
Shi, C. S. 2013. Use of Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Studies in Paleobotany: Documentation of Stem Anatomy of the Eocene Fern Dennstaedtiopsis aerenchymata (Dennstaedtiaceae). LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing: 88 p.

Shi, C. S., J. W. Schopf, A. B. Kudryavtsev. 2013. Characterization of the stem anatomy of the Eocene fern Dennstaedtiopsis aerenchymata (Dennstaedtiaceae) by use of confocal laser scanning microscopy. American Journal of Botany, Vol. 100, No. 8: p. 1626-1640.

Zheng, J., W. Zhuang, N. Yian, G. Kou, H. Peng, C. McNally, D. Erichsen, A. Cheloha, S. Herek, C. Shi, and Y.

Shi. 2004. Classification of HIV-1 mediated neuronal dendritic and synaptic damage using Multiple Criteria Linear Programming. Neuroinformatics, Vol. 2, No. 3: p. 303-326.

Selected Presentations
Shi, C. S. and A. J. W. Hendy. “Pleistocene fossil assemblages from Ponte Vista, San Pedro, California:

Contributions from Mitigation Paleontology. Prepared and delivered a 15-minute-long presentation for the 55th Annual Meeting of the Western Society of Malacologists, June 25, 2022.

Shi, C. S. 2022. “Paleontological Mitigation for the Ponte Vista Project” presentation. Prepared and delivered 30- minute-long presentation for the Southern California Paleontological Society, January 9, 2022.

Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Paleontology Program. 2020. “National Fossil Day” video. Co-created 5-minute-long video by paleontology staff (Aimee Montenegro, Chris Shi, Melissa Macias, and Amy Ollendorf). Posted to Facebook and LinkedIn; available for distribution.
1009
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS AMY L. OLLENDORF Vice President/Managing Principal/Paleontology Program Manager Areas of Expertise
• Paleontology, mineralogy, and
sedimentary geology
• CEQA/NEPA compliance
• Project management
Years of Experience
40 Education
Postdoctoral Research Associate,
2006–2007, World Heritage Studies,
University of Minnesota
Ph.D., Ancient Studies, University of
Minnesota, 1993
M.S., Ancient Studies, University of
Minnesota, 1986
B.S., Anthropology and Geology,
Beloit College, 1983
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 12588
• Licensed Professional Geologist,
Minnesota #30084 (6/1998–
6/2018, expired)
• Paleontologist Consultants List,
Santa Cruz County (2022–present)
• Certified Paleontologist and
Archaeologist, Orange County
(2020–present)
• Paleontology and Cultural
Consultant, Riverside County
(2018–present)
Permits/Licenses
Principal Investigator, Nevada BLM
Statewide Paleontological Permit
N-090758
Principal Investigator, California
BLM Statewide Paleontological
Permit CA-21-06P
Professional Experience
2018– Vice President (2022–present) and Managing Principal/ Paleontology Program Manager (2018–present), Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.
2015–2018 President and Senior Project Manager, ALO
Environmental Associates, LLC
2006–2015 Program Manager, Cultural Heritage Planning and Management, AECOM
2005–2008 President and Senior Project Manager, ALO
Environmental Associates, LLC
2003–2005 Director, Cultural Resources Management, Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
2000–2003 Director, Cultural Resources Management, HDR
Engineering, Inc.
1996–2000 Director, Cultural Resources Management, Braun Intertec Corporation, Inc.

Technical Qualifications
Dr. Ollendorf has 40 years of experience in paleontology, paleoecology, environmental compliance, and geoarchaeology at the global, national, tribal, state, and local levels. She meets industry standards for principal investigator in paleontology and she is also a principal investigator on Æ’s California and Nevada statewide Paleontological Resource Use Permits for paleontology from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Dr. Ollendorf has supervised and/or participated in paleontological services, tribal negotiations, and agency coordination throughout her career. She also has managed Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA). Her project experience includes work in 35 states, including California and other western states, and abroad on a wide range of client projects across many different industry sectors.

During her career, Dr. Ollendorf has written or overseen hundreds of compliance reports in addition to having published multiple articles in peer-reviewed professional journals and presented to a wide variety of audiences, including professional peers.
1010
AMY L. OLLENDORF
Selected Project Experience
California High-Speed Rail Merced-to-Fresno Counties, California. Principal Investigator/Managing Principal, Paleontology and Cultural Resources (2023–present). Æ is providing as-needed multi-year paleontological services and occasional cultural resources services to support all environmental work within the approximately 57-mile-long corridor. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: early to middle Pliocene-age Mehrten, Pliocene- to Pleistocene-age Laguna, Pliocene- to Holocene-age Tulare, early Pleistocene-age Turlock Lake, middle Pleistocene-age Riverbank, and late Pleistocene-age Modesto Formations; Pliocene- or Pleistoceneage North Merced Gravel; undifferentiated Modesto Formation and post-Modesto Holocene-age sediment; and Pleistocene-age non-marine sediment. Completing for CEQA compliance (California High-Speed Rail Authority) and NEPA compliance (Federal Railroad Administration). Working closely with paleontology staff (Chris Shi and Melissa Macias). Client: T.Y. Lin.

Recurrent Energy 350 MW Crimson Battery Energy Storage System, Riverside County, California.

Principal Investigator/Paleontology Program Manager (2018–present). Directed paleontological services for construction of the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and generation tie-lines. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pliocene- to Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits of the Mule Mountains and Pleistocene- to Holocene-age alluvial fan deposits. Provided QA/QC and finalized approvals of the Paleontological Resource Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMMP); obtained all BLM fieldwork authorizations; oversaw completion and provided QA/QC of and Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training materials; oversaw preconstruction- and construction-phase fossil collection; and oversaw fulltime construction monitoring over approximately 9 months on approximately 80 acres, resulting in 93 paleontological localities and 157 sediment samples. Presently overseeing laboratory analysis and preparation Also will provide QA/QC of all associated reporting. Completing for federal (BLM) and state (California Department of Fish & Wildlife [CDFW]) compliance. Client: AECOM (2021–present) and Recurrent Energy, LLC (2018 and 2020).

California High-Speed Rail Construction Package 1, Madera and Fresno Counties, California. Paleontology Program Manager and Project Manager (2018–present). Æ is providing multi-year paleontological monitoring during construction of the 32-mile segment from Avenue 19 in Madera County to East American Avenue in Fresno County with 12 grade separations, two viaducts, one tunnel, and a major crossing over the San Joaquin River.

Overseeing daily construction monitoring and reporting; onsite and offsite screening of sediments and rock matrices; and offsite fossil analyses. Will complete treatment and preparation of significant fossils for permanent curation at UCMP. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: early to middle Pliocene-age Mehrten, Pliocene- to Pleistocene-age Laguna, Pliocene- to Holocene-age Tulare, early Pleistocene-age Turlock Lake, middle Pleistocene-age Riverbank, and late Pleistocene-age Modesto Formations; Pliocene- or Pleistocene-age North Merced Gravel; undifferentiated Modesto Formation and post-Modesto Holocene-age sediment; and Pleistoceneage non-marine sediment. Completing for CEQA compliance (California High-Speed Rail Authority) and NEPA compliance (Federal Railroad Administration). Working closely with paleontology staff (Melissa Macias, Erik Pino, and Michael George). Client: Tutor Perini Zachry Parsons.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Groundwater Remediation, Hinkley, San Bernardino County, California. Paleontology Program Manager and Project Manager (2018–present). Over a multi-year period, completing Release-To-Construction (RTC) project-by-project reviews for cultural and paleontological resource management. Tasks include assessing project areas for sensitivity for cultural and paleontological resources in previously surveyed areas and recorded locations of cultural resources. Also overseeing cultural and paleontological construction monitoring on a project-by-project basis. Requires project-specific reporting, annual reporting, regular client communication, and coordination with cultural and paleontological staff.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene-age alluvium and middle to late Pleistocene-age lacustrine deposits associated with Pluvial Harper Lake. Reports to date include individual cultural and paleontological RTC reports of field findings as a result of preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, and co-authored 2018- 2021 Annual Reports. Completing for CEQA compliance (State of California’s Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) and NEPA compliance (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). Working closely with paleontology staff (Chris Shi). Client: Arcadis for PG&E.
1011
AMY L. OLLENDORF
Fairmead Landfill Expansion, City of Chowchilla, Madera County, California. Paleontology Program Manager (2019–present). Oversaw pre-construction WEAP training and construction monitoring over the 121-acre Project area immediately adjacent to the paleontologically diverse Fairmead Locality (Pleistocene, Irvingtonian). Continuing to oversee additional phases of preconstruction WEAP training and construction monitoring; recovered inventory, condition assessment, treatment, and transfer of over 4,000 fossils for permanent curation at University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP); quarterly and annual reports; and postconstruction monitoring reports. Completed QA/QC of quarterly paleontological findings reports and annual reports for 2019–2021; completing QA/QC quarterly and annual reports through 2022. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: early Pleistocene-age Turlock Lake, middle Pleistocene-age Riverbank, and late Pleistocene-age Modesto Formations. Completing for CEQA compliance (County). Working closely with paleontology staff (Chris Shi and Michael George). Client: County of Madera.

Purple Line Extension Section 3, Los Angeles Light-Rail, Los Angeles County, California. Paleontology Program Manager (2022–present). Supervising construction monitors for paleontological resources and will provide QA/QC of final construction monitoring report. Approximately 2.6-mile-long segment will add two new stations, including tunneling, at Wilshire/Westwood. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pliocene- to middle Pleistocene-age Fernando Formation; early to late Pleistocene-age San Pedro Formation; and nonasphaltic Quaternary Period older alluvium. Completing for CEQA compliance (Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LA Metro]). Working closely with paleontology staff (Chris Shi, Melissa Macias). Client: Kleinfelder for LA Metro.

Phase 1A of the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) West Harbor Development Project in the Community of San Pedro, Los Angeles County, California. Paleontology Program Manager (2023–present). Oversaw WEAP training and overseeing construction monitoring for paleontological resources, and will complete QA/QC of final reporting for approximately 20-acre Project area along Harbor Boulevard. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene-age San Pedro Sand and Quaternary Period Older Alluvium, including Palos Verdes Sand.

Completing for CEQA compliance (POLA). Working closely with paleontology staff (Melissa Macias). Client:

ICF Jones & Stokes.

State Route 46 (SR 46) Widening Project, Wye Segment, San Luis Obispo County, California. Managing Principal and Paleontology Program Manager (2023–present). Completed QA/QC and editing of Paleontological Monitoring Plan (PMP) for widening the northbound and southbound lanes of State Route (SR) 46 from Post Mile

54.1 to 57.8 and reconstructing the SR 41/SR 46 interchange (Caltrans District 5 Task Order 15 to prime contractor). Overseeing WEAP training and full-time monitoring for paleontological resources; will complete QA/QC and editing of Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR) at the conclusion of construction.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Cretaceous-age Gravelly Flat and Panoche Formations, Miocene-age Temblor Formation and Monterey Shale, and Pleistocene-age Paso Robles Formation and older alluvial deposits.

Completing for compliance with federal laws and CEQA. Working closely with paleontology staff (Chris Shi).

Client: ICF Jones & Stokes.

Armet Residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit Project near Templeton, San Luis Obispo County, California. Managing Principal and Paleontology Program Manager (2023). Completed QA/QC and editing of Paleontological Resource Assessment (PRA) for new residence with outdoor swimming pool, accessory dwelling unit, and driveway on approximately 2 acres. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Miocene-age Monterey Shale, Pleistocene-age Paso Robles Formation, and Pleistocene-age older alluvial sediments.

Completed for compliance with federal laws and CEQA. Worked closely with paleontology staff (Chris Shi).

Client: Rick Armet.

South Coast U.S. Highway 101 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Segments 4D & 4E, Santa Barbara County, California. Paleontology Program Manager (2023). Completed QA/QC and editing of Paleontological Monitoring Plan (PMP) covering northbound and southbound lanes from Post Mile 9.1 to 12.3 along U.S.

Highway 101 (Caltrans District 5 Task Order 16 to prime contractor). Paleontologically sensitive geologic units:

Pleistocene-age Older alluvial deposits, marine-terrace deposits, intermediate alluvial deposits-uncertain, and late Pleistocene- to Holocene-age alluvium and colluvium. Completed for compliance with federal laws and CEQA.

Worked closely with paleontology staff (Melissa Macias). Client: ICF Jones & Stokes. 1012
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS AIMEE MONTENEGRO Cross-Trained Archaeological/Paleontological Field/Lab Technician Areas of Expertise
• Mitigation paleontology
• Cultural resource management
• Prehistoric and historic
archaeology
Years of Experience
• 6
Education
B.A., Anthropology, Biola
University, La Mirada, California,
2017
Professional Affiliations
• Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society
• Society for California Archaeology
Registrations/Certifications
• 40-Hour Hazardous Waste
Operations Worker (HAZWOPER)
and 8-Hour HAZWOPER
Refreshers
• OSHA 10-Hour Construction
Worker
• PG&E/ISNetWorld Safety
• Æ Annual Training for
Paleontology/Cross-Trained Field
Technicians, 2020 through 2023
Professional Experience
2019– Cross-Trained Field/Lab Technician, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Pasadena, California
2019– Archaeological Crew Chief, Heritage Resource
Consultants, Los Angeles, California
2018–2019 Archaeological Research and Collections Intern, Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, California
2017–2018 Paleontology Collections Intern, Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles
2015–2017 Research Assistant, Biola University Anthropology Department, La Mirada, California
Summary of Qualifications
Miss Montenegro is a cross-trained archaeologist/paleontologist with 6 years of professional experience in cultural resource management and mitigation paleontology throughout California. As a Cross-Trained Field/Lab Technician with Applied EarthWorks, Montenegro has served as a lead field technician on various surveys and construction monitoring projects for paleontological and archaeological resources in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, and Riverside Counties. In the field, her responsibilities include the identification of paleontological and archaeological resources and documentation of stratigraphy. In the lab, her responsibilities include picking microvertebrates and other small fossils from paleontological sediment samples through wet-screen processing.

Montenegro has experience in survey, excavation, monitoring, curation, lab work, and reporting. As an undergraduate student, she participated in the on-campus excavation of a Columbian mammoth from the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age. As a Collections Intern at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, she participated in the conservation and curation of vertebrate fossils, assisting in the fossil photography, jacketing of specimens for long term storage, and mapping of associated paleontological localities. Additionally, Montenegro served as an archaeological collections and research intern within Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy, and the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, California.
1013

AIMEE MONTENEGRO
Selected Project Experience
East San Fernando Transit Corridor, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Paleontological Field Technician (2023–present). The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is currently constructing a new rail line and 14 new stations between the G Line (Orange) Van Nuys Station and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station located in Los Angeles County, California. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene alluvium. Client: Kleinfelder.

Westside Purple Line Extension Section 3 Project, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California.

Cross-Trained Field Technician (2022–present). The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is currently constructing two underground rail stations within the 2.6-mile Section 3 of the Purple Line Transit System along Wilshire Boulevard in West Los Angeles. Completing paleontological construction monitoring for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene alluvium. Client:

Kleinfelder.

California High-Speed Rail Construction Package 1, Madera and Fresno Counties, California.

Paleontological Technician (2020–present). Æ is providing multi-year paleontological monitoring during construction of the 32-mile segment from Avenue 19 in Madera County to East American Avenue in Fresno County. Providing support to Senior Paleontologist and assisting in general project management such as organization of daily construction monitoring and reporting and tracking of fossils and fossil localities.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: early to middle Pliocene-age Mehrten, Pliocene- to Pleistocene-age Laguna, Pliocene- to Holocene-age Tulare, early Pleistocene-age Turlock Lake, middle Pleistocene-age Riverbank, and late Pleistocene-age Modesto Formations; Pliocene- or Pleistocene-age North Merced Gravel; undifferentiated Modesto Formation and post-Modesto Holocene-age sediment; and Pleistocene-age non-marine sediment.

Completing for CEQA compliance (California High-Speed Rail Authority) and NEPA compliance (Federal Railroad Administration). Client: Tutor Perini Zachry Parsons.

Hinkley Remediation Project, Community of Hinkley, San Bernardino County, California. Cross-Trained Field Technician (2020–present). Completing archaeological surveys and construction monitoring for paleontological and archaeological resources for various Release to Construction projects for 30,000-acre groundwater remediation area. Completed for CEQA (State) and NEPA (USFWS) compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium and lacustrine deposits. Client: Arcadis for Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

West Gen-Tie and 500-foot-wide Buffer Adjacent to the Crimson Solar Project, Riverside County, California. Cross-Trained Field Technician (2022). Completed ground-reconnaissance field survey for paleontological resources for federal (BLM) and state (California Department of Fish & Wildlife) compliance.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Alluvial deposits of the Mule Mountains and Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: AECOM.

Crimson Energy Storage Project, Riverside County, California. Cross-Trained Field Technician (2021–2023).

Completed pre-construction collection of paleontological resources and paleontological construction monitoring for construction of a battery energy storage system (BESS) and generation tie-lines for 2,500-acre fossil-rich 350 MW solar farm. Also completed onsite wet-screen processing of paleontological sediment samples and sorting/ identifying microvertebrates and other small fossils from the sediment samples in the lab. All tasks completed for federal (BLM) and state (California Department of Fish & Wildlife) compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Alluvial deposits of the Mule Mountains and Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium. Client: AECOM.

Crossroads North Storm Drain Facilities Improvement Project, Community of Winchester, Riverside County, California. Cross-Trained Field Technician (2021). Completed paleontological construction monitoring for CEQA compliance. Paleontologically sensitive geologic units: Pleistocene alluvium. Client: Albert A. Webb Associates.
1014
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures that are part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that will be approved by the City of Banning (“City”) for the Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir (“Project”).

The MMRP has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Project.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (California Public Resources Code§ 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The MMRP contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation measures. 2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom compliance will be reported.
3) The MMRP has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the MMRP.

Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the project area. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the City, Contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate.

Acronyms Used in the Mitigation Measures
The following acronyms are used in the mitigation measures.

PRMMP Paleontological Resource Mitigation Monitoring Plan WEAP Workers Environmental Awareness Program
1015
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 2 Page left intentionally blank
1016
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 3 Impact
Category Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Compliance
Verification
Biological
Resources
MM BIO-1: Temporary
Exclusionary/Construction Fencing. To protect
Montgomery Creek sensitive habitats (RAFSS)
and the riverine habitat which are adjacent to
the Project footprint, within the BSA, temporary
exclusionary construction fencing will be
installed at the Project footprint boundary where
they are adjacent to Montgomery Creek with the
Project Biologist present to ensure the fencing is
placed in the correct areas of the site (see Figure
6 – Exclusionary Fencing of Appendix B). The
purpose of fencing shall be to prevent
disturbances to adjacent sensitive habitats and
to avoid the spread of debris from the
construction zone into adjacent areas.

Prior to ground
disturbing activities.

City of Banning, Public
Works Department, in
conjunction with
construction contractor
and qualified biologist.

Construction
specifications shall
include exclusionary
fencing; report
documenting fence
installation submitted to
City Public Works
Department.

Cultural
Resources
MM CR-1: Inadvertent Discovery. In the event
cultural resources are discovered during Project
construction, all ground disturbance activities
within 100 feet of the discovered cultural
resource shall be halted until a qualified
archaeologist (meeting the Secretary of the
Interior Standards) can visit the site of discovery,
assess the significance and integrity of the find,
and determine the appropriate treatment
(documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) and
disposition of the cultural resource. Further
ground disturbance shall not resume within the
area of the discovery until the appropriate
treatment has been accomplished. Work on the
During ground
disturbing activities.

City of Banning, Public
Works Department,
and qualified
archaeologist
Report documenting
evaluation of the find and
subsequent treatment, if
applicable.
1017
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 4 Impact
Category Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Compliance
Verification
other portions of the Project outside of the
buffered area may continue. Any such
discoveries and subsequent evaluation and
treatment, shall be documented and submitted
to the EIC for archival purposes.

Geology and
Soils
MM GEO‐1: Paleontological Resources Workers
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). To
educate construction crews about the types of
paleontological resources that may be
encountered at the NP‐2 Booster Pump Station
and Reservoir Project, prior to the start of the
construction the City of Banning shall retain a
professional paleontologist (the “Project
Paleontologist”) to prepare a Paleontological
Resources Workers Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP). The Paleontological Resources
WEAP shall provide a description of the laws and
ordinances protecting fossil resources, the types
of fossil resources that may be encountered in
the area, the role of the paleontological monitor,
outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil
discovery is made, and provide contact
information for the Project Paleontologist. The
Project Paleontologist or designee(s) shall
present the Paleontological Resources WEAP to
the construction contractor and each of the
construction crews working on the Project during
a preconstruction meeting. The Paleontological
Resources WEAP shall be taped and presented to
Prior to any ground
disturbing activities.

City of Banning, Public
Works Department and
Project Paleontologist.

Confirmation of retention
of a qualified
paleontological
consultant, preparation
and implementation of an
education program.
1018
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 5 Impact
Category Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Compliance
Verification
any construction crew members not present at
the preconstruction meeting during which it was
initially presented prior to such crew members
working on the Project. This training may be
conducted concurrent with other
preconstruction training (e.g., biological
resources, safety).

Geology and
Soils
MM GEO‐2: Paleontological Mitigation
Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of
ground‐ disturbing activities, the Project
Paleontologist (retained under MM GEO‐1) shall
prepare and implement a Paleontological
Resources Mitigation Monitoring Plan (PRMMP)
for the Project. The PRMMP shall describe the
monitoring required during excavations that
extend into older Quaternary (Pleistocene) age
sediments, and the location of areas deemed to
have a high paleontological resource potential.

Paleontological Monitoring shall entail the visual
inspection of excavated or graded areas and
trench sidewalls. If the Project Paleontologist
determines full‐time monitoring is no longer
warranted, based on the geologic conditions at
depth, the Project Paleontologist may
recommend monitoring be reduced or ceased
entirely.

Prior to any ground
disturbing activities
and during
construction.

City of Banning, Public
Works Department and
Project Paleontologist.

Preparation and
implementation of the
Paleontological Resource
Mitigation Monitoring
Plan, on-going monitoring
as deemed necessary
1019
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 6 Impact
Category Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Compliance
Verification
Geology and
Soils
MM GEO‐3: Fossil Discoveries. In the event that
a paleontological resource is discovered, the
Project Paleontologist shall have the authority to
temporarily divert the construction equipment
around the find until it is assessed for scientific
significance and, if appropriate, collected. If the
resource is determined to be of scientific
significance, the Project Paleontologist shall
complete the following:

1. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are
discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity
should be halted to allow the paleontological
monitor, and/or Project Paleontologist to
evaluate the discovery and determine if the
fossil may be considered significant. If the
fossils are determined to be potentially
significant, the Project Paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) should recover them
following standard field procedures for
collecting paleontological as outlined in the
PRMMP prepared per MM GEO‐1. Typically,
fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a
single paleontologist and not disrupt
construction activity. In some cases, larger
fossils (such as complete skeletons or large
mammal fossils) require more extensive
excavation and longer salvage periods. In this
case the Project Paleontologist shall have the
authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt
During construction City of Banning, Public
Works Department, in
conjunction with
construction
contractor, and
qualified Project
Paleontologist.

Submittal of report of
findings and evidence of
mitigation and curation of
discovered resources, if
applicable.
1020
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 7 Impact
Category Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Compliance
Verification
construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s)
can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

2. Fossil Preparation and Curation. The
PRMMP shall identify the museum that has
agreed to accept fossils that may be
discovered during project‐related excavations.

Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant
fossils collected shall be prepared in a properly
equipped laboratory to a point ready for
curation. Preparation may include the removal
of excess matrix from fossil materials and
stabilizing or repairing specimens. During
preparation and inventory, the fossil
specimens will be identified to the lowest
taxonomic level practical prior to curation at
an accredited museum. The fossil specimens
must be delivered to the accredited museum
or repository no later than 90 days after all
fieldwork is completed. The cost of curation
will be assessed by the repository and will be
the responsibility of the City of Banning.

3. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report.

Upon completion of ground disturbing activity
(and curation of fossils if necessary) for the
Project, the Project Paleontologist shall
prepare a final mitigation and monitoring
report outlining the results of the mitigation
and monitoring program. The report shall
include discussion of the location, duration and
1021
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project MMRP 8 Impact
Category Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Compliance
Verification
methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic
sections, any recovered fossils, and the
scientific significance of those fossils, and
where fossils were curated.
1022
JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
256053
May 3, 2024
City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220-0998
Attention: Adam Rush Re: EA 24-0051, APN 538-280-001
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.

District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.

The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received April 25, 2024. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:
☐ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed.
☐ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.
☒ If this project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of A-1
1023
City of Banning - 2 - May 3, 2024
Re: EA 24-0051, APN 538-280-001 256053
the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☐ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, ____________________. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ☐ The District's previous comments are still valid.

GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report) and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if a CEQA document was prepared for the project. The project proponent shall also bear the responsibility for complying with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply.

If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager
EM:sm
A-1
Cont.

A-21024

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FOR THE
CITY OF BANNING NP-2 BOOSTER STATION AND RESERVOIR

PROJECT

PREPARED FOR
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Contact: Arturo Vela, Director of Public Works
(951) 922-3130

PREPARED BY
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 686-1070
May 30, 2024
1025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
SECTION 1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments....................................................................1 Comment Letter A – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District..........................2 Response to Comment Letter A – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.....5 1026
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project Response to Comments 1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the potential environmental effects of the proposed NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir (Project) have been analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated April 2024. The public review period was set for 30 days beginning April 26, 2024 to May 27, 2024. The City distributed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND along with the IS; the NOI and IS/MND were distributed to appropriate agencies and organizations.

SECTION 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) states that prior to approving a project, the lead agency must consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process.

There is no requirement for a formal response to each of the comments received (unlike the requirement for a Final Environmental Impact Report). However, in order to provide the City of Banning with additional information upon which to base their decision whether to approve or deny the proposed Project, the following Responses to Comments have been prepared. Each comment letter is labeled alphabetically with each individual comment identified by a number. The responses are provided following each letter. All written comments have been made a part of the public record.

List of Persons, Organizations and Agencies that Commented on the Initial Study Letter Commenting Party Date
A Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District May 3, 2024 1027
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project Response to Comments 2 Comment Letter A – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Comment letter A commences on the next page.
1028
JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
256053
May 3, 2024
City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220-0998
Attention: Adam Rush Re: EA 24-0051, APN 538-280-001
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.

District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.

The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received April 25, 2024. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:
☐ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed.
☐ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.
☒ If this project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of A-1
1029
City of Banning - 2 - May 3, 2024
Re: EA 24-0051, APN 538-280-001 256053
the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☐ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, ____________________. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ☐ The District's previous comments are still valid.

GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report) and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if a CEQA document was prepared for the project. The project proponent shall also bear the responsibility for complying with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply.

If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager
EM:sm
A-1
Cont.

A-21030
Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project Response to Comments 5 Response to Comment Letter A – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Response to Comment A-1:

The comment letter provided by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has been reviewed. The Project does not propose any storm drains larger than 36-inches in diameter or other facilities that would be considered regional in nature. The proposed storm drain pipeline is 18- inches in diameter (IS/MND, p. 2). The comment letter does not question the content or conclusions of the IS/MND, and no new environmental issues are raised. Therefore, no further analysis or revisions to the IS/MND is required.

Response to Comment A-2:

This comment is noted and does not raise an environmental concern or question the content or conclusions of the IS/MND.
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035

CITY OF BANNING

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: Emery J. Papp
PREPARED BY: Emery J. Papp, Senior Panner
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF EA 24-0051, AN INITIAL

STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW
NON-POTABLE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR THAT IS 24-
FEET IN DIAMETER AND 21-FEET TALL WITH A CAPACITY OF
APPROXIMATELY 61,000 GALLONS, ASSOCIATED

APPURTENANCES, ONSITE ACCESS ROAD, AND THE

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW BOOSTER

PUMP STATION DESIGNED FOR THE FUTURE ULTIMATE
FLOW OF 2,500 GALLONS PER MINUTE (GPM). THE

PROPOSED RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION WILL BE
LOCATED ON A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL
NUMBER (APN) 538-280-001 THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 7.51
ACRES. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A CITY-OWNED

PROPERTY WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE-PARKS (OS-P)

ZONING DISTRICT AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF WEST LINCOLN STREET AND EAST OF 22ND
STREET, WITHIN THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-10, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 24-0051) for the Project.

PROJECT / APPLICANT INFORMATION:

Project Location: South Side of West Lincoln Street and East of 22nd Street APN Information: 538-280-001
1036
Project Applicant: Arturo Vela
Director of Public Works
City of Banning, CA
Property Owner: City of Banning, CA
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
BACKGROUND:

The Project is a part of the City of Banning’s (“the City”) expansion of non-potable water system identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) (BIMP, 2018). The City’s existing customer of non-potable water (otherwise known as recycled water) is the Sun Lakes Country Club golf course. Future potential customers may include: Lions Park, Banning High School, Dysart Park, a neighborhood park and the Rancho San Gorgonio development. The proposed Project was not specifically identified in the City’s IMP; however, it is needed to provide non-potable water supplies to existing and potential customers on the west side of the City.

The Project is located south of the I-10 freeway in the City of Banning and is more specifically located on vacant land south of Lincoln Street between South 22nd Street and South 16th Street within APN 538-280-001, on a site of approximately 7.51 acres. There is an existing wood and chain link fence along the western Project site boundary. The Project site receives routine weed abatement and sits at an elevation between 2,401 to 2,403 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The General Plan Land Use designation and the Zoning for the subject site are the same, Open Space-Parks (OS-PA). The proposed Project’s facilities are permitted uses under the OS-PA designation of the City of Banning Municipal Code (BMC) (BMC, 17.20.020).

Surrounding land uses and setting:

The existing built environment to the north, west and northwest generally includes residential homes. Land to the south of the Project area is vacant and undeveloped land.

Land adjacent to the Project area to the east is Montgomery Creek, followed by vacant and undeveloped properties. The built environment to the northeast consists of industrial buildings.

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• County of Riverside, American Resue Plan Act (ARPA) – funding allocation through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Final Rule • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Colorado River Region – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District – permit for backup generator 1037
DESCRIPTION:

The Project entails the construction and operation of a new non-potable water storage reservoir with a capacity of approximately 61,000 gallons, associated appurtenances, on-site access road, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed for the future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The proposed Project will only utilize a portion of the parcel it is located on. The total disturbance area during construction is approximately 1.39 acres, which includes construction staging.

This is approximately 18.4 percent of the parcel. Once construction is complete, the proposed Project’s disturbance area is approximately 0.48 acres, which represents approximately 6.4 percent of the total parcel acreage.

Reservoir:

The reservoir entails the construction of a circular above-ground, bolted steel tank measuring 24-feet in diameter with a shell height of 21 feet which will sit on an elevation of 2,404.20 amsl. The reservoir will have a capacity to store approximately 60,910 gallons of non-potable water. The reservoir will be designed in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) D103 standards, which sets guidelines for the construction of welded steel water tanks. The interior of the reservoir will be factorycoated in epoxy and the exterior will be coated with polyester powder coating that will blend in with the local surrounding environment. Interior support columns and foundations will be provided as needed. The reservoir will include standard tank appurtenances such as roof vent, roof hatch and platform, exterior stairway, ladder, minimum ring wall, valves, piping, inspection hatch, level gauge and transmitter, and conduits. Reservoir design also includes an overflow catch basin located on the southeastern side of the reservoir that is 3-feet wide and 8-feet long. From the catch basin, approximately 160 linear feet of 18-inch diameter storm drain pipeline will be installed underground and will outlet through the proposed headwall at Lincoln Street.

The reservoir will connect to the existing 24-inch diameter non-potable water transmission pipeline in Lincoln Street. Non-potable water will be diverted to the reservoir, routed to the proposed booster pump station and ultimately pumped back into the existing pipeline.

Booster Station:

The booster station building will be located at the north of the reservoir at an elevation of approximately 2,403 feet amsl, on a concrete slab on grade foundation with split face masonry exterior walls and tile roof. The building will be approximately 38-feet long. 24- feet wide and 12-feet tall. Roof hatches will be provided over each pump to facilitate pump removal. The building will be ventilated with a power exhaust fan and automatic air inlet wall louvers. Interior and exterior lights will be provided along with intrusion alarms and cameras. The booster pumps will be vertical turbine pumps designed for an ultimate future flow of 2,500 gpm. Space for three electric pumps will be provided. Two 75 horsepower (hp) pumps will be constructed (one for standby) and space for a third pump will be provided. The two pumps will be sized for existing non-potable water demand of 1,000 gpm each and both will have variable speed pump controls. The third 1038
pump will be sized for a capacity of 1,500 gpm. The ultimate future flow of 2,500 gpm assumes three (3) pumps at 1,250 gpm each. Two (2) firm pumps and one (1) standby pump. The booster pumps will connect to the existing non-portable water transmission main located in Lincoln Street.

Appurtenances for the booster station will include a motor control center, flow meter, valves, pressure transmitter, and one portable diesel-fueled emergency generator that will only be used during emergencies and routine testing. A new SCADA system will be installed on the Project site. The system will include a control panel process controller and software components to communicate with the City’s SCADA system. The SCADA antennae will be mounted on the top of the reservoir and the antennae will not extend more than five feet above the top of the reservoir.

Site Access:

Access to the Project site consists of a new asphalt driveway near the western Project site boundary that will transition to a 20-foot-wide asphalt access road leading to the reservoir and booster station. A cable railing fence will be installed near the driveway entrance, extending to the western property boundary from the northwest corner of a proposed perimeter wall that encloses the booster station building and reservoir. A 20- foot-wide swinging pipe gate will be installed across the access road, connecting to the cable railing fence. A new cable railing fence will also be installed between the western property boundary and the southwest corner of the perimeter wall; this fence will include a swinging gate for access to the rest of the parcel. The booster station building and reservoir will be enclosed by an approximately 6-foot tall combination masonry block wall topped with a four-foot-tall tubular steel fence that is accessible on the western boundary via a 20-foot-wide sliding gate. Inside the perimeter wall, the 20-foot-wide access road is paved and bisects the two structures (the booster station building and reservoir). The area south of the access road surrounding the reservoir will be paved whereas the area north of the access road that surrounds the booster station building will include both concrete and gravel.

Lighting and Security:

Light and camera poles will be installed within the perimeter wall surrounding the booster station building and reservoir. Lighting will be shielded or downward facing to avoid light pollution or light spillage and will be installed in accordance with Section 17.24.100 (Lighting) of the City Municipal Code.

Electrical:

New electrical service will be required for the Project site and provided by the City of Banning from an existing adjacent electrical system source. The Project site is proposing to connect to an existing overhead electric pole on the north side of Lincoln Street, across from the proposed Project driveway. The Project will require a 480/240 volt electrical system sized for two booster pumps. The new electric line will be underground, and service will include a new electrical vault and transformer. Fiber optic service to the site is also proposed with the electrical.
1039
Drainage:

Currently, storm water generally sheet flows across the Project site in a southeasterly direction. The proposed Project improvements will increase impervious surfaces on the site and is expected to result in a negligible increase in storm water runoff that will maintain the existing drainage pattern. All on-site storm water will be captured on site in accordance with State and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. A concrete drainage swale will surround the reservoir and convey storm water to the proposed 18-inch diameter storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall. The runoff from the booster station area will be collected in a four-inch diameter pipeline and connect to the proposed 18-inch diameter storm drain pipeline east of the perimeter wall.

Storm water discharged to the 18-inch storm drain pipeline will be conveyed off-site where it would flow east to the municipal storm drain system at Lincoln Street. Frontage Improvements: The Project proposes to widen the southern portion of Lincoln Street within existing right-of-way along the Project frontage and create a new paved driveway for access. Pavement width will vary from approximately two to eight feet wide. The existing pavement edge will be sawcut and the surface will be ground and overlaid with new pavement. An asphalt curb will be installed at the new edge of pavement.

Construction:

Construction activities include removal of existing on-site vegetation, grading and excavation, paving, construction of the proposed facilities in addition to associated improvements and utility connections. The construction footprint is approximately 1.39 acres. Construction staging will occur on site within the construction footprint and south of the proposed reservoir as shown on the Project Site Plan. During remedial grading, on-site soils will be excavated and recompacted and are expected to require approximately 317 cubic yards of import. The maximum depth of excavation is approximately six feet. During Project construction, it is possible there would be temporary lane closures along Lincoln Street. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 12 months and will begin in August 2024.

Maintenance:

During operations, routine maintenance will occur and may include, but is not limited to, daily maintenance vehicle trips to inspect the booster station and reservoir. Maintenance vehicles would visit the Project site during the City’s normal business hours.

FINDINGS:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City Staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City Staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a potentially significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Thereafter, City Staff provided public notice 1040
of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the MND as required by law. The MND and the MMRP are on file with the Planning Department and incorporated herein by this reference. The public comment period began on April 26, 2024, and expired on May 27, 2024. Copies of the documents are available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, the Banning Public Library, located at 21 West Nicolet Street, Banning, California 92220, and the City of Banning website. The City received one comment letter from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, during the public review period. The Letter and the response to the comments are attached to this Staff Report.

In light of the whole record regarding the Project, the Planning Commission determines and finds, in its independent judgment that:
(1) the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
(2) with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the MND and MMRP for the Project.

The Project is located outside of any MSHCP criteria cell areas and plan compliance is provided through payment of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee at the time of building permit issuance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City Staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that the Initial Study, City Staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a potentially significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (California Public Resources Code§ 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. An MMRP has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Project.

As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the project area. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the City, Contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified 1041
herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Riverside and the State of California.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION:

In accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on April 26, 2024 the City provided a 30-day public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing before the Planning Commission concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary. One comment letter was received prior to the Planning Commission meeting from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, neither for or opposed to the project, but to express potential concern about potential concerns regarding the sizing of stormwater. A copy of this letter and the response is attached to this staff report. The project was also advertised in the Record Gazette newspaper on June 28, 2024 of a public hearing before the Planning Commission concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary. As of the time this report was written, staff had not received any additional comments regarding the proposed project.

Prepared by:

Emery J Papp
Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: (Typical, add and reorder as needed)

1. Resolution 2024-10

2. EA 24-0051 NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir Project IS/MND w/Appendices

3. Draft MMRP Banning NP-2 Booster Station and Reservoir 5-14-24

4. Draft CC Resolution 2024-xxx NP-2 CIP

5. RCFCD Comment Letter

6. A-RCFC (Response to Comment Letter)

7. Public Hearing Notice

8. GIS Exhibits
1042
City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)(EA 24-0051) FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW NON-POTABLE WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR THAT IS 24-FEET IN DIAMETER AND 21-FEET TALL WITH A CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 61,000 GALLONS, ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES, ON-SITE ACCESS ROAD, AND THE

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A NEW BOOSTER PUMP STATION DESIGNED FOR THE FUTURE ULTIMATE FLOW OF 2,500 GALLONS PER MINUTE (GPM). THE PROPOSED RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION WILL BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 538-280-001 THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 7.51 ACRES. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A CITY-OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE-PARKS (OSP) ZONING DISTRICT AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST LINCOLN STREET AND EAST OF 22ND STREET, WITHIN THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the City of Banning City Council, to be held on Tuesday, August 27, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California, to consider an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction and operation of a new non-potable water storage reservoir that is 24-feet in diameter and 21-feet tall with a capacity of approximately 61,000 gallons, associated appurtenances, on- site access road, and the construction and operation of a new booster pump station designed for the future ultimate flow of 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The proposed reservoir and booster station will be located on a portion of assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 538-280-001 that is approximately 7.51 acres. The project site is located on a City-owned property within the Open Space-Parks (OS-P) zoning district and is generally located on the south side of West Lincoln Street and east of 22nd Street, within the City of Banning, California.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project was made available for public review and comment for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to the public hearing beginning FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2024, and concluding MONDAY, MAY 27, 2024.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At a duly noticed public hearing held on July 10, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning adopted Resolution 2024-10, recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project.

Information regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department at (951) 922-3125, or by visiting the following link:
https://banningca.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=60&Type=&ADID=
To observe the live meeting through your personal computer, but not participate with video or oral comments, you may use your computer or smart phone to enter the following or click on the link: https://banninglive.viebit.com or on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television.

All parties interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this item are invited to attend the public hearing or by sending their written comments by email to the Administrative City Clerk at [email protected] or by mail to the City Clerk at City of Banning at PO Box 998, Banning, CA 92220.

If you challenge any decision regarding the above proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the Administrative City Clerk prior to, at, or during the time the City Council makes its recommendation on the proposal; or you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the hearing body at, or prior to, the hearing (California Government Code, Section 65009).

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA. /s/ Emery J. Papp Dated: August 6, 2024
Senior Planner Publish: August 9, 2024
1043
1044

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk Doug Schulze, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Ring of Honor Selection Committee's Nomination to City Council to Place Arthur Lee "Art" Welch in the City of Banning's Ring of Honor
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept or reject the Ring of Honor Selection Committee's nomination of Arthur Lee "Art" Welch to the City's Ring of Honor.

BACKGROUND:

To date, three members of the community have been honored as part of the City of Banning's Ring of Honor Program. In the years 2000, 2002, and 2004, a selection committee was formed and met for the purpose of recommending new members for the City's program.

At the January 9, 2024 Regular Meeting of the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Minjares requested staff restart the City's Ring of Honor Program. The City Clerk's Office launched a recruitment program for the Ring of Honor Selection Committee. At the May 28, 2024 Special Meeting - Workshop of the City Council, the Council selected five members to sit on the Ring of Honor Selection Committee.

On July 17, 2024, the Ring of Honor Selection Committee met at City Hall. In total, ten nominations were received and considered by the Committee, which came to a unanimous decision to nominate Arthur Lee "Art" Welch for placement in the City's Ring of Honor.

JUSTIFICATION:

In accordance with the Ring of Honor policies (attached), the Ring of Honor Selection Committee was seated and met to consider nominations to the City's Ring of Honor Program. The group unanimously recommended the addition of Mr. Arthur Lee "Art" Welch to the City's Ring of Honor. Now, the City Council must consider the nomination of the Ring of Honor Selection Committee. If approved, the City Clerk's Office will work with Mr. Welch's family to design the plaque. Photos of the existing three plaques as well as formatting samples of the adjoining information have been provided for your reference.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The anticipated fiscal impact of this decision is roughly $4,000 plus tax. That is based on a "soft" quote provided to us from the memorial supplier (provided as an attachment).

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to approve the nomination, ending the Ring of Honor Program process for 2024.
1045
BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ring of Honor Policies.pdf

2. Price Quote for Bas Relief Plaque.pdf

3. Sample Plaques - Existing Ring of Honor Members.pdf

4. Ring of Honor - Existing Plaques.pdf
1046
CITY OF BANNING "RING OF HONOR"
The purpose of the Banning "Ring of Honor" program is to honor very special citizens who, through their efforts over a significant period of time, have enhanced the community. This program will provide a lasting monument to those persons qualifying for such special honor.

The "Ring of Honor" is located in Carpenter Hamilton Park, just west of City Hall. The circular structure in the park contains eleven pillars. Both sides of each pillar are reserved for honored citizens with the placement of a bronze plaque containing a bas-relief picture of his/her bust, name and other information relating to his/her service to the community. · The "Ring of Honor" will express the appreciation of the community for the service and generosity of those individuals honored. Due to the special significance of the award and the established criteria, it will take a considerable number of years to complete the "Ring of Honor". This program will also serve to raise individual and collective pride in the community. "Ring of Honor" Criteria
The criteria for being selected as a member of the "Ring of Honor" is as follows:

1. Honorees shall be those citizens whose service to the community exceeds by a considerable degree that service provided by most citizens during their lifetime or tenure in the community.

Service to the community is defined as donation of time and effort in community projects, active participation in community organizations and service clubs, long time service as an elected city official, active participation in appointed positions in city government, active participation in charitable programs and activities, etc. Service should not normally require service in all the above but must include a substantial part of the described service. Additional service not listed here may be considered by the selecting committee if they regard such service as so outstanding that it would otherwise be included in the current list.

2. Any citizen may submit a nomination on the form provided.

3. Awards may be made posthumously.

4. No current member of the City Council or the Selection Committee will be eligible.

Selection Committee

1. The Selection Committee shall consist of five (5) members and be appointed by the City Council.

It shall consist of representatives from service clubs, churches, the school district and other community organizations.

2. The Selection Committee shall meet on a bi-annual basis to consider nominations and forward any nomination to the City Council. This particular committee would cease to exist after completing this task. Subsequent committees would be selected on a bi-annual basis. Meetings shall be held in April of each even-numbered year.

3. Any nomination to the City Council requires unanimous affirmation by the Selection Committee.

The Council would then render a decision to accept or reject the nomination. All nominations shall be kept confidential.

4. Only one nomination will be permitted bi-annually, however none is required if the committee decides not to forward a nomination to the City Council. Nominations may carry over to be considered by a subsequent committee.

5. Only one selection will be permitted bi-annually, however, none are required if the committee decides not to forward a selection to the City Council. Nominations may be carried over to be considered by a subsequent committee.
1047
1 Caroline Patton
From: Tracy at Custom Trophies <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 1:22 PM
To: Caroline Patton
Subject: Re: Banning Ring of Honor
RESENDING...my first reply came back as undeliverable. Microsoft problem? Please let me know that you've received.

Good Morning -
I can definitely help with this project as I do offer Memorial Plaques.

Here is a soft quote:
12" x 24" bronze plaque - $1800.00
4" - 10" Single Head Bas relief* - $2200.00
Subtotal: approximately $4000.00 plus tax
*I don't belief the bas relief would be larger than 10", but if it is, then the price for the bas relief increases. Obviously on the 12" x 24" plaque, there is a limit to the size allowed.

I can provide a firm quote when a quality photograph for the bas relief and the text is provided.

Expect production to take a minimum of 4-6 weeks from final approval.

Please let me know if I can answer any additional questions.

Thank you,
Tracy
A MINIMUM of TWO WEEKS (10 Business Days) is REQUIRED to PROCESS ALL ORDERS Custom Trophies & U-Neek Awards
38925 Cherry Valley Blvd, Suite B
Cherry Valley, CA 92223 Ph 951.845.6311
STORE HOURS: Tuesday - Friday 9am - 5pm
1048
· CITY OF BANN'tNG
MA.YOlt CJTV COlJNCILMEMBER
1976-19$0 AND 1982-1984 1980-1982
SAN GORQONtO CHILD CARE CONSORTIUM
FOUND!Jt & PRISJt>£NT BOARDMEMBER
1981-1986 1981-PRESINT

RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
FOUNDlNG CHAIRPERSON 80.i\llDMEMBER
1580•lt82 1980-1989
RIVERSlOE COUNTY NATIONAL DATE FESTIVAL
BOARDM'EMIIER PRE.SU)!NT
llill4-lH2 1991-1992

SAN CORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION

PRESIDENT BOARD MEMBER
1917-1990 1982-PRESENT

SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION
TRUSTEE 'l"J'UJST!E EMERITUS
J990-1999 l99�PRESENT

SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL
l959■PRESENT
HOUSE OF HOPE cco .. FOUNDER)
l9Sl•PUstNT
PLAYHOUSE BOWL .ASSOCIATlON
197'-1988
. BR"IGITTE PAGE
EX£MPLIFIYING" THE SPIRIT OF Al.TRUISM THROUCH HER
DISTINGUISHED RECJ)RD OF SERVICE)"O THE COMMUNITY,
1049
JAMES "JIM" HESLOP

EXEMPLIFYING THE SPIRIT OF ALTRUISM THROUGH HIS
DISTINGUISHED RECORD OF SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
***

BANNING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - HIGH SCHOOL
TiACKER/COAClt • 1965-1968 ASSISTANT PRlNCJPAL • 1969-1972 PRINClPAL .. 1972-1980

BANNING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - DISTRICT OFFICE
ASSlSTANT SUPERINTENDENT · 1980·1986
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION • UNIVERSITY OF LA VERN£ - 1983
ASS!STANT SUPERINTENDENT, PERSONNEL - 1986-198�
INTERIM, SCHOOL BOAl<D MEMIU'.R - 2002
INTERJM, DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOUI\CES • 2003-2004
DIRECTOR OF PER$ONN£L COMMISSION - 2004-2006
RETIRED TEACHERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER - 1996-PRESENT

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
ADMlNISTRATOR, PALM SPRIN<lS CENTER· 1989-1991
ADJUNCT PRO.FESSOR. EDUCATION 6 1991-1998

CITY OF BANNING
HUMAN RE:LAT1ONS COMMITTEE PUBLIC tJTIL.iTIES BOARD
1969-1971 1985-1989
· BANNING LIONS CLUB • 1970-1997
PRESIDENT - 1984 MELVIN JONES FELL.OW AWARD � 1989

BANNING UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
CHAIRMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD· 1988-PR.ESf:NT CHOTR MEMBER• 1984-PR.ES£NT HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, SAN GORGONIO PASS, INC.

FOUNDER· 1989 VJCE, CHAIR 01 SOARD - 1991-PRESENi
SHARE COMMUNITY FOOD PROGRAM • 1998-2004
BANNING MEXICAN•AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIP ASSOCIATION
MASTER OF CEREMONIES - 1996-2003
1050
1051
City of Banning Ring of Honor Honorees
1052
City of Banning Ring of Honor Honorees
1053
City of Banning Ring of Honor Honorees
1054

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Douglas Schulze, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Doug Schulze, City Manager
Doug Schulze, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2024-141, Expressing Support for Actions to Further Strengthen Local Democracy, Authority, and Control As Related to Local Zoning and Housing Issues
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-141.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council has previously discussed and directed the City Manager to prepare a resolution opposing SB 9. Each legislative session includes numerous bills related to housing issues. In addition to SB 9, there are numerous bills that usurp the authority of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves the land use policies and practices that best suit each city and its residents and instead impose mandates that do not take into account the needs and differences of jurisdictions throughout the State of California.

Resolution 2024-141has been provided by the League of California Cities and is recommended by the League.

JUSTIFICATION:

Council adopted legislative policy states preservation of local control is a foundational legislative principle. The City supports local decision-making authority and opposes preemption of local control.

Local agencies should preserve authority and accountability for revenues raised and services provided.

Each community has unique characteristics that are best met by policies set by its local governing body.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt Resolution 2024-141 and provide staff with alternate direction.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:
1055

1. Resolution 2024-141, Local Control Housing.docx
1056
Resolution 2024-141