Modesto City Council
January 14, 2025

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.27 0.23 1.70 1.78 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 475 475 0.02 < 0.005 — 476 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.95 0.95 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 #24..
- 1088 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
12 / 42
Demolitio — — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.15 2.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.16 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.1 38.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.51 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 241 241 0.01 0.04 0.01 252 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.08 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.90 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 #24..
- 1089 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
13 / 42

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.93 2.46 23.5 20.8 0.03 1.19 — 1.19 1.09 — 1.09 — 3,306 3,306 0.13 0.03 — 3,317 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.34 5.34 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.07 0.64 0.57 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 90.6 90.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 90.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.0 15.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.0 #24..
- 1090 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
14 / 42
Dust — — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 116 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.04 1.61 0.70 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 752 752 0.03 0.12 0.04 788 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.23 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 20.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.41 3.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.57

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1091 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
15 / 42
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.90 2.44 22.3 20.8 0.03 1.11 — 1.11 1.02 — 1.02 — 3,447 3,447 0.14 0.03 — 3,459 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.32 5.32 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.13 1.22 1.14 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 189 189 0.01 < 0.005 — 190 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.29 0.29 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1092 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
16 / 42
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 131 131 0.01 0.01 0.02 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.37 7.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.49 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 0.36 3.34 4.27 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 646 646 0.03 0.01 — 648 #24..
- 1093 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
17 / 42
Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.85 8.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.88 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.47 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 55.9 55.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 56.8 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 461 461 0.01 0.07 0.03 482 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.80 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.31 6.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.61 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1094 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
18 / 42
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 0.95 8.51 9.20 0.02 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,529 2,529 0.10 0.02 — 2,538 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.07 0.58 0.63 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 173 173 0.01 < 0.005 — 174 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.7 28.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1095 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
19 / 42
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 74.6 74.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 75.7 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 461 461 0.01 0.07 0.03 482 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.27 5.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.35 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.6 31.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 33.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.23 5.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.47 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1096 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
20 / 42
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1097 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
21 / 42
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 #24..
- 1098 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
22 / 42

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1099 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
23 / 42
Architect — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 #24..
- 1100 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
24 / 42

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e #24..
- 1101 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
25 / 42
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
#24..
- 1102 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
26 / 42

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1103 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
27 / 42
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1104 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
28 / 42
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#24..
- 1105 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
29 / 42
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 12/15/2023 12/28/2023 5.00 10.0 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/1/2023 12/14/2023 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 1/2/2024 1/29/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Paving Paving 2/6/2024 2/12/2024 5.00 5.00 —
Underground Utilities Trenching 1/2/2024 2/5/2024 5.00 25.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 #24..
- 1106 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
30 / 42
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 120 0.40 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 120 0.40 Grading Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Grading Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Utilities Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Underground Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Underground Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Underground Utilities Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 5.00 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
#24..
- 1107 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
31 / 42
Demolition Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 16.9 3.50 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 52.8 3.50 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 7.50 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 20.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground Utilities — — — —
Underground Utilities Worker 10.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Utilities Vendor 20.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. #24..
- 1108 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
32 / 42

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Ton of
Debris)
Material Exported (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 676 —
Site Preparation 0.00 3,429 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 30.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.5

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 19.5 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
#24..
- 1109 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
33 / 42
2023 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,965

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
#24..
- 1110 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
34 / 42

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 52,120 488 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor #24..
- 1111 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
35 / 42

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration
#24..
- 1112 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
36 / 42

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
#24..
- 1113 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
37 / 42
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
#24..
- 1114 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
38 / 42

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 70.3
AQ-PM 57.6
AQ-DPM 94.7
Drinking Water 97.8
Lead Risk Housing 90.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 43.9
Traffic 23.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 85.9
Groundwater 78.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 51.7
Impaired Water Bodies 72.2
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 91.6
Cardio-vascular 74.1
Low Birth Weights 32.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.9
Housing 87.2
Linguistic 37.0
Poverty 92.3
#24..
- 1115 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
39 / 42
Unemployment 95.0

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 12.92185294
Employed 0.744257667
Median HI 2.592069806
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 13.25548569
Transportation —
Auto Access 1.809316053
Active commuting 84.55023739
Social —
2-parent households 15.23161812
Voting 4.529706147
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 36.81509047
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.91761838
Supermarket access 36.84075452
Tree canopy 87.64275632
Housing —
Homeownership 6.069549596
#24..
- 1116 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
40 / 42
Housing habitability 41.46028487
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 93.25035288 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.89067112
Uncrowded housing 37.03323495
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 27.96099063
Arthritis 14.6
Asthma ER Admissions 11.9
High Blood Pressure 13.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 38.7
Asthma 13.4
Coronary Heart Disease 6.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 3.4
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.6
Cognitively Disabled 0.8
Physically Disabled 1.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.0
Mental Health Not Good 14.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 10.6
Pedestrian Injuries 99.6
Physical Health Not Good 16.1
Stroke 10.1
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 25.3
Current Smoker 6.0
#24..
- 1117 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
41 / 42
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 47.4
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 68.5
Foreign-born 6.7
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 31.4
Traffic Density 23.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 85.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 94.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 1.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. #24..
- 1118 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
42 / 42

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule based on information provided by project applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment per project engineer. Off-Highway Truck=water truck.

Construction: Trips and VMT Construction schedule provided by project engineer.

Operations: Energy Use Energy use provided by project engineer. #24..
- 1119 -
Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C
#24..
- 1120 -
1-0 C:\Users\jhoneycutt\Trihydro\City of Modesto - Biological Survey\1_Text\Drafts\Draft_4\20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx CITY OF MODESTO – PROPOSITION 1 PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
July 28, 2023
82J-001-001
PREPARED BY: Trihydro Corporation
142 Cross Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PREPARED FOR: City of Modesto – Water Resources Engineering Utilities Department 1010 10th St, #2100, Modesto, CA 95354
#24..
- 1121 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Location and Setting ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Description .................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Federal Policies and Regulations ............................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918................................................................. 2-1

2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 2-2

2.2 State Policies and Regulations ................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act.............................................................. 2-3

2.2.2 State Water Resources and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.......... 2-4

2.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife................................................... 2-5

2.3 Local Policies and Regulations ................................................................................. 2-6

2.3.1 City of Modesto............................................................................................. 2-6

3.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Database and Literature Review............................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Critical Habitat Review .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Field Surveys............................................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Physical Characteristics ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Watershed and Drainages ........................................................................................ 4-2

4.3 Soils........................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.4 Vegetation Communities ........................................................................................... 4-4

4.4.1 Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands.................................................... 4-5

4.4.2 Cattail Marshes............................................................................................. 4-5

4.4.3 Fiddleneck Fields.......................................................................................... 4-6

4.5 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitats ............................................... 4-6

5.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES............................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Special-status Plant Species..................................................................................... 5-1 #24..
- 1122 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx

5.2 Special-status Animal Species.................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.1 Swainsons Hawk........................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.2 Burrowing Owl............................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.3 Crotch Bumble Bee....................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.4 Northern California Legless Lizard ............................................................... 5-5

5.2.5 Western Pond Turtle..................................................................................... 5-5

5.3 Habitat Connectivity .................................................................................................. 5-5

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION........................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Raptors, Migratory Birds, Nesting Birds.................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Project Effect on Special-status Species .................................................................. 6-3

6.3 Project Effect on Movement of Resident or Migratory Fish and Wildlife Species .... 6-4

7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 #24..
- 1123 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
List of Tables

1. Habitat Types and Acres by MAR Basin
#24..
- 1124 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
List of Figures

1. Project Location Map

2. Habitat Map - Merle Avenue

3. Habitat Map - City Well 65

4. Habitat Map - Ustach Park

5. Habitat Map - La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North (P1N)

6. Habitat Map - La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South (P2S)

7. Soils Map - Merle Avenue

8. Soils Map – City Well 65

9. Soils Map – Ustach Park

10. Soils Map - La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North (P1N)

11. Soils Map - La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South (P2S)
#24..
- 1125 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
List of Appendices
A. PHOTO LOG
B. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA
C. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA #24..
- 1126 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Trihydro Corporation (Trihydro) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the City of Modesto (City) to support California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the City Proposition 1 Project (Project). The Project is designed to address non-point source arsenic, nitrate and uranium impacts to the groundwater supply and consists primarily of (1) modifying water supply well field pumping operations to reduce contaminant levels in raw pumped groundwater, and (2) construction of four managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins to increase the volume of uncontaminated water with the aquifer system.

The purpose of this BRA is to document biological resources within and proximate to the four MAR basins and identify potential impacts that could occur from any reasonably foreseeable project activities associated with the proposed project. Instances where potential impacts to biological resources may occur, Trihydro has proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to special-status species and sensitive biological resources (refer to Section 6, Impact Assessment and Mitigation).

Trihydro understands this BRA would be used by the City of Modesto and other affected state or federal regulatory agencies during the environmental review process for the project. Any direct impact of potentially state or federal jurisdictional features within the project area may require additional coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to project activities.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project is located within the City of Modesto in Stanislaus County, California in the northern San Joaquin Valley.

The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of the City of Modesto, and the Stanislaus River runs roughly parallel to the northern boundary of City’s urban area. Modesto is intersected by State Route (SR) 99 along a north– south alignment and SR 132 east–west. Topography ranges from gently rolling hills to the east to alluvial plains in the west. Land use adjacent to the project area are urban and agricultural. Elevations within the project area vary from approximately 60 feet above mean sea level to the east, to approximately 140 feet above mean sea level to the west.

The project proposes to construct four managed MAR basins within City limits. The four proposed MAR basins include: Merle Avenue (Ave.) Site; City Well 65 Site, Ustach Park Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North (P1N) and Parcel 2 South (P2S). The proposed Merle Ave. MAR would be located on Merle Ave. on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006, and Well 65 MAR would be located on Merle Ave. on APN 077-007-021. The Merle Avenue #24..
- 1127 -
1-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
MAR would be surrounded by a residential neighborhood, and the Well 65 MAR would be surrounded by Orchard Elementary School and a residential neighborhood. The La Coste Lane P1N and P2S would be located on the north side of La Coste Lane on APN 014-037-056 and APN 014-037-056 (respectively), and the Ustach Park MAR would be located at the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane on APN 077-009-053. The Ustach Park MAR would be surrounded by Ustach Park, Ustach Middle School, and a residential neighborhood.

The City of Modesto General Plan (GP) designates the Merle Ave. MAR, Well 65 MAR, and the Ustach Park MAR as Residential; the GP designates La Coste Lane P1N and P2S as Village Residential. Similarly, the Well 65 MAR is zoned low-density residential (R-1); the Merle Ave. MAR and the Ustach Park MAR are zoned specific plan (SP).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is to address non-point source arsenic, nitrate, and uranium impacts to the City of Modesto’s groundwater supply through (1) wellfield operation changes and modifications using a network of 35 supply wells to protect uncontaminated portions of the aquifer from contaminant migration while improving access to drinking water, and (2) managed aquifer recharge (MAR) at four locations to improve groundwater quality over time while enhancing the resilience of groundwater supplies. The proposed project is based on the findings and recommendations presented in the recently submitted June 18, 2021, Modesto Wellfield Feasibility Study (FS) Report; prepared as part of the Proposition (Prop) 1 Planning Grant Agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB; Grant Agreement No. D1712514).

This BRA addresses Project activities associated with the construction of four MAR basins. The current Project design is to construct four MAR basins at the following locations:
i. Merle Ave. (5.5 acres). Access to the northern end of this project activity area is available from Merle Ave., between the intersections with Paramont Way and Dermond Road. ii. City Well 65 (0.75 acre). Access to the northern end of this project activity area is available from a service road which runs south of the intersection of Merle Ave. and Walnut Tree Drive. iii. Ustach Park (3-acre, stormwater detention basin conversion). Access to the western end of this project activity area is available from Bear Cub Lane, north of the intersection with Kodiak Drive. iv. La Coste Lane P1N (12 acres) and P2S (7 acres). Access to this project activity area is available from La Coste Lane.
#24..
- 1128 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 2-1

2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW
Regulated or sensitive resources studied and analyzed for this report include special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities, raptors and other nesting birds, wildlife movement, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and locally protected resources such as protected trees.

Potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes and regulations:
▪ Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
▪ Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
▪ California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
▪ Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

2.1 FEDERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

2.1.1 FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides legislation to protect federally listed plant and animal species.

Impacts to listed species resulting from the implementation of a project would require the responsible agency or individual to formally consult with the USFWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to determine the extent of impact to a particular species. If USFWS or NOAA Fisheries determine that impacts to a federally listed species would likely occur, alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce impacts must be identified. USFWS and NOAA Fisheries also regulate activities conducted in federal critical habitat, which are geographic units designated as areas that support primary habitat constituent elements for listed species.

2.1.2 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT OF 1918
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects all migratory birds, including their eggs, nests, and feathers. The MBTA was originally drafted to put an end to the commercial trade in bird feathers, popular in the latter part of the 1800s. The MBTA is enforced by the USFWS, and potential impacts to species protected under the MBTA are evaluated by the USFWS in consultation with other federal agencies. #24..
- 1129 -
2-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx

2.1.3 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. These waters include wetland and non-wetland water bodies that meet specific criteria. USACE regulatory jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 403), regulates almost all work in, over, and under waters listed as “navigable waters of the U.S.” that results in a discharge of dredged or fill material within USACE regulatory jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Under Section 404, the USACE regulates activities impacting waters of the United States. 33 CFR 328.3 defines waters of the United States as:

All waters which are:
▪ Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; ▪ The territorial seas; or
▪ Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) or (2) of this section; ▪ That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; or ▪ That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
▪ Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or ▪ Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)(i) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; or ▪ Waters identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; #24..
- 1130 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 2-3
Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
▪ That are relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or
▪ That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

USACE jurisdiction over nontidal waters of the United States extends laterally to the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) or beyond the OHWM to the limit of any adjacent wetlands, if present (33 CFR 328.4). The OHWM is defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as:
“...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area.”

2.2 STATE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

2.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ensures legal protection for plants listed as rare or endangered, and wildlife species formally listed as endangered or threatened. The state also maintains a list of California Species of Special Concern (SSC). SSC status is assigned to species that have limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat; or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. Under state law, the CDFW is empowered to review projects for their potential to impact special-status species and their habitats. Under CESA, CDFW reserves the right to request the replacement of lost habitat that is considered important to the continued existence of CESA-protected species. California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 includes provisions to protect Fully Protected (FP) species, such as: (1) prohibiting take or possession “at any time” of the species listed in the statute, with few exceptions; (2) stating that “no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to “take” the species; and (3) stating that no previously issued permits or licenses for take of the species “shall have any force or effect” for authorizing take or possession. The CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of “fully protected” species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by those species. Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code state that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, with #24..
- 1131 -
2-4 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
occasional exceptions. In addition, Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory birds except as provided by rules and regulations under provisions of the MBTA.

2.2.2 STATE WATER RESOURCES AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate discharges of fill and dredged material in California, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, through the State Water Quality Certification Program. State Water Quality Certification is necessary for all projects that require a USACE permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State. Waters of the State are defined by the Porter-Cologne Act and the California Water Code as:
“...any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” In order for a Section 404 permit to be valid, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a Water Quality Certification or waiver to be obtained. The Water Quality Certification (or waiver) determines that the permitted activities will not violate water quality standards individually or cumulatively over the term of the action. Water quality certification must be consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, CEQA, CESA, and Porter-Cologne Act.

The SWRCB and RWQCB issued the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (state wetland definition) in 2019, later revised in 2021. Pursuant to the waters of the state definition outlined in the California Water Code and the state wetland definition, the following wetlands are waters of the state:
▪ Natural wetlands,
▪ Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state, and ▪ Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
 Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
 Specifically identified in water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state;  Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or #24..
- 1132 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 2-5
 Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless the also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
− Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, − Settling of sediment,
− Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program,
− Treatment of surface waters,
− Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering,
− Fire suppression,
− Industrial processing or cooling,
− Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values,
− Log storage,
− Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or − Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have inci8dental groundwater recharge benefits); or
− Fields flooded for rice growing.

All artificial wetlands less than one acre in size and which do not satisfy criteria set forth in 2, 3a, 3b, or 3c are not waters of the state. Wetland status and condition for waters of the state must follow delineation protocols set forth by the USACE.

2.2.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW defines a “stream” (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least #24..
- 1133 -
2-6 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” CDFW’s definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs.” CDFW jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife.

2.3 LOCAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

2.3.1 CITY OF MODESTO
The City of Modesto’s General Plan Environmental Resources, Open Space and Conservation element outlines goals and policies that aim to preserve biodiversity, sustain healthy ecosystems, enhance degraded habitats, and protect the diverse landscapes throughout the County. Open Space Policies in the River Greenway Program include protecting special status species, protecting and enhancing native habitat, preserving wetlands and aquatic habitats (including fisheries and marine resources).
#24..
- 1134 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 3-1

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DATABASE AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to conducting field surveys, Trihydro initiated a query of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023) and the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; USFWS 2023a) website to identify reported and potential occurrences of sensitive resources within the project area and adjoining U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Avena, Escalon, Oakdale, Salida, Riverbank, Waterford, Brush Lake, Ceres, and Denair). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023) online was also reviewed to provide additional information on rare plants known to occur in the area.

A review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023) was conducted to identify the existing soil types within the project area in order to determine areas with suitable habitat for special-status plant species. The online USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper was also reviewed to identify potential waters and wetlands mapped within the project area (USFWS 2023b).

Vegetation and habitat types recorded during the survey were classified based on the CNPS A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) and the CDFW List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB (CDFW 2019).

3.2 CRITICAL HABITAT REVIEW
Critical habitat as defined by under ESA refers to a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species which may include an area that is not currently occupied by a species but that will be needed for its recovery. The USFWS critical habitat map tool was reviewed to determine if critical habitat is present in the Project area (USFWS 2023).

3.3 FIELD SURVEYS
Following the literature review, Trihydro biologist Georgia Hamer conducted field surveys of the MAR basin study areas associated with the project activity areas on April 18 and 19, 2023. The study areas include the project footprint and associated access and staging for each of the four proposed MARs. #24..
- 1135 -
3-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
The surveys were focused on identifying the presence of special-status and sensitive plant species, identifying signs of habitat utilization by common, special-status, and sensitive wildlife species, documenting habitat elements that may support special-status wildlife and plant species, and identifying habitat types within the study areas. All wildlife species observed, including their signs (e.g., scat, tracks, feathers, burrows), were recorded in field notes. Plant species observed within the study areas were identified to the lowest taxon to determine special-status or sensitive classification and documented. Observations or evidence of special-status and sensitive species within the study areas and within the buffer were documented in field notes and via photographs, and their location recorded. Photographs were taken to document site conditions throughout the Study Area (Appendix A). #24..
- 1136 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 4-1

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a brief discussion of the existing conditions observed within the project area. Site photographs are located in Appendix A and a list of plant species observed in the survey areas is located in Appendix B.

4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Merle Ave.

The Merle Ave. MAR basin is a 5.5-acre disturbed stormwater retention basin at approximately 89-foot (ft) elevation (Figure 2). At the time of the survey, standing water was observed within the basin. Active vegetation management in the form of surface moving conducted regularly by the City of Modesto is evident. A maintained gravel path boarders the perimeter of the basin, permitting access to all sides. The dominant plant community identified on site is that of a highly disturbed urban grassland associated with the wild oats and annual brome (Avena spp., Bromus spp.) grasslands herbaceous semi natural alliance. There are no trees or shrubs within the maintained areas and the site is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs, with cattail marshes (Typha angustifolia) observed near the wetted areas in the center of the detention basin. Animals observed include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos).

Well 65
The Well 65 MAR basin is a 0.75-acre disturbed stormwater retention basin at approximately 80-ft elevation (Figure 3). At the time of the survey, standing water was observed within the large swale. Active vegetation management in the form of surface moving conducted regularly by the City of Modesto is evident. A paved driveway that leads down into the middle of the basin provides access. The dominant plant community identified on site is that of a highly disturbed urban grassland (wild oats and annual brome grasslands). There are no trees or shrubs within the maintained areas and the site is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs with cattail marshes observed in the wetted areas of the basin. Animals observed include Canada geese and songbirds. There is a public park adjacent to the stormwater retention basin which is maintained as a recreation land for the public.

Ustach Park
The Ustach Park MAR basin is a 3-acre disturbed stormwater retention basin at approximately 85-ft elevation (Figure 4). At the time of the survey, standing water was observed within the large swale. Active vegetation management in the form of surface moving conducted regularly by the City of Modesto is evident. A paved driveway that leads down into the middle of the basin provides access. The dominant plant community identified on site is that of a highly disturbed urban grassland (wild oats and annual brome grasslands). There are no trees or shrubs within the maintained areas and the site is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs with cattail marshes #24..
- 1137 -
4-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
observed near the wetted areas of the basin. Animals observed include turtles (unknown species), bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), mallards, Canada geese, and white moths. There is a public park adjacent to the stormwater basin which is maintained as a recreation land for the public.

La Coste Lane P1N and P2S
La Coste Lane P1N is 12 acres of an abandoned almond orchard to the north of La Coste Lane (Figure 5) and La Coste Lane P2S is a 7-acre agricultural field to the south of La Coste Lane (Figure 6) at approximately 105 ft of elevation.

The northern parcel historically supported an orchard which has since been razed. The understory is characterized as a highly disturbed urban grassland and is composed of predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs (wild oats and annual brome grasslands). The southern parcel contains an overgrown agricultural field that is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs (wild oats and annual brome grasslands) and fiddleneck fields (Amsinka menziesii, tessellata, Phacelia spp.) herbaceous alliance. Ground nesting birds were observed here with the most common species being killdeer. A small irrigation ditch with a concrete pipe supplies irrigation water from east to west through the P1N parcel and surface flows (i.e., flood irrigation) were historically controlled by two irrigation valve boxes at both ends of the property, which have since been closed and remain inactive. However, the concrete irrigation pipe remains active and maintained by the City to supply irrigation water down slope. The irrigation canal and the concrete pipe are not included as part of the project and will remain in their current state. Irrigation canal Lateral Number 2 runs parallel to the parcel but does not support any water dependent species within the parcel itself.

4.2 WATERSHED AND DRAINAGES
The City of Modesto is located at the confluence of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek, and south of the Stanislaus River. The Tuolumne River drains a 1,800-square-mile watershed, and Dry Creek drains an area of about 190 square miles. Dry Creek flows east to west and then north to south to drain into the Tuolumne River. La Coste P1N and PS2 are directly south of Dry Creek. Merle Ave. and Well 65 are located directly north of the Moulton Lateral (Lateral Number 3), which is one of the main canals flowing east to west through the City of Modesto. All of the MAR stormwater retention basins within the study areas are manmade features and are regularly maintained by the City of Modesto. Standing water and emergent vegetation was observed at Merle Ave., Ustach Park and Well 65 at the lowest portion of the basins near the inlet culverts. Sources of the water in the stormwater retention basins include roadway runoff, urban development runoff, and stormwater. No direct connectivity to the Lateral Number 3 irrigation canal from Well 65 occurs. A small irrigation ditch runs with a concrete pipe supplies irrigation water from east to west through the La Coste Lane P1N parcel and was used to irrigate the almond orchard which has since been razed. The irrigation ditch is a man-made feature was historically maintained by two irrigation valve boxes located at the east and west boundaries of the property, which have since been closed. However, the irrigation ditch is still used to irrigate #24..
- 1138 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 4-3
orchards downs slope from the project. Access along the irrigation ditch is maintained by the City and is not included as part of the project.

A review of the NWI did not identify any wetland or aquatic habitats within the Merle Ave., Ustach Park, or La Coste Lane P1N and P2S project survey areas. Based on the 2023 revised definition of Waters of the United States under the CWA (the 2023 Rule, EPA 2023), these basins and the La Coste P1N irrigation ditch are not directly tied with a navigable water and are not adjacent to another established or permanent federally jurisdictional wetland with continuous surface connection, and therefore would not be considered aquatic features subject to federal jurisdiction.

The SWRCB State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material of Waters of the State states that wetlands are not waters of the sate if they are used for the detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program (SWRCB 2019). Based on the SWRCB definition, the stormwater retention basins and the La Coste P1N concrete pipe and irrigation ditch would not be considered waters of the state.

4.3 SOILS
The following soils are located within the study area: Dinuba fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (DmA), Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (HdA), Hanford fine sandy loam deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (HbsA), Madera sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, (Mda), Meikle clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (MkA), Modesto clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (MmA), and Snelling sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (SnA), and shown on Figures 7 to 11.

Dinuba fine sandy loam
Dinuba fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (DmA), is formed on nearly level to gently sloping alluvial fans and valley plains weathered from granite. This soil is found in the central and lower San Joaquin Valley. Permeability of this soil is moderate. Surface runoff is very slow with a slight potential for erosion. This soil type is located within the Merle Ave. MAR basin.

Hanford sandy loam
Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, (HdA), is formed on nearly level to gently sloping alluvial fans and valley plains weathered from igneous rock. This soil is found in the central and lower San Joaquin Valley. Permeability of this soil is moderate. Surface runoff is very slow with a slight potential for erosion. This soil is listed as hydric on NRCS (USDA-NRCS 2023b). This soil type is located within La Coste Lane P1N and P2S MAR basins.

Hanford fine sandy loam
#24..
- 1139 -
4-4 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
Hanford fine sandy loam deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (HbsA), is formed on nearly level to gently sloping alluvial fans and valley plains weathered from igneous rock. This soil is found in the central and lower San Joaquin Valley. Permeability of this soil is moderate. Surface runoff is very slow with a slight potential for erosion. This soil is listed as hydric on NRCS (USDA-NRCS 2023b). This soil type is located within the Merle Ave., Well 65 and La Coste Lane P2S MAR basins.

Madera sandy loam
Madera sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, (Mda), is formed on nearly level to gently sloping alluvial fans and valley plains weathered from granite. This soil is found on the eastern side of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys.

Permeability of this soil very slow. Surface runoff is medium to very slow, with a slight potential for erosion. This soil is listed as hydric on NRCS (USDA-NRCS 2023b). This soil type is located within Ustach Park MAR basin.

Meikle clay
Meikle clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (MkA), is formed on flat playas or depressions without normal external drainage from weathered granite. This soil is found along the eastern side of the north and central portions of the San Joaquin Valley. Permeability is slow and runoff is rapid with a high potential for surface erosion. This soil is listed as hydric on NRCS (USDA-NRCS 2023). This soil type is located within Ustach Park MAR basin.

Modesto clay loam
Modesto clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (MmA), is formed on nearly level alluvial fans in areas where the surface drainage is very slow, from weathered granite. This soil is found on the eastern side of central San Joaquin Valleys.

Permeability of this soil is moderate. Surface runoff is very slow with a slight potential for erosion. This soil type is located within Ustach Park MAR basin.

Snelling sandy loam
Snelling sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (SnA), is formed on nearly level to moderately steep terraces at elevations of 150 to 2,000 feet from weathered granite. This soil is found in the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys of California. Permeability of this soil is moderately slow. Surface runoff is medium to rapid with a moderate potential for erosion. This soil type is located within Ustach Park MAR basin.

4.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Vegetation communities within the study areas were classified per the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Addition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant communities within the survey area consisted of highly disturbed urban grassland composed of predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs associated wild oats and annual brome grasslands, cattail marshes, and fiddleneck fields alliances. Habitat types and acreages by MAR basin are presented in Table 1.
#24..
- 1140 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 4-5
TABLE 1. HABITAT TYPES AND ACRES BY MAR BASIN
MAR Basin Habitat Type Acres
Merle Ave
Annual Grassland 8.45
Cattail Marshes 0.35
Total 8.80
Well 65
Annual Grassland 1.63
Cattail Marshes 0.20
Developed 0.15
Total 1.98
Ustach Park
Annual Grassland 1.57
Cattail Marshes 1.11
Developed 0.40
Total 3.08
La Coste P1N
Annual Grassland 12.42
Cattail Marshes 0.12
Total 12.58
La Coste P2S
Annual Grassland 5.05
Fiddleneck 1.95
Total 7.00

4.4.1 WILD OATS AND ANNUAL BROME GRASSLANDS
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena spp, - Bromus spp.) Herbaceous Semi-natural Alliance is an open-todense naturalized vegetation community that is dominated or co-dominated by non-native, often invasive, annual grasses (e.g., wild oats, ripgut brome [Bromus diandrus], and foxtail barley [Hordeum murinum]). They can occur in a variety of topographic settings including foothills, waste places, rangelands, openings in woodlands. Characteristic species include Avena barbata, Avena fatua, Brachypodium distachyon, Briza maxima, Bromus diandrus, Bromus hordeaceus and/or Hordeum murinum is dominant or co-dominant with other non-natives in the herbaceous layer such as Atriplex semibaccata and Hordeum spp. Emergent trees and shrubs may be present at low cover. Annual grasslands can provide foraging habitat for a variety of wildlife species including raptors and passerines. Wild oats and annual brome grasslands were observed as the dominant vegetation cover at the Merle Ave., Well 65, Ustach Park, and La Coste Lane P1N and PS2 MAR basins.

4.4.2 CATTAIL MARSHES
Cattail marshes (Typha (angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia) Herbaceous Alliance occur in semi-permanently flooded freshwater or brackish marshes with silty or clayey soils. Characteristic species include Typha angustifolia, Typha #24..
- 1141 -
4-6 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
domingensis or Typha latifolia is dominant or co-dominant in the herbaceous layer with Agrostis stolonifera, Argentina egedii, Cyperus spp., Distichlis spicata, Echinochloa crus-galli, Eleocharis macrostachya, Equisetum telmateia, Juncus spp., Lemna minuta, Lepidium latifolium, Oenanthe sarmentosa, Persicaria lapathifolia, Persicaria punctata, Phragmites australis, Schoenoplectus americanus, Schoenoplectus californicus, Typha ×glauca and Xanthium strumarium. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including Salix spp. Cattail marshes can provide valuable as habitat and food for wildlife including birds. They are useful in removing pollutants and important in wetland restoration; however, they can quickly invade canals, ditches, cultivated fields, ponds and reservoirs where mowing or mechanical removal may be required to manage unwanted stands. Cattail marshes were observed in the wetted areas the Merle Ave., Well 65, and Ustach Park and La Coste Lane P1N MAR basins.

4.4.3 FIDDLENECK FIELDS
Fiddleneck – Phalacia (Amsinkia (menziesii, tessellate) - Phalecia spp. Herbaceous Alliance fields primarily occur in upland slopes, broad valleys, ocean bluffs, grazed or recently burned hills, fallow fields where soils are well drained and loamy, and they are often subject to high levels of bioturbation. Characteristic species include Amsinckia menziesii, Amsinckia tessellata and/or Phacelia spp. or other Amsinckia sp. is seasonally co-dominant in the herbaceous layer with Amblyopappus pusillus, Astragalus didymocarpus, Atriplex californica, Avena spp., Bromus diandrus, Bromus hordeaceus, Bromus rubens, Castilleja exserta, Centromadia pungens, Croton setigerus, Deinandra fasciculata, Dichelostemma capitatum, Erodium spp., Guillenia lasiophylla, Hordeum murinum, Lasthenia californica, Lasthenia gracilis, Lotus wrangelianus, Lupinus bicolor, Plagiobothrys canescens, Plagiobothrys collinus and Vulpia bromoides.

Emergent shrubs may be present at low cover, including Adenostoma fasciculatum, Artemisia californica, Eastwoodia elegans, Encelia farinosa, Ericameria palmeri, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Isocoma menziesii or Lupinus albifrons.

Amsinckia contains about ten species that are native to western North America and temperate South America. Some species are introduced weeds in Australia and other areas with Mediterranean climates. Plants are well adapted to regular site disturbance and fluctuating Mediterranean climates through their ability to bank seeds and germinate quickly during relatively high rainfall years. Fiddleneck fields can provide habitat for California ground squirrels and pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.). Fiddleneck fields were observed in the northwestern portion of the La Coste Lane PS2 MAR basin.

4.5 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS The CDFW evaluates the sensitivity of natural communities by using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology, the same system used to assign global and state rarity ranks for plant and animal species in the CNDDB. For rarity, the ranking involves the knowledge of range and distribution of a given type of vegetation, and the proportion of occurrences that are of good ecological integrity. Threats and trends are likewise considered in categories such as residential and #24..
- 1142 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 4-7
commercial development, agriculture, energy production and mining, and invasive and other problematic species and genes (among others). Threat scope (typically assessed within a 20-year timeframe for vegetation) and severity are used to calculate an overall threat score, which is added to the overall rarity score for a single rank of 1 through 5.

Evaluation is done at both the Global (full natural range within and outside of California) and State (within California) levels resulting in a single G (global) and S (state) rank ranging from 1 (very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure).

Natural Communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents. However, not all associations have been provided a G and S rank. Associations currently designated as being of S3 or rarer are indicated with a Y in the “Sensitive” column in the California Sensitive Natural Communities List (CDFW 2019). For alliances with State rankings of S1-S3, all associations within them are also considered Sensitive.

USFWS identifies specific areas that are essential for the a species that is proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USFWS critical habitat map is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation within the federal government. Designations affect only federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities.

The survey areas do not include any sensitive communities or USFWS designated critical habitat. Cattail marshes have G5-S5 rarity ranking and are not considered a sensitive natural community. #24..
- 1143 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 5-1

5.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The following describes special-status species that have been documented within nine USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps (Avena, Escalon, Oakdale, Salida, Riverbank, Waterford, Brush Lake, Ceres, and Denair).

5.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
For the purposes of this section, special-status plant species are defined as the following:
▪ Plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 for listed plants and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species). ▪ Plants that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA. ▪ Plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380).
▪ Plants listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the CESA (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 670.5).
▪ Plants listed under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.). ▪ Plants considered sensitive by other federal agencies (i.e., United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management), state and local agencies, or jurisdictions. ▪ Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2, which are defined as:
 Rank 1A - Plants presumed extinct in California
 Rank 1B.1 - Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)  Rank 1B.2 - Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
 Rank 1B.3 - Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known)
 Rank 2 - Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CDFW standards state that species ranked 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B may meet definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA Sections 15380 (b) and (d) (CDFW 2017c). By CNPS standards, the plants of CRPR Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A and #24..
- 1144 -
5-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
2B meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of the California Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing and, therefore, should be considered under CEQA §15380. In general, CRPR Rank 3 plants (plants about which more information is needed) and Rank 4 plants (plants of limited distribution) may not warrant consideration under CEQA §15380.

Based on a query of the CNDDB, CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, and USFWS IPac; a total of 8 special-status plant species have been documented in the project vicinity (refer to Appendix C). Trihydro biologist evaluated the listed species to identify which special-status plant species have the potential to occur on the project site. This analysis compared the known habitat requirements of those 8 species to the project site’s existing conditions, elevation, and soils. In addition, a botanical survey was conducted during the appropriate bloom period to determine of any of the special status-species occurred within the project areas. The only documented occurrences of a special-status plant species in the CNDDB within a five-mile radius of the survey areas is prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata), which is found in cismontane woodlands, meadows, and deep seeps with a range of 985 feet to 6,560 feet. The project is located below the elevation range and therefore this species has no potential to occur. The habitats for the remaining special-status plant species including legenere (Legenere limosa), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata), subtle orache (Atriplex subtilis), beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), and Greenes tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) were also evaluated; however, based on the soil types, elevations and range, these species have no potential to occur within the study areas. Additionally, a botanical survey confirmed no special-status plant species occur within the project areas. A complete list of plant species observed within the survey areas is included in Appendix B.

5.2 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
For the purposes of this section, special-status animal species are defined as the following:
▪ Animals listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species). ▪ Animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA. ▪ Animals that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under the CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380).
▪ Animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened and endangered under the CESA (14 CCR 670.5).
▪ Animal species of special concern to the CDFW (Remsen 1978 for birds; Williams 1986 for mammals). #24..
- 1145 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 5-3
▪ Animal species that are fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]).

Based on a CNDDB and IPaC query, 27 sensitive wildlife species have been documented in the project vicinity (refer to Appendix C). Because this list of species is considered regional, an analysis of the range and habitat preferences of those wildlife species was conducted by the Trihydro Biologist to identify which sensitive wildlife species have the potential to occur within the study areas. Additionally, a wildlife survey was conducted to determine the presence of any special-status animal species and if the project areas provide suitable habitat. Trihydro’s biologist determined that the following 5 special-status animal species have the potential to occur within, or directly adjacent to the survey area:

Swainsons hawk (Buteo swainsoni), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata).

Based on the literature review and field surveys conducted in April of 2023, the study areas may provide suitable habitat to support several special-status wildlife species. The following discussion provides an overview of the general habitat requirements for these species and further detail on the potential for each of these wildlife species to occur in the study areas.

5.2.1 SWAINSONS HAWK
Swainson’s hawk was state listed as a California threatened species on April 17, 1983. This species has no federal listing status. Swainson’s hawk is an uncommon breeding resident and migrant in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen County, and the Mojave Desert. There has been very limited Swainson’s hawk breeding reported from Lanfair Valley, Owens Valley, Fish Lake Valley, Antelope Valley, and in eastern San Luis Obispo County. Swainson’s hawk breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah in the Central Valley and forages in adjacent grasslands or suitable grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures.

Swainson’s hawk breeds in California and winter in Argentina, Mexico, and South America. Swainson’s hawks usually arrive in the Central Valley between March 1 and April 1, and migrate south between September and October.

Swainson’s hawks usually nest in trees adjacent to suitable foraging habitat. Swainson’s hawk nests are usually located in trees near the edges of riparian stands, in lone trees or groves of trees in agricultural fields, and in mature roadside trees. Valley oak, Fremont cottonwood, walnut, and large willow with an average height of about 58 feet, and ranging from 41 to 82 feet, are the most commonly used nest trees in the Central Valley. Suitable foraging areas for Swainson’s hawk include native grasslands or lightly grazed pastures, alfalfa and other hay crops, idle land, certain grain and row croplands, and ruderal lands. Swainson’s hawks primarily feed on voles; however, they will feed on a variety of prey including small mammals, birds, and insects.
#24..
- 1146 -
5-4 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
There are no known or recorded Swainson’s hawk nests within or near the project sites or in the City of Modesto, with the nearest recorded nest approximately 15 miles north (CNDDB 2023). While there is a low potential and it is unlikely for Swainson’s hawk to nest near any of the basins, suitable nesting trees occur adjacent to La Coste Lane P1N and P2S MAR basin, where the nearest documented CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the study area adjacent to Dry Creek. Additionally, these areas provide potential foraging habitat. Therefore, the species has a moderate potential to occur. Trees surrounding the other basins are smaller, ornamental trees that are maintained by the City or adjacent residents and do not provide suitable nesting habitat.

5.2.2 BURROWING OWL
Burrowing owl is considered a SCSC species by the CDFW. Burrowing owls are small, brown, long-legged owls of the open country. They are found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, and desert habitats often associated with burrowing animals. They can also inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon and ponderosa pine habitats at elevations ranging from 200 feet below sea level to 9,000 feet. Breeding in Central California has been reduced to only three isolated populations: The Central Valley (including the Carrizo Pains), southern San Francisco Bay between Alameda and Redwood City, and near the Livermore area (DeSante et al. 1997). Breeding typically occurs in California from March to August, and burrowing owls overwinter in lower elevations and coastal areas from September to February (Gervais et al.2008).

Suitable open grassland habitat and California ground squirrel burrows occur occurs within the study area (all basins).

The nearest CNDDB occurrence documented approximately 3 miles north of Merle Ave. MAR basin. Therefore, the species has a moderate potential to occur within the study area.

5.2.3 CROTCH BUMBLE BEE
Crotch bumble bees are listed as a state candidate for being endangered. Their habitat range is from Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

Food plants (Eschscholzia) are present and a CNDDB occurrence has been documented in the study area; however, the occurrence was documented in 1968. No recent occurrences of the species have been documented; therefore, the species has a moderate potential to occur at Merle Ave. basin, La Coste Lane P1N and P2S MAR basins. #24..
- 1147 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 5-5

5.2.4 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LEGLESS LIZARD
Northern California legless lizard, a CDFW SSC, is found from the Bay Area south through the Central Valley and within the central and southern coast ranges of California. It is found from sea level up to approximately 6,000 feet and is found in a variety of plant communities. Northern California legless lizards occupy sandy or loose organic soils that contain sparse vegetative cover, and prefer coastal dune, valley-foothill chaparral, and coastal scrub vegetation communities. Moist soil and abundant leaf litter are essential habitat components for legless lizards.

Suitable sandy soils with soil moisture required by the species occurs at Ustach Park basin, Well 65 basin, and Merle Ave. basin; however, vegetation is dense. No CNDDB occurrences have been documented within 5 miles of the study area. Therefore, the species has a low potential to occur.

5.2.5 WESTERN POND TURTLE
The western pond turtle is considered a SSC species by CDFW. Western pond turtles inhabit ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. They need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

Although suitable basking sites occur at Ustach Park basin, Well 65 basin, and Merle Ave. basin, suitable aquatic habitats within the study area are marginal. No CNDDB occurrences have been documented within 5 miles of the study area. However, an unknown species of turtle was observed in Ustach Park; therefore, the species has a low potential to occur.

5.3 HABITAT CONNECTIVITY
Ephemeral creeks and open grasslands can provide wildlife movement corridors and are important in linking noncontiguous or fragmented wildlife habitats. There are no known or identified migration corridors within the study areas. There are no creeks directly within the project area; however, several of the study areas are near Dry Creek.

Therefore, there are no existing barriers to wildlife movement within the project area and none would occur after the proposed project.
#24..
- 1148 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 6-1

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION
This impact assessment focuses on identifying potential impacts associated with any project activities proposed within project boundaries that could have an adverse effect on special-status species, habitats, and jurisdictional areas within project boundaries and the study areas. The impact analysis is based on the existing conditions, regulatory setting, and the activities proposed within the project boundaries. Adverse impacts could occur if implementation of any activities would result in temporary or permanent modification to sensitive habitats or to habitats occupied by special-status species. Where potential project-related impacts to sensitive resources have been identified, measures for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects to these resources are recommended.

6.1 RAPTORS, MIGRATORY BIRDS, NESTING BIRDS
The project site supports foraging habitat for special-status bird species, in addition to common nesting birds which are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code §3503. The project site supports ground nesting and burrowing habitat. No tree nesting habitat is present within the project site; however, tree nesting habitat may be present nearby. These species may be affected by equipment, noise, dust, and increased human presence. If any migratory bird (common species, raptors, or other special-status birds) nests in areas where direct disturbance would occur, work during the breeding season (typically February 1 to August 31) could result in the destruction or abandonment of nests, eggs, or young. Active nests could be removed, trampled, or crushed by project activities and use of access roads during project activities; in addition, the noise, vibration, and movement of equipment and personnel proximate to active nests could cause adults to abandon eggs or young. Indirect impacts could also result from noise and disturbance associated with project activities, which could alter perching, foraging, and/or nesting behaviors. The implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures such as appropriate timing of vegetation removal, pre-activity surveys, and exclusion zones will reduce the potential for adverse effects to nesting bird species during project activities.

BIO-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to initiation of project activities including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project shall attend WEAP training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of disturbance and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with the project. All employees shall sign a form documenting that they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them.
#24..
- 1149 -
6-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
BIO-2 To avoid take of nesting birds, and raptor nests at any time of year (including inactive nests), vegetation disturbance, site access, and initial ground disturbance shall occur outside the nesting season, which is typically February 1 to August 31, if possible, to avoid birds that may be nesting within areas of disturbance during or just prior to project activities.

BIO-3 Nests, eggs, or young of birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code would not be moved or disturbed until the end of the nesting season or until young fledge, whichever is later, nor would adult birds be killed, injured, or harassed at any time.

BIO-4 If project activities must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre-disturbance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer. Predisturbance nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and shall be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors onsite and within the designated vicinity. If no nests are observed no further mitigation is required.

BIO-5 Prior to project activities, a burrowing owl survey will be conducted in areas where suitable burrowing habitat may be present (i.e., grassland habitat) during breeding season (March through August). At least two surveys should be conducted within two weeks of ground disturbance and should be conducted two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset or one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise. If project activities occur overwinter or during the non-breeding season (typically December through January), then surveys should be conducted when the owls are likely to be present, typically near dusk or dawn, but not when temperature are cold or freezing, high winds, dense fog, or rain. If the presence of burrowing owls is confirmed, the following avoidance measures shall be implemented:
• Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (typically March through August) unless a qualified biologist verifies, through noninvasive methods, that either (1) the burrow is not being used for breeding, (2) a previously active nest has failed and the burrow is no longer active, or (3) all juveniles from the occupied burrow are foraging independently and capable of independent survival and the burrow is no longer an active nest burrow. Owls present after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. Nestprotection buffers described below shall remain in effect until August 31st or until the nest has failed or all juvenile owls are foraging independently, based on monitoring evidence as determined by a qualified biologist.
• Site-specific, no-disturbance buffer zones shall be established and maintained between project activities and occupied burrows, using the distances recommended by CDFW. #24..
- 1150 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 6-3
• Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season. If project activities have the potential to impact active burrowing owl burrows, then a passive relocation or exclusion plan will be developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW. Passive relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to alternate natural or artificial burrows that are beyond 50 meters from the impact zone and that are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls. Relocation of owls should only be implemented during the non-breeding season.

BIO-6 Prior to project activities during the nesting season at the La Coste P1N and P2S basin sites, a Swainson’s Hawk nesting survey will be conducted in the immediate project area to determine presence. Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2002).

Surveys should be completed for two survey periods prior to the project’s initiation per the following survey dates and timing: Period I: January to March 20 (optional), all day, 1 survey; Period II: March 20 to April 5, sunrise to 1000 and 1600 to sunset, 3 surveys; Period III: April 5 to April 20, sunrise 1200 and 1630 to sunset, 3 surveys; Period IV: surveys not recommended; Period V: June 10 to July 30, sunrise to 1200 and 1600 to sunset, 3 surveys. If a nest is identified within a half-mile of project activities, a monitoring plan detailing avoidance measures shall be prepared in coordination with CDFW.

BIO-7 Work activities shall be avoided within 100 feet of active bird nests and 250 feet of active raptor nests until young birds have fledged and left the nest. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in areas where nests must be avoided. No ground disturbance shall occur within this exclusion area until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed, and all the young have fledged. If exclusion zones are determined to be infeasible, a full-time qualified biological monitor must be onsite to monitoring project activities within the buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted.

6.2 PROJECT EFFECT ON SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The proposed project has the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to special-status species; however, the following mitigation measures discussed below have been designed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

BIO-8 A pre-disturbance survey of the proposed project area for special-status bumble bees including crotch bumble bee shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to confirm no special-status bumble bees are present in the work area if project activities are proposed within the colony active period, typically between April and August. If project activities occur outside the colony active period, then burrows that #24..
- 1151 -
6-4 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
have the potential to be used as overwintering habitat by crotch bumble queens should be surveyed. To the extent practicable, surveys should be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Ac t (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023b). At least two surveys should be conducted within 4 weeks of the project and should occur on separate days, and if practicable, separate weeks. Surveys should occur during the day (at least an hour after sunrise and at least two hours before sunset, though ideally between 9am-1pm) on warm, but not hot, sunny days (65-90 degrees F), with low wind (less than 8 mph). A pre-disturbance memo documenting observations shall be prepared and made available to the City, and CDFW if a bumble bee species is detected.

BIO-9 A pre-disturbance survey of the proposed project area for special-status amphibians including northern California legless lizard and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of project activities to confirm no special-status amphibians are present in the work area. A pre-disturbance memo documenting observations shall be prepared and made available to the City.

BIO-10 If a special-status species is observed in the project area, then those areas shall be flagged and avoided and CDFW shall be notified. Other avoidance measures may be determined or applied per specific species as identified in the WEAP training and/or a in coordination with CDFW. Observations of special-status species should be documented on California Natural Diversity Database forms and submitted to the CDFW upon project completion.

6.3 PROJECT EFFECT ON MOVEMENT OF RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH AND WILDLIFE

SPECIES
The project does not propose any activities near or within any streams that would impede migratory fish. Minor disturbance to grassland habitat may occur as a result of the project; however, no effects on wildlife movement are expected to occur during project activities because suitable corridors around the site would remain intact. All impacts would be minor and temporary; therefore, no mitigation is recommended. #24..
- 1152 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 7-1

7.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D H. Goldman, D J. Keil, R. Patterson, T J. Rosatti, and D H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, Second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. November 2019. Available at: <https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities> Accessed on: June 4, 2023.

CDFW. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5. Accessed on: June 2, 2023.

CDFW. 2023b. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Ac t (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6, 2023. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline CDFW. 2021. California Wildlife Habitats Relationships Life History Accounts and Range Maps. Available at:
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Accessed through January 2021.

CalHerps (California Herps). 2021. Species Account. Available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.californiaherps.com.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Electronic Inventory of Endangered and Rare Plants. Available at:
www.cnps.org/. Accessed on: June 4, 2023.

DeSante, D.F., E.D. Ruhlen, S.L. Adamany, K.M. Burton, and S. Amin. 1997. A census of burrowing owls in central California in 1991. Pages 38-48 in Lincer, J.L. and K. Steenhof (editors). The Burrowing Owl; its biology and management: including the Proceedings of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California/Status and Distribution. Available at:
<https://www.carolinabirdclub.org/chat/issues/1981/v45n4review_Garrett_Dunn.pdf> The Chat: p. 112.

Accessed on: June 4, 2023..
#24..
- 1153 -
7-2 20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx
Gervais, J.A., D.K Rosenberg and L.A. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing Owl. Studies of Western Birds. 1:218-226, 2008.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Description of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

Hoover, Robert F. 1970. The vascular plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. University of California Press:

Berkeley, California.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp.

MacCraken, J.G., D.W. Uresk and R. M. Hansen. 1985. Vegetation and Soils of Burrowing Nest Sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. The Condor 87:152-154.

Orloff, S. 2011. Movement patterns and migration distances in an upland population of California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(2):266-276.

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern List. June 1978. Available at:
<http://www.prbo.org/cms/docs/ecol/Remsenlist1978.pdf> Accessed on: June 4, 2023.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1,300 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1972. California Reptiles and Amphibians. Berkeley, London, and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May 31, 2000.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. #24..
- 1154 -
20230728_COM-BRA_RPT.docx 7-3
United States Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2023a. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed June 4, 2023.

USDA-NRCS. 2023b. State Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List. Accessed at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Available at:
<https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. Accessed: May 31, 2023.

USFWS. 2023b. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/>. Accessed on:

May 31, 2023.

Williams, Daniel F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. California State University, Stanislaus, Department of Biological Sciences. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83760>.

Accessed on: May 31, 2023.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volumes I (amphibians and reptiles), II (birds), and III (mammals). California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. November 1990. #24..
- 1155 -

FIGURES
#24..
- 1156 -
Last exported to pdf from ArcGIS Pro by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 4:59 PM. 1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
File: 1_COM_BRA
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Drawn By: NM Checked By: JH Scale: 1" = 2,200' Date: 6/14/23

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA

PARCEL REGIONAL MAP
FIGURE 1
WELL 65 MAR

BASIN APN
077-007-021

MERLE AVENUE

MAR BASIN APN
085-004-006

USTACH PARK

MAR BASIN APN
077-009-053
LA COSTE LANE P2

SOUTH MAR BASIN
APN 014-037-056
LA COSTE LANE P1

NORTH MAR BASIN
APN 014-037-056
Dry Creek

CLAUS ROAD

OAKDALE ROAD

MERLE AVE

EAST BRIGSMORE AVE

EAST ORANGEBURG AVE

FLOYD AVE ROSELLE AVE
J7

MOULTON LATERAL

EXPLANATION
ROAD

LATERAL
STREAM
PARCEL

PROJECT

LOCATION
0 ­
2,200'
99 49
5 Stanislaus
National Forest
Livermore Modesto
Stockton
San Jose 0 40
Miles
#24..
- 1157 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
0 ­
300'
Drawn By: NM Date: 6/14/23
FIGURE 2

MERLE AVENUE MAR BASIN
APN 085-004-006

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd

MOULTON LATERAL

EXPLANATION

LATERAL
BASIN
PARCEL

SURVEY AREA

HABITAT TYPE

ANNUAL GRASSLAND

CATTAIL MARSH

DEVELOPED

FIDDLENECK
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 10:30 PM. 219
Modesto
J7
Scale: 1" = 300'
0 5
Miles
#24..
- 1158 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
Scale: 1" = 120'

EXPLANATION

LATERAL
BASIN
PARCEL

SURVEY AREA

HABITAT TYPE

ANNUAL GRASSLAND

CATTAIL MARSH

DEVELOPED

FIDDLENECK
0 ­
120'
Drawn By: NM Date: 6/14/23
FIGURE 3
WELL 65 MAR BASIN
APN 077-007-021

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd

MOULTON LATERAL
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 10:28 PM.

AURORA

SHACKELFORD

M ODE S TO
J7
EMPIRE
0 4
Miles
#24..
- 1159 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729

EXPLANATION

LATERAL
BASIN
PARCEL

SURVEY AREA

HABITAT TYPE

ANNUAL GRASSLAND

CATTAIL MARSH

DEVELOPED

FIDDLENECK
Scale: 1" = 300'
0 ­
300'
Drawn By: NM Date: 6/14/23
FIGURE 4

USTACH PARK MAR BASIN
APN 077-009-053

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 10:29 PM. 219
Modesto
J7
0 5
Miles
#24..
- 1160 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
Scale: 1" = 200'

EXPLANATION
BASIN
PARCEL

SURVEY AREA

HABITAT TYPE

ANNUAL GRASSLAND

CATTAIL MARSH

DEVELOPED

FIDDLENECK
0 ­
200'
Drawn By: NM Date: 7/5/23
FIGURE 5
LA COSTE LANE P1 NORTH MAR BASIN
APN 014-037-056

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 7/5/2023, 4:28 PM. 219
Modesto
J7
0 5
Miles
#24..
- 1161 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
Scale: 1" = 150'

EXPLANATION
BASIN
PARCEL

SURVEY AREA

HABITAT TYPE

ANNUAL GRASSLAND

CATTAIL MARSH

DEVELOPED

FIDDLENECK
0 ­
150'
Drawn By: NM Date: 6/14/23
FIGURE 6
LA COSTE LANE P2 SOUTH MAR BASIN
APN 014-037-056

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 10:29 PM. 219
Modesto
J7
0 5
Miles
#24..
- 1162 -
Last exported to pdf from ArcGIS Pro by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 6:17 PM. 1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
File: 7_COM_BRA_Soil
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Drawn By: NM Checked By: JH Scale: 1" = 110' Date: 6/14/23

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA

MERLE AVENUE MAR BASIN SOIL MAP
APN 085-004-006
FIGURE 7

MERLE AVE
BASIN

MERLE AVE -

POTENTIAL
­

SPOIL AREA
0 110
Feet
Soil Type:

DmA - Dinuba fine sandy loam,
0 to 1 percent slopes, MLRA 17
HbsA- Hanford fine sandy loam,
deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent
slopes.
#24..
- 1163 -
Last exported to pdf from ArcGIS Pro by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 6:24 PM. 1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
File: 8_COM_BRA_Soil
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Drawn By: NM Checked By: JH Scale: 1" = 30' Date: 6/14/23

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
WELL 65 MAR BASIN SOIL MAP
APN 077-007-021
FIGURE 8
W65 SW

DETENTION
BASIN
0 ­
30 Feet
Soil Type:

HdSA - Hanford sandy loam,
deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
#24..
- 1164 -
Last exported to pdf from ArcGIS Pro by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 6:41 PM. 1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
File: 9_COM_BRA_Soil
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Drawn By: NM Checked By: JH Scale: 1" = 65' Date: 6/14/23

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA

USTACH PARK MAR BASIN SOIL MAP
APN 077-009-053
FIGURE 9
USTACH
0 65
Feet
Soil Type:

MdA - Madera sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
MkA- Meikle clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Mma - Modesto clay loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
SnA- Snelling sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
­
#24..
- 1165 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
Scale: 1" = 150'
Soil Type:

HdA - Hanford sandy loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes
Tx - Terrace escarpments 0
­
150'
Drawn By: NM Date: 6/14/23
FIGURE 10
LA COSTE LANE P1 NORTH MAR BASIN
APN 014-037-056

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd
LCL MID TANK 1
- TREATED WATER
P1N EMBANKMENT
- 12 ACRES
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 7:47 PM. #24..
- 1166 -
1252 Commerce Drive
Laramie, WY 82070
www.trihydro.com
(P) 307/745.7474 (F) 307/745.7729
Scale: 1" = 95'
Soil Type:

HbpA - Hanford fine sandy loam,
moderately deep over silt, 0 to 1
percent slopes
HdA - Hanford sandy loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes
0 ­
95'
Drawn By: NM Date: 6/14/23
FIGURE 11
LA COSTE LANE P2 SOUTH MAR BASIN SOIL MAP
APN 014-037-056

CITY OF MODESTO

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: JH File: CityofModesto_BRA.mxd
L:\CITY OF MODESTO - DOCUMENTS\GIS\MAPPING\BRA_FORISMND\GH-BIOSURVEY\BIOLOGICALSURVEY\CITYOFMODESTO_BRA.APRX Last exported to pdf from ArcMap by nmelady on 6/14/2023, 10:24 PM. #24..
- 1167 -

APPENDIX A

PHOTO LOG
#24..
- 1168 -
APPENDIX A. PHOTO LOG
202306_PhotoLog_APP-A.docx 1 of 5
Photo 1. Merle Ave - Looking north to the assessment area (5/23).

Photo 2. Merle Ave - Looking south to the assessment area (5/23). #24..
- 1169 -
APPENDIX A. PHOTO LOG
2 of 5 202306_PhotoLog_APP-A.docx
Photo 3. City Well 65 - Looking north at the assessment area (2/23).

Photo 4. City Well 65 - Looking south to the assessment area (2/23). #24..
- 1170 -
APPENDIX A. PHOTO LOG
202306_PhotoLog_APP-A.docx 3 of 5
Photo 5. Ustach Park - Looking north to the assessment area (2/23).

Photo 6. Ustach Park - Looking south to the assessment area (2/23). #24..
- 1171 -
APPENDIX A. PHOTO LOG
4 of 5 202306_PhotoLog_APP-A.docx
Photo 7. La Coste P1N - Looking northwest at central and western portions of the assessment area (2/23).

Photo 8. La Coste P1N. - Looking east at the central and eastern portions of the assessment area (2/23). #24..
- 1172 -
APPENDIX A. PHOTO LOG
202306_PhotoLog_APP-A.docx 5 of 5
Photo 9. La Coste P2S - Looking north at the assessment area (2/23).

Photo 10. La Coste P2S - Looking south at the assessment area (2/23). #24..
- 1173 -

APPENDIX B

PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
#24..
- 1174 -
APPENDIX B. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA
202306_PlantSpeciesObserved_APP-B.docx 1 of 2
Observed Plant Species
Genus Species Common Name Family Status
Amaranthus albus tumbleweed Amaranthaceae Non-native
Ambrosia psilostachya ragweed Asteraceae Native
Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort Asteraceae Native Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Asteraceae Invasive Cichorium intybus Chicory Asteraceae Non-native
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Asteraceae Non-native
Matricaria discoidea pineapple weed Asteraceae Native
Senecio vulgaris common groundsel Asteraceae Non-native Silybum marianum milk thistle Asteraceae Invasive
Amsinckia lycopsoides tarweed fiddleneck Boraginaceae Native Brassica nigra black mustard Brassicaceae Invasive
Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepard's purse Brassicaceae Non-native Raphanus sativus jointed charlock Brassicaceae Invasive Stellaria media chickweed Caryophyllaceae Non-native
Dysphania pumilio
Tasmanian
goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Non-native
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Convovulaceae Non-native Cuscuta sp. dodder Convovulaceae Native
Carex sp. sedge Cyperaceae Native
Croton setiger turkey-mullein Euphorbiaceae Native
Lupinus sp. Lupine Fabaceae Native
Medicago polymorpha California burclover Fabaceae Invasive Trifolium sp. clover Fabaceae Non-native
Vicia villosa hairy vetch Fabaceae Non-native
Juglans regia English walnut Juglandaceae Non-native
Malva parviflora cheeseweed Malvaceae Non-native
Claytonia perfoliata Miner's lettuce Montiaceae Native
Morus alba mulberry Moraceae Non-native
Lysimachia arvensis scarley pimpernel Myrsinaceae Non-native Eschscholzia californica California poppy Papaveraceae Native Callitriche marginata
winged water
starwort Plantaginaceae Native
Nuttallanthus texanus blue toadflax Plantaginaceae Native Plantago lanceolata ribwort Plantaginaceae Invasive
Veronica
anagallisaquatica water speedwell Plantaginaceae Non-native Veronica persica bird's eye speedwell Plantaginaceae Non-native Arundo donax Giant reed Poaceae Invasive
Avena barbata slim oat Poaceae Invasive
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Poaceae Invasive
#24..
- 1175 -
APPENDIX B. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA
2 of 2 202306_PlantSpeciesObserved_APP-B.docx
Observed Plant Species
Genus Species Common Name Family Status
Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Poaceae Invasive
Bromus rubens red brome Poaceae Invasive
Cynosurus echinatus Dogtail grass Poaceae Invasive
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass Poaceae Invasive
Hordeum murinum foxtail barley Poaceae Invasive
Poa annua annual blue grass Poaceae Non-native
Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Poaceae Non-native
Persicaria sp. knotweed Polygonaceae Non-native
Rumex crispus curly dock Polygonaceae Invasive
Portulaca oleraceae Common purslane Portulaceae Non-native Prunus dulcis sweet almond Rosaceae Non-native
Galium aparine Cleavers Rubiaceae Native
Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Simaroubaceae Invasive Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Solanaceae Invasive
#24..
- 1176 -

APPENDIX C

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES TABLES
#24..
- 1177 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 1 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Amphibian
Ambystoma
californiense pop. 1
California tiger
salamander -
central California
DPS
Threatened Threatened WL Lives in vacant or mammaloccupied burrows throughout most of the year; in grassland,
savanna, or open woodland
habitats.

Need underground refuges,
especially ground squirrel
burrows, and vernal pools or
other seasonal water sources for
breeding.

Although estivation habitat (ground
squirrel burrows) is present, no
suitable aquatic breeding habitat is
present in the study area. CTS are
known to travel approximately 1.3
miles from breeding ponds, the
surrounding area is developed, and
no CNDDB occurrences have been
documented within 5 miles of the
study area. Therefore, the species
has no potential to occur.

Birds
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle None None FP | WL Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert.

Cliff-walled canyons provide
nesting habitat in most parts of
range; also, large trees in open
areas.

No suitable nesting habitat or foraging
habitat occurs within the study area.

Therefore, the species is not
expected to occur.

Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
bald eagle Threatened Endangered FP Forested areas near open water or near cliffs lacking trees. Nests
in tall trees near open areas.

No suitable nesting habitat or foraging
habitat occurs within the study area.

Therefore, the species is not
expected to occur.

Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
cackling (=Aleutian
Canada) goose
Delisted None WL Winters on lakes and inland
prairies. Forages on natural
pasture or that cultivated to
grain; loafs on lakes, reservoirs,
ponds.

No potential to occur at Merle Ave
Basin, Well 65 Basin, and Ustach
Park Basin. Species may utilize the
sites for foraging in the winter, but
they do not breed in California.
#24..
- 1178 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 2 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Buteo swainsoni Swainsons hawk None Threatened - Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage
flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
and agricultural or ranch lands
with groves or lines of trees.

Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as
grasslands, or alfalfa or grain
fields supporting rodent
populations.

Suitable nesting trees occur adjacent
to LCL P1N Mar North and South and
the nearest CNDDB occurrence is
documented approximately 0.5 miles
northeast of the study area adjacent
to Dry Creek. Therefore, the species
has a moderate potential to occur.

Circus hudsonius northern harrier None None SSC Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and forage in
grasslands, from salt grass in
desert sink to mountain
cienagas.

Nests on ground in shrubby
vegetation, usually at marsh
edge; nest built of a large mound
of sticks in wet areas.

No nesting habitat is present within or
adjacent to the study area
(approximately 250 feet). Therefore,
the species has no potential to occur.

Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None Threatened SSC Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic to
California.

Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging
area with insect prey within a
few km of the colony.

No suitable open water habitat occurs
within the study area. The species
was not observed during the survey
and no CNDDB occurrences
documented within 5 miles of the
study area; therefore, the species has
no potential to occur.
#24..
- 1179 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 3 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Icteria virens yellow-breasted
chat
None None SSC Summer resident; inhabits
riparian thickets of willow and
other brushy tangles near
watercourses.

Nests in low, dense riparian,
consisting of willow, blackberry,
wild grape; forages and nests
within 10 ft of ground.

No suitable riparian thicket of willows
or dense riparian habitat with
blackberry occurs within the study
area. No CNDDB occurrences have
been documented within 5 miles of
the study area. Therefore, the species
has no potential to occur within the
study area.

Asio flammeus short-eared owl None None SSC Found in swamp lands, both fresh and salt; lowland
meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields.

Tule patches/tall grass needed
for nesting/daytime seclusion.

Nests on dry ground in
depression concealed in
vegetation.

No suitable tule patches or
swamp/meadow habitat occurs within
the study area. No CNDDB
occurrences have been documented
within 5 miles of the study area;
therefore, the species has no
potential to occur.

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent
upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Suitable open grassland habitat and
California ground squirrel burrows
occur occurs within the study area (all
basins). The nearest CNDDB
occurrence documented
approximately 3 miles north of Merle
Avenue Mar Basin. Therefore, the
species has a moderate potential to
occur within the study area.
#24..
- 1180 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 4 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Crustaceans
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Threatened None - Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, Central Coast
mountains, and South Coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled
pools.

Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression pools and
grassed swale, earth slump, or
basalt-flow depression pools.

Although ponding with grassed
swales occurs within Ustach Park
Basin, Well 65 Basin and Merle
Basin, the ponds are not astatic rainfilled pools. No vernal pool habitat occurs within the study area. The
nearest CNDDB occurrence is
documented 1.73 miles northeast of
Ustach Park Basin. Therefore, the
species has no potential to occur
within the study area.

Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Endangered None - Inhabits vernal pools and swales
in the Sacramento Valley
containing clear to highly turbid
water.

Pools commonly found in grassbottomed swales of unplowed grasslands. Some pools are
mud-bottomed and highly turbid.

Although ponding with grassed
swales occurs within Ustach Park
Basin, Well 65 Basin and Merle
Basin, the ponds are not astatic rainfilled pools. No vernal pool habitat occurs within the study area. The
nearest CNDDB occurrence is
documented 1.73 miles northeast of
Ustach Park Basin. Therefore, the
species has no potential to occur
within the study area.
#24..
- 1181 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 5 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Fish
Acipenser
medirostris pop. 1
green sturgeon -
southern DPS
Threatened None - Spawning site fidelity. Spawns
in the Sacramento, Feather and
Yuba Rivers. Presence in upper
Stanislaus and San Joaquin
Rivers may indicate spawning.

Non-spawning adults occupy
marine/estuarine waters. Delta
Estuary is important for rearing
juveniles.

Spawning occurs primarily in
cool (11-15 C) sections of
mainstem rivers in deep pools
(8-9 meters) with substrate
containing small to medium
sized sand, gravel, cobble, or
boulder.

No suitable aquatic habitat,
Stanislaus River or San Joaquin
Rivers, occur within the study area;
therefore, the species has no
potential to occur.

Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin None None SSC Requires permanent, cool, headwater streams with riffles
and rocky substrates.

No suitable aquatic habitat, cool
headwater streams, occur within the
study area; therefore, the species has
no potential to occur.

Lavinia exilicauda
exilicauda
Sacramento hitch None None SSC Requires warm, lowland, waters including clear streams, turbid
sloughs, lakes and reservoirs.

Present in the Sacramento
River, Beardsley Reservoir, San
Luis Reservoir, Bass Lake and
the California Aqueduct.

No suitable aquatic habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.
#24..
- 1182 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 6 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
hardhead None None SSC Low to mid-elevation streams in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin
drainage. Also present in the
Russian River.

Clear, deep pools with sandgravel-boulder bottoms and slow water velocity. Not found where
exotic centrarchids predominate.

No suitable aquatic habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus
Sacramento
splittail
None None SSC Endemic to the lakes and rivers
of the Central Valley, but now
confined to the Delta, Suisun
Bay and associated marshes.

Slow moving river sections, dead
end sloughs. Requires flooded
vegetation for spawning and
foraging for young.

The study area is located outside the
geographical range of the species;
therefore, the species has no
potential to occur.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
11 steelhead - Central
Valley DPS
Threatened None - Populations in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers and their
tributaries.

No suitable aquatic habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop. 11
chinook salmon -
Central Valley
spring-run ESU
Threatened Threatened - Adult numbers depend on pool
depth and volume, amount of
cover, and proximity to gravel.

Water temps >27 C are lethal to
adults.

Federal listing refers to
populations spawning in
Sacramento River and
tributaries.

No suitable aquatic habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.
#24..
- 1183 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 7 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop. 13
chinook salmon -
Central Valley fall /
late fall-run ESU
None None SSC Populations spawning in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers and their tributaries.

No suitable aquatic habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Insects
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None Candidate
Endangered
- Coastal California east to the
Sierra-Cascade crest and south
into Mexico.

Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia,
and Eriogonum.

Food plants (Eschscholzia) are
present and a CNDDB occurrence
has been documented in the study
area; however, the occurrence was
documented in 1968. No recent
occurrences of the species have been
documented; therefore, the species
has a moderate potential to occur at
Merle Ave Basin, LCL P1N MAR
Basin, and LCL P25 MAR Basin.

Bombus occidentalis western bumble
bee
None Candidate
Endangered
- Once common and widespread,
species has declined
precipitously from central CA to
southern B.C., perhaps from
disease.

Flowering plants occur within the
study area. No CNDDB occurrences
have been documented within 5 miles
of the study area and the study areas
are out of its documented range; therefore, the species has a no potential to occur.

Danus plexippus Monarch butterfly Candidate None - Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico. Roosts located in windprotected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby.

No eucalyptus trees or suitable
habitat within project area. No
potential to occur.
#24..
- 1184 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 8 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Mammals
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat None None SSC Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, chaparral,
etc.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees and tunnels.

No suitable roosting habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsends bigeared batNone None SSC Throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most
common in mesic sites.

Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls and ceilings.

Roosting sites limiting.

Extremely sensitive to human
disturbance.

No suitable roosting habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Lasiurus frantzii western red bat None None SSC Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40 ft above ground, from sea level up
through mixed conifer forests.

Prefers habitat edges and
mosaics with trees that are
protected from above and open
below with open areas for
foraging.

No suitable roosting habitat occurs
within the study area; therefore, the
species has no potential to occur
#24..
- 1185 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 9 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed Status State Status CDFW Status Habitat1 Occurrence Potential
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra Northern California
legless lizard
None None SSC Sandy or loose loamy soils
under sparse vegetation.

Soil moisture is essential. They
prefer soils with a high moisture
content.

Suitable sandy soils with soil moisture
required by the species occurs at
Ustach Park Basin, Well 65 Basin,
and Merle Ave Basin; however,
vegetation is dense. No CNDDB
occurrences have been documented
within 5 miles of the study area.

Therefore, the species has a low
potential to occur.

Emys marmorata western pond
turtle
None None SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers, streams
and irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation, below
6000 ft elevation.

Needs basking sites and suitable
(sandy banks or grassy open
fields) upland habitat up to 0.5
km from water for egg-laying.

Although suitable basking sites occur
at Ustach Park Basin, Well 65 Basin,
and Merle Ave Basin, no suitable
aquatic habitat occurs within the study
area. No CNDDB occurrences have
been documented within 5 miles of
the study area. However, an
unidentified turtle species was
observed in the Ustach basin.

Therefore, the species has a low
potential to occur.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned lizard None None SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes.

Open areas for sunning, bushes
for cover, patches of loose soil
for burial, and abundant supply
of ants and other insects.

No suitable habitat or food source
required by the species occurs within
the study area. Therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.
#24..
- 1186 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 10 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed State CRPR Habitat1 Notes Vegetation
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
None None - Seasonal depressional wetlands
that occur under Mediterranean
climate conditions. They are
covered by shallow water for
variable periods from winter to
spring but may be completely dry for
most of the summer and fall.

Although Ustach Park Basin, Well 65
Basin, and Merle Ave Basin contain
standing water, no seasonal
depressional wetlands occur within
the study area.

Legenere limosa legenere None None 1B.1 In beds of vernal pools. 1-1005 m.

Flowering time: May – June
No suitable vernal pool habitat occurs
within the study area. Species was
not observed in early season
botanical survey. Therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata
heartscale None None 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps.

Alkaline flats and scalds in the
Central Valley, sandy soils. 3-275
m.

Flowering time: Jun - July
No suitable alkaline soils occur within
the study area. Species was not
observed in early season botanical
survey. Therefore, the species has
no potential to occur.

Atriplex subtilis subtle orache None None 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland.

Alkaline soils. 20-100 m.

Flowering time: Jun – Oct
No suitable alkaline soils occur within
the study area. Species was not
observed in early season botanical
survey. Therefore, the species has
no potential to occur.

Clarkia rostrata beaked clarkia None None 1B.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. North-facing
slopes; sometimes on sandstone.
60-915 m.

Flowering time: Apr – May
The project is located below the
elevation range of the species.

Therefore, the species has no
potential to occur.

Neostapfia
colusana
Colusa grass Threatened Endangered 1B.1 Vernal pools. Usually in the bottoms of large, or deep vernal
pools; adobe soils. 5-125 m.

Flowering time: May - Aug
Species was not observed in early
season botanical survey and there
are no vernal pools or habitats that
support this species. Therefore, this
species has no potential to occur.
#24..
- 1187 -
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE REGIONAL VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 20230717_SpecialStatusSpeciesOccurrencePotential_APP-C.docx 11 of 11 Scientific Name Common Name Fed State CRPR Habitat1 Notes Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
Threatened Endangered 1B.1 Vernal pools, 10 – 755m.

Flowering time: Apr – Sep
No vernal pool habitat is present
within the study area. Species was
not observed in early season
botanical survey. Therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge grass None None 2B.2 Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps.

Open moist sites, along rivers and
springs, alkaline desert seeps. 300-
2000 m.

Flowering time: Apr - June
The project is located below the
elevation range of the species.

Therefore, the species has no
potential to occur.

Tuctoria greenei Greenes tuctoria Endangered Rare 1B.1
Vernal pools in open grasslands.
25-1325 m.

Flowering time: May - Sep
No vernal pool habitat is present
within the study area. Therefore, the
species has no potential to occur.

References:
1California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database” Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved June 4, 2023 from http://bios.dfg.ca.gov.
#24..
- 1188 -
Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D
#24..
- 1189 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 12, 2023 Project 08444.00002.001
Dave Dirkin, P.E.

Trihydro Corporation
9083 Foothills Boulevard, Suite 370
Roseville, CA 95747
Subject: Cultural Resources Letter Report for the City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project, Modesto, Stanislaus County, CA
Dear Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E.:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has prepared this Cultural Resources Letter Report for the proposed City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project (proposed project). The proposed project would consist primarily of: (1) modification of water supply well field pumping operations, i.e., wellfield optimization, to reduce contaminant levels in raw pumped groundwater; and (2) construction of five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins to increase the volume, i.e., recharge, of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system within the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California.

This letter report presents the results of a cultural resources assessment intended to evaluate the potential for the proposed project to significantly impact historical resources. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on data from an archival records search, Native American outreach, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of five MAR basins. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are located within the City of Modesto limits. The La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and Parcel 2 South MAR Basins are located outside City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City’s General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019). The Project would use clean surface water for the MAR basins to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency. The MAR basins are expected to operate for 20 years (2025 through 2045). The basins’ water conveyance structures and site locations are described in more detail below and are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. All figures are provided in Attachment A.
#24..
- 1190 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 2 of 15
May 12, 2023
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The proposed Merle Avenue MAR Basin is 5.50 acres and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006. The Merle Avenue Site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to Modesto Irrigation District’s (MID) Moulton Lateral. Remnants of asphalt paving material exist in the area. The basin is surrounded by residential homes to the north, east, and west and residential homes and the Moulton Lateral to the south. The Merle Avenue Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral Canal. The proposed pipeline would begin in the southeastern corner of the site and move southeast, along the Moulton Canal, until it reaches the canal turnout. The construction staging and materials storage area would be located southwest of the basin.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The proposed Well 65 MAR Basin is 0.75 acre and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on APN 077- 007-021. The Well 65 Site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral.

The basin is surrounded by Orchard Elementary School and an existing water tank to the west, Orchard Elementary School and residential homes to the north, residential homes to the east, and commercial development, residential homes, and the Moulton Lateral to the south. The Well 65 Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral Canal. The proposed pipeline would begin in the southeastern corner of the site and move southeast, along the Moulton Lateral Canal, until it reaches the canal turnout. The construction staging and materials storage areas would be located in a previously disturbed area, west of the basin.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park MAR Basin is 3.00 acres and is located at the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane on APN 077-009-053. The Ustach Park Site is an existing stormwater retention basin. The basin is surrounded by Ustach Park and residential homes to the north, Ustach Middle School to the west, and residential homes to the east and south. The Ustach Park Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing outfall structure located on the northeastern corner of the site. The proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline would begin along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park and move north until it reaches Hillglen Avenue. The pipeline would then move east along Hillglen Avenue until it reaches Roselle Avenue. The pipeline would then move north along Roselle Avenue until it reaches the proposed lift station located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. The proposed lift station would deliver water from the existing MID pipeline to the Ustach Park MAR Basin. The construction staging and materials storage area would be located in an area with an existing storm drainage pump station, southeast of the basin.

La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site
The La Coste Lane Parcel 1 (LCL P1) North MAR Basin is 12.00 acres and is located north of La Coste Lane and west of Frazine Road. The site would be located on APN 014-037-056. The LCL P1 North Site is #24..
- 1191 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 3 of 15
May 12, 2023
comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two.

The basin is surrounded by residential homes and agricultural fields to the north and east, the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station, Southwest (SW) Basin, and open space to the west, and Alice Stroud Elementary School and open space to the south. The LCL P1 North Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed aboveground, 12-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southwestern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed turnout and pump station off the MID Lateral Two. The proposed pipeline would begin on the southwestern corner of the site and move southwest until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site
The La Coste Lane Parcel 2 (LCL P2) South MAR Basin is 7.00 acres and is located south of La Coste Lane, east of Norseman Drive, and north of Garst Road. The LCL P2 South Site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Number Two. The site would be located on APN 014-037-063. The basin is surrounded by the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station, SW Basin, and open space to the north, agricultural fields to the west, Alice Stroud Elementary School to the east, and agricultural fields, Dan Gonsalves Stadium, and MID Lateral Two to the south.

The LCL P2 South Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed aboveground, 12-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed turnout and pump station off the MID Lateral Two. The proposed pipeline would begin in the southeastern corner of the site and move south until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two to the LCL P2 South MAR Basin. The construction staging and materials storage area would be located directly south of the LCL P2 South Site, in an area with fallowed agriculture.

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency by addressing non-point source groundwater contamination from arsenic, nitrate, and uranium in the City and consists primarily of: (1) modification of water supply well field pumping operations, i.e., wellfield optimization, to reduce contaminant levels in raw pumped groundwater; and (2) construction of MAR basins to increase the volume, i.e., recharge, of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system.

The proposed project is located in Section 19 of Township 3 South and Range 10 East, as well as Sections 11, 13, and 14 of Township 3 South and Range 9 East and is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figures 1 and 2 in Attachment A).

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project is defined as the geographic area where proposed project activities may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties of prehistoric or historic age, if any such properties exist (Figures 1, 2, and 3; figures are provided in Attachment A). The approximately 28.25 acres of combined APE for this project includes the area of permanent impacts associated with the proposed project. #24..
- 1192 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 4 of 15
May 12, 2023

ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH
On March 23, 2023, an archival records search in support of the proposed project was conducted by the Central Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Stanislaus. The records search addressed all portions of the APE plus a 0.25-mile radius around the APE (hereafter referred to as the study area). Sources of information examined through this records search included previous survey and cultural resources files; the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility; the OHP Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File; historical topographic maps; and historical aerial photographs.

Previous Studies
The CCIC records search identified six studies that have previously been conducted within 0.25-mile of the APE, but none of these studies included the current APE as part of their survey area. These studies are described briefly in Table 1 below.

Table 1
PREVIOUS STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN 0.25-MILE OF THE APE
Report Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Includes
APE?
ST-00933 1980 Rondeau, M. F. A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Oakdale-Sylvan Road Widening
Project, Stanislaus County, California
Caltrans
District 10
No
ST-01644 1980 JHK and
Associates
Historic Property Survey Report, Oakdale
Road and Sylvan Avenue Modesto
JHK and
Associates, for
Caltrans
District 10
No
ST-05072 2001 Homsey, J. Letter Report Regarding the Proposed Cricket Communications Wireless Facility
Referred to as Orchard School, Stanislaus
County, California (MOD-011-B, Merle
Avenue, APN 077-07-21)
ATC
Associates,
Inc.

No
ST-05783 2005 Billat, L. New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, Project Name: Beyer, Number:

CA-3237B, 2300 E. Briggsmore Avenue,
Modesto, Stanislaus County, California
EarthTouch
Inc.

No
ST-05864 2005 Losee, C. Collocation Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, Cota Colima, FS-034-02, 1608 Wisdom
Way, Modesto, Stanislaus County
Archaeological
Resource
Technology
No
ST-08139 2014 Wills, Carrie D.
and Cher L.

Peterson
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site
Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate
West Basin, Hillglen Avenue at Ustach Park,
Modesto, Stanislaus County, California
Michael
Brandman
Associates,
Inc. for EBI
Consulting
No
#24..
- 1193 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 5 of 15
May 12, 2023
Previously Documented Resources
The CCIC records search identified one previously recorded cultural resource within 0.25-mile radius of the APE, but no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the APE itself. The previously recorded cultural resource within 0.25-mile radius of the APE is described in Table 2.

Table 2
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCE WITHIN 0.25-MILE OF THE APE Primary Trinomial Year Recorder Description In APE?
P-50-002006 CA-STA-000424H 2014 Vallaire, Katie,
and Amanda Rose
of LSA Associates,
Inc.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (1996
to present); Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad, including railroad
line, ancillary buildings and bridge
No
Resource P-50-002006, also known as the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad line, and associated ancillary buildings and bridge system, is located nearly 0.25-mile east of the La Coste Lane P1 North MAR Basin. When last recorded in 2014, this resource was found ineligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation through survey evaluation. Regardless, the activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to impact this resource.

HISTORIC MAPS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Historic maps and historic aerial photographs were examined to provide an understanding of the APE’s historic period land use. Historic topographic maps analyzed included a General Land Office (GLO) Plat Map for Township 3 South Ranges 9 and 10 East from 1854, a Stanislaus County Map from 1906, and USGS Quadrangle Maps for Riverbank from 1953 and 1969. The 19th century GLO maps and 1906 Stanislaus County Map did not show any signs of development within the APE. The USGS Quadrangle Maps from 1953 and 1969 show the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Sites in use as orchards. These maps also depict a few small individual structures in the vicinity of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site, which were likely ancillary structures associated with agricultural efforts in these areas. A few small structures were also seen in the vicinity of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site within the 1953 and 1969 quadrangle maps.

Historic aerial photographs from 1957, 1967, 1984, 1985, 1998, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 were examined for the five different areas within the project’s broader APE. The result of the analyses of these photographs are described separately for each of the five proposed basin improvement locations below.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
Visual analysis of the historic aerial photographs revealed that between 1957 and 1998, the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site area was in agricultural use. As the aerial photographs from these periods reveal individual plants, rather than furrows or rows of indistinguishable plants, it seems likely that the area was used as an orchard. Photographs from 1998 and 2002 reveal that the basin was excavated and constructed sometime between those two years. Sometime between 2002 and 2005, the location of the proposed laydown area south of this basin was cleared and a structure, presumably a pump house #24..
- 1194 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 6 of 15
May 12, 2023
associated with the basin, was installed in the eastern portion of this cleared area. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site has remained in this condition since 2005.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
Visual analysis of the historic aerial photographs revealed that the Well 65 MAR Basin Site area was in use as an agricultural field from 1957 through at least 1967. Sometime between 1967 and 1984, the site area was cleared, and it appears that preparations were made for the area to be converted into a basin.

By 1998, the basin took its current form. Sometime between 1985 and 1998, the lots east of the Well 65 MAR Basin Site were developed into a residential neighborhood. Sometime between 1985 and 1998, the lot west of the Well 65 MAR Basin Site was developed into a water treatment facility. The lots north of the Well 65 MAR Basin Site were gradually cleared and developed into a parking lot and park between 1985 and 2005. The Well 65 MAR Basin Site has remained in this condition since 2005.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
Visual analysis of the historic aerial photographs revealed that the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site area was in use as an agricultural field from 1957 through 2002. The parcel immediately west of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site area was developed into school grounds sometime between 1985 and 1998. It is also clear from this analysis that the basin was excavated and constructed sometime between 2002 and 2005. During this time period, the area north of the basin was also cleared, and a sidewalk was installed around its perimeter, likely in association with the development of Ustach Park. During these same years, the area immediately east of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site area was developed into a residential neighborhood. Between 2005 and 2009, the lots south of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site area were also developed into residential neighborhoods. These conditions have remained constant in the area since 2009.

La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Sites Visual analysis of the historic aerial photographs revealed that the La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site area and the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site area were used as agricultural fields between 1957 and 1985. As the aerial photographs reveal individual plants, rather than furrows or rows of indistinguishable plants, it seems likely that the area was used as an orchard. Sometime between 1985 and 1998, the water treatment facility located north of La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site and south/west of the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site was constructed. Around that same time, the La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site fell into disuse as an agricultural area and appears to remain out of use from 1998 and onward. Evidence of the use of the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site as an agricultural field is present in photographs of the area through 2020.

Ultimately, the only signs of development or structures within the vicinity of the APE during the historic period (unrelated to the extant basins in 3 of the 5 locations of the APE) identified through HELIX’s historic map and historic aerial photograph analysis consisted of a few individual small structures found within the 1953 and 1969 USGS Quadrangle maps of the project vicinity. These structures were likely used in association with nearby agricultural efforts. Nonetheless, efforts to identify remains associated with such structures was a goal of the pedestrian survey. #24..
- 1195 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 7 of 15
May 12, 2023

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH On March 23, 2023, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the APE. On March 30, 2023, HELIX received a response from the NAHC that indicated the SLF search returned negative results but that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources within the project vicinity. As a result, the letter recommended that HELIX reach out to 13 Native American tribal representatives who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project vicinity. The recommended points of contact with Native American Tribes included:
• Gloria Grimes, Chairperson, Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians • Debra Grimes, Cultural Resources Specialist, Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians • A representative of the California Valley Miwok Tribe • A representative of the California Valley Miwok Tribe/Sheep Rancheria of Me-Wuk • Timothy Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe
• Katherine Perez, Chairperson, North Valley Yokuts Tribe • Sandra Chapman, Chairperson, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation • Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist, Tule River Indian Tribe • Neil Peyron, Chairperson, Tule River Indian Tribe
• Kerri Vera, Environmental Department, Tule River Indian Tribe • Steven Hutchason, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Wilton Rancheria • Jesus Tarango, Chairperson, Wilton Rancheria
• Dahlton Brown, Director of Administration, Wilton Rancheria • Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band On May 2, 2023, HELIX sent a letter to each of the tribal representatives listed above to request any information they may possess regarding cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. As of the submission of this report, HELIX has received only one response, an email from Venesa Kremer of the Wilton Rancheria Cultural Preservation Department, dated May 12, 2023. In her email, Vanesa suggested that the Wilton Rancheria does not have any site records to share, or concerns to share regarding the project moving forward. However, she suggested that the project implement mitigation measures for inadvertent discoveries that might be made during construction. Such measures coincide with the inadvertent discoveries plan recommended by HELIX. All correspondence with the NAHC and Native American Tribal Representatives can be found in Attachment B. #24..
- 1196 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 8 of 15
May 12, 2023

FIELDWORK
Intensive Pedestrian Survey
On April 7 and 14, 2023, HELIX Staff Archaeologist Jentin Joe surveyed the project’s APE where construction activities are anticipated to occur. The surveyor used transects spaced 15-meters apart to conduct a systematic investigation of the APE. During the survey, the ground surface of the APE was examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, fire-affected rock, prehistoric ceramics), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a prehistoric cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations, wells) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). As the APE consists of five potential basin areas, the five areas are discussed separately below.

Representative survey photographs are provided in Attachment C.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site area was surveyed on April 14, 2023. It was found to consist of a fenced in area with a graveled interior perimeter and steep slopes coming down off this graveled walkway that slopes downward towards the basin. The slopes and interior of the basin are covered in short grasses, which afforded HELIX’s surveyor between 20-40 percent ground surface visibility (Photograph 1 in Attachment C). Small standing pools were also observed in the center of the basin. The proposed laydown area southwest of this basin was also examined. It was found to consist of a flat, vacant lot which has likely been graded in the past and is now covered with gravel (Photograph 2 in Attachment C). The proposed water conveyance route, which emanates from the southeastern corner of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, runs south for approximately 50 meters (m), and then runs east along the Moulton Lateral Canal for approximately 169 m, was also examined. These areas consisted of a cleared, graded, and graveled area on the northern border of the Moulton Lateral Canal. No cultural resources were encountered in association with the survey of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site area, and the areas associated with the proposed project.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 MAR Basin Site area was surveyed on April 14, 2023. The basin area was fenced in and has sloped edges on the interior of the fence line leading down to the basin. Most of the basin was covered in short grasses except for a graveled perimeter, paved driveway located in the southeastern corner of the basin, and center and bottom of the basin which consists of exposed dirt, weeds, and a pool of standing water (Photograph 3). Roughly 30-60 percent of the ground surface was visible during the pedestrian survey. Within the center of the basin is another small concrete framed culvert located toward the southwest and a concrete slab style drainage feature located towards the northern end. No cultural resources were encountered within the basin area. The associated laydown area located to the northwest of the basin was also examined and consisted of a cleared, graded, and graveled over area with a fenced in cell tower and water storage silo/pumpstation located to the adjacent southwest (Photograph 4). The planned route of water conveyance from the southeastern corner of the Well 65 Mar Basin Site to the Moulton Lateral Canal was also examined and found to consist of a small area of concrete (associated with the basin driveway) and a small stretch of the cleared, graded, and graveled area on the northern border of the Moulton Lateral Canal. No cultural resources were found in association with this route.
#24..
- 1197 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 9 of 15
May 12, 2023
Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
HELIX surveyors examined the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, which was found to consist of a fenced in area with a fairly steep slope on all sides leading down to the basin itself. The basin and its sloped perimeter was found to be almost entirely covered in short grasses, affording roughly 30-60 percent visibility of the ground surface. The center of the basin contained weeds, many of which were dead, and small pools of standing water. A concrete driveway was also found emanating into the floor of the basin from the southeast of the basin (Photograph 5). A concrete framed culvert is located in the northeast corner of the basin and likely used for water flow management associated with the basin (Photograph 6). The Ustach Park Basin Laydown Yard, located to the adjacent southeast of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site was also examined and found to be an entirely paved over and fenced in area with no traces of cultural resources (Photograph 7).

The proposed water conveyance route, which emanates from the northeastern corner of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, cuts through Ustach Park to the north, turns east along Hillglen Ave, then left (north) up Roselle Ave and terminates at the corner of Roselle Ave and Sylvan Ave, was also examined, as well as the proposed pump house location at the northeastern corner of Roselle Ave and Sylvan Ave.

No cultural resources were found along the route within Ustach Park, and the remainder of the conveyance route was found to lie within already paved roads, sidewalks, and/or developed rights of way. The pumphouse location was found to lie within a grassy field covered in knee high grasses offering 0-20 percent surface visibility. Within the location designated for the pump house, HELIX’s surveyor encountered a concrete slab with a metal pole. These elements appeared to be modern in design and may be associated with current water management in the area (Photograph 8).

La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site
The proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site was also examined on April 14, 2023. The field’s landform is largely flat with berms bounding the southwest and southeast sides. At the time of survey, it was found to be covered in knee high (and in some places taller) grasses, affording HELIX’s surveyor limited visibility (0-20 percent) (Photograph 9). Despite these conditions, HELIX’s survey encountered a series of 4 drainage or irrigation maintenance features cutting across the proposed basin area from west to east. This series of drainage/irrigation features is recorded as the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms, copies of which can be found in Attachment D of this report.

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1
Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1 consists of an “S” shaped series of cement laid walls, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements (Photograph 10). From north to south, the cement walls measure 63 inches long, while the whole structure reaches 115 inches (9.58 ft) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum extend approximately 2 ft above the ground surface, although it is clear that they extend further beneath the surface. The two metal valves lie within the spaces of the “S” shaped walls. The metal adjustable valves are of identical design with 24-inch diameter bases and reach a height of 32 inches (2.66 ft) (Photograph 11).
#24..
- 1198 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 10 of 15
May 12, 2023
Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2
Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2 lies 134 ft to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1 and consists of an irregular series, almost a zig zag, of cement laid walls similar in height and construction materials to those found within Feature 1. Similarly to Feature 1, Feature 2 also had two adjustable metal valves/water control elements of similar design and dimensions (Photographs 12 and 13). Overall, the outer (more northern) wall associated with Feature 2 measured 3.42 ft (41 inches) from northwest to southeast, before cutting back due north for 6.42 ft (77 inches) then runs due east for

2.58 ft (31 inches), before cutting to the southeast for approximately 4 ft (48 inches). The inner (more southern) wall measures approximately 2.75 ft (33 inches) running from the southwest to the northeast, before cutting back to the southeast for another 2.75 ft (33 inches). As was the case with Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, it is clear that the walls associated with this feature extend beneath the ground surface. The top of the northwestern most wall of this feature contains an etched inscription of “1961” which is presumably the structure’s construction date (Photograph 14).

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3
Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3 lies 150 ft to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature

2. Like Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, Drainage/Irrigation Feature3 consists of another “S” shaped series of cement laid walls, running west to east, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements (Photograph 15). From north to south, the cement walls measure approximately 5.67 ft (68 inches) long, while the whole structure reaches 9.08 ft (109 inches) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum above the ground surface ranges from 2 ft to 5 ft, and it is clear that they extend beneath the ground surface. Like Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, Feature 3 also contains 2 metal adjustable valves, lying within the spaces of the “S” shaped walls. The more western of the two valves is of a slightly different design than the more eastern of the two (which is virtually identical to those found within Features 1 and 2), with the iron cross bar lying closer to the ground, and a shorter handle at the top (Photograph 16). Approximately 10 ft south of Feature 3 lies a horizontally oriented pile of disarticulated cement rubble (Photograph 17). While there is no direct evidence that this rubble is associated with the feature, some form of the relationship cannot be ruled out, as little more is known about the history of the feature. The top of the northwestern most wall of this feature contains an etched inscription of “1954” which is presumably the structure’s construction date (Photograph 18).

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4
Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4 lies 190 ft to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature

3. Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4 consists of a reverse “S” shaped series of cement laid walls running west to east with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements (Photograph 19). Similar to Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, from north to south, the cement walls of Feature 4 measure approximately 5.67 ft (68 inches) long, while the whole structure reaches 9.08 ft (109 inches) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum above the ground surface ranges from 2 ft to 5 ft, and it is clear that they extend beneath the ground surface. The more western of the two valves is of a slightly different design than the more eastern of the two (which is virtually identical to those found within Features 1, 2, and 3), with the iron cross bar lying closer to the ground, and a shorter handle at the top. Approximately 10 ft south of Feature 3 lies a horizontally oriented pile of disarticulated cement rubble (Photograph 20). While there is no direct evidence that this rubble is associated with the feature, some form of the relationship cannot be ruled out, as little more is known about the history of the #24..
- 1199 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 11 of 15
May 12, 2023
feature. The top of the northwestern most wall of this feature contains an etched inscription of “1947” which is presumably the structure’s construction date (Photograph 21).

In addition to the four drainage/irrigation features found within the central eastern portion of La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin, two additional drainage/irrigation features were noted along the southern fence line of the northwestern most portion of La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, just adjacent north to the water treatment facility. These two features were found approximately 215 ft apart with their openings facing to the north. These features were somewhat similar in design to those associated with the Drainage/Irrigation Site in La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, though they were U-shaped in design and possess only 1 metallic drainage valve each (Photographs 22 and 23).

These additional drainage features were not found to possess any etchings that might suggest their date of construction, and the smooth cement contours and fully intact nature of these resources also suggest that they might be considerably more recent constructions than those recorded as part of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site. There does, however, remain the potential that these additional drainage features are associated with those recorded as part of the site.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site
The proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site was examined on April 14, 2023. At the time of survey, the field was found to be a flat parcel and overgrown with tall grasses and knee-high shrubs affording the surveyor relatively poor ground surface visibility (10-30 percent) (Photograph 24). No traces of cultural resources were encountered during the survey of this area. The proposed water conveyance route, intended to emanate from the southwestern corner of the proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, before running along the eastern side of the La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site, and connecting with a proposed water conveyance line which would emanate from the southeastern corner of the La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site, before following a route south to Lateral Number Two, just south of Garst Rd, was also examined, as was the proposed pump house area just to the north of the Lateral Number Two. The proposed pump house area is located just adjacent north of the Lateral Number Two in an area that has been cleared, graded, and graveled over (Photograph 25). No cultural resources were found within any of the areas associated with the proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 2 MAR Basin Site area.

CONCLUSIONS
HELIX’s CCIC records search revealed that six cultural resource studies have been previously conducted within 0.25-mile of the APE, and that none of these studies overlapped with portions of the current APE.

This record search also demonstrated that one previously recorded resource has been documented within 0.25-mile of the APE, P-50-002006 (CA-STA-000424H) the Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railroad. This resource has been recommended as ineligible for listing in NRHP and CRHR and is not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project.

On March 23, 2023, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their SLF for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the proposed project area. On March 30, 2023, HELIX received a response from the NAHC that indicated the SLF search returned negative results but that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources within the project vicinity. As a result, the letter recommended that HELIX reach out to 13 Native American tribal representatives who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project vicinity. On May 2, 2023, HELIX sent a letter to each of the tribal representatives #24..
- 1200 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 12 of 15
May 12, 2023
listed above to request any information they may possess regarding cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. As of the submission of this report, HELIX has received only one response, an email from Venesa Kremer of the Wilton Rancheria Cultural Preservation Department, dated May 12, 2023. In her email, Vanesa suggested that the Wilton Rancheria does not have any site records to share, or concerns to share regarding the project moving forward. However, she suggested that the project implement mitigation measures for inadvertent discoveries that might be made during construction. Such measures coincide with the inadvertent discoveries plan recommended by HELIX.

On April 7, and 14, 2023, HELIX Staff Archaeologist Jentin Joe surveyed the project’s APE where construction activities are anticipated to occur. Using 15-meter transects, the ground surface of all 5 proposed basin areas (Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site) as well as the proposed locations for pump houses, water conveyances, and construction laydown areas for the five proposed basin improvement areas were thoroughly inspected.

No signs of cultural resources were encountered within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site and their construction laydown areas. However, within the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, HELIX’s surveyor encountered a series of four drainage or irrigation maintenance features cutting across the proposed basin area from west to east. This series of drainage/irrigation features was recorded as the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site on the appropriate DPR forms, copies of which can be found in Attachment D of this report. A series of numbers etched into the cement walls on the 2nd, 3 rd, and 4th drainage/irrigation features (1961, 1954, and 1947, respectively) may well be construction dates for the features, suggesting that these drainage/irrigation features were built during the mid-20th century. From HELIX’s pedestrian investigation of these features, it was also clear that the features extended for some distance beneath the ground surface. A pile of cement rubble potentially associated with the drainage/irrigation features was also noted in the vicinity of Feature 3. In addition to these findings, two smaller and seemingly undated drainage/irrigation features were also located along the southern boundary of the northwestern extent of the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site. Due to the presence of previously unrecorded resources within the La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features which likely date to the early to mid-20th century, and since these features clearly possess intact subsurface components and show signs of potentially consisting of additional, unrecorded components, HELIX recommends that the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site as culturally sensitive and advises against the demolition of these features until they are formally evaluated for eligibility for listing in the NRHP and CRHR by a qualified architectural historian, and recommended as ineligible for listing in either of the two registries. Details on how this recommendation might be implemented are provided below.

In addition to the formal evaluation of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage Irrigation Features” site, HELIX also recommends that a Worker Awareness Training Program as well as an Accidental Discovery of Human Remains and Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources protocols be implemented for any proposed ground disturbing activities that would take place within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site. Details on how these recommendations might be implemented are provided below. #24..
- 1201 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 13 of 15
May 12, 2023
Formal Evaluation of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” Site Prior to the resource’s demolition, modification, or disturbance through project activities The “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site recorded within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site shall be formally evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP by a Secretary of the Interior Qualified Architectural Historian. The Architectural historian shall record details from the resource on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms, take additional measurements of and photographs of the resource (as needed), and conduct additional archival research as necessary (at State and local archives as is deemed necessary) to evaluate the resource against the four criteria of eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. In the event that the resource is found to be eligible for listing, demolition, alteration of, or modifications to the resource shall be entirely avoided, and project designs shall be altered to ensure that the resource is not impacted by project activities.

Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, PRC Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once projectrelated earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or their authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
• The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
#24..
- 1202 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 14 of 15
May 12, 2023
Worker Awareness Training Program
All construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities shall be trained in the recognition of possible cultural resources and the protection of such resources. The training will inform all construction personnel of the procedures to be followed upon the discovery of archaeological materials, including Native American burials. Construction personnel will be instructed that cultural resources must be avoided and that all travel and construction activity must be confined to designated roads and areas.

The training will include a review of the local, state, and federal laws and regulations related to cultural resources, as well as instructions on the procedures to be implemented should unanticipated resources be encountered during construction, including stopping work in the vicinity of the find and contacting the appropriate environmental compliance specialist.

Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, the retained archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, shall assess the resource, and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHP-eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency.

If you have any questions regarding the approach, methodology, results, or conclusions of this CRA, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
Attachments:

Attachment A – Figures
Attachment B – Native American Correspondence
Attachment C – Representative Site Photographs
Attachment D – DPR Forms
#24..
- 1203 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin, P.E. Page 15 of 15
May 12, 2023

REFERENCES
City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto General Plan. Adopted March 5. Available at:
https://www.modestogov.com/2069/General-Plan. Accessed March 2023.

NETROnline. 2023. Historic Aerials. Electronic resource, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Accessed April 26, 2023.
#24..
- 1204 -
Attachment A
Figures
#24..
- 1205 -
Ceres
Modesto
Riverbank
Airport
Bystrom
Empire
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 3/23/2023 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Supply Contamina�on Preven�on and Cleanup Project Calaveras
Santa Merced
Clara
Tuolumne San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merle Ave
MAR Basin
USGS 7.5 Min. Riverbank Quad
Township 3S, Range 10E, Section 19
Township 3S, Range 9E, Section 11, 13, & 14
Approximate Location:
-120.9359137 37.6689545
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone III (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage:

Ustach Park Basin ± 3.0 Acres
Well 65 MAR Basin ± 0.75 Acre
Merle Avenue MAR Basin ± 5.5 Acres
La Coste Lane P1 North MAR Basin ± 12.0 Acres
La Coste Lane P2 SouthMAR Basin ± 7.0 Acres
0 1 Miles
Study Area
Well 65
MAR Basin
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
LCL P2S MAR
Alterna�ve Basin
La Coste Lane P1 North
MAR Basin
Milnes Rd
Claus Rd
E Briggsmore Ave
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
Scenic Dr
#24..
- 1206 -
Figure 2
USGS Topographic Map
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 3/30/2023 Source: USGS, The Na�onal Map, 2021
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Supply Contamina�on Preven�on and Cleanup Project 07 18
19 30
10 11 12
14 13 15
23 24
25 26
USGS Base Map: Riverbank 7.5 Min. Quad
Township 3S, Range 10E, Section 19
Township 3S, Range 9E, Section 11, 13, & 14
Approximate Location: -120.9359137 37.6689545
0 2,000 Feet
Merle Ave
Well 65 MAR Basin
MAR Basin
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
LCL P2S MAR
Alterna�ve Basin
La Coste Lane P1 North
MAR Basin
#24..
- 1207 -
Figure 3
Area of Potential Effect Map
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 3/30/2023 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Supply Contamina�on Preven�on and Cleanup Project Claus Rd
E Briggsmore Ave
Dewi� Rd
Kodiak Dr
Church St
Santa Fe Ave
Merle Ave
Floyd Ave
Roselle Ave
Sylvan Ave
Scenic Dr
E Orangeburg Ave
Oakdale Rd
0 2,500 Feet
Legend
Area of Poten�al Effect
Ustach Park MAR Basin - 3.0 Acres
Well 65 MAR Basin - 0.75 Acre
Merle Avenue MAR Basin - 5.5 Acres
La Coste Lane P1 North MAR Basin - 12.0 Acres
La Coste Lane P2 South MAR Basin - 7.0 Acres
#24..
- 1208 -
Attachment B
Native American Correspondence
#24..
- 1209 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Dahlton Brown, Director of Administration 08444.00002.001 Wilton Rancheria
9728 Kent Street
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Director Brown,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1210 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Sandra Chapman, Chairperson 08444.00002.001
Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
P.O. Box 186
Mariposa, CA 95338
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Chairperson Chapman,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1211 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist 08444.00002.001
Tule River Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA 93258
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Joey Garfield,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1212 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Debra Grimes, Cultural Resources Specialist 08444.00002.001 Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians
P.O. Box 1015
West Point, CA 95255
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Debra Grimes,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1213 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Gloria Grimes, Chairperson 08444.00002.001
Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians
P.O. Box 899
West Point, CA 95255
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Chairperson Grimes,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1214 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Steven Hutchason, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 08444.00002.001 Wilton Rancheria
9728 Kent Street
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Steven Hutchason,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1215 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Katherine Perez, Chairperson 08444.00002.001
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Chairperson Perez,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1216 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Timothy Perez 08444.00002.001
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Timothy Perez,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1217 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Representative of the California Valley Miwok Tribe 08444.00002.001 14807 Avenida Central
La Grange, CA 95329
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Representative,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1218 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Representative of the California Valley Miwok Tribe 08444.00002.001 Sheep Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of CA
P.O. Box 395
West Point, CA 95255
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Representative,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1219 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Jesus Tarango, Chairperson 08444.00002.001
Wilton Rancheria
9728 Kent Street
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Chairperson Tarango,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1220 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Kerri Vera 08444.00002.001
Environmental Department
Tule River Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA 93258
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Kerri Vera,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1221 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
May 3, 2023
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 08444.00002.001
Tule River Indian Tribe
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
1179 Rock Have Ct.

Salinas, CA 93906
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Chairperson Woodrow,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) is preparing a Cultural Resources Assessment in support of the proposed City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File returned negative results, and the NAHC has suggested we contact you for information regarding Native American resources in or near the project area.

The Project would construct five managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins and the associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto in order to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. The proposed basins include: a Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site (an existing stormwater basin of 5.5 acres would be improved and expanded on the southern side of Merle Ave on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006 with 3.5 acres of the existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a Well 65 MAR Basin Site (expanding an existing stormwater basin on the south side of Merle Ave on APN 077-007-021 with 0.25 acre of existing basin needing 3 inches of soil removed) a Ustach Park MAR Basin Site (a stormwater retention basin of 3.0 acres at the intersection of Kodiak Dr and Bear Club Ln, on APN 077-009-053, with 1.6 acres of existing basin needing 6 inches of soil removed), a La Coste Ln P1 North MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural field, 12 acres in size, located north of La Coste Ln and west of Franzie Rd, with 3 inches of soil removal anticipated); and a La Coste Ln P2 South MAR Basin Site (at a fallow agricultural site 7 acres in size, located south of La Coste Ln, east of Norseman Dr and north of Garst Road, with 3 inches of soil removal for

4.5 acres of the site anticipated).

The Project Area(s) are depicted on the attached map. They are located within portions of Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19 of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Riverbank, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

If there are sensitive resources on or near the proposed project location that could be impacted by project development activities, please advise us accordingly. Please note that this request is for informational purposes only. If you have any information, questions, or concerns regarding the proposed project, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] or over the phone at 404-312-5883.

Sincerely,
Benjamin D. Siegel, M.A., M.A., M.A., RPA
Cultural Resources Project Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
#24..
- 1222 -
From: Venesa Kremer
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Ben Siegel
Subject: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Aachments: Migaon Measures for Inadvertant Discoveries.pdf May 12, 2023
RE: City of Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project
Hello BenWilton Rancheria has received noce of the above-menoned project. Currently, we have no site records to share and no concerns with this project moving forward. However, I am aaching our migaon measures for inadvertent discoveries for you to please add to your future construcon plan. Please reach back out to us if you have any quesons or concerns or in the event of a tribally related discovery during construcon. Thank you for your me and consideraon of our tribal concerns. Appreciavely,
Venesa Kremer
Lead Monitor
Cultural Resources Assistant
Wilton Rancheria- Cultural Preservaon Department
Tel: 916.683.6000 ext.2023
9725 Kent St. Elk Grover CA 95624
[email protected]
[email protected]
#24..
- 1223 -
Mitigation Measures for Inadvertent Discoveries
If potential tribal cultural resources (TCRs), archaeological artifacts, other cultural resources, articulated, or disarticulated human remains are discovered during construction activities, all work will cease within 100 feet of the find (based on the apparent distribution of the resources. Examples of potential cultural materials include but are not limited to midden soils, artifacts, chipped or worked stone, baked clay, shell, or bone.)
A Native American Representative from the federally recognized, Wilton Rancheria will assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment if necessary.

Culturally appropriate treatment that preserves or restores the cultural qualities and integrity of a Tribal Cultural Resource may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, construction monitoring of any further activities by a tribal representative, and or returning the objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts.

Wilton Rancheria does not consider curation of TCRs to be appropriate or respectful and requests that materials not be permanently curated, unless specifically requested by the Tribe.

If any human remains are discovered during construction activities, the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted immediately. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission will assign the Most Likely Descendant(s) (MLD) who will work the project proponents to define proper treatment and disposition.

After review of the find and consultation with the MLD, the authority to proceed may be accompanied by the addition of development requirements which provide for protection and preservation of the site and/or additional measures necessary to address the sensitive and unique nature of the site. All treatment recommendations made by the tribe and other cultural resources specialists will be documented in the confidential portion of the project record. Work in the area(s) of the cultural find may only proceed after authorization from the lead agency in coordination with the Tribe.

Please reach out to the tribe by using the contact information listed below. We appreciate your compliance and understanding in our endeavors to protect and preserve our tribal cultural resources.

Venesa Kremer
Cultural Resource Assistant
Lead Monitor
Wilton Rancheria- Cultural Preservation Department
Tel: 916.683.6000 ext. 2023
[email protected]
[email protected]
#24..
- 1224 -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

March 30, 2023
Ben Siegel
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Trihydro/Modesto Groundwater Recharge Project, Stanislaus County Dear Mr. Siegel:

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,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE 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
[VAVANT]

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
#24..
- 1225 -
Attachment C
Representative Site Photographs
#24..
- 1226 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
Photograph 1 – Overview of Merle Basin, from Northwest, facing Southeast.

Photograph 2 – Overview of Merle Basin Laydown Area, from Northwest, facing Southeast #24..
- 1227 -
May 17, 2023 Page 2 of 13
Photograph 3 – View of Well 65 Mar Basin, taken from Southeast, facing Northwest Photograph 4 – View of Well 65 Mar Basin Laydown Area, taken from Northwest corner, facing Southwest
#24..
- 1228 -
May 17, 2023 Page 3 of 13
Photograph 5 – Overview Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, from Northwest corner, Facing Southeast Photograph 6 – View of Concrete Framed Culvert in Northeast Corner of Ustach Park MAR Basin, taken from Northwest Corner, facing East.
#24..
- 1229 -
May 17, 2023 Page 4 of 13
Photograph 7 – View of Proposed Laydown Area for Ustach Park MAR Basin, facing South Photograph 8 – View of Concrete Slab within Proposed Pumphouse Area for Ustach Park Mar Basin, facing Southeast
#24..
- 1230 -
May 17, 2023 Page 5 of 13
Photograph 9 – Overview of La Coste Field 2, from Northeast corner, facing Southwest Photograph 10– Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, from Southwest, facing Northeast
#24..
- 1231 -
May 17, 2023 Page 6 of 13
Photograph 11 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, from Northwest, facing Southeast
Photograph 12 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, from Southwest, Facing Northeast
#24..
- 1232 -
May 17, 2023 Page 7 of 13
Photograph 13 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, from Northwest, Facing Southeast
Photograph 14 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, Closeup of Top of Northwest Wall, Facing Northwest
#24..
- 1233 -
May 17, 2023 Page 8 of 13
Photograph 15 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, from Northwest, Facing Southeast
Photograph 16 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, from North, Facing South
#24..
- 1234 -
May 17, 2023 Page 9 of 13
Photograph 17 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, showing Rubble Pile to South, from Southeast, Facing Northwest
Photograph 18 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North Mar Basin, Closeup of Top of Northwest Wall, from South, Facing North
#24..
- 1235 -
May 17, 2023 Page 10 of 13
Photograph 19 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4, from Northwest, Facing Southeast Photograph 20 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4, from Southwest, Facing Northwest #24..
- 1236 -
May 17, 2023 Page 11 of 13
Photograph 21 – Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4, Closeup of Top of Northwest Wall, from South, Facing North
Photograph 22 – Additional Drainage/Irrigation Feature #1 from North, Facing South #24..
- 1237 -
May 17, 2023 Page 12 of 13
Photograph 23 – Additional Drainage/Irrigation Feature #2 From North, Facing South Photograph 24 – Overview of proposed La Coste Field 2 Basin Area, from Northeast corner, facing Southwest
#24..
- 1238 -
May 17, 2023 Page 13 of 13
Photograph 25 – View of Proposed Pumphouse Area for La Coste Field 1 and 2 Basin Areas #24..
- 1239 -
Attachment D
DPR Forms
#24..
- 1240 -
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*Resource Name or #: La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features *P2. Location: ◼ Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Stanislaus County and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Riverbank Date: 1987 T 3S ; R 10E ; NE ¼ of SW ¼ of Sec 19 ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: La Coste Ln City: Modesto Zip: 95357
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; 684039 mE/ 4169655 mN (G.P.S.) 37.655629 - 120.91.3655 e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:

Resource is within a field, accessible from La Coste Lane. Field is referred to as La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The resource consists of a series of 4 similar drainage/irrigation features, spanning from west to east within the central portion of a former orchard/agricultural field. The cement walls of 3 the 4 features have dates etched into them, presumably construction dates.

Feature 2 has “1961” etched into it,, Feature 3, has “1954”, and Feature 4 has “1947”.

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1 consists of an S shaped series of cement laid walls, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements. From north to south the cement walls measure 63 inches long, while the whole structure reaches 115 inches (9.58 ft) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum, extend approximately 2ft above the ground surface, although it is clear that they extend for some while long beneath the surface. The two metal valves lie within the spaces of the S shaped walls. The metal adjustable valves are of identical design, with 24 inch diameter bases, and reach a height of 32 inches (2.66 ft).

See continuation sheet for additional details.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH2 Foundations/structure pads, AH6. Water conveyance system, AH16.

Other
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object ◼Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
View of Drainage/Irrigation Feature
4, from Southwest, facing
Northwest, Taken 4/14/23, Photo #
621
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: ◼Historic
Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

City of Modesto
1010 10th Street 4th Floor, Modesto,
CA 95354
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
HELIX Environmental Planning,
Inc. 1180 Iron Point Road, Suite
130, Folsom, CA 95630
*P9. Date Recorded: 4/14/23
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive pedestrian survey
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Cultural Resources Letter Report for the Modesto Muncipal Groundwater Improvement Project, Modesto, Stanislaus County, CA *Attachments: NONE ◼Location Map ◼Sketch Map ◼Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record ◼Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

P1. Other Identifier:
#24..
- 1241 -
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD

*A1. Dimensions: a. Length: 209 m (W/E) b. Width: 6 m (S/N) Method of Measurement: Paced Taped Visual estimate ◼
Other: GPS points
Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): Artifacts ◼ Features Soil Vegetation Topography  Cut bank Animal burrow Excavation Property boundary Other (Explain):

Reliability of Determination: High ◼
Medium Low Explain: quite possible that additional associated features and debris are located beneath the ground surface in the vicinity of the recorded features Limitations (Check any that apply): ◼ Restricted access Site limits incompletely defined  Disturbances Vegetation Other (Explain):

A2. Depth: None ◼
Unknown Method of Determination: intensive pedestrian survey *A3. Human Remains: Present ◼
Absent Possible Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.):
4 features in total, see primary form and continuation sheet for details on the 4 Drainage/Irrigation features associated with this site.
*A5. Cultural Constituents (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.):

No artifacts were found at the ground surface in relationship with the 4 recorded features *A6. Were Specimens Collected? ◼
No Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: Good ◼ Fair Poor (Describe disturbances.): features are relatively stable, but somewhat disarticulated around the edges, rubble piles close to feature 3 might be associated with drainage/irrigation features but it is unclear from pedestrian survey. Features show signs of rain based weathering *A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Channelized water way (Lateral Number Two) 1000 ft to the south, Dry Creek 1,200 ft to northwest of site
*A9. Elevation: 107 ft amsl
A10. Environmental Setting (Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Vegetation: knee to chest high grasses Landform: flat level field Slope: none discernable, fllat land Aspect: none, flat area Soils: few native soils were visible due to high grasses, however, small patches of visible soil were a light brown sandy loam
A11. Historical Information:
*A12. Age: Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880 1880-1914 1914-1945 ◼ Post 1945 Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:

The cement walls of 3 the 4 features have dates etched into them, presumably construction dates. Feature 2 has “1961” etched into it,, Feature 3, has “1954”, and Feature 4 has “1947”.

A13. Interpretations (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations):

Based on the presumed dates of construction (gleaned from the dates etched on 3 of the 4 features), it seems likely that these features were installed to be used in conjunction with the the orchard/agricultural field developed and maintained on the property throughought the early to mid 20th century.

A14. Remarks:

A15. References (Documents, informants, maps, and other references): none A16. Photographs (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Modesto Muncipal Groundwater Improvement Project Photo File, kept on servers at HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. *A17. Form Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc Date: 4/14/23 Affiliation and Address: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc 1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130 Folsom, CA 95630
DPR 523C (1/95) *Required information

 
 
 
   

  
#24..
- 1242 -
LEGEND
DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

LOCATION MAP
Primary #:

HRI #
Trinomial:

SCALE 1:24,000
1 0.5 0 1
Miles
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Feet
1 0.5 0 1
TRUE NORTH Kilometers
Feature 1
Feature 2 Feature 3
Feature 4
La Coste Lane Parcel
1 North Mar Basin APE

*Map Name: Riverbank *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date: 1987
#24..
- 1243 -
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Drainage/Irrigation Site in La Coste Field 1 *Drawn By: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. *Date: 4/14/23 DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information

#24..
- 1244 -
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features *Recorded by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. *Date: 4/14/23 ◼ Continuation  Update 134 ft to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, lies Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2 which consists of an irregular series, almost a zig zag, of cement laid walls, similar in height and construction materials to those found within Feature 1, and similarly to Feature 1, also had two adjustable metal valves/water control elements of similar design and dimensions. Overall the outer (more northern) wall associated with feature 2 measured 3.42 ft (41 inches) from northwest to southeast, before cutting back due north for 6.42 ft (77 inches) then runs due east for 2.58 ft (31 inches), before cutting to the southeast for approximately 4ft (48 inches). The inner (more southern) wall measures approximately 2.75 ft (33 inches) running from the southwest to the northeast, before cutting back to the southeast, for another 2.75 ft (33 inches). As was the case with Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, it is clear that the walls associated with this feature extended beneath the ground surface. The top of northwestern most wall of this feature, contains an etched inscription of “1961” which is presumably the structure’s construction date. 150ft to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2 lies Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3. Like Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, Drainage/Irrigation Feature3 consists of another “S” shaped series of cement laid walls, running west to east, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements. From north to south the cement walls measure approximately 5.67 ft (68 inches) long, while the whole structure reaches 9.08 ft (109 inches) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum above the ground surface ranges from 2ft to 5ft, and it is clear that they extend beneath the ground surface. Like Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1 Feature 3 also contains 2 metal adjustable valves, lying within the spaces of the S shaped walls. The more western of the two valves is of a slightly different design than the more eastern of the two (which is virtually identical to those found within Features 1 and 2), with the iron cross bar lying closer to the ground, and a shorter handle at the top. Approximately 10ft south of Feature 3 lies a horizontally oriented pile of disarticulated cement rubble). While there is no direct evidence that this rubble is associated with the feature, some form of the relationship cannot be ruled out, as little more is known about the history of the feature. The top of northwestern most wall of this feature, contains an etched inscription of “1954” which is presumably the structure’s construction date.
190ft to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3 lies Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4. Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4 consists of a reverse “S” shaped series of cement laid walls, running west to east, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements. Similar to Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, from north to south the cement walls of Feature 4 measure approximately 5.67 ft (68 inches) long, while the whole structure reaches 9.08 ft (109 inches) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum above the ground surface ranges from 2 ft to 5 ft, and it is clear that they extend beneath the ground surface. The more western of the two valves is of a slightly different design than the more eastern of the two (which is virtually identical to those found within Features 1, 2, and 3), with the iron cross bar lying closer to the ground, and a shorter handle at the top. Approximately 10ft south of Feature 3 lies a horizontally oriented pile of disarticulated cement rubble. While there is no direct evidence that this rubble is associated with the feature, some form of the relationship cannot be ruled out, as little more is known about the history of the feature. The top of northwestern most wall of this feature, contains an etched inscription of “1947” which is presumably the structure’s construction date.

#24..
- 1245 -
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

View of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, from Southwest, facing Northeast, Taken 4/14/23, Photo # 583 View of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2, from Southwest, facing Northeast, Taken 4/14/23, Photo # 597

#24..
- 1246 -
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

View of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, from Northwest, facing Southeast, Taken 4/14/23, Photo # 616

#24..
- 1247 -
Appendix E
Noise Analysis Report
#24..
- 1248 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
Dave Dirkin, P.E.

Trihydro Corporation
9083 Foothills Boulevard, Suite 370
Roseville, CA 95747
Subject: City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Noise and Vibration Assessment
Dear Mr. Dirkin:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has assessed the analyzed potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project (project). Analysis within this report was prepared to support impact analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations).

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located in the City of Modesto (City) in Stanislaus County (County), California.

The five proposed managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins are: Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site; Well 65 MAR Basin Site; Ustach Park MAR Basin Site; La Coste Lane (LCL) Parcel 1 (P1) North MAR Basin Site; and LCL Parcel 2 (P2) South MAR Basin Site. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are located within City limits. The LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins are located outside City limits (i.e., in an unincorporated area of the County); however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019). The sites would be located within Section 11, 13 & 14, 19, Township 3 South, Range 9 and 10 East (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute “Riverbank Quadrangle”). The MAR basin site locations and their surrounding land uses are described below. See Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map, in Attachment A, Figures, to this report.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The proposed Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is 5.50 acres and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Moulton Lateral (canal). The site is surrounded by May 24, 2023 Project 08444.00002.001
#24..
- 1249 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 2 of 16
May 24, 2023
single-family residential homes to the north, east, and west and single-family residential homes and the MID Moulton Lateral to the south. See Figure 2, Merle Avenue Basin Site Plan, in Attachment A.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The proposed Well 65 MAR Basin Sites is 0.75 acre and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on APN 077-007-021. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral.

The site is surrounded by Orchard Elementary School and an existing water tank to the west, Orchard Elementary School and single-family residential homes to the north, single-family residential homes to the east, and commercial development, single-family residential homes, and the MID Moulton Lateral to the south. See Figure 3, Well 65 Basin Site Plan, in Attachment A.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is 3.00 acres and is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane on APN 077-009-053. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin. The site is surrounded by Ustach Park and single-family residential homes to the north, Ustach Middle School to the west, and single-family residential homes to the east and south. See Figure 4, Ustach Park Basin Site Plan, in Attachment A.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Sites
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site is 12.00 acres and is located north of La Coste Lane and west of Frazine Road, on APN 014-037-056. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes and agricultural fields to the north and east, the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the west, and Alice Stroud Elementary School and open space to the south. See Figure 5, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and Parcel 2 South Basin Site Plan, in Attachment A.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is 7.00 acres and is located south of La Coste Lane, east of Norseman Drive, and north of Garst Road, on APN 014-037-063. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the north, agricultural fields to the west, Alice Stroud Elementary School to the east, and agricultural fields, Dan Gonsalves Stadium, and the MID Lateral Two to the south.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would include the construction of five MAR basins in the City. The Project would use clean surface water for the MAR basins to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency. The MAR basins are expected to operate for 20 years (2025 through 2045). The basins’ water conveyance structures are described in more detail below. See Figures 2 through Figure 5 for site plans of the five MAR basins.
#24..
- 1250 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 3 of 16
May 24, 2023
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral.

The proposed pipeline would begin in the southeastern corner of the site, at the existing storm drain manhole, and move southeast along the MID Moulton Lateral until it reaches the canal turnout. The Merle Avenue Basin would be gravity fed and would not require a new pump station.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral. The proposed pipeline would begin in the southeastern corner of the site, at the existing storm drain manhole, and move southeast along the MID Moulton Lateral until it reaches the canal turnout. The Well 65 Basin would be gravity fed and would not require a new pump station.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing outfall structure located on the northeastern corner of the site.

Because there is very little to no fall (elevation drop) on the new pipeline alignment, a new pump stations would be required. The proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline would begin at the existing outfall structure and move north along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park until it reaches Hillglen Avenue.

The pipeline would then move east along Hillglen Avenue until it reaches Roselle Avenue. The pipeline would then move north along Roselle Avenue until it reaches the proposed lift station located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. The proposed pump station would deliver water from the existing MID pipeline to the Ustach Park MAR Basin.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site
Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed above ground, 12-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southwestern corner of the site. Because there is very little to no fall (elevation drop) on the new pipeline alignment, a new pump stations would be required, which would serve both the LCL P1 North Site and the LCL P2 South Site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed turnout and pump station off the MID Lateral Two. The proposed pipeline would begin on the southwestern corner of the site, at the proposed outfall structure, and move southwest until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two.

Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed above ground, 12-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would connect to a proposed turnout and pump station off the MID Lateral Two. The proposed pipeline would begin in the southeastern corner of the site, at the #24..
- 1251 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 4 of 16
May 24, 2023
proposed outfall structure, and move south until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station. The lift pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two.

NOISE METRICS
All noise-level and sound-level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A weighting, abbreviated “dBA,” to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time averaged noise levels of one hour are expressed by the symbol “LEQ” unless a different time period is specified.

Maximum noise levels are expressed by the symbol “LMAX.” Some of the data also may be presented as octave-band-filtered and/or A-octave band-filtered data, which are a series of sound spectra centered on each stated frequency, with half of the bandwidth above and half of the bandwidth below, the stated frequency. This data is typically used for machinery noise analysis and barrier-effectiveness calculations.

The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. This is similar to the Day Night sound level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours.

Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through standard arithmetic.

Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than from one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA—rather, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dBA louder than one source.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1 dBA changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000 Hertz [Hz]–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dBA are generally not perceptible. It is widely accepted, however, that people begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dBA increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

VIBRATION METRICS
Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves transmitted through the ground with an average motion of zero. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena and anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Peak particle velocity (PPV) is commonly used to quantify vibration amplitude. The PPV, with units of inches per second (in/sec), is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. #24..
- 1252 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 5 of 16
May 24, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Noise Environment
The Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes to the north, east, and west and singlefamily residential homes and the MID Moulton Lateral to the south. The Well 65 MAR Basin Site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral. The site is surrounded by Orchard Elementary School and an existing water tank to the west, Orchard Elementary School and single-family residential homes to the north, single-family residential homes to the east, and commercial development, single-family residential homes, and the MID Moulton Lateral to the south. The Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is an existing stormwater retention basin. The site is surrounded by Ustach Park and single-family residential homes to the north, Ustach Middle School to the west, and single-family residential homes to the east and south.

The LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site is comprised of City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands that formerly were irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes and agricultural fields to the north and east, the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the west, and Alice Stroud Elementary School and open space to the south. The LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is comprised of City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands that formerly were irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the north, agricultural fields to the west, Alice Stroud Elementary School to the east, and agricultural fields, Dan Gonsalves Stadium, and the MID Lateral Two to the south.

Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, including residences, hospitals, schools, hotels, resorts, libraries, sensitive wildlife habitat, or similar facilities where quiet is an important attribute of the environment. Noise receptors (receivers) are individual locations that may be affected by noise.

The closest existing NSLUs to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 120 feet east and 100 feet west of the site. The closest existing NSLUs to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the site and Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The closest existing NSLUs to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east and 125 feet south of the site. The closest existing NSLUs to the LCL Parcel 1 North and LCL Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Sites are single-family residential homes located 50 feet east of the LCL Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site and 650 feet northwest of the LCL Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site.

The nearest school to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is Savage Middle School located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site. The nearest school to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is Ustach Middle School, located approximately 150 feet west of the site. The nearest school to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is Alice Stroud Elementary School, located approximately 150 feet directly south of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and directly east of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.
#24..
- 1253 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 6 of 16
May 24, 2023
The closest hospital to the five MAR basins is the Memorial Medical Center located approximately one mile west of the Well 65 MAR Basin; two miles west of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin; two miles southwest of the Ustach Park MAR Basin; and three miles northwest of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin.

Noise Survey
Site visits/noise surveys were on conducted on April 7 and April 13, 2023, which included five short-term (10 minute) ambient noise measurements. The noise measurement survey notes are included in Attachment B, Noise Measurement Survey Notes, to this report. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figures 2 through 5 in Attachment A. The measured noise levels and survey notes are shown in Table 1, Noise Measurement Results.

Table 1

NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
M1
Date April 13, 2023
Time 9:13 a.m. – 9:23 a.m.

Location Merle Avenue Basin Site, southeast corner of the MAR basin Noise Level 50.9 dBA LEQ
Notes Traffic noise from East Briggsmore Avenue, across canal to the south M2
Date April 13, 2023
Time 2:29 p.m. – 2:39 p.m.

Location Well 65 Basin Site, north end of pipeline alignment, near the southeast corner of the MAR basin
Noise Level 58.4 dBA LEQ
Notes No streets visible. Dog barking at residence to the east.

M3
Date April 7, 2023
Time 1:37 p.m. – 1:47 p.m.

Location Ustach Park Basin Site, pumphouse site, northeast corner of the Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue intersection
Noise Level 61.7 dBA LEQ
Notes Primary noise from traffic on Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue M4
Date April 7, 2023
Time 2:29 p.m. – 2:39 p.m.

Location Ustach Park Basin Site, southeast corner of the MAR basin Noise Level 50.9 dBA LEQ
Notes
M5
Date April 7, 2023
Time 6:37 p.m. – 6:47 p.m.

Location La Coste Parcel 1 South Site, pump station location, south end of pipeline alignment, near the southeast corner of the MAR basin
Noise Level 46.9 dBA LEQ
Notes Measurement taken after end of school day for Alice Stroud Elementary School #24..
- 1254 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 7 of 16
May 24, 2023

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Stanislaus County General Plan
Goal Two of the Stanislaus County General Plan Noise Element is to, “Protect the citizens of Stanislaus County from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise.” Policy Two states, “It is the policy of Stanislaus County to develop and implement effective measures to abate and avoid excessive noise exposure in the unincorporated areas of the County by requiring that effective noise mitigation measures be incorporated into the design of new noise generating and new noise sensitive land uses.” The following implementation measure would be applicable to the project (County 2015):

2. New development of industrial, commercial, or other noise generating land uses will not be permitted if resulting noise levels exceed 60 LDN (or CNEL) in noise-sensitive areas. Additionally, the development of new noise-generating land uses, which are not preempted from local noise regulation, will not be permitted if resulting noise levels will exceed the performance standards contained within Table IV-2 [reproduced here as Table 2, Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Noise Sources] in areas containing residential or other noise sensitive land uses.

Table 2
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE – STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES Daytime
(7:00 am – 10:00 pm)
Nighttime
(10:00 pm – 7:00 am)
Hourly LEQ dBA 55 45
Maximum level (LMAX) dBA 75 65
Source: County 2015
LEQ = time averaged noise levels; LMAX = maximum noise levels; dBA = A-weighted decibels Each of the noise level standards specified in Table 2 shall be reduced by five dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. The standards in Table 2 should be applied at a residential or other noise-sensitive land use and not on the property of a noisegenerating land use. Where measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the ambient levels.

Stanislaus County Noise Ordinance
The Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.46 of the Stanislaus County Code) establishes exterior noise level standards in order to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise in the County (County 2023).

Section 10.46.050, Exterior noise level standards, of the Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance limits the creation of any noise that causes the exterior noise level when measured at any property to exceed the noise level standards as set below in Table 3, Exterior Noise Level Standards. #24..
- 1255 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 8 of 16
May 24, 2023
Table 3

EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Designated Noise Zone 7:00 am – 9:59 pm (LMAX)
1 10:00 pm – 6:59 am (LMAX)1
Residential 50 45
Source: County Code Section 10.46.050
1 Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level as Measured on a Sound Level Meter (LMAX) LMAX = maximum noise levels
Section 10.46.060, Specific noise source standards, E., Construction Equipment, of the Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance limits construction noise to 75 dBA between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. at the receiving property line of any property with a dwelling unit.

City of Modesto General Plan
The Environmental Resources, Open Space and Conservation chapter of the City of Modesto General Plan includes a Noise Element that provides noise level standards by land use type. The ambient noise environment in the city is influenced primarily by roadway traffic, intermittent railroad operations, and aircraft operations. The Noise Element applies to the city as a whole and identifies policies to minimize exposure to excessive noise sources. Table VII-2, Noise and Compatibility Matrix, in the City’s Noise Element, noise levels of 65 CNEL or below are considered normally acceptable for residential land use categories and noise levels of 70 CNEL or below are considered normally acceptable for schools (City 2019).

The following policies identified in the Noise Element are relevant to the project (City of Modesto, 2019):

3. Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive noise receptors are persons and facilities that could be adversely affected by noise. Sensitive receptors in Modesto include residences, hospitals, parks, churches, and schools. The following policies apply to development in all areas of the City.
a. Implement noise-reducing construction practices as conditions of approval where substantial construction-related noise impacts would be likely to occur, such as with extended periods of pile driving, or where construction is expected to continue or where sensitive receptors would be affected by construction noise. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
• Require construction equipment, including air compressors and pneumatic equipment to have properly maintained mufflers;
• Require impact tools to be equipped with shrouds or shields; • Require that the quietest equipment available be used; and, • Require selection of haul routes that affect the fewest number of people. #24..
- 1256 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 9 of 16
May 24, 2023
f. For proposed non-transportation noise sources, reduce noise levels so as not to exceed the allowable noise exposure thresholds specified in Table V.3.9 [recreated here as Table 4, Noise Exposure Thresholds – Non-Transportation Noise Sources] at the property line of residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.

Table 4
NOISE EXPOSURE – STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
Daytime
(7:00 am – 10:00 pm)1
Nighttime
(10:00 pm – 7:00 am)1
Hourly LEQ dBA 55 45
Maximum level (LMAX) dBA 75 65
Source: City 2019
1 Citywide, excluding downtown.

Notes:

Each of the noise level standards shall be reduced by five (5) dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Where measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the ambient levels.

If the existing ambient noise level at the receiving use exceeds the thresholds, then the noise level standards shall be increased to account for the ambient noise level.

LEQ = time averaged noise levels; LMAX = maximum noise levels; dBA = A-weighted decibels g. For construction activities involving high-powered vibratory tools or pile driving within 200 feet of an existing structure, demonstrate that project construction would not exceed the Caltrans construction vibration thresholds to ensure that no damage to sensitive structures would occur.

City of Modesto Noise Ordinance
Title 4, Public Welfare, Safety, and Health, of the Modesto Code of Ordinance includes provisions to control the level and frequency of disturbing, excessive, offensive, or unusually loud noise that may jeopardize the health, welfare, or safety of citizens in the city. Sound-level limitations relevant to the Proposed Program are provided under Chapter 9, Noise Regulations, Section 4-9.103 prohibits the following (City 1991):
(a) The loud and raucous discharge into the open air of the steam of any steam equipment or exhaust from any stationary internal-combustion engine. (b) The loud and raucous operation or use of any of the following before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday and Sunday and State or federal holidays, when the prohibited time shall be before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.):
(1) A hammer, or any other device or implement used to pound or strike an object. (2) An impact wrench, or other tool or equipment powered by compressed air. (3) A hand-powered saw.
#24..
- 1257 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 10 of 16
May 24, 2023
(4) Any tool or piece of equipment powered by an internal-combustion engine such as, but not limited to, chain saw, backpack blower, and lawn mower. Except as included in subsection (a)(6) of the Modesto Code of Ordinance, motor vehicles, powered by an internalcombustion engine and subject to the California Vehicle Code, are excluded from this prohibition.
(5) Any electrically powered (whether by alternating current electricity or by direct current electricity) tool or piece of equipment used for cutting, drilling, or shaping wood, plastic, metal, or other materials or objects, such as, but not limited to, a saw, drill, lathe, or router. (6) Any of the following: heavy equipment (such as, but not limited to, bulldozer, steam shovel, road grader, back hoe), ground drilling and boring equipment (such as, but not limited to, derrick or dredge), hydraulic crane and boom equipment, portable power generator or pump, pavement equipment (such as, but not limited to, pneumatic hammer, pavement breaker, tamper, compacting equipment), pile-driving equipment, vibrating roller, sand blaster, gunite machine, trencher, concrete truck, and hot kettle pump. (7) Any construction, demolition, excavation, erection, alteration, or repair activity.

Section 4-9.104 exempts the following from the provisions of the Modesto Code of Ordinance Chapter 9 (City 1991):
(d) Activities on or in publicly owned property and facilities, or by public employees while in the authorized discharge of their responsibilities, are exempt provided that such activities have been authorized by the owner of such property or facilities or its agent or by the employing authority.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Noise Modeling Software
Project construction noise was analyzed using the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Roadway Construction Noise Model ([RCNM]; USDOT 2008), which utilizes measurements of sound levels from standard construction equipment.

Construction Activities
Construction of the project MAR basins, pipelines, and pump stations would require the use of off-road construction equipment. Construction off-road equipment assumptions were provided by the project engineer for the following activities:
• Site Preparation – All Sites: Loader, grader, dozer, tractor, dump truck. • Demolition – All Sites: excavator, dump truck
• Grading - La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site: loader, grader, dozer, tractor. • Pipe Installation – All Sites: Crane, excavator, loader. #24..
- 1258 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 11 of 16
May 24, 2023
• Paving – Ustach Park MAR Basin Site and La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site: paver, roller, dump truck.

The noise levels (measured at a distance of 50 feet) and typical operating time percentage of the project off-road construction equipment, as reported by the RCNM, is shown in Table 5, Construction Equipment Noise Levels (USDOT 2008).

Table 5

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Construction Equipment Percent
Operating Time
Noise Level
at 50 feet (dBA LEQ)
Crane 16 72.6
Dozer 40 77.7
Dump Truck 40 72.5
Excavator 40 76.7
Loader 40 75.1
Grader 40 81.0
Paver 50 74.2
Roller 20 73.0
Tractor 40 80.0
Source: RCNM (USDOT 2008)
dBA = A-weighted decibels; LEQ = time averaged noise levels

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would result in a significant adverse impact if it would:

1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a General Plan or noise ordinance;

2. Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; or

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise.

For construction noise, per the City Municipal Code, operating of construction equipment or conducting construction activities before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays, are prohibited. Neither the City nor the County have adopted standards to determine the level at which temporary noise resulting from construction activities performed by a public agency would adversely affect nearby NSLUs. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recommended construction noise assessment criteria. Using option A, General Assessment, daytime construction noise received by a residential land use exceeding 90 dBA LEQ (1 hour) and nighttime construction noise received by a residential land use exceeding 80 dBA LEQ (1 hour), measured at the residential property line, would result in a significant impact (FTA 2018). #24..
- 1259 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 12 of 16
May 24, 2023
For operational noise, per the City General Plan, a significant noise impact would be identified where the operation of noise-generating land uses would create noise levels that exceed the noise and land use compatibility standards as established by the City of Modesto. Noise levels of 75 dBA or below are considered “normally acceptable” for most land use categories and “clearly unacceptable” at 75 dBA or greater (City 2019).

The County Code, Section 10.46.070 established limits for acceptable vibrations. For work conducted in a public right-of-way or on public land and within 150 feet of any occupied building, vibrations exceeding 0.01 in/sec PPV would result in a significant impact.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
1) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a General Plan or noise ordinance? Less than Significant Impact with mitigation incorporated.

Construction Noise
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above, construction of the MARs and pipelines would require the use of off-road construction equipment. Due to the nature of construction activity, the number and locations of operating equipment would vary throughout the construction period and throughout each workday. It would be highly unlikely that all anticipated construction equipment would operate concurrently in proximity to the same NSLU. The FTA recommends the potential impact of construction equipment noise be evaluated by assuming that the two noisiest pieces of equipment for a construction activity would be operating concurrently during an hour, potentially affecting the closest NSLU to that activity (FTA 2018).

As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions and Table 5, above, all MAR sites would require site preparation, demolition, and pipeline installation; the LCL MAR site would require grading; and the Ustach Park MAR and LCL MAR would require paving repair. Site preparation and grading would involve heavy equipment moving around each MAR site basin and off-street pipeline alignment. The two noisiest pieces of equipment for site preparation and grading would be a grader and a tractor which were conservatively assumed to operate at an average distance of 100 feet from a residential or school NSLU over the course of one hour. Demolition would require equipment to remove old concrete and asphalt, primarily in the pipeline alignment of each MAR site. The two noisiest pieces of equipment for demolition would be an excavator and a dump truck which were conservatively assumed to operate at an average distance of 25 feet from a residential or school NSLU over the course of one hour. Paving repair would involve heavy equipment moving around the on-street pipeline alignment for the Ustach Park MAR and LCL MAR site. The two noisiest pieces of equipment for paving repair would be a paver and a roller which were conservatively assumed to operate at an average distance of 25 feet from a residential or school NSLU over the course of one hour. The resulting combined noise of the noisiest construction equipment for each activity is compared to the FTA one-hour 90 dBA LEQ daytime standard for residential land uses in Table 6, Construction Noise. The RCNM output reports are included in Attachment C, Model Output, to this report.
#24..
- 1260 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 13 of 16
May 24, 2023
Table 6

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Site/Activity/Equipment Average Distance to
NSLU (feet)
Combined Noise
(dBA LEQ)
Exceed FTA 90 dBA
LEQ standard?
All Sites/Site Preparation/
Grader and Tractor 100 77.5 No
All Sites/Demolition/Excavator
and Dump Truck 25 84.1 No
La Coste Lane MAR/Grading/
Grader and Tractor 100 77.5 No
All Sites/Pipeline Installation/
Excavator and Loader 25 85.0 No
the Ustach Park MAR and La Coste
Lane MAR/Paving Repair/Paver
and Roller
25 82.7 No
Source: RCNM (USDOT 2008); FTA 2018
NSLU = noise sensitive land use; dBA = A-weighted decibels; LEQ = time averaged noise levels As shown in Table 6, the calculated noise from construction equipment would not exceed the FTA residential one-hour daytime standard. As discussed in Regulatory Framework, above, per the Modesto Code of Ordinances, Section 4.9-103, construction activities are prohibited before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays. However, Section 4.9-104 exempts activities conducted on public land or by public employees from the provisions of the noise ordinance. Since the project would be conducted by the City (or by contractors for the City) on public land, nighttime construction activities would not be prohibited. The FTA residential one-hour nighttime standard is 80 dBA LEQ (FTA 2018).

Some construction activities would exceed the FTA nighttime standard of 80 dBA LEQ and the impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would prohibit project construction from occurring during the nighttime hours specified in the noise ordinance Section 4.9-103. With implementation of mitigation measure NOI-1, project construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA daytime or nighttime standard, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Operational Noise
Both the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL MAR Basin would require a new pump station. Each station would consist of two electric motor driven submersible low head lift pumps with 5 to 8 horsepower motors. Submersible electric pumps place the motors and impellers below grade and small pumps such as those proposed by the project produce very little noise at the surface.

The LCL MAR Basin pump station would be located near Garst Road and the MID Lateral 2 at the southeast corner of the LCL P2, see Figure 5. The closest NSLUs to the LCL MAR Basin proposed pumpstation location would be the Alice Stroud Elementary School with recreation fields approximately 40 feet northeast of the pump station and classroom buildings approximately 400 feet east of the pump station. The Ustach Park MAR Basin pump station would be located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue. The closest NSLUs to the Ustach Park MAR Basin proposed pump station location would be a single-family home approximately 225 feet to the south. #24..
- 1261 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 14 of 16
May 24, 2023
Due to the below grade installation, low sound levels of small submersible pumps, and the distance to the closest NSLUs, operation of the pump stations would not result in noise levels exceeding the standards in either the City General Plan and noise ordinance or the County General Plan and noise ordinance.

Long term operation of the MARs and pump stations would require periodic maintenance checks using light duty trucks and seasonal vegetation management using powered equipment. However, periodic maintenance and vegetation management activities would be similar to activities already conducted on the MAR sites and canals by City and MID personnel and/or contactors and would not result in new noise sources or increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, long-term operational noise generated by the project would be less than significant.

Impact Conclusion
With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to limit construction hours, short-term construction activity or long-term operation of the project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the County or City General Plans or noise ordinances. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Hours
Prior to construction, the City shall ensure that all construction contracts and/or applicable construction documents specify that operation of construction equipment on the project site, or project construction activities (including equipment staging), shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; or before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays, are prohibited.
2) Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact with mitigation incorporated. A source of vibration during pavement repair following pipeline installation in public street would be a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller would primarily be used for aggregate and asphalt compaction as part of paving repair for the Ustach Park Basin and LCL pipeline alignments. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibrations. A large vibratory roller creates approximately 0.21 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). As discussed in Regulatory Framework, for construction activity in a public right-of-way or on public land and with 150 feet of any individual (e.g., within 150 feet of an occupied building), per the County Noise Ordinance Section 10.46.070, vibrations in excess of 0.01 in/sec PPV threshold would be significant. At a distance of 150 feet, a vibratory roller would create a PPV of 0.03 in/sec. This would exceed the County Ordinance standard of 0.01 in/sec, and the impact would be potentially significant. 1 Mitigation Measure NOI-02 would require City personnel and/or contactors to ensure that vibratory rollers to be used for project construction would be used in static mode only (no vibrations) when operated within 150 feet of any occupied building. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, 1 Equipment PPV (in/sec) = Reference PPV * (25/D)n, where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2020. #24..
- 1262 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 15 of 16
May 24, 2023
the project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Vibratory Roller
Prior to construction, the City shall ensure that all construction contracts and/or applicable construction documents specify that all vibratory rollers shall be used in static mode only (no vibrations) when operating within 150 feet of an occupied building.
3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise.

Less than Significant Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the Modesto City-County Airport, approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the LCL MAR Basin Site (the closest project site to the airport). Per the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, only the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is within the Modesto City-County Airport influence area and none of the project MAR sites are within the Modesto City-County Airport noise contours (60 or more CNEL; Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission 2016). Therefore, although the project sites are subject to overflight by aircraft, people working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive levels of noise due to aircraft or airport operations, and the impact would be less than significant.

SUMMARY
As described above, with implementation of mitigation measure NOI-01 to restrict the hours of construction, the project would not result in a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of City, County or federal standards. With implementation of mitigation measure NOI-02 to restrict the use of vibratory rollers within 150 feet of any occupied building during construction, the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibrations. The project would not expose persons to excessive noise from aircraft or airport operations.

Sincerely,
Martin Rolph Jason Runyan
Noise Specialist Noise Specialist, QA/QC
Attachments:

Attachment A: Figures
Attachment B: Noise Measurement Survey Notes
Attachment C: Modeling Output
#24..
- 1263 -
Letter to Dave Dirkin Page 16 of 16
May 24, 2023

REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.

City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto General Plan. Adopted March 5. Available at:
https://www.modestogov.com/2069/General-Plan.
1991. City of Modesto Municipal Code, Title 4 - Public Welfare, Safety and Health, Chapter 9 – Noise Regulations. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/modesto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT4PUWESAHE _CH9NORE.

County of Stanislaus. 2023. Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance. Available at:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/stanislaus_county_ca/pub/county_code/item/title_10- chapter_10_46.
2015. General Plan Noise Element. Available at:
https://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/current/gp-chapter4.pdf.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available at: https://www.stancounty.com/planning/agenda-aluc/ALUCP.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model version 1.1.

Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/. #24..
- 1264 -
Attachment A
Figures
#24..
- 1265 -
Ceres
Modesto
Riverbank
Airport
Bystrom
Empire
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/3/2023 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Calaveras
Santa Merced
Clara
Tuolumne San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merle Ave
MAR Basin
USGS 7.5 Min. Riverbank Quad
Township 3S, Range 10E, Section 19
Township 3S, Range 9E, Section 11, 13, & 14
Approximate Location:
-120.9359137 37.6689545
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone III (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage:

Ustach Park MAR Basin ± 3.00 Acres
Well 65 MAR Basin ± 0.75 Acre
Merle Avenue MAR Basin ± 5.5 Acres
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin ± 12.00 Acres
La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin ± 7.00 Acres
0 1 Miles
Study Area
Well 65
MAR Basin
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
La Coste Lane
Parcel 2 South MAR Basin
La Coste Lane
Parcel 1 North MAR Basin
Milnes Rd
Claus Rd
E Briggsmore Ave
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
Scenic Dr
#24..
- 1266 -
Linnea Ln
N
ewh
a
m
p
t
o
n
W
a
y
Ma�sse Ln
E Briggsmore Ave
M1
Figure 2
Merle Avenue Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/18/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 200 Feet
Legend
Noise Measrement Loca�on
Merle Avenue
MAR Basin
Merle Ave Basin
Staging Area
Merle Ave Conveyance
Moulton Lateral - L3
#24..
- 1267 -
Beatrice Ln
Woo
d
wind
W
a
y
Woodfield Dr
M2
Figure 3
Well 65 Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/18/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 100 Feet
Well 65
MAR Basin
Well 65 Basin
Staging Area
Moulton Lateral - L3
Well 65 Conveyance
Legend
Noise Measrement Loca�on
#24..
- 1268 -
Figure 4
Ustach Park Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/18/2023 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Kodiak Dr
Roselle Ave
Hillglen Ave
Medinah Way
McReynolds Ave
Sylvan Ave
Bear Cub Ln
M3
M4
0 350 Feet
Legend
Noise Measrement Loca�on
Pump Sta�on
Ustach Conveyance
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
Ustach Park Basin
Staging Area
#24..
- 1269 -
Frazine Rd
M5
Figure 5
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
and Parcel 2 South Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/18/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 250 Feet
Legend
Noise Measrement Loca�on
Conveyance
Pump Sta�on
Lateral 2
La Coste Lane Parcel 1
North MAR Basin
La Coste Lane Parcel 2
South MAR Basin
Norseman
Dr
La Coste Ln
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
and Parcel 2 South Basin Staging Area
#24..
- 1270 -
Attachment B
Noise Measurement Survey Notes
#24..
- 1271 -
#24..
- 1272 -
#24..
- 1273 -
#24..
- 1274 -
#24..
- 1275 -
#24..
- 1276 -
Attachment C
Modeling Output
#24..
- 1277 -
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 5/17/2023
Case Description: Modesto Groundwater - Site Peparation ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 100 0
Tractor No 40 84 100 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 79 75 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 78 74 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 79 77.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
#24..
- 1278 -
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 5/17/2023
Case Description: Modesto Groundwater - Demolition
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 25 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 25 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Dump Truck 82.5 78.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 86.7 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 86.7 84.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
#24..
- 1279 -
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 5/17/2023
Case Description: Modesto Groundwater - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 100 0
Tractor No 40 84 100 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 79 75 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 78 74 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 79 77.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
#24..
- 1280 -
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 5/17/2023
Case Description:Modesto Groundwater - Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 25 0
Roller No 20 80 25 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Paver 83.2 80.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 86 79 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 86 82.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
#24..
- 1281 -
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 5/17/2023
Case Description: Modesto Groundwater - Pipeline Installation ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 25 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 25 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 86.7 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 85.1 81.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 86.7 85 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
#24..
- 1282 -
Tribal Cultural Resources Memo
Appendix F
#24..
- 1283 -
Memorandum
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
Date: May 19, 2023
From: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX)
Subject: Tribal Consultation Record for Compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and CEQA for the City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project, City of Modesto Greetings:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), requires that the City of Modesto (City) provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects subject to CEQA review and consult with tribes that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. For the City, these included the following tribes that requested such noticing:
• Ione Band of Miwok Indians; and,
• Northern Valley Yokuts.

The purpose of consultation is to identify Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be significantly impacted by the proposed project, and to allow the City to avoid or mitigate significant impacts prior to project approval and implementation. Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or,
b) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or,
c) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
#24..
- 1284 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Page 2 of 3 May 19, 2023
Because the first two criteria also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators and can only be identified by a culturally affiliated tribe, which has been determined under State law to be the subject matter expert for TCRs.

CEQA requires that the City initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements summarized above, the City carried out, or attempted to carry out, tribal consultation for the project.

1.0 Summary of Consultation
On April 3, 2023, the City sent project notification letters to the two California Native American tribes named above that had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC. The letter provided each tribe with a brief description of the project and its location, the contact information for the City’s authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation.

1.1 Ione Band of Miwok Indians
The Ione Band of Miwok Indians did not respond to the City’s notification letter, and therefore, the threshold for conducting tribal consultation with that tribe under PRC 21080.3.1(e) was not met. No further attempts at consultation were required by state law.

1.2 Northern Valley Yokuts
Northern Valley Yokuts did not respond to the City’s notification letter, and therefore, the threshold for conducting tribal consultation with that tribe under PRC 21080.3.1(e) was not met. No further attempts at consultation were required by state law.

2.0 Recommended Findings
As the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and Northern Valley Yokuts did not respond to the City’s notification letters, it is assumed that the project will not have an impact on known TCRs. There exists a potential for the discovery of previously unknown TCRs during project construction, however. If TCRs are encountered, the project activity could result in a significant impact to those resources. Implementation of unanticipated discovery procedures, as provided in mitigation measure TCR-1 below, would reduce that impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of TCRs If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. If deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources #24..
- 1285 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Page 3 of 3 May 19, 2023
specialist, who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.

3.0 Attachments
Attachment A: AB 52 Non-Confidential Tribal Correspondence #24..
- 1286 -
AB 52 Non-Confidential Tribal
Correspondence
Attachment A
#24..
- 1287 -
#24..
- 1288 -
#24..
- 1289 -
#24..
- 1290 -
#24..
- 1291 -
#24..
- 1292 -
#24..
- 1293 -
#24..
- 1294 -
#24..
- 1295 -
#24..
- 1296 -
#24..
- 1297 -
#24..
- 1298 -
#24..
- 1299 -
#24..
- 1300 -
#24..
- 1301 -
#24..
- 1302 -
#24..
- 1303 -
Appendix G
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
#24..
- 1304 -

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRP) are required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6 to be adopted by CEQA Lead Agencies for projects having the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. The MMRP describes changes to the project or conditions of project approval that mitigate or avoid the project’s potential significant effects on the environment. This MMRP addresses the City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project proposed by the City of Modesto. The proposed project is located in the City of Modesto; the City of Modesto (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has discretionary authority over the proposed project.

MMRP FORMAT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are identified in the City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project ISMND.

These mitigation measures will become conditions of project approval if the project is approved. The City is required to verify that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented properly and to ensure compliance, this MMRP (including the checklist) has been formulated. The MMRP shall be adopted, along with CEQA Findings, by the City (Lead Agency) and must be administered by City personnel.

Specific responsibilities are delineated for each measure in the attached checklist table and these responsibilities may be delegated to qualified City staff or consultants.

The checklist, which follows as Table B-1, is intended to be used by the applicant, grading/construction contractors, and personnel from the above-listed City, as the appointed mitigation implementation and monitoring entities. Information contained within the checklist clearly identifies each mitigation measure, defines the conditions required to verify compliance, and delineates the monitoring schedule.

Following is an explanation of the three columns that constitute each MMRP checklist.

Column 1 Mitigation Measure: An inventory of each mitigation measure is provided.

Column 2 Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies who are responsible for determining compliance with each mitigation measure (e.g., City personnel, construction contractor, project applicant, qualified biologist).

Column 3 Implementation Schedule: As scheduling is dependent upon the progression of the overall project, specific dates are not used within the “Schedule” column. Instead, scheduling describes a logical succession of events (e.g., prior to ground-disturbing activities, etc.) and, if necessary, delineates a follow-up program.

Column 4 Monitoring Compliance Record Name/Date: Column is left blank and is to be signed and dated when compliance with the mitigation measure has been met. #24..
- 1305 -
Appendix E
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This page intentionally left blank.
#24..
- 1306 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Prior to
construction
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Prior to initiation of project activities including staging and mobilization, all personnel associated with project shall attend WEAP training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project area.

The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of disturbance and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with the project. All employees shall sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them.

Construction
personnel
Prior to initiation of
project activities
including staging
and mobilization
BIO-2: To avoid take of nesting birds, and raptor nests at any time of year (including inactive nests), vegetation disturbance, site access, and initial ground disturbance shall occur outside the nesting season, which is typically February 1 to August 31, if possible, to avoid birds that may be nesting within areas of disturbance during or just prior to project activities.

Construction
personnel
Prior to and during
construction
AG-1: Prior to construction, the City shall prepare and approve a Soil Reclamation Plan (Plan) for the restoration of the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin site at the end of the basins’ useful life. The Plan shall contain an analysis of general preconstruction conditions of the site, and the site shall be photographically documented by the City prior to the start of construction. The Plan shall contain specific measures to restore the soil to approximate its pre-project condition. All waste shall be recycled or disposed of in compliance with applicable law(s).

City
#24..
- 1307 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
BIO-3: Nests, eggs, or young of birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code would not be moved or disturbed until the end of the nesting season or until young fledge, whichever is later, nor would adult birds be killed, injured, or harassed at any time.

Construction
personnel
Prior to and during
construction
BIO-4: If project activities must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre-disturbance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer. Pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and shall be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors onsite and within the designated vicinity. If no nests are observed no further mitigation is required.

Qualified biologist Two weeks prior to
initiation of ground
disturbance
BIO-5: Prior to project activities, a burrowing owl survey will be conducted in areas where suitable burrowing habitat may be present (i.e., grassland habitat) during breeding season (March through August).

At least two surveys should be conducted within two weeks of ground disturbance and should be conducted two hours before sunset, to one hour after sunset or one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise.

If project activities occur overwinter or during the non-breeding season (typically December through January), then surveys should be conducted when the owls are likely to be present, typically near dusk or dawn, but not when temperature are cold or freezing, high winds, dense fog, or rain. If the presence of burrowing owls is confirmed, the following avoidance measures shall be implemented:
• Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (typically March through August) unless a qualified biologist verifies, through noninvasive methods, that either (1) Qualified biologist Prior to project
activities
#24..
- 1308 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
the burrow is not being used for breeding, (2) a previously active nest has failed and the burrow is no longer active, or (3) all juveniles from the occupied burrow are foraging
independently and capable of independent survival and the burrow is no longer an active nest burrow. Owls present after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. Nest protection buffers described below shall remain in effect until August 31st or until the nest has failed or all juvenile owls are foraging independently, based on monitoring evidence as determined by a qualified biologist. • Site-specific, no-disturbance buffer zones shall be established and maintained between project activities and occupied
burrows, using the distances recommended by CDFW.
• Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season. If project activities have the potential to impact active burrowing owl burrows, then a passive relocation or exclusion plan will be developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW. Passive relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to alternate natural or artificial burrows that are beyond 50 meters from the impact zone and that are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls. Relocation of owls should only be implemented during the non-breeding season.

BIO-6: Prior to project activities and during the nesting season at the La Coste P1N and P2S basin sites, a Swainson’s Hawk nesting survey will be conducted in the immediate project area to determine presence.

Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Qualified biologist;
CDFW
Prior to project
activities and
during the nesting
season at the La
Coste P1N and P2S
basin site
#24..
- 1309 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Committee, 2002). Surveys should be completed for two survey periods prior to the project’s initiation per the following survey dates and timing: Period I: January to March 20 (optional), all day, 1 survey; Period II: March 20 to April 5, sunrise to 1000 and 1600 to sunset, 3 surveys; Period III: April 5 to April 20, sunrise 1200 and 1630 to sunset, 3 surveys; Period IV: surveys not recommended; Period V: June 10 to July 30, sunrise to 1200 and 1600 to sunset, 3 surveys. If a nest is identified within a half-mile of project activities, a monitoring plan detailing avoidance measures shall be prepared in coordination with CDFW.

BIO-7: Work activities shall be avoided within 100 feet of active bird nests and 250 feet of active raptor nests until young birds have fledged and left the nest. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in areas where nests must be avoided. No ground disturbance shall occur within this exclusion area until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed, and all the young have fledged. If exclusion zones are determined to be infeasible, a full-time qualified biological monitor must be onsite to monitor project activities within the buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted.

Qualified biologist;
construction
personnel
During project
construction
BIO-8: A pre-disturbance survey of the proposed project area for special-status bumble bees including crotch bumble bee shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to confirm no special-status bumble bees are present in the work area if project activities are proposed within the colony active period, typically between April and August.

While surveys conducted using these flight seasons/active periods as a guide are considered the most effective and protective to the species, surveys may fail to detect the presence of candidate bumble bee species. Therefore, some project proponents may choose to assume presence and rely on habitat as an indicator of presence in lieu of, or in Qualified biologist;
CDFW
Prior to disturbance
#24..
- 1310 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
addition to, surveys. Bumble bees move nests sites each year; therefore, surveys shall be conducted each year to see that project activities will occur. Even if surveys from a particular project site failed to detect bumble bees one year, project proponents shall perform a full round of surveys each year that project activities will occur or assume presence. If no CESA-protected bumble bees are found during the multiple rounds of focused surveys, but the habitat assessment identified suitable nesting, foraging, or overwintering habitat within the project site, a biological monitor shall be onsite during vegetation or ground disturbing activities that take place during any of the Queen and Gyne Flight Period and Colony Active Period. If CESA-protected bumble bees are observed, project proponents shall propose site-specific measures to avoid take, or consult with CDFW to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) if take of CESA-protected bumble bees may occur during project activities.

At least 3 on-site surveys shall take place prior to project implementation. Ideally, each survey shall be spaced 2-4 weeks apart during the Colony Active Period to ensure that they cover a range of dates and account for variability in resource use by the candidate species and floral resource phenology within the site. Separate surveys shall not be conducted on sequential days or in the same week as the species may not be using the site during those days. Surveys shall occur during the day (at least an hour after sunrise and at least two hours before sunset, though ideally between 9am-1pm) on warm, but not hot, sunny days (65-90 degrees F), with low wind (less than 8 mph). A pre-disturbance memo documenting observations shall be prepared and made available to the City, and CDFW if a bumble bee species is detected.
#24..
- 1311 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
BIO-9: A pre-disturbance survey of the proposed project area for special-status amphibians including northern California legless lizard and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of project activities to confirm no special-status amphibians are present in the work area. A predisturbance memo documenting observations shall be prepared and made available to the City.

Qualified biologist;
City
Prior to disturbance
BIO-10: If a special-status species is observed in the project area, then those areas shall be flagged and avoided and CDFW shall be notified.

Other avoidance measures may be determined or applied per specific species as identified in the WEAP training and/or a in coordination with CDFW. Observations of special-status species should be documented on California Natural Diversity Database forms and submitted to the CDFW upon project completion.

Construction
personnel, CDFW
During project
construction; upon
project completion
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are exposed during grounddisturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, the retained archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, shall assess the resource, and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHP-eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency.

Qualified
archaeologist
Immediately upon
discovery
CUL-2: Prior to the resource’s demolition, modification, or disturbance through project activities The “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site recorded within La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Secretary of the
Interior Qualified
Prior to demolition,
modification, or
disturbance of
#24..
- 1312 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
Site shall be formally evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP by a Secretary of the Interior Qualified Architectural Historian.

The Architectural historian shall record details from the resource on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms, take additional measurements of and photographs of the resource (as needed), and conduct additional archival research as necessary (at State and local archives as is deemed necessary) to evaluate the resource against the four criteria of eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. In the event that the resource is found to be eligible for listing, demolition, alteration of, or modifications to the resource shall be entirely avoided, and project designs shall be altered to ensure that the resource is not impacted by project activities.

Architectural
Historian
irrigation features
on La Coste Lane
P1N
CUL-3: All construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities shall be trained in the recognition of possible cultural resources and the protection of such resources. The training will inform all construction personnel of the procedures to be followed upon the discovery of archaeological materials, including Native American burials. Construction personnel will be instructed that cultural resources must be avoided and that all travel and construction activity must be confined to designated roads and areas. The training will include a review of the local, state, and federal laws and regulations related to cultural resources, as well as instructions on the procedures to be implemented should unanticipated resources be encountered during construction, including stopping work in the vicinity of the find and contacting the appropriate environmental compliance specialist.

Construction
personnel
Prior to
construction
CUL-4: Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, PRC Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related earthmoving begins Project Applicant;
County Coroner
Immediately upon
discovery
#24..
- 1313 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as
provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or their authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 48 hours after being notified
by the commission;
#24..
- 1314 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
• The descendent identified fails to make a
recommendation; or
• The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the
mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1: In the event paleontological or other geologically sensitive resources (such as fossils or fossil formations) are identified during any phase of project construction, all excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate representative at the City of Modesto who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City shall implement those measures which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

City; CA Licensed
Geotechnical
Engineer or
Engineering
Geologist
Immediately upon
discovery
Noise
NOI-1: Prior to construction, the City shall ensure that all construction contracts and/or applicable construction documents specify that operation of construction equipment on the project site, or project construction activities (including equipment staging), shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; or before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays, are prohibited.

City Prior to
construction
NOI-2: Prior to construction, the City shall ensure that all construction contracts and/or applicable construction documents specify that all City Prior to
construction
#24..
- 1315 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
Name/Date
vibratory rollers shall be used in static mode only (no vibrations) when operating within 150 feet of an occupied building.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 50-feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. If deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist, who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered.

Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.

City; Qualified
cultural resources
specialist
Immediately upon
discovery
#24..
- 1316 -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MODESTO MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISMND #24..
- 1317 -

CITY OF MODESTO

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:

January 14, 2025
Date: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor & City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: William Wong, Director of Utilities
SUBJECT: Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2025 Memorandum of Understanding CONTACT: Tim Barahona, Assistant Engineer, [email protected], 209-577-5485 DESCRIPTION:

Consider approving the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2025 Memorandum of Understanding for undertaking groundwater sustainability planning, reporting, studies, mutual aid and support services within the Modesto Sub-basin. (Funding Source: Water Fund)
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:

The recommended action supports the 2020-2025 City of Modesto Strategic Plan Initiatives, Goal D: Provide safe, efficient, and reliable infrastructure through proactive community investment, maintenance, and sustainability efforts.

BACKGROUND:

In September of 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 20141 (SMGA) which required, among other items, the formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies with a focus on long-term groundwater management.

On January 24, 2017, by Resolution No. 2017-30, Council authorized entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to form the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association Groundwater Sustainability Agency2 (STRGBA GSA). 1 https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/sgma-groundwater-management 2 https://www.strgba.org/
#25..
- 1318 -
City Council Meeting, January 14, 2025
Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2025 Memorandum of Understanding