Rialto City Council
May 13, 2025

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
EXHIBIT 1: SITE PLAN

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

AIR QUALITY SETTING

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB)
The Project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (1). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis- Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in are as under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As previously stated, the Project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745 -square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.

The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bounded by the San Ja cinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.

Regional Climate
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.

The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.

Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO
2) to sulfates (SO4) is heightened in air with high relative humidity.

The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent (%) along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effe cts decrease with distance from the coast.

More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yea rly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Due to its generally clear weather, about three -quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest da y of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.

The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime on shore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind.

Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another cha racteristic wind regime in the SCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.

In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion s tructure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of th is layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions.

These inversions occur primarily in the winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NO X) and carbon monoxide (CO) from
vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.

Wind Patterns and Project Location
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.

Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Bo ard (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O 3) (precursor emissions include NOX
and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O 3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O 3, PM10, and PM2.5.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Trend
In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to reduce the amount of TAC emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars, trucks, stationary products, and consumer products. According to the Ambien t and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California journal article (2) which was prepared for CARB, results show that between 1990-2012, ambient concentration and emission trends for the seven TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California have declined significantly (between 1990 and 2012). The seven TACs studied include those that are derived from mobile sources: diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene (C 6H6), and
1,3-butadiene (C4H6); those that are derived from stationary sources: perchloroethylene (C 2Cl4) and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)); and those derived from photochemical reactions of emitted VOCs: formaldehyde (CH
2O) and acetaldehyde (C 2H4O)1. The decline i n ambient concentration and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented to address cancer risk.

Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM
10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds
are based on a 24-hour averaging time.

Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade,

1 It should be noted that ambient DPM concentrations are not measured directly. Rather, a surrogate method using the coefficient of haze (COH) and elemental carbon (EC) is used to estimate DPM concentrations.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 2 under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report. • Receptor R1 represents t he existing residence at 323 Jurupa Ave, approximately 3,910 feet west of the Project site.
• Receptor R2 represents SC Fuels at 2829 Industrial Dr, approximately 1,351 feet west of the Project site.
• Receptor R3 represents E- Z Mix Inc at 3355 S Industrial Dr , approximately 2,822 feet southwest of the Project site.
• Receptor R4 represents Walmart ACC at 1600 Agua Manda Rd, approximately 1,562 feet southeast of the Project site.
• Receptor R5 represents Veolia Water North America at 501 E Santa Ana Ave , approximately 94 feet north of the Project site.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O 3, CO, NO X, SO2, PM10, and lead (Pb) (3). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (4). The CAA also mandates that each state submit and implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attai n or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (5) (6). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O 3, NO2, SO2,
PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufa cturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NO
X. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of NOX which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO 4,
visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (7) (8).

Local air quality management dist ricts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.

Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO
X, CO and PM10. However, air basins
may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.

AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federa l ambient air quality standards (9). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIRMENTS
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (10) (11).

SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human- made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dus t emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human -made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to reduce PM 10 emissions from any
transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM
10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. • All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SCAQMD Rule 1113
This rule serves to limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects in the SCAQMD must comply with the current VOC standards set in this rule.

METHODOLOGY
In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction -source and operational- source criteria pollutant (VOC s, NO
X, SOX, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (12). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are taken from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ( CEQA Guidelines ) (14 CCR Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
§§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (13):
• Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Threshold 4 : Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (14). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds ( March 2023) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day

AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Central San Bernardino Valley monitoring station (SRA 34). LSTs apply to CO, NO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look- up tables i dentify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project’s disturbed acreage.

The acres disturbed is based on the equipment list and days in the demolition, site preparation, and grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8- hour workday. The equipment -specific grading rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod (15). It Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8- hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies equipment-specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Scrapers; therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in the demolition, site preparation and grading phase was replaced with Crawler Tractors. For analytic al purposes, emissions associated with peak site demolition, preparation, and grading activities are considered for purposes of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) since this phase represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur.

The Project’s construction activities could disturb a maximum of approximately 3.5 acres per day for site preparation and 4 acres per day for grading activities. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As such, Table 2 presents thresholds for localized construction and operational emissions.

TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Site Preparation 225 lbs/day 1,442 lbs/day 499 lbs/day 300 lbs/day Grading 241 lbs/day 1,575 lbs/day 504 lbs/day 305 lbs/day 1Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 15.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NO X, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Site Preparation
• Grading (Import/Export)
• Paving
• Trenching

GRADING ACTIVITIES
Dust is typically a major concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. Per client provided data, this analysis assumes that earthwork activities are expected to balance on site and no import or export of soils would be required. The CalEEMod default trip length of 20-miles will be used to analyze the emissions associated with export activities.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ON-ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, vendors, and haul trucks commuting to and from the site. Worker and hauling trips are based on CalEEMod defaults. It should be noted that for vendor trips, specifically, CalEEMod only assigns vendor trips to the Building Construction phase. Vendor trips would likely occur during all phases of construction. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for vendor trips have been adjusted based on a ratio of the total vendor trips to the number of days of each subphase of activity.

CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of the Project is expected to commence in July 2023 and would last through January 2025. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent

2. The duration of construction activity and
associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (16).

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
CalEEMod default parameters for equipment has been used. Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment will operate up to a total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two -thirds of the period during which construction activities are allowed pursuant to the code.

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table 3, and as shown, the Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with construction activities.

Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A.

TABLE 3: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 5.00 47.11 39.61 0.05 8.42 5.07
2024 6.38 54.87 56.09 0.10 5.93 3.45

2 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Winter
2023 6.70 58.95 56.55 0.10 8.42 5.07
2024 6.37 54.92 54.85 0.10 5.93 3.45
2025 0.88 7.53 10.86 0.01 0.54 0.37
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.70 58.95 56.55 0.10 8.42 5.07 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions and mobile source emissions.

The estimated operation-source emissions from the Project are summarized on Table 4. Detailed operation model outputs are presented in Attachment A . As shown on Table 4, operational - source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 4: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 0.12 0.14 1.32 0.00 0.11 0.02
Area Source 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 0.42 0.14 1.32 0.00 0.11 0.02 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 0.11 0.15 1.08 0.00 0.11 0.02
Area Source 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 0.41 0.15 1.08 0.00 0.11 0.02 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (17). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significa nce Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4

3. LSTs represent
the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor.

The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 (since
PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM 10 and PM 2.5 is location R1, represented by the existing

3 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.” Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
residence at 323 Jurupa Ave, approximately 3,910 feet (1,192 meters) west of the Project site .

Receptors in the Project study area shown on Exhibit 2.

As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NO X and CO
is location R 2, represented by Veolia Water North America located at 501 E Santa Ana Ave , approximately 94 feet (29 meters) north of the Project site.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Table 5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak demolition, site prep aration and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represent the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in less emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As shown in Table 5, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related construction-source emissions and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 5: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 47.02 37.99 8.19 5.01
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 225 1,442 499 300
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 40.94 32.67 4.63 2.78
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 241 1,575 504 305
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The proposed project is located on approximately 12.50 acres including a 10- acre lake with a parking lot comprised of 11 spaces . According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not in clude such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no LST analysis is needed for operations.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.

The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square -mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles Co unty and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB.

In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (18). Similar to the 201 6 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (19). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook (20). These indicators are discussed below.

The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that under this criterion refer to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds wer e exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.

The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build - out phase.

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Rialto General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.

Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

The City of Rialto General Plan designates the Project site for “General Industrial” uses with a Specific Plan Overlay. The Project is within the “Agua Mansa Specific Plan” which designates the Project as “public recreational/ educational”. The Agua Mansa Specific Plan permits sewage treatment plants and related infrastructure and activities in the Public Facilities land use designation (21).

The proposed Project includes the development of a 12.5-acre outdoor public recreational space, including a 10- acre lake and a parking lot , which is consistent with the “public recreational/educational” use. As previously stated, the Project is consistent with the current land use and zoning designation. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional or localized air quality significance thresholds.

On the basi s of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the AQMP and a less than significant impact is expected.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net incre ase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.

The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:

White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (22). In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumul ative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility- wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for pr oject- Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Construction Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project construction -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

Operational Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 3
Would the expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project -specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceeda nce of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In respon se, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that ar e more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
time periods4. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any exceedance of the 1-hour (20.0 ppm) or 8-hour (9.0 ppm) CO standards, as shown on Table 6.

TABLE 6: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8- hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersec tion (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (23). In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (24). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 7. The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (25). The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the hourly traffic volume increase four times to 32,248 vehicles per hour, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4 = 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).

4 The CO “hot spot” analysis conducted in 2003 is the most current study used for CO “hot spot” analysis in the SCAB.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 7: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.

Potential odor sou rces associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short -term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (26).

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

PROJECT GHG ANALYSIS

CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING
Global climate change (GCC) is the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists b elieve that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated in this memo cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, this memo will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.

GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO 2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.

For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO
2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated because these
gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.

REGULATORY SETTING
Executive Order S-3-05
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Assembly Bill (AB) 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “GHGs” as defined under AB 32 include CO 2, CH4, N2O,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs.

CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost - effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well -being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric ton of CO 2 equivalent per
year (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (27). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO 2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (28). At that level, a 28.4% reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, CARB prepared an updated BAU 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inv entory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO
2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a

21.7% reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (29).

Progress in Achieving AB 32 Targets and Remaining Reductions Required The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S -3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by CARB for 2000 through 2012 (30). The State has achieved the Executive Order S-3- 05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target.
• 1990: 427 MMTCO
2e (AB 32 2020 target)
• 2000: 463 MMTCO2e (an average 8% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2010: 450 MMTCO2e (an average 5% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
CARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020. As described earlier in this section, CARB revised the 2020 BAU inventory forecast to account for new lower growth projections, which resulted in a new lower reduction from BAU to achieve the 1990 base. The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levels was 28.4% and the latest reduction from 2020 BAU is 21.7%. • 2020: 545 MMTCO
2e BAU (an average 21.7% reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base)
Senate Bill (SB) 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermedi ate goal to achieving S-3- 05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature (31).

AB 197
A condition of approval for SB 32 was the passage of AB 197. AB 197 requires that CARB consider the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize direct reductions in GHG emissions at mobile sources and large stationary sources. AB 197 also gives the California legislature more oversight over CARB through the addition of two legislatively appointed members to the CARB Board and the establishment a legislative committee to make recommendations about CARB program s to the legislature.

Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
Executive Order B -55-18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order B -55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B- 55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality go al for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.

Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, industrial, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on A ugust 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that was effective on January 1, 20235. As construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed in 2025, the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time.

SCAQMD
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Work ing Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the proje ct is less than significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 m etric ton of CO 2 e quivalent
(MTCO2e/yr)

5 The 2022 California Green Building Standard Code will be published July 1, 2022.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO 2e/yr; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e/yr; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO 2e per SP per year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO 2e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO 2e per SP per year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3- 05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would con tribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.

SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the project would i nclude stationary sources of emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations.

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials. • Rule 2701, Southern California (SoCal) Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan (Plan)
This Plan lays the groundwork to help prepare the City and its residents for the expected impacts of climate change, as required by State law. This Plan builds on the City’s existing General Plan Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Safety Element and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to evaluate Rialto’s vulnerabilities and capabilities and propose policy around four climate-related hazards: air pollution, extreme heat, wildfire, and flooding. These hazards were selected because they currently threaten the health and safety of Rialto residents and are the most likely to get worse as a result of climate change.

This Plan pays particular attention to addressing the needs of those most vulnerable in the community. Specifically, the recommendations provided in this Plan focus on the communities that are already disproportionately exposed to these hazards and are the least able to respond to climate change due to their physiological conditions or socio- economic factors (32).

GHG IMPACTS
Standards of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts from GHG emissions are significant. Would the project:
• Threshold 1 : Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Threshold 2 : Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a project against both existing conditions and a “threshold of significance.” For establishing significance thresholds, the Office of Planning and Research’s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) state “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds
Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Rialto has elected to rely on compliance with a local air district threshold in the determination of significance of Project -related GHG emissions.

Specifically, the City has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold recommended by
SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare Project - related GHG emissions.

The 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior to its use b y the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate Change white paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG -producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long -term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
proceed. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050 (33).

In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO
2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects
kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects in cluded warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MT CO 2e per year.

The SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.

The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO 2e per year
threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidan ce to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3- 05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2022 (33). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.

Thus, for purposes of analysis in this analysis, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO
2e per year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less- than-significant impact pursuant to Threshold GHG-1. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions.

Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment?

PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized on Table 8. The estimated GHG emission s include emissions from Carbon Dioxide (CO 2), Methane (CH 4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and Refrigerants (R). As shown on Table 8 , the Project would generate a total of approximately 102.03 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A.

TABLE 8: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Source
Emission (lbs/day)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 56.49 2.32E-03 5.71E-04 7.39E-03 56.72 Mobile Source 27.85 0.00 0.00 0.05 28.33
Energy Source 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91
Water 15.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.75
Waste 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.32
Total CO2e (All Sources) 102.03
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not been e stablished by the SCAQMD for Projects where it is not the lead agency . As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the City has opted to use a non- zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the h andbook.

Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresh olds Based on Market Ca pture) e stablishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all projects (34).

The Project would result in approximately 102.03 MTCO2e/yr; the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions (35).

The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Ray Hussey, Enplanners
July 27, 2023

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short -lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon (36).

Finally, the Project is consistent with the general plan land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in SCAG's Sustainable Community Strategy/Regional Transportation Plan, which pursuant to SB 375 calls for the integration of transportation, land -use and housing policies to plan for achievement of the GHG -emissions target for the region. Thus, a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions from Project construction and operation would occur and no mitigation is required.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S CAP
The City of Rialto has prepared a Draft Climate Adaption Plan (37) . The Climate Adaption Plan provides general guidance and policies that would “prepare the City and its residents for the expected impacts of climate change, as required by State law” (Climate Adaptation Plan, Introduction, n.p.).

The Project would comply with and would implement state and regional regulations and strategies that would minimize and control GHG emissions, and in this regard supports the City’s Climate Adaptation Plan. The Project does not propose or require elements or operations that would obstruct or conflict with the Climate Adaptation Plan. Moreover, the analysis presented here substantiates that the Project would not have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment.

CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and greenhouse gases.

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

REFERENCES

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Southern California Air Basins. [Online] https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/maps/scabc7map.pdf.

2. Ralph Propper, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology. 2015.

3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.

4. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online] http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.

5. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean- air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-i.

6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title II. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean -air-act-overview/1990- clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-ii.

7. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.

8. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.

9. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] April 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

11. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.

12. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.

13. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.

14. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] 2023. https://www.aqmd.g ov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf.

15. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CalEEMod. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/def ault- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

16. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

17. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

18. —. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] March 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality- management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.

19. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] September 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176.

20. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). 1993.

21. City of Rialto. Agua Mansa Specific Plan. [Online] 1986. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.yourrialto.com/Do cumentCenter/View/563/Agua-Mansa-Specific-Plan.

22. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003.
http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf.

23. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air -quality/clean-air-plans/air- quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.

24. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [Online] http://www.baaqmd.gov/.

25. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air -quality/clean-air-plans/air- quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.

26. —. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.aqmd .gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf.

27. California Air Resources Board. GHG 1990 Emissions Level & 2020 Limit. California Air Resources Board. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-2020-limit.

28. —. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. 2008.

29. —. STATUS OF SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED MEASURES. [Online] [Cited: September 19, 2019.]
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.

30. —. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2014.

31. California Legislative Information. Senate Bill No. 32. [Online] September 8, 2016. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB3

2. 14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

32. City of Rialto. Climate A daptation Plan. [Online] 2021. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/2248/Final-Rialto-Climate- Adaptation-Plan.

33. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Interim CEQA GHG Significnace Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar : s.n., 2008.

34. —. Interim CEQA GHG Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. [Online] December 5, 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf.

35. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2018.

36. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scopuing Plan Documents. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping- plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents.

37. Dudek. City of Rialto Climate Adaption Plan. Rialto : s.n., 2021.

14941-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD PROPOSED EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
1 / 47
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
2 / 47

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Trenching (2023) - Unmitigated

3.13. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
3 / 47

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
4 / 47

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
5 / 47

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
6 / 47

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
7 / 47

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14941-Lake Rialto
Construction Start Date 7/3/2023
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 14.2
Location 34.051329, -117.361129
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Rialto
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5343
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.13

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq
ft)
Population Description
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
8 / 47
City Park 12.0 Acre 12.0 0.00 522,721 522,721 — —
Parking Lot 11.0 Space 0.15 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.58 6.38 54.9 56.1 0.10 2.53 5.89 8.42 2.33 2.74 5.07 — 11,378 11,378 0.46 0.12 3.45 11,427 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.96 6.70 58.9 56.6 0.10 2.72 5.89 8.42 2.50 2.74 5.07 — 11,324 11,324 0.47 0.12 0.10 11,370 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.08 4.27 36.9 37.1 0.07 1.67 2.30 3.96 1.53 0.77 2.31 — 7,598 7,598 0.31 0.08 1.01 7,630 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.93 0.78 6.73 6.77 0.01 0.30 0.42 0.72 0.28 0.14 0.42 — 1,258 1,258 0.05 0.01 0.17 1,263

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
9 / 47
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 5.94 5.00 47.1 39.6 0.05 2.53 5.89 8.42 2.33 2.74 5.07 — 5,787 5,787 0.23 0.05 1.10 5,810 2024 7.58 6.38 54.9 56.1 0.10 2.48 3.45 5.93 2.28 1.16 3.45 — 11,378 11,378 0.46 0.12 3.45 11,427 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 7.96 6.70 58.9 56.6 0.10 2.72 5.89 8.42 2.50 2.74 5.07 — 11,324 11,324 0.47 0.12 0.10 11,370 2024 7.57 6.37 54.9 54.9 0.10 2.48 3.45 5.93 2.28 1.16 3.45 — 11,306 11,306 0.46 0.12 0.09 11,352 2025 1.02 0.88 7.53 10.9 0.01 0.35 0.20 0.54 0.32 0.05 0.37 — 1,705 1,705 0.07 0.02 0.02 1,713 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 2.12 1.79 16.2 14.7 0.02 0.80 1.40 2.20 0.73 0.58 1.32 — 2,634 2,634 0.11 0.03 0.33 2,645 2024 5.08 4.27 36.9 37.1 0.07 1.67 2.30 3.96 1.53 0.77 2.31 — 7,598 7,598 0.31 0.08 1.01 7,630 2025 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.34 3.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.36 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.39 0.33 2.95 2.68 < 0.005 0.15 0.26 0.40 0.13 0.11 0.24 — 436 436 0.02 < 0.005 0.05 438 2024 0.93 0.78 6.73 6.77 0.01 0.30 0.42 0.72 0.28 0.14 0.42 — 1,258 1,258 0.05 0.01 0.17 1,263 2025 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.13 0.42 0.14 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.56 439 439 0.08 0.02 1.27 447 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
10 / 47
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 0.12 0.41 0.15 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.56 417 418 0.08 0.02 0.03 424 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.06 0.36 0.08 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.56 268 269 0.07 0.01 0.29 274 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 44.4 44.5 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 45.3

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.13 0.12 0.14 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 338 338 0.01 0.01 1.27 344 Area 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.13 0.42 0.14 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.56 439 439 0.08 0.02 1.27 447 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 317 317 0.01 0.02 0.03 322 Area — 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
11 / 47
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.41 0.15 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.56 417 418 0.08 0.02 0.03 424 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 168 168 0.01 0.01 0.29 171 Area 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.06 0.36 0.08 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.56 268 269 0.07 0.01 0.29 274 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.3 Area 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.32 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 44.4 44.5 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 45.3

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
12 / 47
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

5.83 4.90 47.0 38.0 0.05 2.53 — 2.53 2.33 — 2.33 — 5,530 5,530 0.22 0.04 — 5,549 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 5.66 5.66 — 2.69 2.69 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

5.83 4.90 47.0 38.0 0.05 2.53 — 2.53 2.33 — 2.33 — 5,530 5,530 0.22 0.04 — 5,549 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 5.66 5.66 — 2.69 2.69 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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

0.85 0.71 6.83 5.52 0.01 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 803 803 0.03 0.01 — 806 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.82 0.82 — 0.39 0.39 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
13 / 47
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 1.25 1.01 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 133 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.09 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 257 257 0.01 0.01 1.10 261 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 236 236 0.01 0.01 0.03 238 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 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 35.2 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 5.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.82 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 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
14 / 47

3.3. Grading (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

5.00 4.20 40.9 32.7 0.06 1.96 — 1.96 1.80 — 1.80 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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

0.79 0.67 6.49 5.18 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,064 1,064 0.04 0.01 — 1,068 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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

0.14 0.12 1.18 0.95 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 176 176 0.01 < 0.005 — 177 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
15 / 47
———————0.030.03—0.080.08——————Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
Onsite
truc
k

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 0.11 0.10 0.12 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 269 269 0.01 0.01 0.03 273 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 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 43.3 43.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 43.9 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 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 7.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.27 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

3.5. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
16 / 47
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.69 3.94 37.6 31.4 0.06 1.77 — 1.77 1.63 — 1.63 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.69 3.94 37.6 31.4 0.06 1.77 — 1.77 1.63 — 1.63 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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

3.11 2.61 24.9 20.8 0.04 1.18 — 1.18 1.08 — 1.08 — 4,455 4,455 0.18 0.04 — 4,470 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 1.77 1.77 — 0.65 0.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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

0.57 0.48 4.55 3.80 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 — 738 738 0.03 0.01 — 740 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
17 / 47
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.32 0.32 — 0.12 0.12 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 288 288 0.01 0.01 1.15 292 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 264 264 0.01 0.01 0.03 267 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 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 178 178 0.01 0.01 0.33 180 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.4 29.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.8 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
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
18 / 47
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

1.01 0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 79.9 79.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.1 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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 0.08 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
19 / 47
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 200 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 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.8 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 — 1.76 1.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.78 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

3.9. Paving (2025) - 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

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
20 / 47

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.96 2.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.97 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.49 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

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 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 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 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 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 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
21 / 47
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

3.11. Trenching (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

2.63 2.19 17.6 19.7 0.04 0.76 — 0.76 0.70 — 0.70 — 3,801 3,801 0.15 0.03 — 3,814 Onsite
truc
k

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

0.42 0.35 2.80 3.12 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 602 602 0.02 < 0.005 — 605 Onsite
truc
k

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

0.08 0.06 0.51 0.57 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 99.7 99.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 100 Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
22 / 47
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.25 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 538 538 0.03 0.02 0.07 545 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 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 86.6 86.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 87.8 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.5 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

3.13. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.55 2.13 17.0 19.7 0.04 0.71 — 0.71 0.65 — 0.65 — 3,799 3,799 0.15 0.03 — 3,812 Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
23 / 47
Off-Road
Equipment

2.55 2.13 17.0 19.7 0.04 0.71 — 0.71 0.65 — 0.65 — 3,799 3,799 0.15 0.03 — 3,812 Onsite
truc
k

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

1.69 1.41 11.3 13.0 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 — 2,520 2,520 0.10 0.02 — 2,529 Onsite
truc
k

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

0.31 0.26 2.06 2.38 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 417 417 0.02 < 0.005 — 419 Onsite
truc
k

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.19 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 576 576 0.02 0.02 2.30 585 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.23 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 528 528 0.03 0.02 0.06 534 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 0.14 0.13 0.15 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 355 355 0.02 0.01 0.66 360 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 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
24 / 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 58.8 58.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 59.6 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 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.13 0.12 0.14 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 338 338 0.01 0.01 1.27 344 Parking
Lot

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 0.13 0.12 0.14 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 338 338 0.01 0.01 1.27 344 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 317 317 0.01 0.02 0.03 322 Parking
Lot

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 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 317 317 0.01 0.02 0.03 322 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.3 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
25 / 47
Parking
Lot

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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.3

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
26 / 47

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 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 Parking
Lot

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 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 Parking
Lot

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 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 Parking
Lot

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

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 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
27 / 47
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Consum
er
Products
— 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— <

0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.30 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
— 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— <

0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— <

0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
28 / 47

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 94.6 94.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7

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) 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
29 / 47
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.32 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.32

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
30 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

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
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
31 / 47

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
32 / 47
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
33 / 47
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
34 / 47
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/31/2023 10/11/2023 5.00 53.0 — Grading Grading 10/12/2023 12/4/2024 5.00 300 —
Paving Paving 12/5/2024 1/1/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Underground Utility
Construction
T renching 10/12/2023 12/4/2024 5.00 300 —

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 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
35 / 47
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Utility
Construction
Exca vators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Utility
Construction
Skid
Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Underground Utility
Construction
T
ractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Utility
Construction
F
orklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Underground Utility
Construction
Plate
Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Underground Utility
Construction
Pumps Diesel A
verage 2.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Underground Utility
Construction
Air
Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Underground Utility
Construction
Off-Highw
ay Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 376 0.38
Underground Utility
Construction
Gener
ator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Underground Utility
Construction
Concrete/Industr
ial
Saws
Diesel A verage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Underground Utility
Construction
P
avers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Underground Utility
Construction
Sw
eepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
36 / 47

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground Utility Construction — — — —
Underground Utility Construction Worker 40.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Underground Utility Construction Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Underground Utility Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Underground Utility Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
37 / 47

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

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 (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 186 0.00 —
Grading — — 1,200 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.15 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
38 / 47
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear City Park 9.36 23.5 26.3 5,037 142 358 399 76,562
Parking Lot 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 0.00 392

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
39 / 47

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

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) City Park 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 5,724 349 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) City Park 0.00 18,654,311
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 1.03 —
Parking Lot 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 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
40 / 47

18.04.004.00< 0.005750User DefinedCity Park Other commercial A/C and heat pumps
City Park Stand-alone retail
refriger
ators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear 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
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
41 / 47
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

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 27.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.45 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. 14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
42 / 47
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 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A 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 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
43 / 47
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

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 97.6
AQ-PM 89.4
AQ-DPM 55.0
Drinking Water 96.5
Lead Risk Housing 45.8
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 66.0
Traffic 84.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 96.0
Groundwater 98.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 99.1
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 99.7
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
44 / 47
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 78.5
Cardio-vascular 84.3
Low Birth Weights 75.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 85.9
Housing 28.2
Linguistic 69.8
Poverty 60.8
Unemployment 25.2

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 21.01886308
Employed 36.37880149
Median HI 37.44385987
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 18.61927371
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 54.67727448
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Active commuting 4.234569485
Social —
2-parent households 37.46952393
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
45 / 47
Voting 27.79417426
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 61.83754652
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 20.45425382
Supermarket access 46.58026434
Tree canopy 6.582830746
Housing —
Homeownership 77.71076607
Housing habitability 73.74566919
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 47.09354549 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 94.37957141
Uncrowded housing 14.98780957
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 9.367380983
Arthritis 38.0
Asthma ER Admissions 36.9
High Blood Pressure 68.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 9.8
Coronary Heart Disease 43.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 12.3
Diagnosed Diabetes 36.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 24.4
Cognitively Disabled 36.6
Physically Disabled 57.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 36.4
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
46 / 47
Mental Health Not Good 13.8
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
Obesity 23.4
Pedestrian Injuries 80.3
Physical Health Not Good 19.5
Stroke 39.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 36.9
Current Smoker 15.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 31.5
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 30.9
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 48.8
Elderly 81.3
English Speaking 30.9
Foreign-born 66.5
Outdoor Workers 10.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 80.4
Traffic Density 83.0
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 81.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 48.5
14941-Lake Rialto Detailed Report, 6/9/2023
47 / 47

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 96.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 25.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es 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.

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
Land Use Parking acreage taken from client provided site plan Construction: Construction Phases Construction information take from Project description Wor
king days was assumed based on CalEEMod defaults and Project Description.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment list for trenching uses similar Project size equipment. Water Truck modeled as Off-Highwa
y Trucks
Operations: Refrigerants Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or
greater.

CEQA Plus Initial Study Appendices
City of Rialto
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project APPENDIX B
Appendix B: Biological Resource Assessment

Biological Resource Assessment for the
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project

Prepared for:

Enplanners
P.O. Box 960
Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352
Contact: Ray Hussey

Prepared by:

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
327134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Contact: Brianna Bernard

December 2023

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project

December 2023 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary of Terms ................................................................ iv

1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6

1.1 Purpose and Approach.................................................................................... 6

1.2 Project Terms ..................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Project Location ................................................................................................ 6

1.4 Existing Conditions and Project History ....................................................... 7

2.0 Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7

2.1.1 Project Design Details ....................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Recreation Plan .................................................................................. 8

2.1.3 Construction ..................................................................................... 12

2.1.4 Project Operation and Maintenance ............................................ 12

3.0 Regulatory Context ................................ ................................ ................................ 14

3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations ...................................................................... 14

3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) .................................... 14

3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ................................................. 15

3.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) ................................................... 15

3.1.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States ...................... 15

3.2 California State Laws and Regulations ........................................................ 18

3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ................................ 18

3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616 ................. 18

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species ................................................ 18

3.2.4 California Fully Protected Species ................................................ 18

3.2.5 Protection of Birds ........................................................................... 19

3.2.6 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act – California Code, Division 7 ............................................................................................................. 19

3.2.7 California Native Plant Protection Act .......................................... 19

3.2.8 Sensitive Plant Communities ......................................................... 19

3.2.9 California Native Plant Society ....................................................... 20

3.2.10 Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) ............................................... 20

3.3 Regulatory Permits.......................................................................................... 20

4.0 Survey and Methods ................................ ................................ .............................. 20

4.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................. 20

4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities ......................................................... 21

4.1.2 Critical Habitat .................................................................................. 21 Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 ii

4.1.3 Special Status Plants and Wildlife ................................................. 22

4.2 Biological Survey ............................................................................................. 24

4.2.1 General Biological Survey .............................................................. 24

4.2.2 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement ................................. 24

4.3 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Assessment ................................................ 26

4.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...................................................................................... 27

5.0 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 30

5.1 Vegetation Communities .............................................................................. 30

5.1.1 Brittle Bush Scrub............................................................................. 32

5.1.2 Disturbed Brittle Bush Scrub ......................................................... 32

5.1.3 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub ........................................ 32

5.1.4 Mulefat Thicket ................................................................................. 32

5.1.5 Non-Native Grasslands ................................................................... 32

5.1.6 Tamarisk Thickets ............................................................................. 32

5.1.7 Ruderal............................................................................................... 32

5.1.8 Disturbed .......................................................................................... 32

5.1.9 Developed ........................................................................................ 32

5.1.10 300-foot Buffer Area ........................................................................ 33

5.2 Special-Status Vegetation Types .................................................................. 33

5.3 Plants ................................................................................................................. 33

5.4 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................. 34

5.5 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 35

5.5.1 Wildlife Species Observed or Detected ...................................... 39

5.6 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement ................................................ 40

5.7 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Assessment ............................................... 40

5.8 Jurisdictional Areas ........................................................................................ 41

5.8.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Waters ................................................ 41

5.8.2 Waters of the United States ........................................................... 41

5.8.3 Waters of the State .......................................................................... 41

5.9 Soils Mapping .................................................................................................. 43

6.0 Threshold of Significance ................................ ................................ ...................... 45

7.0 Significance Determination and Proposed Mitigation ................................ ....... 46

7.1 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 46

7.2 Project Related Impacts ................................................................................. 46

7.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities ............................................ 47

7.2.2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ................................................ 48

7.3 Threshold BIO - A ........................................................................................... 50

7.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species .................................................................... 50

7.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species ............................................................... 50 Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 iii

7.3.3 Critical Habitat .................................................................................. 51

7.4 Threshold BIO- B ............................................................................................. 51

7.5 Threshold BIO - C ........................................................................................... 52

7.6 Threshold BIO - D ........................................................................................... 52

7.6.1 Wildlife Movement .......................................................................... 53

7.6.2 Migratory Birds and Raptors .......................................................... 53

7.7 Threshold BIO - E ............................................................................................ 53

7.8 Threshold BIO - F ............................................................................................ 54

8.0 Cumulative Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ 54

9.0 Literature Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56

TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Community Observed Onsite ............................................................. 30 Table 2. Vegetation Community Impacts .............................................................................. 47

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Project Site Map ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3: Site Plan ...................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Critical Habitat Map ................................................................................................. 29 Figure 5: Vegetation Community Mapping .......................................................................... 31 Figure 6: Jurisdictional Waters Map ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 7: Soils Map .................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 8: Vegetation Communities Impact Map .................................................................. 49

APPENDICES
Appendix A Representative Photographs of Community Classification

Appendix B Plant Species Recorded During the Field Surveys

Appendix C Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Appendix D Special Status Wildlife Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Appendix E Delhi Sand Flower-Loving Fly Assessment

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 iv

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS
BLM United States Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAGN coastal California gnatcatcher
CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CSLS Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
CWA Clean Water Act
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGC California Fish and Game Code
FM Facilities Management
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCVII The Manual of California Vegetation
MMRP Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
MSL mean sea level
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark
Project Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 v
SAA Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement
SAR Santa Ana River
SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
U.S. United States
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WQC Section 401 Water Quality Certification
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 6

1.0 Introduction
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) prepared this Biological Resource Assessment for Enplanners and the City of Rialto (City) for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project (Project) in the City of Rialto. The Biological Resource Assessment for the approximately 14-acre Rialto Habitat Nature Center site, the surrounding 3 00-feet, the 0 .15-acre parking lot on Agua Mansa Road, an d approximately 1,300-foot long pedestrian path between the parking lot and the Rialto Habitat Nature Center along an existing service road on the west side of a lined portion of Rialto Channel , collectively known as the “Study Area,” incorporates the findings from a biological field survey and jurisdictional delineation conducted on January 27, 2023. A Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly site visit was assessed on February 15, 2023.

1.1 Purpose and Approach
This report provides a summary of the conditions present during the January 27, 2023 field survey, which includes an assessment of the potential presence of sensitive biological resources, an analysis of the potential impacts to those resources due to Project implementation and proposed mitigation. A Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly site visit was assessed on February 15, 2023. This assessment describes the current biological resources present within the Study Area including habitat communities, jurisdictional waters, and the potential occurrence of listed and special status plant and wildlife species. The potential biological significance of site construction and development in view of federal, state, and local laws and regulations are also identified in this report. The report also recommends, as appropriate, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts.

While general biological resources are discussed, the focus of this assessment is on those resources considered to be sensitive. This assessment was prepared based upon results of a literature review and field survey.

1.2 Project Terms
The following terms will be used throughout this document and are defined as follows:

• Project site: the approximately Rialto Habitat Nature Center site (14 acres) and proposed parking and pedestrian path.
• Study Area : th e area evaluated during the field survey, including the approximately 14-acre Rialto Habitat Nature Center site and an approximate 300- foot buffer area surrounding the Project site.
• Project Vicinity : in tended to be a general term to describe the broader area surrounding the Study Area.

1.3 Project Location
The Study Area is located in the City of Rialto on the southern 14 acres of the approximately 40-acre City-owned Rialto Water Treatment Plant, located at 501 E ast Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 7
Santa Ana Avenue, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (Figures 1 and 2). The Project site is generally located northwest of the Santa Ana River, and south of Interstate 10 between South Riverside Avenue to the west and South Pepper Avenue (extended) to the east. The Study Area is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-Minute Topographic Map San Bernardino South Quadrangle.

Access to the Project site is through the Rialto Water Treatment Plant located at 501 East Santa Ana Avenue.

1.4 Existing Conditions and Project History
The Project site consists of large, disturbed areas associated with the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) property. The approximately 14- acre Project site of the location for the proposed Rialto Habitat Nature Center is currently vacant and is predominantly covered by an abandoned, unused pit. An existing 36- inch drain pipe on the east side of the pit discharges treated effluent flow from the treatment plant directly into the Rialto Channel. The pit was formerly used as a receiving basin for partially treated discharge from the WWTP up to the early 1970’s prior to implementation of federal Clean Water Act regulations that prohibited discharge of partially treated water onto the earth and water ways. The proposed parking location and pedestrian trail is disturbed. The parking area is 0.15 acres of land fronting the north side of Agua Mansa Road west of the bridge that crosses Rialto Channel and the pedestrian trail is used as the Rialto Channel access road.

Local biological agencies lead by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) have issued a Draft Habitat Conservation Plan ( Draft HCP) for the Upper Santa Ana River (SAR) watershed, which is a comprehensive program that would provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore the habitat for Covered Species defined in the Draft HCP while streamlining permitting for Covered Activities.

Currently, the WWTP discharges 100 percent of its treated effluent flows (6.2 mgd or

9.6 cfs on average) into the concrete-lined Rialto Channel via a 36-inch diameter pipe.

2.0 Project Description
The City is proposing to construct the Project on an approximately 14-acre site consisting of the Habitat Nature Center, a public parking lot on Agua Mansa Road, and a pedestrian trail along the existing Rialto Channel service road to the Habitat Nature Center Project site. The Project proposes to be c reated by intercepting fully treated (primary, secondary, and tertiary) effluent from the WWTP that is currently discharged into the Rialto Channel and routing the effluent flow into an existing pit in the southern portion of the treatment plant property resulting in new wetland and terrestrial wildlife habitat, recreation, and water quality benefits. The Project proposes to create two lakes as shown on
Figure 3.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 8
Due to safety concerns preventing parking within the WWTP property, the City considered various parking locations for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project. The City determined parking would be located on the north side of Agua Mansa Road, east of 687 West Agua Mansa Road, and directly west of the Agua Mansa Road crossing of the Rialto Channel ( Figure 2 ). The p roposed parking is an approximately 0.15 -acre vacant site, identified as APN 805 -36-185. The parking is located approximately three- tenths of a mile to the south of the Rialto Habitat Nature Center site and is located in the City of Colton and within the San Bernardino County right- of-way. The path of travel between the lake and the parking area would be approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 mile).

2.1.1 Project Design Details
The Project proposes to create two lakes separated by a pedestrian path running north- south. The lakes would be connected by duel 24-inch diameter pipes. A plastic liner would be installed on the bottom and sides of the lakes, and clay would be installed in the lake perimeter shallow areas and in the wetland area. The smaller, 3 -acre west lake would have a depth of approximately 13 feet. The larger, 7-acre lake would have a depth of 48 feet and would include a maintenance access ramp to the bottom of the lake when emptied and a shallow marsh wetland area of 3 to 4 acres. For safety purposes, a shallow three-foot-deep and 13- foot-wide bench would be constructed along the perimeter edges of the lakes. The lake would receive fully treated and cleaned effluent once it has passed through the bio-filtration step, providing water temperature and nutrient management benefits. Once the Rialto Habitat Nature Center is created, it would connect to the existing discharge pipe that the discharges effluent flow to the Rialto Channel. The new connection back into the discharge pipe would occur on the Project site not within the Rialto Channel. The outfall structure within Rialto Channel would remain the same. In essence, the lake would temporarily use approximately 10 percent the treated effluent prior to its return into the Rialto Channel.

In addition, and as described previously, the proposed Project would include development of an 11-space parking lot, which would provide adequate parking and a pedestrian pathway connection to the Project site. A pedestrian pathway between the parking lot and Rialto Habitat Nature Center would occur on the existing utility road along the west side of Rialto Channel.

2.1.2 Recreation Plan
The Project proposes to create recreational facilities within the City by providing active and passive recreational opportunities in the form of a trail around the two lakes. Active recreation opportunities include hiking trails and passive recreation opportunities include vista and wildlife viewing locations with signage. No lighting is planned on the trail system around the lakes. The slopes are proposed at 2:1.

Approximate Project Location
Rialto Habitat Nature Center ProjectI
1 inch = 5,000 feet
0 2,500 5,000 7,5001,250
Feet
Bing MapsData Source:

GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 19, 2023
Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1
^_
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Project Location Map
I
1 inch = 350 feet
0 175 350 525 70087.5
Feet
Bing MapsData Sources:

Legend
Project Boundary
300-foot Buffer
Path to RHNC
Parking Location
300-feet Buffer for Parking
FIGURE 2
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: January 23, 2023
E
E
B
B
F
F
C
C
D
D
G
G
J
J
H H
A
A
I
I
K
K

WILSON MIKAMICORPORATION
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 12

2.1.3 Construction
Construction of the proposed lake s, parking, and pedestrian pathway is anticipated to take place over 18 months. Construction of the lakes would consist of site preparation, grading, underground utility construction, and landscaping. Site preparation would consist of vegetation removal and removal of any onsite trash and debris. Grading for the Project would consist of any removals of unsuitable soils to be used for non - compaction required locations. Excavation for the lakes would begin at the eastern most portion of the lake. In addition, grading of the eastern portion of the lake would construct two to one (2:1) slope embankments built up t o the west for the proposed wetlands area and include a west to east access ramp to the bottom. Excavation of the western most portion of the lake would consist of a maximum 15 feet cut and fills to achieve appropriate depth and to construct 2:1 slopes embankments with bench surrounding proposed island in the middle. Grading would also include construction of a proposed pedestrian access (trail) which partitions the lake with 2:1 slope embankments and a culvert connecting the flow between the east and west lakes. Once grading and underground utilities are complete, finish grading would commence to construct the trails, slopes, and landscape areas. The lake and its embankments would be lined with a geomembrane to retain lake water and erosion control and landscaping would be planted around the lake. Once final construction activities have completed, 10 percent of the existing flows into the Rialto Channel would commence to fill the lake to a full capacity at an elevation of 905 above mean sea level (MSL).

Construction of the parking lot would consist of site preparation, grading, and paving.

Site preparation would consist of minor clearing of non -native weeds and grass, and removal of any onsite trash and debris. Grading would consist of minor cuts and proper compact to an asphalt concrete (AC) paved parking lot with driveway. The existing pathway connecting users to Rialto Habitat Nature Center would require minor site preparation consisting of brush clearing and tread improvement for drainage and loose rock removal.

2.1.4 Project Operation and Maintenance
Although the Waste Water Treatment Plant has no contractual responsibility to deliver effluent flows into the Rialto Channel, it is required to protect the downstream habitat of two listed species in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the federal Endangered Species Acts (FESA). The City is working with San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to assist in the coordination of the flows to support the habitat of the two listed species (Santa Ana Sucker and Arroyo Chub) within the downstream natural bottom portion of Rialto Channel and the Santa Ana River. As a result, the WWTP currently discharges a minimum of 7 cubic feet per second (cfs) of Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 13
treated water into the channel to maintain suitable habitat for these species within the downstream natural bottom portion of Rialto Channel and the Santa Ana River.

As designed, the proposed Project would continue the direct delivery of approximately 90 percent of existing effluent flows into the Rialto Channel to maintain the CESA and FESA minimum requirement. The remaining 10 percent of effluent flows would be temporarily diverted into the lake to maintain the lake’s full capacity and ultimately conveyed through the same existing outlet into the Rialto Channel. It should be noted that the City has the ability and capacity to choose not to divert any water into the lakes post construction effectively concluding the existence of the lakes. Reasons for not diverting the water could be cost of maintenance and repairs to the lakes or overall operations of the lakes. The Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project is fully autonomous to the overall system, and should budget decline in the City, the City has the authorization to stop any diverting water into the lake and return to pre-project conditions.

2.1.4.1 Rialto Habitat Nature Center
Operation of Rialto Habitat Nature Center would generally occur Monday through Sunday during daylight hours (dawn to dusk). Daily securing of the site and monthly hardscape maintenance would be provided by the City’s Facilities and Maintenance Department. In addition, if necessary, maintenance of kiosks, restrooms and other land- based amenities would consist of inspection and monitoring on a daily basis. Daily trash removal, routine cleaning, and grounds clean up, and monthly landscaping would be provided by the City’s Community Services Department. Maintenance of the lake would consist of monthly inspections and if necessary, removal of settled solids, algae, invasive plants or contaminants by vacuum truck.

2.1.4.2 Rialto Habitat Nature Center Amenities
Residents and other guests would access the lake for recreational use and educational programs. The Rialto Habitat Nature Center amenities would include parking and bus access on Agua Mansa Road. In addition, the 1 mile of pedestrian perimeter trails would include the following amenities for guests:

1. Resting Areas: Th
e Project would include casual seating (boulders, stumps etc.) to allow for a quick stop along a path, as well as benches or similar seating to allow for longer duration resting or observation.

2. Observation Areas: The d esign includes areas to connect people to nature without trampling or disturbing the habitat. Themed informational signage would be provided throughout for guest guidance and enhanced experience.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 14
Signage with consistent icons, and symbology would begin at the site entrance and continue throughout all the Project areas.

3. Waste Management: Wi ldlife-proof waste collection stations would be placed at key locations (park entrance, gathering spaces, observation locations) for users to dispose of trash in bins and minimize trash ending up on the ground.

4. Irrigation: Th e Project would use treated dry-weather flow water and stormwater for planting irrigation. Supplemental irrigation would likely be required during the anticipated two-year plant and habitat establishment period.

5. Habitat Features: Habi tat structures features would primarily consist of small, protected spaces made of natural materials (rock) to create habitat spaces for small native mammals, reptiles, birds, and native bees. Habitat structures would be designed and located within th e riparian, transitional, and upland zones to encourage and promote native fauna occupying the site.

6. Hardscape Design: ADA compliant pedestrian access would be incorporated into the Project design. Of the 11 paved on-site parking spaces, appropriate ADA parking spaces would be provided. The 1 mile of pedestrian trail would be comprised of decomposed granite with a binder to prevent wind erosion.

3.0 Regulatory Context
The following is a list of the key local, state, and federal laws and regulations that apply to protecting plant communities, plants, wildlife, and water quality from project impacts relevant to the Project.

3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations

3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, unless properly permitted, it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Further, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through regulation, has interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification as forms of “take.” These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case‐ by‐case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a federal agency for an action which could affect a federally listed plant or animal species, the Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 15
property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ( ESA) if there is a federal nexus, or pursuant to Section 10 of the ESA. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants. All references to federally‐protected species in this biological assessment include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS.

3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects individuals as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. In practice, Federal permits issued for activities that potentially impact migratory birds typically have conditions that require pre‐disturbance surveys for nesting birds. In the event nesting is observed, a buffer area with a specified radius must be established, within which no disturbance or intrusion is allowed until the young have fledged and left the nest, or it has been determined that the nest has failed.

If not otherwise specified in the permit, the size of the buffer area varies with species and local circumstances (e.g., presence of busy roads, intervening topography, etc.), and is based on the professional judgment of a monitoring biologist. A list of migratory bird species protected under the MBTA is published by USFWS.

3.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 401 provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.

Section 401 requires a project operator to obtain a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain state certification, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board administers the certification program in California. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps implementing regulations are found at 33 CFR 320 and 330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with Corps (40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

3.1.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
Aquatic resources, including riparian areas, wetlands, and certain aquatic vegetation communities, are considered sensitive biological resources and fall under the jurisdiction of several regulatory agencies. The Corps exerts jurisdiction over waters of the United States, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands and other waters such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent or ephemeral streams), mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, prairie potholes, vernal pools, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; and tributaries of the above features. The extent of waters of the United States is generally defined as the portion that falls within the limits of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as the “line Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 16
on the shore established by the fluctuation 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 an d debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.”

The definition of waters of the United States has undergone several iterations, including a much more streamlined definition which was published and formally adopted in April 2020. However, in August 2021, the April 2020 Navigable Waters definition was challenged in the case Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of this case and subsequent order from US District Court for the District of Arizona, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule from 2020 and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre -2015 regulatory regime. Then in March 2023 following a Supreme Court decision, the rule was once again changed and finalized to codify the pre-2015 definition with some revisions to the definition wetlands. On August 29, 2023 the EPA and Corps issued a final rule to amend the prior definition of Waters of the United States. The final rule conforms with the definition of Waters of the United Stated to the US Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in the case Sackett v.

Environmental Protection Agency. As a result of the case, key aspects of the regulatory text have been amended to conform to the Court’s decision, which revised the definitions of Waters of the United Stated and became effective on September 8, 2023.

The September 2023 ruling codified the term (a) waters of the United States to mean:

1. Waters which are:
i. 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;
ii. The territorial seas; or
iii. Interstate waters;

2. 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;

3. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water;

4. Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
i. Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or ii. Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 17
iii. 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;

5. Intrastate lakes and ponds 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) of this section.

6. Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
i. 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
ii. 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, including swamps, bogs, seasonal wetlands, seeps, marshes, and similar areas, are defined by Corps as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[t]). Indicators of three wetland parameters (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), a s determined by field investigation, must be present and, as outlined within the September 2023 ruling, have adjacency with relative permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with continuous connection to Waters of the US.

Wetlands must meet the parameters as outlined above classified as a wetland by Corps.

It is important to note that the RWQCB definition of wetland was redefined, and the new definition went into effect May 28, 2020. The definition of a wetland is as follows: An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydro phytes, or the area lacks vegetation. This RWQCB modified three-parameter definition is similar to the federal definition in that it identifies three wetland characteristics that determine the presence of a wetland: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hyd rophytic vegetation.

Unlike the federal definition, however, the RWQCB wetland definition allows for the presence of hydric substrates as a criterion for wetland identification (not just wetland soils) and wetland hydrology for an area devoid of vegetation (less than 5% cover) to be considered a wetland.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 18
Examples of waters that would be considered wetlands by the RWQCB definition, but not by the federal wetland definition, are non -vegetated wetlands, or wetlands characterized by exposed bare substrates like mudflats and playas, as long as they meet the three-parameters as described in the RWQCB definition. It is important to note that while the Corps may not designate a feature as a wetland, that feature could be considered a special aquatic site or other water of the U.S. by the Corps and potentially subject to Corps’ jurisdiction.

3.2 California State Laws and Regulations

3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) establishes the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. The CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that would je opardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. There are no state agency consultation procedures under the CESA. For projects that would affect a listed species under both the CESA and the FESA, compliance with the FESA would satisfy the CESA if California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) determines that the federal incidental take authorization is “consistent” with the CESA under California Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 2080.1. For projects that would result in take of a species listed under the CESA only, the project operator would have to apply for a take permit under Section 2081(b).

3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires notifying CDFW prior to any project activity that might (1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. If, after this notification, the CDFW determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will need to be obtained. CDFW may then place conditions in the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFW jurisdictional limits.

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species
California fully protected species are described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species. CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protec ted species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by those species.

3.2.4 California Fully Protected Species
California fully protected species are described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 19
protected species. CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by those species.

3.2.5 Protection of Birds
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3515 states that is it unlawful to take any non‐game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.

3.2.6 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act – California Code, Division 7 The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters deemed “isolated” or not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.

Corps decision. Dredging, filling, or excavation of isolated waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the state and prospective dischargers are required to obtain authorization through an Order of Waste Discharge or waiver thereof from the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter-Cologne Act.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, the local RWQCB (for this P roject, the San ta Ana RWQCB) must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet state water quality standards. The RWQCB requires projects to avoid impacts to wetlands if feasible and requires that projects do not result in a net loss of w etland acreage or a net loss of wetland function and values. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and/or waters of the state is required.

3.2.7 California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900 – 1913) requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. The California Native Plant Protection Act gives the CDFW the power to designate native plants as “Endangered” or “Rare” and prohibits the take of such plants with certain exceptions.

3.2.8 Sensitive Plant Communities
Sensitive plant communities include those habitat types considered sensitive by resource agencies, namely CDFW, due to their scarcity and/or their ability to support State and Federally‐listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare vascular plants, as well as several sensitive bird and reptile species. CDFW maintains a natural plant community list, the List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities. Sensitive natural communities (also referred to by CDFW as ‘rare’, ‘special ‐status’, or ‘special concern’) are identified on the list by an asterisk and are considered high priority vegetation types (CDFW 2003; CDFW 2000).

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 20

3.2.9 California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society ( CNPS) is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as the candidate list for Threatened and Endangered by CDFW. CNPS has developed five categories of rarity, of which Ranks 1A, 1B, and 2 are particularly considered sensitive.

Sensitive species that occur or potentially could occur within the Study Area are based on one or more of the following: (1) the direct observation of the species within the Study Area during any field surveys; (2) a record reported in the CNDDB; and (3) the Study Area is within known distribution of a species and contains appropriate habitat.

3.2.10 Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)
California’s Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants (FGC Sections 1900-1913). Provisions of the NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. The project operator is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with the provisions of this act and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants.

3.3 Regulatory Permits
This report is prepared pursuant to and in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and any applicable regulatory permit applications, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 permit, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Biological Opinion.

4.0 Survey and Methods
Preparation for th is biological assessment began with a review of relevant available literature and review of historical biological documentation for the Study Area . This effort was followed by onsite field surveys to assess the existing habitat, map any onsite sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters , and determine whether special status plant and wildlife species occur or potentially occur within the Study Area.

4.1 Literature Review
The assessment began with a review of relevant available literature on the biological resources within the Study Area and Project Vicinity.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 21

4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities
Sensitive plant communities (sensitive habitats) are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.

Sensitive habitats are often threatened with local extirpation and are therefore considered valuable biological resources. Plant communities are considered “sensitive” by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and CDFW if they meet any of the criteria listed below.

• The habitat is recognized and considered sensitive by CDFW, USFWS, and/or special interest groups such as CNPS.
• The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA.
• The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1612 of the California Fish and Game Code.
• The habitat is known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
• The habitat is considered regionally rare.
• The habitat has undergone a large- scale reduction due to increased encroachment and development.
• The habitat supports special status plant and/or wildlife species (defined below). • The habitat functions as an important corridor for wildlife movement.

4.1.2 Critical Habitat
Under the ESA, the federal government is required to designate "critical habitat" for any species it lists under the ESA. Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats . Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as:

• The specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection.

• The specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

“Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Critical habitat receives protection under Section 7(a)(2) of t he ESA through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a federal agency.

Section 7(a)(2) also requires conferences on federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 22

The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the Study Area is within any species’ designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 20 22a). The USFWS regulatory mapping process for the designation of critical habitat is broad - based mapping exercise of areas that may or may not include constituent elements of the critical habitat designation. Due to this approach in mapping, large areas are designated as critical habitat regardless of the existing habitat, and as a result may include developed areas, such as buildings, roads, hardscape, and other such facilities, as well as natural habitats.

The constituent elements of the critical habitat designation consider the physical and biological features needed for life processes and successful reproduction of the listed species, including:

• Space for individual and population growth for normal behavior; • Habitat cover or shelter;
• Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; • Sites for breeding and rearing offspring; and
• Habitat that is protected from disturbance or is representative of the historical geographic and ecological distribution of a species.

4.1.3 Special Status Plants and Wildlife
Species of plants and animals are afforded “special status” by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or non -governmental organizations because of their recognized rarity, potential vulnerability to extinction, and local importance. These species typically have a limited geographic range and/or limited habitat and are referred to collectively as “special status” species. Plant and wildlife species are considered “special status” species if they meet any of the following criteria.

• Taxa with official status under ESA, CESA, and/or the NPPA. • Taxa proposed for listing under ESA and/or CESA.
• Taxa designated a species of special concern by CDFW. • Taxa designated a state fully protected species by CDFW. • Taxa identified as sensitive, unique or rare, by the USFWS, CDFW, the United States Forest Service (USFS), the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and/or the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). • Plants that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
• Species considered by CNPS and CDFW to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B and 2) (CNPS 2023 ). A majority of the CRPR 3 and CRPR 4 plant species generally do not qualify for protection under CESA and NPPA.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 23
• Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
• Some species included on the CNDDB Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2023g).
• Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Available literature and databases were reviewed regarding sensitive habitats and special status plant and wildlife species. Special status plant and wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the immediate region of the Study Area were identified. Several agencies, including the USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS publish lists of particular taxa (species and subspecies) and the associated level of protection or concern associated with each. Reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on the Study Area, and included the following sources listed below:

• The CNDDB, a CDFW species account database that inventories status and locations of rare plants and wildlife in California, was used to identify any sensitive plant communities and special status plants and wildlife that may exist within a two-mile radius of the Project site. A CNDDB search was performed by assessing a two -mile radius around the Study Area (CDFW 20 23f). CNDDB records are generally used as a starting point when determining what special status species, if any, may occur in a particular area. However, these records may be old, lack data not yet entered, and do not represent all the special status species that could be in that particular area.
• A map of USFWS critical habitat to determine species with critical habitat mapped in the general vicinity of the Project (
Figure 4) (USFWS 2023a).
• Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023).

A search for the USGS 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map San Bernardino South and the surrounding eight quadrangles (San Bernardino North, Harrison Mountain, Redlands, Sunnymead, Riverside East, Riverside West, Fontana, and Devore ) provided information regarding the distribution and habitats of special status vascular plants in the Project Vicinity.
• Pertinent maps, scientific literature, websites, and regional flora and fauna field guides.

The literature review was used as a resource to better understand the biological resources potentially occurring within the Study Area. Although the inventory list of special status plant and wildlife species was not exhaustive of all species that might occur on the property, it provides a wide range of species that are representative of the wildland habitats in the area. Species occurrence and distribution information is based Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 24
on documented occurrences where surveys have taken place for individual projects; therefore, a lack of documented occurrence does not necessarily indicate that a given species is absent from the Study Area.

4.2 Biological Survey

4.2.1 General Biological Survey
Plant species were identified using plant field and taxonomical guides, such as The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012).

Vegetation communities were characterized utilizing vegetation alliances in accordance with The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCVII) (Sawyer et al. 2009).

Where necessary, deviations were made on best professional judgment when areas did not fit into a specific habitat description provided by MCVII. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200- scale (1” = 200’) aerial photograph and a Trimble R1 GNSS Receiver paired with the ARC Geographical Information System (ARCGIS) Collector Application was utilized during the survey. All plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes.

Information regarding the presence of suitable habitat and soils to support the species, known records or occurrence within the area, and known distribution and elevation range obtained from the relevant literature was used to determine presence or absence of sensitive species.

The biologist paid special attention to those habitat areas that had the potential to provide suitable habitat for special status plant and wildlife species. Aerial photographs and maps were used to assist in the delineation of plant community boundaries.

Following field mapping, the plant communities were digitized, and the vegetation map was created.

General wildlife surveys were conducted on foot and with binoculars within the Study Area. All wildlife species encountered visually or audibly during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes. Biologists also recorded signs of wildlife species including animal tracks, burrows, nests, scat, and remains. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife. Wildlife field guides and photographs were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the field survey, as necessary.

Photographs were taken to document existing conditions within the Study Area (
Appendix A).

4.2.2 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, would not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habit at Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 25
areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Soule 1987, Harris and Gallager 1989). Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. A group of smaller populations (termed “demes”) linked together via a system of corridors is termed a “meta-population.” The long -term health of each deme within the meta- population is dependent upon its size and the frequency of interchange of individuals (immigration versus emigration). The smaller the deme, the more important immigration becomes, because prolonged inbreeding with the same individuals can reduce genetic variability.

Immigrant individuals that move into the deme from adjoining demes mate with individuals and supply that deme with new genes and gene combinations that increases overall genetic diversity. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population’s health.

Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by:

• Allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity. • Providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction.
• Serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox 1987, Harris and Gallagher 1989).

Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories:

• Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions).
• Seasonal migration.
• Movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).

A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies, such as “wildlife corridor,” “travel route,” “habitat linkage,” and “wildlife crossing” to refer to areas in which wildlife moves from one area to another. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion on wildlife movement in this study, these terms are defined as follows:

• Travel route: a landscape feature (such as a ridge line, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 26
another; it contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas; and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas.

• Wildlife corridor: a piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor.

Larger, landscape- level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species.

• Wildlife crossing : a small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Crossings are typically manmade and include culverts, un derpasses, drainage pipes, and tunnels to provide access across or under roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. These are often “choke points” along a movement corridor.

4.3 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Assessment
Due to the Proximity of Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF) Conservation Areas, a DSF habitat assessment was performed on the Project site. Prior to a site visit, soil maps covering the Project site were reviewed, along with aerial imagery to gain an understanding of historical land use regimens. Photographs were taken of the site, along with field notes on vegetation and soil conditions. The site is then rated based on its potential to support DSF based on the following scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat:

1. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content.

Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, manure, or organic debris.

Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sands are present, but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed).

Very Low Quality.

3. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi Sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity.

Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface.

Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance.

Moderate Quality.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 27

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi Sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates.

Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant and vegetation species composition is often indicative of low disturbance.

High Quality.

It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site and may range in quality of suitability for DSF habitat. Furthermore, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. Habitat conditions rated from Very Low Quality up to High Quality, are formally considered as representing suitable conditions for the DSF.

4.4 Jurisdictional Waters
The following sources were reviewed to determine the potential presence or absence of jurisdictional streams/drainages, wetlands, and their location within the watersheds associated with the Study Area, and other features that might contribute to federal o r state jurisdictional authority located within watersheds associated with the Study Area:

• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS 20 23c). The NWI database indicates potential wetland areas based on changes in vegetation patterns as observed from satellite imagery. This database is used as a preliminary indicator of wetland habitats because the satellite data are not precise. • Title 33 Code of Federal Register (CFR): Navigation and Navigable Waters Part 328
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Provides the locations of “blue-line” streams as mapped on 7.5-Minute Topographic Map coverage. • Aerial Imagery (Google Earth©) (Google 2023).
• USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps.
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.

All depressions and drainages were evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional waters and wetlands according to the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW delineation guidelines, including connectivity or lack of connectivity to Traditional Navigable Waters. Dominant vegetation within and adjacent to the jurisdictional features within the Study Area was identified and recorded.

The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over Waters of the United States.

Jurisdictional non -wetland features for the Waters of the United States are typically determined through the observation of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation 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 Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 28
surrounding areas.” Projects with impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.

To determine the presence of a jurisdictional wetland for the Waters of the United States, three indicators are required: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The methodology published in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement sets the standards for meeting each of the three indicators, which normally require more than 50 percent cover of dominant plant species typical of a wetland, soils exhibiting characteristics of saturation, and hydrological indicators be present.

CDFW has jurisdiction over water of the Department’s interest (California Fish and Game Code §§1600 et seq.; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §720), referred to as Waters of the State. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) applies to all rivers, streams, lakes and streambeds. CDFW defines a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in which water currently flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators” (Brady and Vyverberg 2013). Likewise, CDFW regulates jurisdictional areas of riparian habitat only to the extent that those areas are part of a stream, river, or lake as defined above. Waters of the State pertaining to Porter-Cologne in relation to RWQCB jurisdiction are defined by California Water Code Section 13050(e) as any surface or ground water within the boundaries of the state.

Prior to the field investigation, CSLS biologist reviewed historical aerial imagery and topography for the Study Area to determine the potential for perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral drainages and associated riparian resources. Generally, indicators of jurisdictional drainages on an aerial photo include vegetation and/or incised lines indicating the path of flowing water. Following the desktop research, CSLS biologists conducted an onsite field investigation. Based on the collective results of the deskt op investigation and the field surveys, any observed jurisdictional features were mapped using the following parameters:

• The limits of the Corps’ jurisdiction extend to the OHWM. OHWM indicators include: the observation of benches, break in bank slope, particle size distribution, sediment deposits, drift, litter, and/or change in plant community. • The RWQCB shares the Corps’ jurisdictional methodology, and the Regional Board’s May 2020 wetland definition.
• CDFW’s jurisdiction applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state. CDFW’s authority also includes riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, CDFW jurisdiction is mapped to the top of bank of the stream or the extent of streambed dependent vegetation.

Legend
Project Site
2 - mile Radius
Critical Habitat
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Santa Ana Sucker
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
I
1 inch = 3,500 feet
0 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000875
Feet Bing MapData Source:

FIGURE 4
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Critical Habitat
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 5, 2023
^_
^_
Approximate Project Location
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 30

5.0 Results
A field survey and jurisdictional delineation was performed on January 27, 2023, by CSLS biologist Brianna Bernard to assess and map vegetation communities, plants, and wildlife, and to identify habitat areas that could be suitable for special status plant species or jurisdictional features. A Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly site visit was assessed on February 15, 2023.

5.1 Vegetation Communities
The vegetation communities and habitat conditions were inspected to confirm presence and habitat quality of the vegetation found onsite. Vegetation mapping and acreages for each vegetation community is based on the observations of the field survey, which are listed below in
Table 1 and graphically depicted on Figure 5.

Representative photographs of the vegetation communities can be found in Appendix A. A complete list of species observed onsite can be found in Appendix B.

The deviations from MCVII alliance categories include ruderal, ornamental, disturbed and developed communities. The deviations were made due to the lack of alliances for these communities within MCVII. The field survey analyzed the Project site and a surrounding 3 00-foot buffer around the Project site to determine the existing vegetation types. As shown on Figure 5, the surrounding 300-foot buffer consists primarily of developed, disturbed, and non-native grasslands vegetation communities.

Table 1. Vegetation Community Observed Onsite
Vegetation Community Acreage within the Project
site (acres)
Brittle Bush Scrub 3.85
Disturbed Brittle Bush Scrub 0.10
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 0.12
Mulefat Thicket 0.12
Non-native Grasslands 0.45
Tamarisk Thicket 0.43
Ruderal 2.06
Disturbed 7.71
Developed 2.21
TOTAL 17.05

The general description of the habitat observed during the field survey are described below.

Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Vegetation Community Map
I
1 inch = 350 feet
0 175 350 525 70087.5
Feet
Bing MapsData Sources:

Legend
Project Boundary
300-foot Buffer
Path to Rialto Habitat Nature Center
Parking Location
300-feet Buffer for Parking
Vegetation Community
Brittle Bush Scrub
Disturbed Brittle Bush Scrub
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
Mulefat Thicket
Non-native Grasslands
Tamarisk Thicket
Ruderal
Disturbed
Developed
FIGURE 5
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: January 23, 2023
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 32

5.1.1 Brittle Bush Scrub
The brittle bush scrub is also known as Encelia farinosa Shrubland Alliance is composed primarily of brittle bush (Encelia farinosa). Additional species within the scrub includes California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sage scrub ( Artemisia californica), scattered with coyote brush, star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

5.1.2 Disturbed Brittle Bush Scrub
The disturbed brittle bush scrub and is composed of species as outlines in the brittle bush scrub community in a disturbed state with less vegetation cover and animal trails.

5.1.3 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
The disturbed California buckwheat scrub is as known as Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance and is composed of California buckwheat with scattered California brittlebush. It is in a disturbed state with less vegetation cover and animal trails.

5.1.4 Mulefat Thicket
The mulefat thicket is also known as Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance and is composed of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), California buckwheat and California sage scrub. Ruderal and non-native species occur within this community.

5.1.5 Non-Native Grasslands
The non-native grassland habitat is dominated by slender oat ( Avena barbata). Other grass and forb species within this community includes red stemmed filaree ( Erodium cicutarium), red brome (Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

5.1.6 Tamarisk Thickets
This alliance consists entirely of tamarisk species (Tamarix ramosissima).

5.1.7 Ruderal
The Project site contains portions of the ruderal vegetation community. The vegetation within this area is comprised of predominantly of summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

Other species include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and red brome (Bromus rubens).

5.1.8 Disturbed
The Project site consists primarily of disturbed habitat. The disturbed habitat area is associated with water treatment plant activities, staging areas, maintenance road adjacent to the Rialto Channel, dirt roads, and pedestrian paths/trails.

5.1.9 Developed
The developed areas are not vegetated and consist of water treatment plant infrastructure, asphalt roads, and concrete.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 33

5.1.10 300-foot Buffer Area
While a majority of the 300 -foot buffer is developed with the Rialto Water Treatment Plant to the north, various industrial uses occur to the west, and the Rialto channel occurs to the east. Open space occurs to the south of the Project site.

5.2 Special-Status Vegetation Types
A CNDDB search within the San Bernardino South USGS topographic quadrangle identified t hree special‐status vegetation communities designated by CDFW. The special status vegetation communities include Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Riparian Scrub, and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Scrub. The Project site does not contain any of the listed special‐status vegetation types.

5.3 Plants
Sensitive plants include those listed, or candidates for listing, by the USFWS and CDFW; and species considered sensitive by the CNPS (particularly Lists 1A, 1B, and 2). Several sensitive plant species were reported in the vicinity of the Study Area based on the CNDDB and within the San Bernardino South quadrangle search. A total of six sensitive plant species occurs within the USGS 7.5’ San Bernardino South quadrangle and had a CNDDB occurrence. A brief description of th e species is included below. A co mplete list of special status plant species with in the potential to occur o n the Project site were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions (
Appendix C). All plant species observed within the Project site during the field survey is listed in Appendix B.

Marsh Sandwort (Are
naria paludicola)
Status: Federally Endangered, State Endangered, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 Distribution: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, and San Luis Obispo Counties.

Habitat(s): Habitats supporting sandy openings and marshes and swamps (freshwater or brackish). Known from 3 to 170 meters (9 to 558 feet) MSL. Blooms May through August.

Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field visit.

Salt Marsh bird’s-beak (C
hloropyron maritium ssp. maritimum)
Status: Federally Endangered, State Threatened, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 Distribution: Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo.

Habitat(s): Habitats supporting coastal dunes and marshes and swamps (coastal salt).

Known from 0 to 30 meters (0 to 985 feet) MSL. Blooms May through November.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field visit.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 34
Santa Ana Whollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) Status: Federally Endangered, State Endangered, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.21 Distribution: Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

Habitat(s): Found in sandy soils of floodplains and terraced fluvial deposits of the Santa Ana River and larger tributaries. Known from 120 to 625 meters (400 to 4,100 feet) MSL.

Blooms April through September.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable soils. Not observed during the field survey.

Mesa Horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Distribution: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties.

Habitat(s): Occurs within chaparral (maritime, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub.

Known from 7 0 to 810 meters ( 230 to 2660 feet) MSL. Blooms February through July (September).

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable soils. Not observed during the field survey.

Parish’s bush-mallo
w (Malacothamnus parishii)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1A
Distribution: San Bernardino County.

Habitat(s): Found within chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. Known from 305 to 455 meters (1,000 to 1,495 feet) MSL. Blooms June through July.

Status onsite: None. While the site contains minimal chaparral habitat, the site lack s suitable soils. Not observed during the field survey.

Pringle’s monardella (Monardella pringlei)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1A
Distribution: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

Habitat(s): Habitats supporting sandy coastal scrub. Known from 300 to 400 meters (985 to 1,310 feet) MSL. Blooms May through June.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitats. Not observed during the field survey.

As determined through the field survey conducted, no special status plant species were observed within the Project site and there is no potential for special status plant species to occur on the Project site because the majority of the Project site is developed as a parking lot and disturbed. The undeveloped areas lack suitable habitats and soils to support the special status plant species.

5.4 Critical Habitat
The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the Project site is within any species designated Critical Habitat. The Project site and surrounding buffer area are not located within any designated Critical Habitat overlay.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 35
The closest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 0.50 miles south of the Project site for the Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) (Figure 4). The Project site does not contain habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker and the species does not occur onsite.

5.5 Wildlife
Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Study Area were analyzed based on the species identified in USGS 7.5’ San Bernardino South quadrangle, distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions (Appendix D). No special status wildlife was identified or observed within the Project site during the field survey. The following special status s pecies are identified to occur within the San Bernardino South quadrangle and noted as an occurrence within the 2- mile CNDDB search: California glossy snake (Arizona elegan occidentalis), orange-throated whiptail ( Aspidoscelis hyperythra), coastal whiptail ( Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri ), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia), Santa Ana sucker, western yellow -bellied cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis ), San Diego banded gecko ( Coleonyx variegatus abbotti), western mastiff bat ( Eumops perotis californicus ), arroyo chub ( Gila orcuttii), western yellow bat ( Lasiurus xanthinus ), San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit ( Lepus californicus bennettii), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), steelhead – southern California DPS ( Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10), Los Angles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), Delhi Sands flower -loving fly, and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). A brief description of those species and their habitat is included below. A complete list of the special status species identified within the quadrangle can be found in Appendix D.

California Glossy Snake
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): This species is found in a variety of habitats, primarily arid scrub areas with sparse vegetation including chaparral and grasslands areas.

Status onsite: None. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. Not observed during the field survey.

Orange-throated Wh iptail
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): The species is generally found in semi -arid brushy areas typically with loose soil and rocks, including washes, stream sides, rocky hillsides, and coastal chaparral.

Habitat types include low elevational chaparral, non -native grassland, (Riversidean) coastal sage scrub, juniper woodland and oak woodland. Associations include alluvial fan scrub and riparian areas. Friable soil appears to be a necessary requirement for excavating burrows and hiding eggs.

Status onsite: None. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. Not observed during the field survey.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 36
Coastal Whiptail
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): This species is found in a variety of habitats, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse vegetation including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. This subspecies is found in coastal southern California, north into Ventura County, and south into Baja California. Additional important habitat characteristics include shrub cover with a ccumulated leaf litter, and an abundance of invertebrate prey, particularly termites.

Status onsite: None. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. Not observed during the field survey.

Burrowing Owl
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): Burrowing owls are a year- round resident of California including habitats of open, dry grassland, and desert. They are generally restricted to mostly flat, open country with suitable nest sites. They use rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cov er and acquire their burrows from either abandonment or eviction.

Burrowing owls typically hunt from a perch.

Status onsite: None. During the field survey, the biologist paid special attention to any mammal burrows suitable for burrowing owl. It is determined the Project site does not contain any suitable sized burrows for the species. Not observed during the field survey.

Santa Ana Sucker
Status: Federally threatened
Habitat(s): Santa Ana suckers rely on perennial flows with suitable water quality and substrate to support breeding, feeding and sheltering. Over different life history stages, suckers depend on a variety of coarse substrate types, such as gravel, cobble, or mixtures of gravel or cobble with sand, and a variety of riverine features, like shallow riffles and deeper runs and pools.

Status onsite: None. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. Not observed during the field survey.

Western Yellow-bellied Cuckoo
Status: Federally threatened and State endangered
Habitat(s): This species is an uncommon to rare summer resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California. Formerly much more common and widespread throughout lowland California. Roosts and nests in densely foliaged, deciduous trees and shrubs in extensive thickets, particularly willows.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

San Diego Bande
d Gecko
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): The species ranges through most of Southern California north into the extreme southern part of Nevada and the southwestern tip of Utah, across northwest, Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 37
southwest, and southeast Arizona into the bootheel of New Mexico, and south down the western edge of the state of Sonora, Mexico and down the entire length of Baja California. The species occurs in rocky areas in coastal sage and chaparral.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

Western Mas tiff Bat
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): Western mastiff bats are found in a variety of habitats, such as semi -arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban, but the species’ distribution may be geomorphically determined, occurring primarily where there are significant rock features offering suitable roosting habitat. A cliff dwelling species, where maternity colonies of 30 to several hundred roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs and rock crevices along cliffs. Western mastiff bats can also be found in similar crevices in large boulders and buildings. When roosting in rock crevices they require a sizable drop from their roost in order to achieve flight. Western mastiff bats prefer deep crevices that are at least 15 or 20 feet above the ground. Foraging is concentrated around bodies of water but also includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

Arroyo Chub
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): Arroyo chub are adapted to survive in cool to warm (10 – 24°C) streams that fluctuate between large winter storm flows, and low summer flows, and the low dissolved oxygen and wide temperature fluctuations associated with this flow regime.

They are most common in slow flowing or backwater areas with sand or mud substrate but may also inhabit areas with velocities in excess of 80 cm/s over coarse substrate.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

Western Yello w Bat
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): Roost in trees, hanging from the underside of a leaf. Commonly found in the southwestern U.S. roosting in the skirt of dead fronds in both native and non - native palm trees and have also been documented roosting in cottonwood trees.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

San Diego black-tai
led jackrabbit
Status: None
Habitat(s): The black-tailed jackrabbit is a habitat generalist occurring in open areas or semi-open country, typically in grasslands, agricultural fields or sparse coastal scrub. It primarily is found in arid regions supporting short grass habitats. Jackrabbits typi cally are not found in high grass or dense brush where it is difficult for them to locomote, and the openness of open scrub habitat probably is preferred over dense chaparral. They Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 38
have also been found in annual grassland, Riversidean sage scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, Great Basin sagebrush, chaparral, disturbed habitat, southern willow scrub and juniper woodland. They are not found in high mountain forests. It prefers valley bottoms or intermontane valleys.

Status onsite: Low. While the site has minimal suitable habitat, the Project site is a Waste Water Treatment Plant that is fenced a majority of the site. Not observed during the field survey.

Pocketed Free-t ailed Bat
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): This bat species prefers rocky desert areas with high cliffs or rock outcrops.

Rock crevices in cliffs are preferred as roosting sites, since the bat must drop from the roost to gain flight speed. Typically reproduces in rock crevices, caverns, or buildings.

Ranges from southern California to New Mexico.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

Steelhead – Sout
hern California DPS
Status: Federally Endangered State Candidate Endangered Habitat(s): Historically, this species populated all coastal streams of southern California with permanent flows, as either resident or anadromous forms, or both. Today, the species occurs mostly within intermittent streams. The DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous Coastal Rainbow trout populations downstream of natural and human-made barriers in streams from the Santa Maria River (San Luis Obispo County) to the Tijuana River on the U.S. -Mexico border. They are most abundant in the four largest watersheds in the northern portion of their range: the Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara rivers.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

Los Angles Pocke t Mouse
Status: Species of Special Concern
Habitat(s): Prefers sandy soil for burrowing. Also known to occur on gravel washes and in rocky soils. Associated with coastal scrub.

Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field survey.

Coastal California gnatcatcher (Poli optila californica californica) Status: Federally threatened, Species of Special Concern Habitat(s): A non-migratory, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub habitat, which is a broad category of vegetation that includes the following plant communities: Ventura coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and coastal sage-chaparral scrub. They also use chaparral, grassland and riparian habitats next to coastal sage scrub, but these habitats are used dispersal and foraging. They avoid nesting on steep slopes.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 39
Status onsite: L ow. The Project site has disturbed California buckwheat scrub but consists of brittlebush scrub and disturbed habitats. While there is suitable habitat, it is a small patch and not sustainable for a pair. Not observed during the field survey.

Delhi Sands Flowe r-loving fly
Status: Federally Endangered
Habitat(s): The Delhi Sands flower- loving fly is dependent on Delhi sands and Delhi sand dunes with less than 50% vegetation cover. Typical vegetation includes California buckwheat, California croton ( Croton californicus ), and telegraph weed ( Heterotheca grandiflora).

Status onsite: None. A DSF habitat assessment was performed on February 15, 2023 and March 2, 2023 by Ken Osborne of Osborne Biological Consulting . Based on that assessment, it was determined the Project site is not suitable for the species. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys or habitat assessment.

Least Bell’s Vireo (Vir
eo bellii pusillus)
Status: federally endangered, state endangered
Habitat(s): This species primarily occupies riverine riparian habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1 -2 m of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. Typically, it is associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood -willow forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvial woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian forest, or mesquite in desert localities. It uses habitat which is limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses.

Status onsite: None. No suitable habitat occurs onsite. Not observed during the field survey.

Summary of Sensitive Wildl ife Species
No special status wildlife species or evidence of their presence were observed or heard during the field survey. Given the Project site’s disturbed environment, proximity to the Water Treatment Plant, and lack of suitable habitat for the sensitive species, there is no opportunity sensitive wildlife species to occur within the Project site.

5.5.1 Wildlife Species Observed or Detected
Wildlife activity was moderate, and the species observed are typical urbanized species.

The animal species or signs thereof observed during the CSLS surveys are listed below:

Birds:
• American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
• California towhee (Melozone crissalis)
• Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii)
• American avocet (Re curvirostra americana)
• White crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
• American bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
• Yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata)
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 40
• Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
• Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
• house finch (Hae morhous mexicanus)
• mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
• song sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna)
• turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Reptiles:
• western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)

Mammals:
• cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii)
• California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi)
• coyote (Canis latrans)

5.6 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement
The Project site does not support regional wildlife movement. The Project site consists of primarily brittlebush scrub and disturbed vegetation communities, with in the Rialto Water Treatment Plant , which is located to the north of the Project site . This further constrains potential regional wildlife movement through the Project site.

Although regional movement through this area is likely limited, there is some potential for smaller or “local” movement through the Study Area for more urbanized species.

Movement on a smaller scale could occur within the site for species that are less restricted in movement pathway requirements or are adapted to commercial/urban areas [e.g., squirrels, coyotes, and avian species in general).

Bird species may fly over the Project site to utilize the site for foraging, although this is expected to be limited due to the high level of human activity in the region. In summary, the site may support live ‐in and movement habitat for species on a local scale. Due to development surrounding the site, the site likely provides little to no function to facilitate movement for wildlife species on a regional scale.

5.7 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Assessment
Due to the location of the Project site adjacent to Delhi Sands flower- loving fly conservation areas, a habitat assessment for this species was conducted by Ken Osborne on February 15, 2023 ( Appendix E). A subsequent survey was performed on March 2, 2023 on the Parking Alternative areas to determine the suitability for the DSF to occur onsite. The Delhi Sands flower- loving fly is a Federally Endangered species which is dependent on Delhi sands and Delhi sand dunes with less than 50% vegetation cover. Typical vegetation includes California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum ), California croton (Croton californicus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 41
The entire Project site is on alluvial soils therefore the Project site is determined to be Unsuitable for DSF. The nearest extant DSF population appears immediately east and northeast of the water treatment facility on the eastern side of the existing channel. DSF have been observed (Osborne pers. obs.) 300 meters east, 350 meters east northeast, and within 0.9 km north northwest of the Project area. However, based on the proximity of DSF populations in the area, conditions on the entire Project site and s urroundings west of the existing channel (which bounds the eastern edge of the Rialto water treatment facility) presents conditions Unsuitable for DSF.

Furthermore, the proposed parking lot location is determined to be Unsuitable for DSF due to lack of Delhi sand soil type.

5.8 Jurisdictional Areas

5.8.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Waters
The Rialto Channel runs west to east on the eastern portion of the Project site . The channel is concrete.

5.8.2 Waters of the United States
This section relies on the term “Waters of the United States” as it applies to the jurisdictional limits under the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act and applies to the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. Based on the methodology described in Section 4.3, both literature/data base review and a field delineation were conducted to determine the presence of Waters of the United States.

A total of 0.15 acres as shown on Figure 6. The Rialto Channel is concrete within the Project boundary and has relatively permanent water due to the discharge of flows from the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

5.8.3 Waters of the State
The Study Area includes Waters of the State that meet CDFW characteristics in accordance with FGC Section 1600 (Brady and Vyverberg 2013). The only Waters of the State jurisdictional feature located within the Study Area is the concrete lined Rialto Channel due to the presence of biological and physical characteristics of a stream subject to the Jurisdiction of CDFW under FGC §1600 et seq.

A total of 0.38 acres as shown on Figure 6. The Rialto Channel is concrete within the Project boundary.

Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Jurisdictional Waters Map
I
1 inch = 350 feet
0 175 350 525 70087.5
Feet
Bing MapsData Sources:

Legend
Project Boundary
300-foot Buffer
Path to Rialto Habitat Nature Center
Project Parking Location
300-feet Buffer for Parking
Jurisdictional Features
Waters of the US (Corps/RWQCB) - 0.15 ac
Waters of the State (CDFW) - 0.38 ac
FIGURE 6
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: January 23, 2023
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 43

5.9 Soils Mapping
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service lists three soil types (series) for the Study Area ( Figure 7). Please see below for the following soil type, which was used to determine the possibility for sensitive wildlife and plant species. No unique soil types exist on the Project site.

The following soil types are mapped within the Study Area and shown on Figure 7:

• Quarries and Pits Soils (GP)
• Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC)

Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Soil Map
I
1 inch = 350 feet
0 175 350 525 70087.5
Feet
Bing MapsData Sources:

Legend Project
Boundary
300-foot Buffer
Path to Habitat Nature Center
Parking Location
300-feet Buffer for Parking
Soil Type
Delhi fine sand (Db)
Quarries and Pits soils (GP)
San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 2
to 9 percent slopes (ScC)
Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to
9 percent slopes (TvC)
FIGURE 7
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: January 23, 2023
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 45

6.0 Threshold of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is used by public agencies in determining whether a project may have a significant impact on biological resources. Under Appendix G, a project may have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:

Threshold BIO-A Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Threshold BIO-B Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive plant community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Threshold BIO-C Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Threshold BIO-D Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery areas.

Threshold BIO-E Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Threshold BIO-F Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

For the purposes of this impact analysis the following definitions apply:

• “Substantial adverse effect” means loss or harm of a magnitude which, based on current scientific data and knowledge would: (1) substantially reduce population numbers of a listed, candidate, sensitive, rare, or otherwise special status species; (2) substantially reduce the distribution of a sensitive plant community/habitat type; or (3) eliminate or substantially impair the functions and values of a biological resource (e.g., streams, wetlands, or woodlands) in a geographical area defined by interrelated biological components and systems. In the case of this analysis, the prescribed geographical area is considered to be the region that includes the USGS topographic quadrangle for the site. For some species, Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 46
the geographic area may extend to the vicinity of the site based on known distributions of the species.

• “Conflict” means contradiction of a magnitude, which based on foreseeable circumstances, would preclude or prevent substantial compliance.

• “Rare” means: (1) that the species exists in such small numbers throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (2) the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the FESA.

7.0 Significance Determination and Proposed Mitigation

7.1 Regulatory Setting
Sensitive species are provided protection by either Federal or State resource management agencies, or both, under provisions of the FESA and CESA.

There are a number of performance criteria and standard conditions that must be met as part of any review and approval of the proposed Project. These include compliance with all of the terms, provisions, and requirements with applicable laws that relate to Federal, State, and local regulating agencies related to potential impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, wetlands, riparian habit ats, and blue lined stream courses.

Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant because, although they would result in an adverse alteration of existing local conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.

7.2 Project Related Impacts
For the purpose of this assessment, Project-related impacts consist of direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of natural habitats (i.e., vegetation or plant communities), which in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which is typically the case in species of no to low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals).

The collective loss of individuals in these manners may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and, hence, population stability.

Indirect impacts are considered to be those that involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 47
cats and other non -native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non -native animals). Indirect impacts may be associated with the construction and/or operation of a project; therefore, these impacts may be both short -term and long -term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.

The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on the proposed Project development plan and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. Any recommended mitigation measures to address impacts are discussed below, along with compliance of existing regulations.

7.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Direct impacts resulting from Project implementation consist of any ground ‐disturbing activities (i.e., vegetation removal, grading, paving, structures, landscaping, fuel modification zone, etc.). These areas would be permanently affected by the construction of the Project. Calculations are based on the currently proposed development design in conjunction with the vegetation map from the field survey and aerial imagery. The proposed development plan can be found on Figure 3.

Indirect temporary impacts to plant communities include the effects of fugitive dust created by grading activities, vehicle construction traffic, or offsite discharge of surface water runoff with its associated erosion and sedimentation. Grading-related dust could settle on plant surfaces and indirectly inhibit metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and respiration. Grading -related erosion, runoff, sedimentation, soil compaction, and alteration of drainage patterns may affect plants by altering site conditions so that the location in which they are growing becomes unfavorable. Another example of indirect impacts includes the introduction and spread of invasive, exotic plants which could result in permanent indirect impacts to adjacent native plant communities.

Figure 8 and Table 2 describe and list the approximate total acreages of vegetation communities that will be impacted by Project activities within the Project boundary. It is anticipated that the entire Project site would be impacted with the implementation of the Project.

Table 2. Vegetation Community Impacts
Vegetation Community Existing Vegetation
(acres)
Impacts
(acres)
Avoided
(acres)
Brittle Bush Scrub 3.85 2.23 1.62
Disturbed Brittle Bush Scrub 0.10 0.10 0.00
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 0.12 0.12 0.00
Mulefat Thicket 0.12 0.12 0.00
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 48
Non-native Grasslands 0.45 0.35 0.10
Tamarisk Thicket 0.43 0.40 0.03
Ruderal 2.06 1.86 0.20
Disturbed 7.71 5.99 1.72
Developed 2.21 0.12 2.09
TOTAL 17.05 11.29 5.76

Direct impacts to the 8.72 acres of tamarisk thicket, non -native grasslands, ruderal, disturbed and developed communities onsite from Project implementation, are not significant because these areas consist of built environment and non -native vegetation communities. Further, the species found within these vegetation communities include common plant species which are present in large numbers throughout the region and the removal is not considered significant.

Direct impacts to 2.57 acres of native vegetation communities (brittlebush scrub, disturbed brittlebush scrub, disturbed California buckwheat scrub, and mulefat thicket) from Project implementation is not considered significant because while native, the limited area does not contain any sensitive species, plants or wildlife, or represent sensitive habitats identified through CNDDB or CDFW sensitive plant communities. The species found within these communities includes common plant species which are present in large numbers throughout the region and the removal is not considered significant. Furthermore, the habitat to be associated with the creation of the two lakes include the creation of these vegetation communities on the slopes and shelf of the lakes. No indirect impacts to the surrounding 300-foot buffer area are anticipated.

7.2.2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
Any direct impact to the jurisdictional waters would require authorization from the Resource Agencies (Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB) before any impacts could commence.

The only jurisdictional resource found onsite is the Rialto Channel. The channel is concrete within the Project boundary. No jurisdictional impacts would occur with Project implementation as the outfall area is not anticipated to change. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Furthermore, the Project creates new wetland and riparian habitat with the creation of the two lakes and various planting zones.

It should be noted that the City has the ability and capacity to choose not to divert any water into the lakes post construction, effectively concluding the existence of the lakes.

Reasons for not diverting the water could be cost of maintenance and repairs to the lakes or overall operations of the lakes. The Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project is fully autonomous to the overall sy stem, and should budget decline in the City, the City has the authorization to stop any diverting water into the lake and return to pre -project conditions.

Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Vegetation Impact Map
I
1 inch = 350 feet
0 175 350 525 70087.5
Feet
Bing MapsData Sources:

Legend
Project Boundary
300-foot Buffer
Path to Rialto Habitat Nature Center
Parking Location
300-feet Buffer for Parking Project
Impact Boundary
Vegetation Community
Brittle Bush Scrub
Disturbed Brittle Bush Scrub
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
Mulefat Thicket
Non-native Grasslands
Tamarisk Thicket
Ruderal
Disturbed
Developed
FIGURE 8
GIS Prepared By:

Carlson SLS
Created: April 16, 2023
Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 50

7.3 Threshold BIO - A
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

7.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species
No special status plant species exist within the Project site. No suitable habitat for the plant species is found within the Project site , and no observations of sensitive species have been made; therefore, no impact would occur.

7.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species
The Project site has nesting and foraging habitat for avian species and special status wildlife identified below due to the location and surrounding land uses and the built nature of the Project site during construction and operations. The existing habitat found onsite does not provide suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species.

Direct impacts associated with vegetation removal, as a result of construction and long- term operations in the form of vegetation maintenance, may occur to all avian species covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) with the removal of potential nesting and foraging habitat. Under Mitigation Measure BIO-1, if Project construction or operational maintenance is scheduled to occur during the typical breeding bird season (January 1 through August 15 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species), direct removal of vegetation and indirect short -term noise effects to birds that may forage or nest onsite or within the buffer area may occur. In order to reduce direct and indirect impacts on nesting birds, if vegetation removal and/or construction activities were to occur during nesting bird season, a pre- construction nesting bird survey would be required within five (5) days of ground disturbances during typical nesting bird season to delineate any active nests found within the Study Area. Should an active nest be observed, a no -work buffer shall occur surrounding the active nest, until determined by the Project Biologist it has become inactive. The implementation of the pre-construction nesting bird survey would prevent any direct or indirect impacts due to the removal of vegetation and construction-related noise on species covered under the MBTA
.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects nesting activities of both native and non -native bird species. Under the Act it is unlawful to harm, harass, or take a nest. Furthermore, pre-construction and pre-operational vegetation maintenance nesting bird surveys as
outlined within Mitigation Measure BIO – 1 would ensure protection against direct impacts associated with vegetation removal and maintenance or indirect impacts associated with construction or operational maintenance related noise impacts for avian species covered under the MBTA during the typical nesting bird season.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 51
Implementation of MM BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to special status wildlife species to less than significant.

MM BIO – 1: If grading or site disturbance or operational vegetation maintenance is to occur between January 1 through August 15 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted within all suitable habitat, onsite and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible), by a qualified biologist within no more than 5 days of scheduled vegetation removal or start of ground disturbing activities, to determine the presence of nests or nesting birds. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non- sensitive species). All work within these buffers shall be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist shall review and verify compliance with the no -work buffers and verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active nests are found onsite or within the surrounding buffer area. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the bu ffer areas of an active nest with preparation and implementation of a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared documenting mitigation monitoring compliance. If ground disturbances have not commenced within 5 days of a negative survey or if construction activities have stopped for 5 days or longer, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds.

Furthermore, f ollowing Project implementation the lakes would include coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats. The creation of the lakes and adjacent habitats provides superior habitat than the vegetation communities being impacted. Furthermore, Project implementation would provide superior nesting and foraging habitat for avian species.

With the implementation of MM BIO-1 potential adverse impacts to nesting birds and special status wildlife species are reduced to a less than significant level during both the construction phase and operational maintenance phase.

7.3.3 Critical Habitat
The Study Area does not contain a designated Critical Habitat overlay. The closest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 0.50 miles south for the Santa Ana Sucker. No designated Critical Habitat is located onsite ; therefore, there are no potential impacts to designated Critical Habitat due to Project implementation.

Furthermore, no suitable habitat occurs onsite for the Santa Ana Sucker.

7.4 Threshold BIO- B
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 52
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact.

The Project site contains the Rialto Channel, which is located on the eastern portion of the Project site . The Channel is not impacted as part of Project implementation.

Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur to Waters of the State and no mitigation is required.

It should be noted that the City has the ability and capacity to choose not to divert any water into the lakes post construction, effectively concluding the existence of the lakes.

Reasons for not diverting the water could be cost of maintenance and repairs to the lakes or overall operations of the lakes. The Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project is fully autonomous to the overall system, and should budget decline in the City, the City has the authorization to stop any diverting water into the lake and return to pre -project conditions.

7.5 Threshold BIO - C
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact.

The Project site contains the Rialto Channel, which is located on the eastern portion of the Project site. The Channel is not impacted as part of Project implementation.

Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur to Waters of the State and no mitigation is required.

It should be noted that the City has the ability and capacity to choose not to divert any water into the lakes post construction, effectively concluding the existence of the lakes.

Reasons for not diverting the water could be cost of maintenance and repairs to the lakes or overall operations of the lakes. The Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project is fully autonomous to the overall system, and should budget decline in the City, the City has the authorization to stop any diverting water into the lake and return to pre -project conditions.

7.6 Threshold BIO - D
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 53

7.6.1 Wildlife Movement
The site supports potential live -in and movement habitat for species on a local scale (i.e., some limited live-in and marginal movement habitat for reptile, bird, and mammal species), however, the site provides little to no function to facilitate wildlife movement on a regional scale due to the primary developed nature surrounding the Project site.

Movement on a local scale likely occurs with species adapted to urban environments due to the surrounding development and disturbances in the vicinity of the site.

Although implementation of the Project would result in disturbances to local wildlife movement within the site, those species adapted to urban areas would be expected to persist on-site following construction within the newly created lakes.

Furthermore, following Project implementation the lakes would include coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats. The creation of the lakes and adjacent habitats provides superior habitat than the vegetation communities being impacted and more potential live-in and movement habitat for species.

As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

7.6.2 Migratory Birds and Raptors
The Study Area supports potential nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds.

While t he loss of foraging /nesting habitat as a result of the proposed Project implementation would cause a significant loss of foraging/nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors, the Project proposes to create two lakes and associated wetland/riparian habitats and opportunities for nesting and foraging habitat. Therefore, impacts to foraging habitat would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required with the implementation of the Project.

The site supports songbird nests due to the presence of a shrubs and tamarisk thickets current and will support vegetation in both coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat post- construction. Nesting activity typically occurs from January 1 through August 15 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species . Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503. As such, direct impacts to breeding birds (e.g. through nest removal) or indirect impacts (e.g. by noise causing abandonment of the nest) is potentially significant. Compliance with the MBTA during construction and operational vegetation maintenance would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, as detailed in MM BIO-1.

7.7 Threshold BIO - E
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 54
The Project is not subject to any local policies, such as a tree preservation ordinance, that protect biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.

7.8 Threshold BIO - F
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Less than Significant.

The City or Rialto nor the County of San Bernardino do not have an adopted Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. The Project is located near DSF observed occurrences, located 300 meters east, 350 meters east northeast, and within 0.9 km north northwest of the Project site. Furthermore, DSF conservation occurs to the east and west of the Project site. The Project site does not contain suitable habitat for the DSF, therefore, no impacts would occur to DSF conservation area since the Project site is not located with in designated preserve or reserve area. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.

The l ocal biological agencies including the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) have drafted a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Upper Santa Ana River (SAR) watershed, which is a comprehensive program that would provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore the habitat for Covered Species defined in the HCP while streamlining permitting for Covered Activities. This plan has not been approved by the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFW) at the time of this Assessment.

However, it is the intent of the Project to maintain the existing flows of the WWTP discharge into Rialto Channel. Following Project implementation the discharge will meet and exceed the 7 cfs requirement proposed as part of the SAR HCP.

8.0 Cumulative Impacts
The loss of biological resources on the Study Area must be considered in the context of the other development in the area. The Project’s direct impact analysis identified nesting birds that when combined with impacts from other reasonably past, present, and future projects, could result in a cumulative biological impact. Direct impacts may occur to nesting birds should construction activities and vegetation removal take place during the typical nesting season. However, adherence and implementation of MM BIO
- 1 will ensure impacts to nesting and breeding avian species and their habitats are minimized thus reducing the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, following Project implementation, the lakes would include coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats. The creation of the lakes and adjacent habitats Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 55
provides superior habitat than the vegetation communities being impacted and more potential nesting and foraging habitat for species.

Development surrounding the Project site is essentially build -out, therefore there is a lesser potential to impact foraging habitat for song birds and raptors than loss of nesting habitat. The proposed Project constitutes the reuse of an existing developed area and creates lakes and riparian habitat to further enhance the area and provide additional nesting and foraging habitat to avian species. It is not anticipated that additional development would occur in the Project area due to the built-out nature thus conserving the DSF Conservation area and with the implementation of the Project provide additional habitat for avian species. Since the proposed Project is the reconstructed of habitat in a developed area, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact, resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 56

9.0 Literature Cited
Amphibiaweb. 2023. Species Accounts. Retrieved from:
http://amphibiaweb.org/search/index.html

AOU (The American Ornithologists' Union). 1998. Check -List of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pp.

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 California Press, Berkeley.

Bowers, N., R. Bowers, and K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Brady, Roland H. III, Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility ‐Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC‐500‐2014‐013.

Calflora. 2023. Calflora website - search for plants.

Retrieved from: http://www.calflora.org/species/index.html.

CaliforniaHerps.com. 2023. California Herps. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California. Retrieved from: http://www.californiaherps.com/.

Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council). 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal- IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Natural Communities List.

Biographic Data Branch. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023a. California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 20 23b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023c. Fish and Game Code Section 1600- 1616. Retrieved from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=3784.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 57
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023d . Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023e. Life History Accounts and Range Maps – California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023f. RareFind, California Department of Fish and Wildlife , California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

State of California, The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database.

February 2023g. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 140 pp.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database.

February 2023h. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 67 pp.

Retried from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023i. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife , Resource Management and Planning Division, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.

Clark, W.S. and B.K. Wheeler. 2001. A Field Guide to Hawks of North America, Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8 -03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 12 March 2018].

Corps (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 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 TR -08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

Eder, Tamara. 2005. Mammals of California. Lone Pine Publishing International Inc, Auburn, WA.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 58
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Laws and Regulations.

Summary of the Endangered Species Act.

Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html

Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival.

Ecology 66:1762-1768.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC Cooperative technical publication.

Fish and Game Commission. 2023. California Law. California Fish and Game Code.

Retrieved from:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=FGC& tocTitle=+Fish+and+Game+Code+-+FGC

Google. 2023. GoogleEarth© website.

Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, 1989 “Federal Manual for Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands; Proposed Revisions.” August 14, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 157, pp 40446-40480.

Harris, L.D. and Gallagher, P.B. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: The need for movement corridors. In defense of wildlife: Preserving communities and corridors. pp. 11-34. Edited by G. Mackintosh. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.

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

National Geographic Society. Edited by Jonathan Alderfer. 2006. Complete Birds of North America. National Geographic Society. Washington D.C.

Biological Resource Assessment for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project December 2023 59
NatureServe. 20 23. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 20 23. Web Soil Survey. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors.

Conservation Biology. 1:63-71.

Soule, Michael E. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Cambridgeshire and New York.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2011. Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act with Additions and Amendments Effective April 2017. Compiled by the Office of Chief Counsel.

Retrieved from:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of California.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 20 23a. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023b. Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023c. National Wetlands Inventory.

Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html.

WTI (Wetland Training Institute, Inc.). 1999. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Glenwood, NM WTI 99-1. 143 pp.

WTI (Wetland Training Institute, Inc.). 2003. Wetland Delineation Lecture Notes and Field Guide for Wetland Delineation based on the Corps of Engineers 1987 Manual. WTI, New Mexico.

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA

Representative Photographs of Community
Classification

Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community

Photos taken January 27, 2023

Looking north on the Project site with Encelia slopes and disturbed habitat.

Much of the Project site is disturbed habitat.

Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community

Photos taken January 27, 2023

Many of the slopes on the Project site consist of brittle bush scrub.

Several slopes included non-native grasslands.

Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community

Photos taken January 27, 2023

Looking south over the Project site.

Looking northeast across the Project site with ruderal habitat and brittle bush scrub slope

Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community

Photos taken January 27, 2023

Areas of tamarisk stands.

The Project site included scattered slopes of California sage scrub.

Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community

Photos taken January 27, 2023

Looking east over the Project site.

Looking west over the Project site.

Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community

Photos taken January 27, 2023

The proposed parking location consists of disturbed habitat.

Proposed trail path that would lead to the Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project.

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB

Plant Species Recorded During Field Surveys
Appendix B – Plant Species Recorded During the Field Surveys

Appendix B contains the list of vascular plant taxa recorded during the 2023 biological survey conducted within the Study Area. Plant nomenclature and taxonomic order is based on The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, s econd Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012).

PPllaanntt SSppeecciieess OObbsseerrvveedd dduurriinngg tthhee FFiieelldd SSuurrvveeyy

EUDICOTS

VASCULAR SPECIES
ASTERACEAE—Sunflower Family
Artemisia californica—California sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis—coyote brush
Baccharis salicifolia—mulefat
Centaurea melitensis—Maltese star-thistle*
Centaurea solstitialis—yellow star-thistle*
Encelia farinosa—brittle bush
Oncosiphon piluliferum—stinknet*
BRASSICACEAE—Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana—shortpod mustard*
GERANIACEAE—Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium—redstem stork's bill*
LAMIACEAE—Mint Family
Salvia apiana—white sage
POLYGONACEAE—Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum—California
buckwheat
TAMARICACEAE—Tamarisk Family
Tamarix ramosissima—tamarisk*

MONOCOTS

VASCULAR SPECIES
POACEAE—Grass Family
Avena barbata—slender oat*
Bromus diandrus—ripgut brome*
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens—red brome*

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC

Special Status Plant Species Potential
Occurrence Determination

Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC

SSppeecciiaall SSttaattuuss PPllaanntt SSppeecciieess PPootteennttiiaall OOccccuurrrreennccee DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonn

This table summarizes concl usions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potenti al occurrence of special status plant species within the Project site for the USGS 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map San Bernardino South and the surrounding two-mile radius. During the field surveys, the potential for special status plant species to occur within the P roject s ite was assessed based on the following criteria:

• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.

• Known to Occur: observed on site in the recent past, but not observed during the most recent biological survey.

• High potential to occur: observed in similar habitat in the region by a qualified biologist or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species, and the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species.

• Moderate potential to occur: reported sightings in surrounding region, or the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species.

• Low potential to occur: the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species or for which there are no known recorded occurrences of the species within or adjacent to the site.

• None: a focused study failed to detect the species or no suitable habitat is present.

• Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.

Even with field surveys, biologists assessed the probability of occurrence rather than make a definitive conclusion about species presence or absence. Failure to detect the presence of the species is not definitive and may be due to variable effects associated with fire, rainfall patterns, and/or season.

Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Special Status Plants: Potential to Occur within the Study Area

Scientific Name Common
Name
Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Arenaria paludicola marsh
sandwort
FE, SE
CRPR:1B.1
Habitats supporting sandy openings and
marshes and swamps (freshwater or brackish) .

Known from 3 to 170 meters (9 to 558 feet) MSL.

Bloom Period: May through August.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Astragalus hornii
var. hornii
Horn's milk-
vetch
CRPR: 1B.1 Habitats supporting Meadows and seeps, Playas along alkaline and lake margins. Known from 60
to 850 meters (195 to 2,790 feet) MSL. Bloom
period May through October.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Carex comosa Bristly Sedge CRPR: 2B.1 Habitats supporting Coastal prairie, Marshes and swamps (lake margins), Valley and foothill
grassland. Known from 0 to 625 meters ( 0 to
2,050 feet) MSL. Bloom period May through
September.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth
tarplant
CRPR:1B.1

Alkaline areas in chenopod scrub, m eadows
and seeps, ditches, playas, riparian woodland,
and valley and foothill grassland. Known from
below 480 meters (1,600 feet) MSL.

Blooming Period: April through September.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
FE, SE
CRPR: 1.B2
Habitats supporting coastal dunes and marshes
and swamps (coastal salt) . Known from 0 to 30
meters (0 to 985 feet) MSL.

Blooming Period: May through November.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower
CRPR:1B.1

Found in s andy or rocky openings. Ha bitat
includes chaparral, cismonta ne woodland,
coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands.

Known from 275 to 1,220 meters (900 to 4,000
feet) MSL.

Blooming period: April through June.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Cuscuta obtusiflora
var. glandulosa
Peruvian
Dodder
CRPR: 2B.2 Habitats supporting Marshes and swamps
(freshwater). Known from 15 to 280 meters (50 to
920 feet) MSL. Bloom Period: July through
October.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Dodecahema
leptoceras
Slender-
horned
spineflower
CRPR: 1B.1 Habitats supporting sandy soils within Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub (alluvial
fans). Known from 200 to 760 meters (655 to
2,495 feet) MSL. Bloom period: April to June.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common
Name
Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana
Wolllystar
CRPR: 1B.1 Habitats supporting Chaparral, Coastal scrub (alluvial fans). Known from 91 to 610 meters (300
to 2,000 fe et) MSL. Bloom period: April to
September.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Galium californicum
ssp. primum
Meadow
Bedstraw
CRPR: 1B.2 Habitats supporting Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest . Known 1,350 to 1,700 meters
(4,430 to 5,580 feet) MSL. Bloom period: May
through July.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Helianthus nuttallii
ssp. parishii
Los Angeles
Sunflower
CRPR: 1A Habitats supporting marshes an d swamps
(freshwater). Known from 10 to 1,525 meters (35
to 5,005 feet) MSL. Bloom period: August
through October.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
Mesa horkelia CRPR: 1B.1 Habitats supporting Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub . Known
from 70 to 810 meters (230 to 2,660 feet) MSL.

Bloom period: February through July.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Lycium parishii Parish's desert-
thorn
CRPR: 2B.3 Habitats supporting Coastal scrub, Sonoran
desert scrub . Known rom 135 to 1,000 meters
(445 to 3,280 feet) MSL. Bloom period: March
through April.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish bush-
mallow
CRPR: 1A Habitats supporting Chaparral, Coastal scrub .

Known from 305 to 455 meters (1,000 to 1,495
feet) MSL. Bloom period: June through July.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Monardella pringlei Pringle's
monardella
CRPR: 1A Habitats supporting Coastal scrub (sandy) .

Known from 300 to 400 meters (985 to 1,310
feet) MSL. Bloom period: May through June.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Nasturtium gambelii Gambel's
water cress
CRPR: 1B.1 Habitats supporting Marshes and swamps
(brackish, freshwater) . Known from 5 to 330
meters (15 to 1,085 feet) MSL. Bloom period:

April through October.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Ribes divaricatum
var. parishii
Parish's
gooseberry
CRPR: 1A Habitats supporting Riparian woodland . Known
from 65 to 300 meters (215 to 985 feet) MSL.

Bloom period: February through April.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Senecio aphanactis Chaparral
ragwort
CRPR: 2B.2 Habitats supporting Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub. Known from 15 to 800
meters (50 to 2,625 feet ) MSL. Bloom period:

Jan through April.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common
Name
Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
CRPR: 2B.2 Habitats supporting Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean
desert scrub, Playas . Known from 15 to 1,530
meters (50 to 5,020 feet) MSL. Bloom period:

March through June.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass
CRPR: 2B.2 Habitats supporting Cismontane woodland,
Meadows and seeps. Known from 300 to 2,000
meters (985 to 6,560 feet) MSL. Bloom period:

April to July.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
CRPR: 1B.1 Habitats supporting Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest,
Marshes and swamps, Meadows and seeps,
Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic).

Known from 2 to 2,040 meters (5 to 6,695 feet)
MSL. Bloom period: July through November.

None. No suitable habitat is found within the
Study Area. Not observed during field
survey.

Legend
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).

FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to § 1904 (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977) and §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals.

SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range.

ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.

California Rare Plant Ranks (Formerly known as CRPR Lists): the CRPR is a statewide, non-profit organization that maintains, with CDFG, an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In the spring of 2011, CRPR and CDFG officially changed the name “CRPR List” or “CRPR Ranks” to “California Rare Plant Rank” (or CPRP). This was done to reduce confusion over the fact that CRPR and CDFG jointly manage the Rare Plant Status Review Groups and the rank assignments are the product of a collaborative effort and not solely a CRPR assignment.

Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

CRPR: 1B - California Rare Plant Rank 1B (formerly List 1B): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1B meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

CRPR: 2 - California Rare Plant Rank 2 (formerly List 2): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

CRPR: 4 - California Rare Plant Rank 4 (formerly List 4): Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Very few of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 4 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CRPR and CDFG strongly recommend that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

California Native Plant Society (CRPR) Threat Ranks: The CRPR Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered. A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B's, 2's, 4's, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3's. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A (presumed extinct in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.

0.1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

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

Sources:
• Calflora website - search for plants (Calflora 2023). • CRPR Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CRPR 2023). • The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California, 2000–2004 (CDFW 2023). • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023f). • State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2023i).

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD

Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence
Determination

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD

SSppeecciiaall SSttaattuuss WWiillddlliiffee PPootteennttiiaall OOccccuurrrreennccee DDeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonn

This table summarizes conclusions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potential occurrence of special status wildlife species within the Project site for the USGS 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map San Bernardino South and the surrounding two-mile radius. During the field surveys, the potential for special status wildlife species to occur within the Proje ct Site was assessed based on the following criteria:

• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or previously recorded on-sit e by other qualified biologists.

• Know
n to Occur : observed on site in the recent past, but not observed during the mos t recent biological survey.

• High potential to occur: observed in similar habitat in the region by a qualified biologist or habitat on the site is a type oft en utilized by the species, and the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species.

• Moderate potential to occur: reported sightings in surrounding region, or the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species.

• Low potential to occu r: the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, but habitat on the site is rarel y used by the species or for which there are no known recorded occurrences of the species within or adjacent to the site.

• None:
a focused stu dy failed to detect the species or no suitable habitat is present.

• Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.

Even w ith field surveys, biologists assessed probability of occurrence rather than make definitive conclusions about species presence or absence. Failure to detect the species is not definitive and may be due to variable effects associated with migration, weather, fire, and/or time of day and year.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Special Status Wildlife: Potential to Occur within the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence Agelaius tricolor Tricolor
blackbird

ST, SSC,

BLMS, BBC
Tricolor blackbird colonies require nearby
water, a suitable nesting substrate, and open-
range foraging habitat composed of
grassland, woodland, or agricultural
cropland.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens
southern
California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
WL

They are found on grass-covered hillsides,
coastal sage scrub, and chaparral and often
occur near the edges of the denser scrub and
chaparral associations. Preference is shown
for tracts of California sagebrush. Optimal
habitat consists of sparse, low brush or grass,
hilly slopes preferably interspersed with
boulders and outcrops. The species may
occur on steep grassy slopes without shrubs if
rock outcrops are present. It is a very secretive
species.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during the field surveys.

Anniella stebbinsi Southern
California
legless lizard
SSC

Coastal sand dunes and a variety of interior
habitats, including sandy washes and alluvial
fans.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake
SSC

This species is found in a variety of habitats,
primarily arid scrub areas with sparse
vegetation including chaparral and
grasslands areas.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orange-
throated
whiptail

SSC, FSS

The species is generally found in semi-arid
brushy areas typically with loose soil and
rocks, including washes, stream sides, rocky
hillsides, and coastal chaparral. Habitat types
include low elevation chaparral, non-native
grassland, (Riversidian) coastal sage scrub,
juniper woodland and oak woodland.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence Associations include alluvial fan scrub and
riparian areas. Friable soil appears to be a
necessary requirement for excavating
burrows and hiding eggs.

Artemisiospiza
belli
Bell’s sage
sparrow
WL

Chaparral and coastal sage scrub along the
coastal lowlands, inland valleys and in the
lower foothills of local mountains.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during the field surveys.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail SSC

This species is found in a variety of habitats,
primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse
vegetation including chaparral, woodland,
and riparian areas. This subspecies is found in
coastal southern California, north into Ventura
County, and south into Baja California.

Additional important habitat characteristics
include Important habitat components
include shrub cover with accumulated leaf
litter, and an abundance of invertebrate prey,
particularly termites.

Low. The site contains minimal suitable
habitat within the disturbed areas. Not
observed during field survey.

Athene cunicularia
hypugaea
burrowing owl SSC, BLMS,
BCC

Burrowing owls are a year-round resident of
California including habitats of open, dry
grassland, and desert. They are generally
restricted to mostly flat, open country with
suitable nest sites. They use rodent or other
burrows for roosting and nesting cover and
acquire their burrows from either
abandonment or eviction. Burrowing owls
typically hunt from a perch.

None. A habitat assessment was
performed, and no suitable habitat is
found within the Project site. Not
observed during field survey.

Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
SCE

The crotch bumble bee inhabits open
grassland and scrub habitats. This species
occurs primarily in California, including the
Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, Western
Desert, Great Valley, and adjacent foothills
None. No suitable nectar sources were
observed onsite. No suitable habitat is
found within the Project site. Not
observed during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence through most of southwestern California.

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s
hawk

ST, BLMS,
BBC
This hawk prefers open grasslands and
desert-like habitats. It is common to see this
hawk perched on a fence post in a prairie or
open range. The Swainson's Hawk also
inhabits agricultural areas, and is known to
follow farmer's tractors in search of insect or
rodent prey.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during the field survey.

Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
Sucker
FT Santa Ana suckers rely on perennial flows with
suitable water quality and substrate to
support breeding, feeding and
sheltering. Over different life history stages,
suckers depend on a variety of coarse
substrate types, such as gravel, cobble, or
mixtures of gravel or cobble with sand, and a
variety of riverine features, like shallow riffles
and deeper runs and pools.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during the field survey.

Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
SSC

This species is a common resident of sandy
herbaceous areas, often on sandy substrates
(rocks or coarse gravel) in southwestern
California. In San Diego County the species
occurs mainly in arid coastal and desert
border areas. Habitats include coastal scrub,
chamise-redshank chaparral, mixed chaparral,
sagebrush, desert wash, desert scrub, desert
succulent shrub, pinyon-juniper, and annual
grassland.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-
billed cuckoo

FT, SE,

BLMS, FSS,
BCC

This species is an uncommon to rare summer
resident of valley foothill and desert riparian
habitats in scattered locations in California.

Formerly much more common and
widespread throughout lowland California.

Roosts and nests in densely foliaged,
None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence deciduous trees and shrubs in extensive
thickets, particularly willows.

Coleonyx
variegatus abbotti
San Diego
Banded Gecko
SSC The species ranges through most of Southern
California north into the extreme southern
part of Nevada and the southwestern tip of
Utah, across northwest, southwest, and
southeast Arizona into the bootheel of New
Mexico, and south down the western edge of
the state of Sonora, Mexico and down the
entire length of Baja California. The species
occurs in rocky areas in coastal sage and
chaparral.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake

SSC, FSS

It can be found from the desert, through
dense chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the
mountains above around 4,000 feet), to warm
inland mesas and valleys, all the way to the
cool ocean shore. It is most commonly
associated with heavy brush with large rocks
or boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills,
cactus or boulder associated coastal sage
scrub, oak and pine woodlands, and desert
slope scrub associations are known to carry
populations of the northern red-diamond
rattlesnake, however, chamise and red shank
associations may offer better structural habitat
for refuges and food resources for this
species than other habitats. They need rodent
burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover
objects.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat

FE, SSC

Typically found in Riversidean alluvial fan sage
scrub and sandy loam soils, alluvial fans and
floodplains, and along washes wit h nearby
None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence sage scrub.

Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephen’s
kangaroo rat
FE, ST

This species prefers large areas of disturbed
or p
atchy annual and perennial grasslands
and open c oastal sage sc rub. Preferred
perennials plant species include buckwheat
and chamise and pre ferred annual plant
species include brome grass. The ne arest
known populations are in Rancho Guejito and
at the Naval Weapons Station in Fallbrook.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Eumops perotis
californicus
Western mastiff
bat
SSC

Western mastiff bats are found in a variety of
habitats, such as semi-arid to arid habitats,
including conifer and deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, annual and perennial
grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert
scrub, and urban, but the species’ distribution
may be geomorphically determined,
occurring primarily where there are significant
rock features offering suitable roosting
habitat. A cliff dwelling species, where
maternity colonies of 30 to several hundred
roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs
and rock crevices along cliffs. Western mastiff
bats can also be found in similar crevices in
large boulders and buildings. When roosting
in rock crevices they require a sizable drop
from their roost in order to achieve flight.

Western mastiff bats prefer deep crevices that
are at least 15 or 20 feet above the ground.

Foraging is concentrated around bodies of
water but also includes coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and grassland habitats.

None. The site lacks suitable roosting
habitat for the species. Not observed
during the field survey.

Euphydryas editha
quino
quino
checkerspot
FE Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat is
characterized by patchy shrub or small tree
None. The site lacks suitable habitat for
the species. Not observed during the
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence butterfly

landscapes with openings of several meters
between large plants, or a landscape of open
swales alternating with dense patches of
shrubs; such habitats are often collectively
termed “scrublands.” Quino will frequently
perch on vegetation or other substrates to
mate or bask, and they require open areas to
facilitate movement. Optimal habitat appears
to contain little or no invasive exotic
vegetation. Sustained drought conditions
can lead to extirpation of local populations,
and broad scale climate anomalies may lead
to phenological incompatibility between
Quino checkerspot butterfly and their host
plants.
field survey.

Gila orcuttii Arroyo chub SSC Arroyo chub are adapted to survive in cool to warm (10 – 24°C) streams that fluctuate
between large winter storm flows, and low
summer flows, and the low dissolved oxygen
and wide temperature fluctuations associated
with this flow regime. They are most common
in slow flowing or backwater areas with sand
or mud substrate but may also inhabit areas
with velocities in excess of 80 cm/s over
coarse substrate.

None. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Not observed during the field survey.

Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow
bat
SSC

Roost in trees, hanging from the underside of
a leaf. Commonly found in the southwestern
U.S. roosting in the skirt of dead fronds in
both native and non- native palm trees and
have also been documented roosting in
cottonwood trees.

None. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Not observed during the field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail

ST, BLMS,
BBC, Fully
Protected

Black Rails nest in marshes and wet meadows
across North America, including riparian
marshes, coastal prairies, saltmarshes, and
impounded wetlands. All of the habitats have
stable shallow water. Nests are primarily
made of southern cattail or spikerush and are
elevated above the mud substrate in clumps
of vegetation. Black rails have also been
known to nest on top of a mat of dead
vegetation from the previous years’ growth.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
SSC

The black-tailed jackrabbit is a habitat
generalist occurring in open areas or semi-
open country, typically in grasslands,
agricultural fields or sparse coastal scrub. It
primarily is found in arid regions supporting
short grass habitats. Jackrabbits typically are
not found in high grass or dense brush where
it is difficult for them to locomote, and the
openness of open scrub habitat probably is
preferred over dense chaparral. They have
also been found in annual grassland,
Riversidean sage scrub, alluvial fan sage
scrub, Great Basin sagebrush, chaparral,
disturbed habitat, southern willow scrub and
juniper woodland. They are not found in high
mountain forests. It prefers valley bottoms or
intermontane valleys.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-
tailed bat
SSC

This bat species prefers rocky desert areas
with high cliffs or rock outcrops. Rock crevices
in cliffs are preferred as roosting sites, since
the bat must drop from the roost to gain flight
speed. Typically reproduces in rock crevices,
caverns, or buildings. Ranges from southern
None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence California to New Mexico.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
Steelhead-
Southern
California DPS
FE, State
Candidate
Endangered
Historically, this species populated all coastal
streams of southern California with
permanent flows, as either resident or
anadromous forms, or both. Today, the
species occurs mostly within intermittent
streams. The DPS includes all naturally
spawned anadromous Coastal Rainbow trout
populations downstream of natural and
human-made barriers in streams from the
Santa Maria River (San Luis Obispo County) to
the Tijuana River on the U.S.-Mexico border.

They are most abundant in the four largest
watersheds in the northern portion of their
range: the Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura,
and Santa Clara rivers.

None. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Not observed during the field survey.

Onychomys
torridus ramona
Southern
grasshopper
mouse
SSC

Common in arid desert habitats of the Mojave
Desert and southern Central Valley of
California. Alkali desert scrub and desert
scrub habitats are preferred, with somewhat
lower densities expected in other desert
habitats, including succulent shrub, wash, and
riparian areas. Also occurs in coastal scrub,
mixed chaparral, sagebrush, low sage, and
bitterbrush habitats. Uncommon in valley
foothill and montane riparian, and in a variety
of other habitats.

None. The site lacks suitable habitat for
the species. Not observed during the
field survey.

Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
SSC

Prefers sandy soil for burrowing. Also known
to occur on gravel washes and in rocky soils.

Associated with coastal scrub.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
SSC, BLMS Occurs in a variety of vegetation types
including coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence

annual grassland, oak woodland and riparian
woodlands.
during field survey.

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher

FT, SSC

A non-migratory, permanent resident of
coastal sage scrub habitat, which is a broad
category of vegetation that includes the
following plant communities: Ventura coastal
sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub,
maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage
scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub,
southern coastal bluff scrub, and coastal
sage-chaparral scrub. They also use chaparral,
grassland and riparian habitats next to coastal
sage scrub, but these habitats are used
dispersal and foraging. They avoid nesting on
steep slopes.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Rhaphiomidas
terminates
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
FE The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is
dependent on Delhi sands and Delhi sand
dunes with less than 50% vegetation cover.

Typical vegetation includes California
buckwheat, California croton (Croton
californicus), and telegraph weed
(Heterotheca grandiflora).

None. A DSF habitat assessment was
performed on February 15, 2023 and
March 2, 2023 by Ken Osborne of
Osborne Biological Consulting . Based
on that assessment, it was determined
the Project site is not suitable for the
species. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Not observed during the field surveys or
habitat assessment.

Spea hammondii western
spadefoot

SSC, BLMS

May be found in coastal sage scrub, open
chaparral, pine-oak woodlands and grassland
habitats, but is most common in grasslands
with vernal pools or mixed grassland/coastal
sage scrub areas. Within these habitats, they
require rain pools/vernal pools in which to
reproduce and that persist with more than
None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence three weeks of standing water in which to
metamorphose successfully. They can also
breed in slow-moving streams (e.g., areas
flooded by intermittent streams). Water
breeding sites must lack fish, bullfrogs, and
crayfish in order for to successfully reproduce
and metamorphose. They estivates in sandy,
gravelly soil in upland habitats adjacent to
potential breeding sites in burrows
approximating 1 meter in depth.

Taxidea taxus American
badger
SSC
Badgers prefer to live in dry, open grasslands,
fields, and pastures. They are found from high
alpine meadows to sea level
None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell’s vireo FE, SE

Least Bell’s vireos primarily occupy riverine
riparian habitats that typically feature dense
cover within 1-2 m of the ground and a
dense, stratified canopy. Typically, it is
associated with southern willow scrub,
cottonwood-willow forest, mule fat scrub,
sycamore alluvial woodland, coast live oak
riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian forest, or
mesquite in desert localities. It uses habitat
which is limited to the immediate vicinity of
water courses. 2,000 feet elevation in the
interior.

None. No suitable habitat is found
within the Project site. Not observed
during field survey.

Legend
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened Animals is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17.11.

FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a sign ificant portion of their range.

FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or an imal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.

FC = federal candidate for listing.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

FPT = federally proposed threatened.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals. The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Section 670.5 .

SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range.

ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.

SCT = state candidate for listing as threatened.

SCE = state candidate for listing as endangered.

California Department of Fish and Wildli fe (CDFW):

SSC = species of special concern: status applies to animals which 1) are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or 2) historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The CDFW has designated certain vertebrate species as “species of special concern” because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction.

Fully protected = animal species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

WL = watch list: these birds have been designated as “Taxa to Watch” in the California Bird Species of Special Concern report (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

The report defines “Taxa to Watch” as those that are not on the current special concern list that (1) formerly were on the 1978 (Remsen 1978) or 1992 (CDFG 1992) special concern lists and are not currently listed as state threatened and endangered; (2) have been removed (delisted) from either the state or feder al threatened and endangered lists (and remain on neither), or (3) are currently designated as “ful ly protected” in California.

United States Fish and Wildli fe Service (USFWS):

BCC = USFWS bird of conservation concern: listed in the USFWS’S 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report. The report identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. While all of the bird species included in the report are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.

United States Forest Serv
ice (USFS):

FSS = Forest Service sensitive: those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.”

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM):

BLMS = BLM sensitive: those plant and animal species on BLM administered lands and that are (1) under status review by the USFWS/NMFS; or (2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing my become necessary, or (3) with typically small and widely dispersed populations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. BLM policy is to provide the same level of protection as USFWS candidate species.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF):

CDF: S = CDF sensitive: species is a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection sensitive species. The Board of Forestry classifies as sensitive species those species that warrant special protection during timber operations.

Sources:
• A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California (CaliforniaHerps.com 20 23). • A Field Guide to Hawks of North America, Second Edition (Clark and Wheeler 2001). • Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California (Gallagher 1997). • Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). • A Field Guide to Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Fourth Edition (Reid 2006). • A Natural History of California (Schoenherr 1992).
• A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition (Stebbins 2003). • Amphibian species accounts (Amphibiaweb 2023).
• California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008). • Check-List of North American Birds, 7th edition (American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] 1998). • Complete Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 2006). • Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 4th Ed (National Geographic Society 2003). • Fifty-first supplement to the AOU Check-List of North American Birds (Chesser et. al. 2010). • Life History Accounts and Range Maps (CDFW 2023e).
• Life on the Edge: A Guide to California’s Endangered Natural Resources. Wildlife (Thelander et al. 1994). • Mammals of North America (Bowers et al. 2004).
• Mammals of California (Eder 2005).
• Mammals of North America (Kays and Wilson 2002).
• Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California (Williams 1986). • Mammal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder 2005). • NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2023).
• National Audubon Society, the Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2000). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023). • Reference Atlas to the Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 2003). • Shorebirds of North America. The Photographic Guide (Paulson 2005). • Special Animals List (CDFW 2023h).
• Standard Common and Current Scientific Names (Center for North American Herpetology website [CNAH] website 20 23). • The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals (Wilson and Ruff 1999). • Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California (Bolster 1998).

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX EE

Delhi Sand Flower-Loving Fly Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

1 Ken H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509

March 7, 2023

Attn: Ms. Brianna Bernard
Project Manager/Biologist
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134 A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

RE: Habitat assessment for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly on 12.7-acres of the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rialto Lake project and associated alternative parking areas, Rialto, CA.

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant, Carlson Strategic Land Solutions has requested my assessment of habitat conditions and potential for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on a 12.7-acre site at the southern end of the Rialto Water Treatment Facility, Rialto, CA. This assessment includes three alternative parking areas associated with the project. For the purpose of this habitat assessment, I have evaluated site conditions for DSF suitability in terms of site characteristics on the basis of a detailed grading system I have developed in recent years.

Summary Conclusions: Though the 12.7-acre project site is within close proximity to known DSF populations, the entire site is situated on alluvial soil substrates and is therefore unsuitable for DSF.

Site conditions for the three alternative parking areas are as follows: Agua Mansa Road location (alternative #3) and east end of Santa Ana Avenue (alternative #1) sites are unsuitable for DSF due to lack of Delhi sand soils. The alternative parking location on the Southern California Edison easement at Industrial Drive (alternative #2) represents high quality DSF habitat with high potential for DSF presence.

Qualifications: Although I possess USFWS 10(a) permitting to survey for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, such permitting is generally awarded to biologists only on the basis of a biologist’s experience with and/or ability to identify adult DSF, such permitting not awarded on the basis of any real understanding of DSF biology, ecology, or habitat requirements. Traditionally, USFWS considered any land (within the known range of DSF) to have been mapped with Delhi Sands soils (Woodruff 1980) as subject to formal survey for the DSF. Thus, my additional qualifications in this regard include BS, MS, degrees in entomology, 55 years general entomological experience, over thirty-five years’ experience with research and discoveries in Rhaphiomidas life history, biology, and ecology, such that I am now a leading expert in this narrow field of study.

Natural History of the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly: Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly belongs to a genus of flies (Rhaphiomidas) commonly known as flower loving flies. There are more than 30

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

2 species of these flies, distributed across the southwestern United States and northern Mexico.

These flies are huge by the standards set by most flies – with size among the species ranging from approximately 1.5 centimeters up to 3, and even 4 centimeters, usually gray, tan, rust or yellow in color. All species of Rhaphiomidas are associated with rather arid, sandy habitats, with most species living on dune systems of inland desert valleys, rivers, deltas, and beach strands. A few species are found in sandy washes, alluvial benches and remnant glacial moraines. Many species of these flies often hover before flowers in the manner of hummingbirds, using a long, thin, tubular proboscis (mouth-part), with which the flies probe for nectar – hence a traditional name “giant flower-loving flies”. Smaller flies of the family Apioceridae, once considered very closely related to Rhaphiomidas were formerly called “flower-loving flies”.

The DSF is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits, presumably occupied the once extensive dune system of the upper Santa Ana River Valley, including portions of what is now the City of Colton, west through portions of the City of Ontario, and south to the Santa Ana River.

Today, DSF exists on only a few disjunct sites (USFWS 1997) within a radius of about eight miles in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside Counties (Colton, Rialto, Fontana, and Ontario). More than 95 percent of known DSF habitat was considered eliminated by development, agriculture and other land management practices by 1993 (Smith 1993, USFWS 1996 in Kingsley 1996), however, this proportion is now nearer 98 to 99% due to these ongoing processes. Many of the last remaining fragments of DSF habitat are currently under pressure by land management efforts such as heavy disking, irrigation, manure dumping, and gravel dumping. There is presently an estimated 1,200 acres of habitat that can support this species (USFWS 1997), but this estimate likely includes lands needing extensive habitat restoration.

Adult DSF flight period is typically August and September, when individual adults emerge, reproduce and die. The adult life span of an individual DSF lasts for a few days and adults do not live beyond the flight period (Kiyani 1995). Adult DSF are highly mobile, agile fliers. Male DSF are frequently seen flying low through habitat, using apparently random, circuitous paths around and between shrubs in search of females. Such “cruising” behavior often covers areas on the scale of 1000 square meters in the time span of a minute. Alternatively, male DSF are often seen flying about an open patch of ground (ca 100 square meters) such as along a dirt path or dune blow-out area. Here, males may repetitively land and rest on one or another object (such as small dried plants) in the area, and such rests are interrupted by periods of patrolling flight (apparently territorial) about the spot. When alarmed, these insects tend to fly rapidly in more or less a straight line – often covering distances of 100 meters in less than 6 seconds. Adult DSF are known to nectar at flowers of California buckwheat and California croton.

DSF, like other Rhaphiomidas species, appears to have an annual life cycle (because of the annual flight). However, it has been widely believed that the underground larval/pupal stage may persist for additional years, depending upon various environmental factors such as annual rainfall, food availability and weather conditions during the flight season (many desert Rhaphiomidas species do not appear after a drought year and often, substantial flights occur only sporadically over the years).

The biology of Rhaphiomidas trochilus is likely informative of Rhaphiomidas species in general and DSF in particular. Based on observations of captive R. trochilus larvae (Osborne and Ballmer 2014) it is reasonable to conclude that they are mobile opportunistic predators of soft-bodied, sand- inhabiting insects. Larvae from Sand Ridge, Kern County, CA were maintained in captivity for several months, during which they burrowed actively through sand maintained with slight moisture

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

3 content (similar to the damp sand where they were found). They fed on larvae of a scarab beetle (Scarabaeidae) and an unidentified beefly (Diptera: Bombyliidae), which were also recovered from Sand Ridge, and larvae of paper wasps (Polistes sp.) which were removed from their nests and buried in the sand. Captive larvae grew and molted after feeding; but, when not fed for extended periods of time, they molted again – losing weight and size in the process. Some larvae were observed to repeat the growth and “shrinkage” cycle multiple times. One larva survived about 17 months in captivity; because it was captured nine months after the most recent flight season, it was at least two years old at time of death. This larva molted four times while undergoing five cycles of growth and shrinkage driven by variable food availability. Its final dry weight was slightly smaller than the typical dry weight of an adult male R. trochilus. The ability of R. trochilus larvae to molt down during times of scarce food resources could allow an extended and indeterminate larval growth period, but with maturation and appearance of adults always during summer months. This may also explain the common observations that populations of various Rhaphiomidas species apparently exhibit little or no adult emergence in some years (especially years of below normal precipitation).

The brief adult life span and active mate-locating behavior of DSF males (typical of all Rhaphiomidas species) suggests that relatively high population density and/or nearly synchronous adult emergence may be crucial to survival of populations. Protracted Rhaphiomidas larval biology and staggered (across years) adult emergence must enhance population momentum and cross generational gene flow, and the requirement of abundant and diverse insect prey on which larvae develop – all explain why DSF populations appear as long-term entities (persisting for decades) associated with ecologically intact dune habitats.

DSF Habitat Characteristics: DSF is typically found in areas of unconsolidated sandy soils (Delhi series) supporting an open community of native and exotic plant species. Dominant plants are typically California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), annual bur ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and deerweed (Acmespon scoparius) but many exotic species often dominate on DSF habitat as well. DSF have been found in habitats that do not support these dominant plant species, and plant species composition is not directly relevant to larval development (due to predatory biology of DSF larvae). Thus, the implication that DSF are reliant on some of these plant species – an idea often repeated in literature and biological reporting – is false. Adult DSF are anecdotally believed to nectar at flowers of California buckwheat and California croton, though such a habitat is rare at best and not yet documented. Many other plant species are common, including Thurber’s eriogonum (Eriogonum thurberi), autumn vinegar weed (Lessingia glandulifera), and sapphire eriastrum (Eriastrum sapphirinum). Nonnative plant species also occur in DSF habitat (and incidentally, virtually everywhere). DSF habitat also commonly supports other associated insects such as flies and wasps considered as indicator species – Apiocera convergens, Apiocera chrysolasia, Ligyra gozophylax, Campsomeris tolteca, Trielis alcione, and Nemomydas pantherinus. Over 350 insect species have been found on one DSF site, and DSF habitat is typically marked by high abundance and diversity of predatory and parasitic insect groups including many highly specialized families of flies, wasps, bees, beetles, and antlions. The Delhi Sands community is one of California's unique natural communities containing an array of native plants and animals, some of which are found nowhere else. One plant species, Pringle's monardella, (Monardella pringlei) is already presumed extinct, as no living individuals have been observed in

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

4 many years. Several species of insects and some vertebrates, which inhabit the Delhi Sands dunes system, are as endangered as the DSF, but no one has yet petitioned to have them officially declared Endangered. These include the convergent flower-loving fly Apiocera convergens, a newly discovered species of Jerusalem cricket, (Stenopelmatus sp.), a new species of camel cricket (Ceuthophilus sp.) and an endemic subspecies of butterfly Apodemia mormo nigrescens (Emmel and Emmel 1998). The other apiocerid fly (Apiocera chrysolasia), although known from approximately six general localities, is only common within the Delhi sands.

Methods: On February 15, 2023, I visited the primary project site in order to investigate habitat suitability for the DSF. During a subsequent visit on March 2, 2023, I visited three alternative parking areas associated with the project (Alternative #1 located on the eastern end of Santa Ana Avenue, Alternative #2 on an Southern California Edison easement at Industrial Drive, and Alternative #3 located on Agua Mansa Road at the crossing with the Rialto Channel). I have reviewed soil maps covering the project site, prepared by the California Department of Agriculture (Woodruff 1980, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov). Satellite imagery covering the site, dating from 1994 to 2020 (Google Earth) was reviewed in order to gain an understanding of land use regimens in recent years. Other reports of habitat evaluations and DSF surveys in the vicinity of the project site have been reviewed. Photographs were taken of the site along with field notes on vegetation and soil conditions. I examined the project site to rate its potential to support DSF, the rating based on the following scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat in my judgment:

1. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, manure, or organic debris. Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality.

3. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi Sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present.

Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi Sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant and vegetation species composition is often indicative of low disturbance. High Quality

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

5 It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site so that conditions on a site fall within a range of qualities. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. Habitat conditions rated from Very Low Quality up to High Quality, are formally considered as representing Suitable conditions for the DSF. Use of this habitat rating system is somewhat subjective and best undertaken by a biologist who has extensive experience with Rhaphiomidas species. It must be noted that these ratings do not infer or imply actual occupancy by DSF, only relative potential to harbor the species, and relative conservation value of the land should DSF be found.

Results: The entire site is situated on an area of quarry pits associated with an alluvial wash (the quarried materials were evidently sand and gravel). My field investigation confirms interbedded alluvial course gravely sands (all with presence of abundant larger cobble) as indicated by previous soils mapping (Woodruff 1980, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov, Figure 1). Plant species characteristic of Delhi sands do not occur on the site. Although Delhi sands are located as close as 50 meters east of the study site (a large dune system known to support the DSF), Delhi sands do not occur on the study site itself. The Delhi sands east of the site are separated from the site by an existing channel.

Vegetation on the slopes surrounding the basins consists primarily of Encelia farinosa-dominated coastal sage scrub. Basin floors support ruderal exotic annual vegetation with the basin margins often with Bacharis salisifolia and Tamarisk.

All three of the alternative parking areas are located in areas previously mapped with Delhi Sand soils (Woodruff 1980, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov). The locations at the eastern end of Santa Ana Avenue and on Agua Mansa Road have had the native soils stripped away and/or buried with gravel pavements. The alternative parking site on the Southern California Edison easement off of Industrial Drive has intact Delhi Sand soils, supports vegetation associated with Delhi sands, is adjacent to other extensive areas with Delhi sands, and most significantly, is in a context with several adjacent lands known to support the DSF.

Discussion and Conclusions: The entire 12.7-acre site is on alluvial soils presenting habitat conditions Unsuitable for DSF. The nearest extant DSF population appears immediately east and northeast of the water treatment facility on the eastern side of the existing channel. DSF have been observed (Osborne pers. obs.) 300 meters east, 350 meters east northeast, and within 0.9 km north northwest of the project area. Nevertheless, on the basis of my experience, and in spite of the near proximity of DSF populations in the area, conditions on the entire project site and surroundings west of the existing channel (which bounds the eastern edge of the Rialto water treatment facility) presents conditions Unsuitable for DSF.

With respect to the alternative parking areas, site conditions on the Agua Mansa Road location (alternative #3) and east end of Santa Ana Avenue (alternative #1) sites are Unsuitable for DSF due to lack of Delhi sand soils. The alternative parking location on the Southern California Edison easement at Industrial Drive (Alternative #2) represents High Quality DSF habitat with high potential for DSF presence. This Alternative #2 site would be subject to a two-year protocol survey for DSF in order to make a presence/absence determination acceptable to the USFWS (1996) and even with a negative survey result, this site may nevertheless be considered to be of conservation value (USFWS 1997) for DSF ecological purposes given its adjacent proximity to other areas held in conservation for the DSF.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

6 References:

Cazier, M. A. 1985. A revision of the North American flies belonging to the genus Rhaphiomidas (Diptera:Apioceridae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 182(2):181-263.

Emmel, J. F., and T. C. Emmel. 1998. Two New Geographically Restricted Subspecies of Apodemia mormo (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) from the Vicinity of San Bernardino, California in Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Emmel, T. C., Editor. Mariposa Press, Gainsville, Florida. (67): 795-800.

Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Knecht, A.A. 1971. Soil survey of western Riverside area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Kingsley, Kenneth J. 1996. Behavior of the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Diptera: Mydidae), a Little Known Endangered Species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89(6): 883-891.

Kiyani Environmental Consultants. 1995. Principal Investigator’s Annual Report, Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Studies at Colton, California.

Prepared for San Bernardino County and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA. 25+ pp.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Osborne, K. H. 2003. Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly Habitat Assessment for the Hermosa Cemetery, Colton. Prepared for Inland Memorial Cremations and Burial. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

Osborne, K. H., G. R. Ballmer, and T. McGill. 2003. DSF Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mary Vagle Conservation Area. Prepared for the City of Fontana. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

Osborne, K. H. and G. R. Ballmer. 2014. A Petition to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, for emergency action to list an endangered species pursuant to the conditions and regulations of the Federal Endangered Species Act: For the San Joaquin Valley Giant Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus). Submitted June, 2014.

Rogers, R. and M. Mattoni. 1993. Observations on the natural history and conservation biology of the giant flower-loving flies, Rhaphiomidas (Diptera:Apioceridae). Dipterologial Research 4(1-2):21-34.

University of California, Davis, Agriculture and Natural Resources, California Soil Resource Lab, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Determination of Endangered Status for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. U.S. Department of Interior. Federal Register, 58 (183): 49881-49887.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Draft Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. December 30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Delhi sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Woodruff, G. A. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
__________________________
Respectfully submitted,

Ken H. Osborne

Figure 1. Soils map with satellite image of the 12.7-acre area (highlighted and outlined blue): HaC = Hanford course sandy loam, TvC = Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, TuB = Tujunga loamy sand.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

8 Figure 2. Photograph (February 15, 2023) of gravely sandy alluvial soils exposed in slope on the northern portion of the site (pen at center for scale).

Figure 3. Photograph (February 15, 2023) of Encelia farinosa-dominated coastal sage scrub on gravely, sandy alluvial soils, on the northern portion of the site. View looks northeast from a central location on the site. Note cobble and gravel in alluvial soils of foreground.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

9 Figure 4. Photograph (February 15, 2023) of exposed slopes on the eastern edge of the site. Undisturbed bedding of alluvial soils is evident on the upper portion of this slope exposure, with cobble, gravel in the talus slope below.

Mature Encelia and Artemisia shrubs indicate the slope is long undisturbed.

Figure 5. Photograph (February 15, 2023) of one of the basin floors on the western portion of the site. While vegetation on the floor of the basin is dominated by ruderal - exotic annual forbs such as Oncosiphon piluliferum, Hirschfeldia incana, and Amsinkia menziesii, the margins of the basin support extensive stands of Tamarisk.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

10 Figure 6. Photograph (March 7, 2023) of the parking Alternative site #1 on the north side of Santa Ana Avenue at the eastern terminus of Santa Ana Avenue. View looks north. This site has a well compacted gravel base pavement.

Natural Delhi sands dunes (with DSF) exist on the lands in the background.

Figure 7. Photograph (March 7, 2023) of the parking Alternative site #2 on the Southern California Edison easement along the east side of Industrial Drive. Lands managed for DSF are located beyond the fence-line (center) and extend nearly to the Angeles Block building in the background.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation: Rialto Water Treatment, Lake Rialto. Osborne Biological Consulting – March 2023

11 Figure 8. Photograph (March 7, 2023) of the parking Alternative site #3 on the south side of Agua Mansa Road (view looking east toward the Rialto Channel crossing (background). Roadside conditions are with a well compacted gravel base.

CEQA Plus Initial Study Appendices
City of Rialto
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project APPENDIX C
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment

Cultural Resources Assessment
Lake Rialto Project
City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California

APN’s 025-814-114, 025-814-115, 025-815-124, 025-815-125, 026-006-162, 026-006-163, 026-006-123, 026-006-124, 026-006-109, 026-007-108, 026-007-109 & 025-815-113

Prepared on Behalf of:

City of Rialto
50 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376

Prepared by:

Brian Glenn, M.A., RPA (Principal Investigator) and Alexandria Bulato, B.A.

Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC
18 Technology Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 356-6660
[email protected]
www.dukecrm.com
DUKE CRM Project Number: C-0422

July 2023

Fieldwork Performed April 21, 2023

Township 1 South, Range 5 West, Section 25, USGS 7.5’ San Bernardino South, Calif.

Keywords: ~13.96 acres, Negative Impacts

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

ii

This page intentionally left blank
DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................. i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description and Area of Potential Effects ................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 CEQA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Research Design ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 SETTING ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Natural Setting ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Cultural Setting ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Prehistoric Traditions ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Early Holocene (11,600 – 7,600 BP) .................................................................................................................. 8 Middle Holocene (7,600 – 3,650 BP) ................................................................................................................. 8 Late Holocene (3,650 – 233 BP) ......................................................................................................................... 9 Local Prehistory ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Ethnographic Traditions .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Luiseño .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Historic Traditions ................................................................................................................................................... 10 History of the Project area: City of Rialto ........................................................................................................... 11 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Personnel ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Records Search .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Native American Outreach ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Records Search .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Background Research .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Site Sensitivity Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 15 Inadvertent Archaeological Finds ......................................................................................................................... 15 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Figures
Figure 1. Study Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Project Location Map ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Project Impact Area Aerial ............................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Rialto Lake Project area overview looking northwest. ............................................................................... 15 Figure 5 Vegetation within the Project area looking south. ....................................................................................... 16 Figure 6. Project area soils ............................................................................................................................................... 16 DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

ii

Tables
Table 1: Cultural resource reports (½ mile search radius of the Project area) on file with various Agencies .. 12 Table 2: Previously Identified Cultural Resources within ½ mile of the Project area ........................................... 13

Appendices
Appendix A. Resumes
Appendix B. Native American Commission Sacred Lands File Search Appendix C. Records Search (Confidential)

Abbreviations
APN ...................................Assessor’s Parcel Number B.A. .....................................Bachelor of Arts BERD ................................Built Environment Resources Database BP .......................................Before Present CEQA ................................California Environmental Quality Act City .....................................City of Rialto Client ..................................enplanners
CRHR ................................California Register of Historical Resources cy .........................................cubic yards DUKE CRM .....................Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC m .........................................meters
M.A. ....................................Master of Arts MLD ...................................most likely descendent NAHC ...............................Native American Heritage Commission NHPA ...............................National Historic Preservation Act NRHP ................................National Register of Historic Places PCT ....................................Paleocoastal Tradition Project ................................Lake Rialto Project Qa .......................................Quaternary alluvial Qao ......................................older Quaternary alluvial RPA ....................................Registered Professional Archaeologist SCCIC ................................South Central Coastal Information Center SWRCB ..............................State Water Resources Control Board WPLT ................................Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM ) is under contract to the enplanners, incorporated (CLIENT), to provide cultural resources services for the Lake Rialto Project (Project) located within the City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California.

The purpose of this report is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with regards to cultural resources. The City of Rialto (City) is the lead agency for CEQA. Federal and federally-sponsored programs and projects are reviewed pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed federal undertakings on historic properties.

NHPA requires federal agencies to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer as part of the Section 106 review process. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for Section 106 compliance. The approximately 13.96-acre Project area is comprised of the proposed park, a parking area and the connecting access.

DUKE CRM conducted a records search for cultural resources (archaeological and historical) on March 13, 2023 at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. This included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources surveys and excavation reports generated from projects located within ½ mile of the proposed Project. In addition, a review was conducted of the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), which includes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.

A cultural resource records search was conducted by DUKE CRM Archaeologist Morgan Beigle on March 13, 2023. The search identified 29 reports within the ½ mile search radius; four (4) of which cover all or a portion of the Project area. No cultural resources were identified during these studies within the Project area.

The records search identified 15 cultural resources within the ½ mile search radius; none of which were located within the Project area.

DUKE CRM archaeologist Alexandria Bulato conducted a survey of the Project area on April 21, 2023.

Survey was conducted using parallel transects spaced no greater than 15 meters apart. Portions of the survey area were omitted due to dense vegetation and steep terrain. Survey was negative for archaeological resources.

An encased section of the West Riverside Canal crosses beneath the access road directly north of the proposed parking area. The resource was not visible on the surface within the Project area and will not be impacted by the Project.

From analysis of the Project area based on records search data, historical maps, aerial photographic research, field survey and the lack of cultural remains and the past history of soil disturbances, it is concluded that the Project area has low sensitivity at the surface for prehistoric resources and a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric and historic era resources. The exception is the encased section of the circa 1938 West Riverside Canal. Given these data, a finding of No Historical Resources Impacted for the purposes of CEQA is warranted.

If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. In addition, according to the California Health and Safety Code, a cemetery is place where six (6) or more human bodies are buried (Section 8100), and unauthorized disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

iv

If the proposed Project changes additional efforts may be necessary.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

v

This page intentionally left blank

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

1 INTRODUCTION
Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC (DUKE CRM) is under contract to the enplanners, incorporated (CLIENT), to provide cultural resources services for the Lake Rialto Project (Project) located within the City of Rialto (City), County of San Bernardino, California. The purpose of this report is to document compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with regards to cultural resources.

Project Description and Area of Potential Effects
The Project is located within the City of Rialto (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 025-814-114, 025-814-115, 025-815-124, 025-815-125, 026-006-162 and 026-006-163 within the main body of the Project area, APNs 025-815-113, 026-006-123, 026-006-124, 026-007-108 and 026-007-109 within the access road, and APN 026- 006-109 within the parking area) in San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The project is illustrated on the 1980 San Bernardino, Calif. USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle in Township 1 South, Range 5 West, Section 25 (Figure 2). The boundary of the Project area incorporates the area of both direct and indirect effects that includes the construction zone, temporary staging and permanent parking areas and access route (Figure 3).

Lake Rialto would be located on an approximately 12-acre site in the southern portion of the approximately 40-acre City-owned Rialto Water Treatment Plant, located at 501 E. Santa Ana Avenue, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County. Parking for the proposed lake would be located 0.30 miles to the south on Agua Mansa Road. The lake site is generally located northwest of the Santa Ana River, and south of Interstate 10 between South Riverside Avenue to the west and South Pepper Avenue (extended) to the east. The lake site is bordered by the existing plant to the north, So Cal Edison power poles and easement to the south, the Rialto Channel to the east, and undeveloped industrial-zoned property to the west.

Lake Rialto would provide the citizens of Rialto and the region with an approximately 12-acre outdoor public recreational space including the proposed lake park, one (1) mile of pedestrian perimeter trails, passive recreation, environmental education programming, and public outreach. Lake Rialto would be created using recycled water from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and would also provide wetland and terrestrial wildlife habitat, and water quality improvements.

The existing dry pit would be reengineered to create two (2) lakes separated by a pedestrian path running north-south but connected by duel 24-inch pipes. A plastic liner would be installed on the bottom and deeper sides of the lakes, and a clay liner would be installed in the shallower areas and in the wetland area. The smaller, 3-acre west lake would have a depth of approximately 13 feet. The larger, 7-acre lake would have a depth of 48 feet and would also include an access ramp to the bottom of the lake and a shallow marsh wetland area of 3 to 4 acres. For safety purposes, a shallow three (3)-foot-deep and 13-foot-wide bench would be constructed along the edge of Lake Rialto. The lake would receive cleaned effluent once it has passed through bio-filtration, providing water temperature and nutrient management benefits. Once Lake Rialto is created the discharges to the Rialto Channel would be consistent with the existing conditions that are occurring today.

In addition, and as described previously, the proposed Project would include development of an 11-space parking lot on an approximately 0.15-acre paved parking lot (PA-#3), which would provide adequate parking and a pedestrian pathway connection to the Lake Rialto Project site. Development of the PA-#3 parking lot would require site preparation, earthwork, and paving. Development of a pedestrian pathway between the parking lot and Lake Rialto on the existing utility road would require minimal improvements including brush clearing, signage, loose rock removal and tread improvement for drainage. The path of travel between the lake and the parking area would be approximately 1600 feet (0.3 miles)and encompass approximately 0.9 acres.

Construction of the proposed lake, parking, and pedestrian pathway is anticipated to take place over 18 months from July 2023 to January 2025. Construction of the lake would consist of site preparation, grading, underground utility construction, and landscaping. Site preparation would consist of minor clearing of non- native weeds and grass, and removal of any onsite trash and debris.

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Lake Rialto, C-0422
Project Area
Project Area
¯
0 6 12
Miles
1:360,0001 inch = 6 miles

SAN BERNARDINO SOUTH

FONTANA
Project Area
USGS 7.5' Quads
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
1:24,0001 inch = 2,000 feet
0 0.25 0.5
Kilometers
Figure 2. Project Location
Lake Rialto, C-0422
San Bernardino South, Calif USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle T1S, R5W , Section 25 & 36
Date of Map: 1954 / Photorevised: 1980
Figure 3. Project Aerial Photo
Lake Rialto, C-0422
Project Area ¯
0 300 600
Feet
1:7,2001 inch =600 feet
DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

5 Grading for the Project would consist of any removals of unsuitable soils to be used for non-compaction required locations. Excavation for the lake would begin at the eastern most portion of the lake and would consist of a maximum 30 feet cut and minor fills to achieve lowest appropriate depths. In addition, grading of the eastern portion of the lake would construct two to one (2:1) slope embankments built up to the west for the proposed wetlands area and include a west to east access ramp to the bottom. Excavation of the western most portion of the lake would consist of a maximum 15 feet cut and fills to achieve appropriate depth and to construct 2:1 slopes embankments with bench surrounding proposed island in the middle.

Grading would also include construction of a proposed pedestrian access (trail) which partitions Lake Rialto with 2:1 slope embankments and a culvert connecting the flow between the east and west lakes. Ultimately, grading of the lake site would consist of 65,996 cubic yards (cy) total cut material and 65,934 cy total fill material. Although there is an approximate 62 cy of net cut, soils would balance onsite due to anticipated shrinkage. Simultaneous to grading, construction of underground utilities would take place which includes underground drainage, pipelines, pump station, restroom and dry utilities. Once grading and underground utilities are complete, finish grading would commence to construct the trails, slopes, and landscape areas.

Then the lake and its embankments would be lined with a geomembrane to retain lake water and erosion control and landscaping would be planted around the lake.

Construction of the parking lot (PA-#3) and pedestrian pathway would consist of site preparation, grading, and paving. Site preparation would consist of minor clearing of non-native weeds and grass, and removal of any onsite trash and debris. Grading would consist of minor cuts, approximately less than 1-foot and proper compact to an asphalt concrete paved parking lot with driveway. Phasing of the existing pathway connecting users to Lake Rialto would require site preparation consisting of brush clearing and tread improvement for drainage and loose rock removal.

Regulatory Context
Partial funding and permitting of the Project is through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, within the Division of Financial Assistance, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which uses federal funds to reduce interest costs on funds used for clean water projects. The Project may also be funded through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program. The City is the CEQA Lead Agency.

Federal and federally-sponsored programs and projects are reviewed pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed federal undertakings on historic properties. NHPA requires federal agencies to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer as part of the Section 106 review process. The SWRCB is responsible for Section 106 compliance.

CEQA
CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as a resource listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). This includes cultural resources that have been determined for a local register or through a local historic resources survey. A resource may be considered potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the four (4) criteria listed below:

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, CEQA necessitates that the lead agency considers whether the project will significantly affect unique archaeological resources that are ineligible for listing in the CRHR and to avoid these unique archaeological resources when possible or mitigate any effects to less than significant levels (Public Resources DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

6 Code 21083.2). As stated by CEQA, a unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site which clearly demonstrates with a high probability that it meets, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Existing federal, state, and local regulations require the identification of historic properties and cultural resources during the planning stage of new projects.

Research Design
The primary purpose of this report is to identify cultural resources that may be eligible for the CRHR and to determine what affects/impacts proposed Project will have on those historical resources. This research design and resulting methodology is developed to interpret these resources in the context of the cultural traditions present. This includes those represented by Native American, Hispanic, Anglo-American and other cultural traditions.

At the theoretical level, archaeological investigations are based on partial and fragmented remnants of material items from past cultures and are viewed from a Cultural Materialism perspective. The premise of Cultural Materialism links materials, as represented by those items in the archaeological record, to the patterned action of human behavior within specific environments (culture) (Harris 1968:659). We consider Cultural Materialism a basic premise encompassing all other assumptions.

The formulation of research questions pertaining to survey-level investigations are typically based on information specific to the project area under investigation and reflective of previously gathered data. Within the prehistoric research realm, typical regimes within a cultural ecology model would focus on probability models positing a relationship between functional site types and resource location. These correlations would, naturally, be highly dependent on the time periods represented. Thus, the identification of complexes relating to specific time periods and the establishment of prehistoric context would be paramount.

Historic Period research would similarly focus on defining how the occupants of the region utilized this seemingly inhospitable environment. Identified Historic Period resources would be traced through documentation to an individual or group if possible. A survey-level recording of site constituents would be correlated with socio-economic, ethnic and religious identities of the registered occupants to formulate further research questions applicable to evaluation studies.

The Project is subject to the CEQA which requires that lead agencies, in this case the City, consider impacts to historical resources and adverse effects to historic properties that are potentially eligible for the CRHR.

Basic research questions include:

1. Are cultural resources located in the Project?
a. Are the conditions conducive to cultural resources within the Project? b. What is the sensitivity of the Project location for cultural resources? c. What is the level of prior disturbance to the property? d. Are there cultural resources that may be impacted/adversely affected by the Project? e. What is the potential for buried cultural resources?

2. Should any cultural resources be considered potential historical resources for the purposes of CEQA? Are they significant resources according to CEQA and the CRHR criteria, and do they possess integrity?

3. What impacts will the proposed Project have on any potential historical resources? DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

7 4. What treatment, avoidance and/or mitigation measures can be implemented to decrease the level of impact to potential historical resources?

SETTING
Natural Setting
California is divided into 11 geomorphic provinces, each naturally defined by unique geologic and geomorphic characteristics. The Project is located in the northeastern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is distinguished by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys following faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges are bound to the east by the Colorado Desert and extend north to the San Bernardino – Riverside county line (Norris and Webb 1976), west into the submarine continental shelf, and south to the California state line.

The Project area consists of an approximately 12-acre area within the 40-acre City-owned Rialto Water Treatment Plant in the City of Rialto, plus a parking area and access, in western San Bernardino County (see Figure 2). The Project area is an artificial basin associated within the existing 40 acre wastewater treatment plant that occupied the Project area a. The Project is approximately 880 to 900 ft above mean sea level.

Treated water flows approximately 0.6 miles south-southeast where it empties into the Santa Ana River.

The Project area is geologically and geographically characterized by Quaternary alluvial (Qa) sands with minor components of older surficial sediments (Qao) (Morton 1978). The USDA (2023) classifies soil in the Project area as exclusively Quarry and Pit soils comprised of sands derived from Qa sediments. Vegetation, where it exists within the Project area, is made up of a combination of native and exotic plants.

Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Traditions
Two (2) primary regional schemas are commonly cited in the archaeological literature for western San Bernardino County where the Project is located. These schemas or syntheses generalize the presence or absence of certain artifact types into explanatory frameworks of temporal chronologies and/or subsistence practices. Schemas are necessary given that many archaeological sites lack material amenable to absolute dating (e.g., 14C carbon for radiometric dating). Therefore, researchers need to cross-date sites by comparison to either coastal or desert chronologies with established chronological sequences backed by absolute dates. In western San Bernardino County, it is thought to be the meeting ground of both coastal and inland desert schemas and neither exclusively explains prehistoric finds.

The first schema, advanced by Wallace (1955), defines four (4) cultural horizons for the southern California coastal province, each with characteristic local variations:

I. Early Man (~9000 –8500 Before Present [BP]) is a hunting culture based on almost exclusive evidence of chipped-stone hunting materials: dart points, scrapers, choppers, and bifaces.

II. Milling Stone (8500 –4000 BP) reflects a change to a more sedentary, plant -collecting lifestyle as evidenced by the introduction and dominance of milling stone artifacts and a decrease in well - made projectile points.

III. Intermediate (4000–1500 BP) is characterized by a larger dependency on hunting, use of the dart and atlatl, and the shift from using the mano/metate to mortar/pest le. However, knowledge of this horizon suffers from lack of knowledge about what occurred during this time, not a lack of inhabitants along the southern California coast.

IV. Late Prehistoric (1500~200 BP) contains a more nuanced artifact assemblage indicative of a more complex lifestyle and an increase of population. This horizon is characterized by an increase in bow and arrow use, steatite containers, pottery, circular fishhooks, perforated stones, asphaltum, diversified bone tools, ample shell ornaments, and elaborate mortuary customs.

Warren and Crabtree (1986) employ an ecological approach to the deserts of southern California, defining five (5) traditions in prehistory:

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

8 I. Lake Mojave (12000–7000 BP)
II. Pinto (7000–4000 BP)
III. Gypsum (4000–1500 BP)
IV. Saratoga Springs (1500–800 BP)
V. Shoshonean (800~200 BP)

Warren and Crabtree (1986) viewed cultural continuity and change in terms of various significant environmental shifts, defining the cultural ecological approach for archaeological research of the California deserts. The authors viewed changes in settlement pattern and subsistence as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, beginning with the gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, the desiccation of the desert lakes during the early Holocene, the short return to pluvial conditions during the middle Holocene, and the general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals that continue to this day.

The work by Warren and Crabtree (1986) is built upon, in part, by that of Warren (1980) in which he argued for a chronology based on projectile points as period markers backed by radiocarbon assays providing absolute dates.

The two (2) schema contrast in important ways. The units employed by Warren are “traditions,” and in contrast to Wallace (1955), traditions may be spatially restricted but display temporal continuity. For Wallace, “horizons” or “periods,” are extensive through space but restricted in time. More recent schemata have been attempted to reconcile these differences. Koerper and Drover (1983) synthesized chronologies for coastal southern California and employed Wallace’s (1955) horizon terminology but use radiometric data to sequence stylistic changes observed in the artifact assemblages, which they interpreted as material indication of cultural change through time. Regardless of the overall schema to best explain the prehistory of western San Bernardino County, the region can be understood within broad chronological frameworks and as the meeting ground of the coastal and desert subsistence patterns.

Early Holocene (1 1 ,600 – 7,600 BP)
Traditional models of the prehistory of California hypothesize that its first inhabitants were the big game hunting Paleoindians who lived at the close of the last ice-age (~11,000 years BP). As the environment warmed and dried, large Ice Age fauna died out, requiring adaption by groups to survive. The western Great Basin and deserts of southern California were characterized by large pluvial (rainfall-fed) lakes, streams, marshes, and grasslands. The human response to this environment is known as the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) (Moratto 1984). The WPLT is generally identified by an advanced flaked-stone industry of foliate knives/points, Silver Lake and Lake Mojave points, lanceolate bifaces, and long-stemmed points.

Other flaked-stone tools include crescents, scrapers, choppers, scraper-planes, hammer stones, cores, drills, and gravers. People of this period hunted diverse populations of smaller animals and collected a wide number of plants from diverse eco-zones. Importantly, this period lacks widespread evidence of milling stones, and, therefore, hard seed processing was likely not widely practiced. Sites are generally found along the shores of former pluvial lakes, marshes, and streams (Moratto 1984). The desert manifestation of the WPLT is the Lake Mojave Complex, while along the coast the WPLT is seen in the San Dieguito Complex.

The Paleocoastal Tradition (PCT) has many similarities to the WPLT, but it reflects a coastal adaptation (Davis et al. 1969). PCT sites are located along bays and estuaries. Subsistence patterns indicate the consumption of mollusks, sea mammals, sea birds, and fish in addition to land plants and animals. The argument for a PCT has gained momentum. This is based on research that has been conducted along the California coast and the adjacent Channel Islands (Byrd and Raab 2007). A recent study dates habitation on San Miguel Island back to ~11,300 BP (Daisy Cave), while a site on San Clemente (Eel Point) shows that a PCT was entrenched at Eel Point in the early Holocene, with the hunting of seals, sea lions, and dolphins, as well as the gathering of shellfish (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Middle Holocene (7,600 – 3,650 BP)
The middle Holocene is a time of change and transition. As conditions continued to warm, pluvial lakes and streams in the desert disappeared. This resulted in a shift in subsistence strategies, namely a shift to the DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

9 gathering of plant seeds, grasses, and shellfish along the coast as the primary dietary staple. Fishing and the hunting of smaller animals played a less important role in day-to-day activity. This shift in subsistence- strategies is what Wallace named the Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1955) and this name has continued among archaeologists working on the coastal province of southern California. Large habitations are seen in the inland areas and considerable variability is seen along coastal occupation of southern California.

Occupation revolved around seasonal and semi-sedentary movements in coastal Orange and San Diego counties. Trade networks are postulated by researchers that have dated Olivella sp. grooved rectangle shell beads as far north as central Oregon dating to 4900-3500 BP (Byrd and Raab 2007). Characteristics of the middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for processing plant material and shellfish, flexed and extended burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cogstones, and discoidals.

Late Holocene (3,650 – 233 BP)
During the late Holocene there was a migration of Takic speakers from the Great Basin and San Joaquin Valley into southern California (Sutton 2009, 2010). Characteristics of the late Holocene include the introduction of the bow and arrow, stone mortar, and pestle, use of ceramics, and a change in mortuary behavior from inhumations to cremations in southern California. This was also a period of climatic fluctuation. Paleoenvironmental data show that periods of drought alternated with cooler and moister periods (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002; Byrd and Raab 2007; Jones et al. 2004). This resulted in dynamic regional cultural patterns with considerable local variation. Byrd and Raab (2007) suggest that foragers in southern California over-exploited high-ranked food, such as shellfish, fish, marine and land mammals, and plant remains. This led to resource depression, causing people to forage more costly resources, such as acorns, which were more abundant but required increased acquisition and processing times.

Loca l Prehistory
Local regional archaeological research presents a rich background to compare potential findings in the Project area. Various themes of research present themselves and these reflect broader trends in hunter-gatherer archaeological research. These themes are as follows: chronology, site formation processes, site structure and function, mobility, settlement strategy and patterns, economy, subsistence, and cultural organization (including but not limited to organization of gendered behavior and ritual/religion).

Approximately 30 miles to the southeast of the Project, the Eastside Reservoir Study presents a regional approach to examining questions of Native American settlement. Numerous sites were present within the Eastside Reservoir study area and spanning occupation from the Middle Holocene (7,500 BP) to the Late Prehistoric period (Onken 2001). The Late Prehistoric period sites within this study area present a uniform pattern of dependency upon water resource availability for settlement location while during previous periods water availability does not appear to be such a determinant factor in site location (Goldberg 2001:602-604).

Ethnographic Traditions
The Project is located within the ethnographic territory of the Luiseño Indians. The Luiseño are Takic speakers and are believed descended from Late Prehistoric populations of the region. Takic is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock which migrated west from the Great Basin (Bean and Smith 1978, Shipley 1978).

Luiseño
The Luiseño share many similar cultural traits with surrounding tribes. The Luiseño lived in sedentary and independent village groups, each with specific subsistence territories encompassing hunting, food gathering, and fishing areas. Villages were usually located in valley basins, along creeks and streams adjacent to mountain ranges where water was available and where the villages would be protected from environmental conditions and potential enemies. Most inland populations had access to fishing and food gathering sites on the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978).

Luiseño economic and subsistence practices centered upon the seasonal gathering of acorns and seeds; the hunting of deer and small mammals such as rabbits, wood rats, ground squirrels, and birds. Coastal foods DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

10 included sea mammals, fish, and shellfish. Tool technologies were organized around food collection, storage, and preparation strategies, which was reflected in the type, size, and quantity of food items gathered. Stone (lithic) tools included two (2) types: ground stone and flaked stone tools. Ground stone equipment included:
mortars, pestles, manos and metate grinding slicks, made from granite, schist, and gneiss. Flaked tools included: bifaces, projectile points, scrapers, and gravers, fabricated from siliceous rock such as chert and jasper, microcrystalline chalcedony, obsidian, fine grain ingenious rocks such as basalt rhyolite, and andesite, and hard silica such as quarts and quartzite. Utilitarian tools were constructed from wood, animal bones, skins, and/or woven from flora materials depending on need. Hunting activities were conducted both on an individual basis and/or organized into group activities, depending on seasonal factors and the game hunted.

Acorns provided as much 50 percent of the Luiseño diet (White 1963). They provided a reliable and abundant food source that was high in calories and could be easily stored for future use. Acorn collection was a central tenant in the lives of the Luiseños and dominated their economic and social structure (Basgall 1987, Johnson and Earle 1987).

Villages were organized around an inherited chief who exerted sole control over the economy, religious rituals, and territorial matters within the village (Bean and Shipek 1978:555). The chief at times would consult with a council of elders and shamans on matters of religious practices and on environmental conditions affecting village life. Large villages may have had a complex behavioral and political structure due to their territorial size and economic control, while the smaller villages’ political complexity was limited by their territorial size (Strong 1929; Bean and Shipek 1978:555).

Historic Traditions
The historic era in California is generally divided into three (3) periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).

The Spanish Period (1769-1821) is represented by European exploration of the region; establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Gabriel and San Luis Rey; and the introduction of livestock, agricultural goods, and European architecture and construction techniques. Early exploration of the San Bernardino County area began in 1772 when Lieutenant Pedro Fages (then Military Governor of San Diego) crossed through the region.

The Mexican Period (1821-1848) began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican-American War. The Secularization Act resulted in the transfer, through land grants (called ranchos) of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals. At that time, cattle ranching was a more substantial business than agricultural activities, and trade in hides and tallow increased during the early portion of this period. Until the Gold Rush of 1849, livestock and horticulture dominated California's economy.

No known settlements occurred in the area until 1838 when Rancho Jurupa was granted to Juan Bandini.

Within a few years Bandini divided Rancho Jurupa into two (2) properties. He sold approximately 25,000 acres to Able Stearns, his son-in-law, which continued to operate as Rancho Jurupa. About 1889 a six (6) square mile portion of the rancho was purchased by the Fuller family who established the Pioneer Ranch.

The American Period (1848-present) began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and in 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by two (2) years of extreme drought, which continued to some extent until 1876, altered ranching forever in the southern California area.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

11 History of the Project area: City of Rialto
The following history of Rialto is quoted from the California Historian online resource accessed in March 2023.

In 1887 a railroad connector line was built between San Bernardino and Pasadena by the Santa Fe Railroad, passing through Rialto. The first school was built in the fall of 1888. The Rialto School District was formed in 1891. The staff consisted of two (2) teachers and a principal with separate play areas for boys and girls. In 1893 there were half a dozen business and 35 homes. A fire in the 1920s swept through and destroyed many of the buildings in the downtown area. Today the city is situated between Interstate 10 and State Route 210. … Foothill Boulevard was repaired in 1913 and became U.S. Route 66, a section of the U. S. highway system which runs through the city. In 1914 Los Angeles’ Pacific Electric Railway completed its San Bernardino Line through the City of Rialto. In the 1900s the growing of oranges was the largest industry in the city with over 10,000 orange trees.

METHODS
Personnel
DUKE CRM archaeologist Morgan Beigle, Master of Arts (M.A.), Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) conducted a records search for cultural resources (archaeological and historical) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. This included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources surveys and excavation reports generated from projects located within ½ mile of the proposed Project. In addition, a review was conducted of the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), which includes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the CRHR, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.

The field survey was conducted by Alexandria Bulato using parallel pedestrian transects spaced no greater than 15 meter intervals. All work was conducted under the direct supervision of Brian Glenn, M.A., RPA and Curt Duke, M.A., RPA (Appendix A). Mr. Glenn is the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist assigned to the Project for DUKE CRM and is the primary author of the report. Mr. Glenn meets the professional qualifications of the Secretary of the Interior for prehistoric and historical archaeology who has worked in all phases of archaeology (archival research, field survey, testing and data recovery excavation, laboratory analysis, construction monitoring). Mr. Duke oversaw all work and provided peer review of this report (Appendix A).

Records Search
The SCCIC is the regional office of the California Historical Resources Information System housing records for San Bernardino County. The records search includes a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a specified search radius of the Project area, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, a review was conducted of the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), which includes the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. The following online resources were reviewed:

• Historic aerial photos and maps
• http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/,
• http://www.davidrumsey.com/rumsey_collection.kmz,
• www.historicaerials.com,
• https://oac.cdlib.org/
• https://www.loc.gov/collections/sanborn-maps
• https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html • National Register of Historic Places (http://www.gelib.com/historic-places-inventory.htm) • Soil mapping data (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/) DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

12 Mr. Glenn examined the on-line BERD maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office. The BERD includes the NRHP/CRHR, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.

The internal archives at DUKE CRM were also inspected for relevant background information.

Native American Outreach
The City will be conducting Native American outreach at a later date, once the Project details have been finalized; AB 52 consultation is the purview of the CEQA lead agency. DUKE CRM will supply the City with the results of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File review and a list of tribes with interest in the region as a supplement to the AB 52 list maintained by the City (Appendix B).

Field Survey
The goal of the pedestrian survey was to identify all cultural resources within the Project area. Prior to survey the crew and Native American monitor reviewed safety protocols. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced no greater than 15 meters (m) apart. A Spectra GPS, and field map were used to locate the Project boundary, and to record the location of identified cultural resources. Sites and built-environment resources, if present, would be documented on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 series forms with photographs taken on an iPhone X smartphone.

RESULTS
Records Search
A cultural resource records search was conducted by Ms. Beigle of DUKE CRM at the SCCIC on March 13, 2023 (Table 1) . The records search encompassed the entirety of the Project area and a ½ mile radius (Appendix C). The search identified 29 cultural reports within the ½ mile search radius. One (1) report addresses the main body of the Project area (SB-01750, Romani 1987). The report was prepared for possible expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Two (2) additional surveys (SB -00508, SB -00509) cross the main body of the Project area. One (1) survey (SB -02887) crosses the access road. No resources were identified as a result of these investigations within the Project area . Report SB-01287 covers a proposed transmission line paralleling portions of Agua Manza Road directly adjacent to the access road and parking area.

Table 1: Cultural resource reports (½ mile search radius of the Project area) on file with various Agencies
Year Author Affiliation Title
2000 Love, Bruce CRM Tech Ontario to Colton Pipeline, San Bernardino County, CA. 26PP 1978 Chavez, David URS Company Final: Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills) to Rialto Crude Oil Pipeline
1978 Chavez, David URS Company Final: Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Rialto Crude Oil Tank Farm to the Four Corners Pipeline, Kern County, California
1978 Chavez, David URS Company Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Rialto Tank Farm Location and Associated Pipeline and Pump Station Locations, San Bernardino, California
1978 Chavez, David URS Company Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Four Corners Pipeline Interconnect Facilities, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California 1989 Hatheway, Roger G., and
Karen Swope
Hatheway &
Associates
Archaeological and Historical Survey Report for the Proposed Angelus Block Property
1992 Seymour, Gregory R., and
David P. Doak
Thomas G. Olsen
Associates
The Santa Ana Regional Interceptor Project SAWPA-SARI Reaches IV D & E: A Cultural Resource Survey of an 18-Mile Right of Way from Mira Loma to Colton, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA 1987 Romani, Gwendolyn R. Greenwood &
Associates
Cultural Resources Investigation: Proposed Expansion of the City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant
1988 Peter, Kevin J., James
Rudolph, Tony Morgan,
Jean Hudson, and Craig F.

Woodman
URS Consultants Archaeological Test Investigation and Evaluation of SBR-1576, San Bernardino County, California
DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

13 Year Author Affiliation Title
2000 Love, Bruce CRM Tech Ontario to Colton Pipeline, San Bernardino County, CA. 26PP 1982 Lerch, Michael K. San Bernardino
County Museum
Associates
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sana Ana Regional Interceptor, Reaches IV-D and IV-E, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California
1990 Harmsworth Associates and
CH2M Hill
Harmsworth
Associates
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report: Expansion of the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant [Cultural Resources Section] 1996 Schmidt, James J. Greenwood &
Associates
Cultural Resources Investigations: CA-SBR-1576, City of Colton, New Substation and Transmission Facilities. 23PP
1992 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Cultural Resources Investigations and Historic Research for the Expanded Santa Watershed Project Authority Site 1 Project Area, Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County, CA
1993 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Cultural Resources Investigations and Historic Research for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Site 1 Project Area and Associated Soil Testing Areas, Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County, CA
1990 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Report Addendum: A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Sana Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) Pipeline Right-of-Way, San Bernardino to Colton, San Bernardino, California
1991 Harley, Bruce San Bernardino
County Museum
Association
Quarterly 39 (1):1-59
The Agua Mansa Story, A Collection of Papers Compiled on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Settlement of Agua Mansa 1973 Wilke, Philip J., and
Stephen Hammond
Archaeological
Research Unit, UCR
La Loma – Mira Loma Transmission Line: Expected Impact on Archaeological Values
1977 Greenwood, Roberta S. Greenwood &
Associates
Archaeological Resources Survey: West Coast – Mid Continent Pipeline Project, Long Beach to Colorado River
1978 Greenwood & Associates Greenwood &
Associates
Archaeological Resources Survey: West-Coast – Mid-Continent Pipeline Project, Long Beach to Colorado River, the Agua Mansa Alternate Pipeline Route
1990 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. A Phase I Archaeological Survey and Historical Background Investigation of the Proposed Santa Ana River Watershed Project Authority, Site 1 Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County, California 1990 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Update Report: Archaeological Monitoring at the SAWPA RIX Site, Site 1, Colton (Agua Mansa), San Bernardino County, California 1990 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Supplemental, Archaeological Monitoring at the RIX Project Site (SAWPA), Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County
1991 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. RIX Project Area Archaeological Monitoring 1991 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Continued Archaeological Monitoring at the RIX Project Site 1991 McKenna, Jeanette A. McKenna et al. RIX Project Area Archaeological Monitoring

The records search identified 15 cultural resources within the ½ mile search radius (Table 2). No previously identified cultural resources are located within the Project area and none will be affected by the Project. The majority of the historic-era resources are related to use of the surrounding area during ranch and farming activities spanning the Spanish, Mexican and American history of the area.

Table 2: Previously Identified Cultural Resources within ½ mile of the Project area Resource No. Resource Type Description Distance &
Direction
P36-001572 Prehistoric Charcoal pits 0.07 miles,
northwest
P36-001576 Prehistoric Habitation site with lithic scatters 0.14 miles, east P36-001578,
P36-004233
Prehistoric Lithic and ceramics scatter 0.49 miles,
south-southwest
P36-004952
P36-020804
Historic Adobe structure and historic debris scatter 0.39 miles, southwest
P36-006007 Prehistoric Ceramic sherd scatter .080 miles, east P36-006084 Historic Glass, ceramics, can scatter 0.35 miles, southeast
P36-006940 Historic Irrigation system 0.49 miles,
southwest
P36-007172 Historic Riverside Lower Canal 0.5 miles, south DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

14 Resource No. Resource Type Description Distance &
Direction
P36-001572 Prehistoric Charcoal pits 0.07 miles,
northwest
P36-021603 Historic Historic storage tanks 0.38 miles,
northwest
P36-025601 Historic Residential structure 0.17 miles, east P36-025602 Historic Residential structure 0.13 miles, east P36-031378 Historic Manuel Soarea Property, Agua Mansa 0.35 miles, east P36-031676 Historic Glass isolate 0.45 miles,
south
P36-031677 Historic Historic barn and horse rehabilitation pond 0.43 miles, south
P36-031715 Historic Agua Mansa Ditch 0.14 miles,
southeast

Prehistoric resources within the ½ mile records search radius were limited to lithics and ceramics scatters.

The large habitation site, P-36-001576, is located within dune deposits has been heavily impacted through illicit collecting.

Background Research
Maps of the Project were examined for details that would aid in reconstructing the history of the Project area.

This included historical USGS maps, as well as aerial imagery on file with the University of California, Santa Barbara and online (Framefinder 2023; HistoricalAerial.com 2023).

The 1896 USGS San Bernardino, Calif. 15’ map illustrates the unmodified area now occupied by the treatment plant. A basic road system surrounds the location with Riverside Road present to the south. The City of Colton and San Bernardino are well established to the northeast. By 1938, as reflected on the 1938 aerial and the 1943 Colton, Calif. 7.5’ topo, the area to the west of the Project area has a well-established grid of roads encompassing agricultural fields. Dirt roads cut through and around the Project area connecting with the improved Riverside Road to the south. The Project area remains otherwise undeveloped with the exception of the West Riverside Canal and Agua Manza Road. By 1959, the treatment plant is in place and the Project area contains retention ponds. The ponds continue to be used until 1985, after which they are seen as empty ponds with vegetation. The abandoned configuration remains until after 2005 when the Project area is reconfigured, and trailers parked in the northern portion. The Project area remains undeveloped at present.

Field Survey
The Phase I archaeological field survey/cultural resources assessment of the Project area was conducted by DUKE CRM archaeologist Alexandria Bulato, B.A. on April 21, 2023 (Figure 4). Pedestrian transects were no greater than 15 m apart and 100% of the Project area was intensively surveyed. The main body of the Project area consists of a large basin. Vegetation within the main body of the Project area included a combination of native and exotic plants (Figure 5). Soils consisted of gray-brown coarse alluvial sand (Figure 6). The area is currently used for treatment plant storage and contains construction debris. No cultural resources were identified within the main body of the Project area as a result of survey. Historical maps and aerial imagery from 1938 through 1980 show the West Riverside Canal crossing the access road within a pipe directly north of the parking area. No indications of the canal were visible on the surface within the Project area.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

15 Figure 4. Rialto Lake Project area overview looking northwest .

Site Sensitivity Summary
Prehistoric cultural resources have been identified within the ½ mile records search radius. However, previous disturbance of the Project area reduce the probability of encountering intact resources. Historical maps and imagery indicate slow development of the area surrounding the Project area throughout the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. A basic road system that includes Agua Manza Road. Agricultural use of the area dominated the landscape. A pipe-encased segment of the West Riverside Canal crosses the Project area beneath the access road directly north of the proposed parking area but will not be impacted by the Project. The Project has a low sensitivity for cultural resources.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current study identified 15 cultural resources within ½ mile of the Project area, none of which were within the Project area. A pipe-encased section of the West Riverside Canal crosses beneath the Project area access road directly north of the proposed parking area but will not be impacted by the Project. Background research and pedestrian survey did not identify additional cultural materials but did indicate a high degree of disturbance related to previous use of the area by the adjacent wastewater treatment plant. Given these data, a finding of No Historical Resources Impacted for the purposes of CEQA is warranted. Given these data, no further cultural resources work is recommended.

Inadvertent Archaeological Finds
Given the current findings, archaeological monitoring is not recommended during ground disturbance related to implementation within the Project area. If intact and potentially significant subsurface deposits are encountered during earth moving, it is recommended these cultural resources undergo evaluation excavation to determine CRHR-eligibility. To reduce impacts to historical resources, data recovery or other treatments of eligible deposits may be required.

In consultation with the City, a qualified archaeologist shall develop a treatment plan prior to earth moving related to Project implementation. The treatment plan shall include protocols for the treatment of inadvertent finds during ground disturbance that would include evaluation of the resource for CRHR-eligibility and

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

16 Figure 5 . Vegetation within the Project area looking south.

Figure 6. Project area soils
further treatment to reduce impacts through treatment that may include salvage excavation, laboratory analysis and processing, research, curation of the find in a local museum or repository, and preparation of a report summarizing the find. If the discovery is prehistoric in nature, local Native Americans shall be consulted.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

17 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. In addition, according to the California Health and Safety Code, a cemetery is place where six (6) or more human bodies are buried (Section 8100), and unauthorized disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).

If the proposed Project changes additional efforts may be necessary.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

18 REFERENCES

Basgall, Mark E.
1987 Resource Intensification Among Hunter- Gathers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric Southern California. Research in Economics Anthropology 9:21-52.

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-227. AltaMira Press, New York.

Davis, E.L., C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers Vol. 6, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

FrameFinder
2023 Various black and white aerial photographs. Electronic documents, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/, accessed April 28, 2023.

Goldberg, Susan (editor)
2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Volume I: Project Overview and Summary of Archaeological Investigations. Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Copies available from the Eastern Information Center, Riverside.

Harris, Marvin
1968 The Fall of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. AltaMira Press, London.

HistoricAerials.com
2023 Various black and white aerial photographs. Electronic documents, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed April 28, 2023.

Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy Earle
1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas M.

Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker
2004 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. In Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of Paradise, edited by L.

Mark Raab and Terry L. Jones, pp. 12-32. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Koerper, H. C., and C. E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA- ORA-119A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

19 Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.

Morton, D.M.
1978 Geologic map of the San Bernardino South quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey.

Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb
1976 Geology of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Onken, Jill A.
2001 Chronosequencing. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Copies available from the Eastern Information Center, Riverside.

Shipley, William F.
1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26:1-358.

Sutton, Mark
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):31–93.

2010 A Reevaluation of Early Northern Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in Alta California. California Archaeology, 2(1):3-30.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2023 USDA Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed April 28, 2023.

Vellanoweth, Rene L. and Donn R. Grenda
2002 Paradise or Purgatory: E nvironments, Past and Present. In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Donn R. Grenda, pp. 67-84. SRI Press, Tucson.

Wallace, William
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 2:214-230.

Warren, Claude N.
1980 Chapter II: Cultural Chronology of the Mojave Desert. In A Cultural Resources Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units, edited by C. N. Warren, M. Knack, and E. von Till Warren. U.S.

Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publications, Anthropology/History, Riverside, California.

Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp. 183-193.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

20 White, Raymond C.
1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:91–194.

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

Appendix A
Resumes

18 Technology Drive, #103
Irvine, CA 92618
949-356-6660
www.dukecrm.com

ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORY PALEONTOLOGY

Brian Glenn
Principal Investigator/Archaeologist

Professional Experience: 30 Years

Expertise
Cultural Resources Management
California Prehistory
Section106 & CEQA Compliance
Native American Consultation
Database (Collections) Management

Education
UCLA , M.A. Anthropology, 1991
UC, Santa Barbara, B.A., Anthropology,
1986
UC, Santa Barbara, B.A., Geography, 1986
San Diego Mesa College, Certificate, GIS,
2010

Professional Registrations
RPA, No. 989903

Professional Memberships
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
San Diego County Archaeological Society
President, 1999

Summary of Qualifications
Mr. Glenn has worked on hundreds of cultural resources management projects over his 30 year career. This includes projects throughout California in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He is listed on the RPA and meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Principal Investigator.

His recent experience includes cultural resources surveys and studies for clients such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metropolitan Transit Authority, and La Plaza Foundation. His responsibilities have included the preparation of technical reports (assessment, evaluation, and mitigation), cultural resources management plans and EIS/EIR sections, as well as archaeological monitoring. He has training and significant experience in lithic, faunal, typological and spatial analyses, as well as obsidian source and hydration studies. He has identified, evaluated, and investigated historic era resources from a 1792 Spanish gun emplacement on Ballast Point overlook San Diego Bay to late 19th to mid-20th century household and commercial deposits. Mr. Glenn received B.A. degrees in Geography and Anthropology from UC, Santa Barbara and an M.A. in Archaeology from UCLA. During his graduate work at UCLA, he was acting coordinator of the SCCIC (CHRIS).

Selected Project Experience

Middle Mile Broadband Network Survey and Extended
Phase I Ventura County, CA
Mr. Glenn managed multiple teams and reported on the survey of 123 miles and extended phase I subsurface testing at locations along seven Ventura County highways in anticipation of project construction for GPA Consulting and Caltrans.

FEMA / City of Indian Wells, CA Whitewater River East & West Drop Structure Project
Mr. Glenn managed survey and below surface testing at four locations along the Whitewater River in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Pr eservation Act and California Environmental Quality Act in anticipation of FEMA repair project construction. Completed a combined survey and BST report for FEMA and the City of Indian Wells.

Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Pavement Rehabilitation
Project, City of Malibu & County of Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Glenn managed and reported on the survey of 16 miles and extended phase I subsurface testing at locations along six locations along PCH for GPA Consulting and Caltrans.

18 Technology Dr., Ste. 103
Irvine, CA 92618
949-356-6660
www.dukecrm.com

archaeology history paleontology

Alexandria M. Bulato
Archaeologist

Expertise
Cultural Resources Management
Pacific Coastal Archaeology
California Prehistory
Laboratory Analysis

Education
CSUSB, B.A., Anthropology, 2016
CSUSB, Certificate, Archaeology, 2016
USDA Forest Service, Applied
Archaeology Field School, 2015

Professional Experience
Archaeologist/Laboratory Technician, DUKE CRM, 2016 - present Archaeological Field Technician, Statistical Research, Inc., 2016 Research Intern, Anthropology Department, CSUSB, 2016 - 2018 Supplemental Instruction Leader, CSUSB, 2015 - 2016

Selected Project Experience
Ocean Place Project, Seal Beach, 2018 - present
Diamond Valley Estates Project, Hemet, 2017 - present
US-101 California St. Off-Ramp Relocation Project, Ventura, 2017 - present 6 th Street Seismic Retrofit Project, Los Angeles, 2017 - present Gold Flora Farms, Desert Hot Springs, 2017 - 2019
Murrieta Hospitality Commons Project, Murrieta, 2017
SR-110 Improvement Project, Los Angeles, 2017
Dolores Lake Park Project, Newberry Springs, 2017
Vanderham Monitoring Project, Jurupa Valley, 2017
Rialto USD CNG & Transportation Yard Phase I, Rialto, 2017 Canyon Springs High School Athletic Complex Project, Moreno Valley, 2017 Fullerton JUHSD CNG Fueling Infrastructure Improvements, La Habra, 2017 La Mirada Creek Park Project, La Mirada, 2017
Soto Street Widening Project, Los Angeles, 2017
Vila Borba Specific Plan, Chino Hills, 2016 - present
CSUSB Channel Islands Research & Data Recovery Project, 2016 - present Spruce Goose Hangar Project Data Recovery, Los Angeles, 2016

DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt

Appendix B

Native American Heritage Commission
Sacred Lands File Search

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION