City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 1
APPENDIX E: RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and CEQA Plus Documentation (State Clearinghouse Number 2024020570)
The following are responses to comments received during the public review period for the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), dated February 2024, prepared for the 10 Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project. The Notice of Intent to adopt an IS was circulated for public review from December 27, 2022 through January 26, 2023. One (1) comment letter, Letter A, was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Comments received did not result in a “substantial revision” to the IS/MND (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b). Although there are some changes to the IS/MND as a result of comments, no new unavoidable significant effects were identified and mitigation measures were not substantively modified.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(1), recirculation of the IS/MND is not required when “mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures….”
LETTER A
(CDFW
(March 18, 2024)
The first two pages of the comment letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Commentor) are mostly introductory in nature and do not raise any project-specific environmental issues for which responses are required, although there are three conclusory statements without specific detail that warrant a response as provided. Specific comments that require a response are annotated and bracketed in the margins of CDFW’s letter shown in its entirely on the following 18 pages.
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
March 18, 2024
Sent via e-mail
Daniel Casey
Principal Planner
City of Rialto
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
RIALTO HABITAT NATURE CENTER (PROJECT)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)
SCH#: 2024020570
Dear Daniel Casey:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Rialto (City), for the Rialto Habitat Nature Center (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Rialto
Objective: The Project proposes to construct the Rialto Habitat Nature Center (RHNC) located on the southern portion of the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) property. The Project would provide an approximately 13-acre outdoor public space including an approximately 10-acre non-contact/non-watercraft lake consisting of two connected lakes, one mile of pedestrian perimeter trails, passive recreation, environmental education programming, and public outreach. The lakes would have depths of approximately 13-feet and 48-feet and would be created by intercepting fully treated
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
(primary, secondary, and tertiary) effluent from the WWTP that is currently discharged into the Rialto Channel. The routed effluent into the proposed lakes would constitute approximately 10 percent of the effluent flow that is currently discharged into the Rialto Channel. The treated water from the WWTP would be reclaimed and temporarily stored in the lakes prior to being discharged back into concrete-lined Rialto channel at the existing discharge outlet pipe. The City currently discharges treated effluent (average flow 7 mgd; minimum flow 6 mgd; maximum flow 8 mgd)2 into the Rialto Channel that flows downstream and changes into an unlined portion of the channel south of Agua Mansa Road prior to flowing into the Santa Ana River. Agua Mansa Road is located approximately
0.25 miles and the Santa Ana River approximately 0.65 miles down channel from the discharge point. The site is currently an undeveloped dry pit that was formerly used as a receiving basin for partially treated discharge from the WWTP up to the early 1970s.
Drainage for the RHNC site would be accomplished by a network of v-ditches located on the outside of the perimeter trails that encircle the lakes and on the east side of the site approximately 15 to 20 feet above the perimeter trails. The v-ditches would convey off site stormwater flowing onto the site and on-site flow into the lake via down drains located around the lake. In addition, public parking for the proposed project would be constructed on an approximately 0.15-acre vacant site, identified as Accessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 805-36-185A, located on the north side of Agua Mansa Road and directly west of the Agua Mansa Road crossing of the Rialto Channel. Development of the parking area would require site preparation, earthwork, and paving. Development of the pedestrian pathway between the parking area and the lake along the existing utility road would require brush clearing, signage, loose rock removal, and tread improvement for drainage.
Location: The proposed Project would be located on an approximately 13-acre site in the southern portion of the approximately 40-acre Rialto WWTP, located at 501 E. Santa Ana Avenue, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (34.051637, -117.360138). Parking for the proposed RHNC would be located approximately 0.25 miles to the south on Agua Mansa Road, City of Colton, San Bernardino County right-of-way (34.048126, -117.357066). The Project encompasses APN 258-151-25. The RHNC site is bordered by the existing WWTP to the north, the Rialto Channel to the immediate east, and undeveloped/vacant land to the east, south, and west.
Timeframe: Construction is anticipated to take place over 18 months.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The MND has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project’s impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) to biological resources and whether those impacts are less than significant.
CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW recommends that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that reduce impacts to less than significant.
Project-Related Environmental Impacts
An MND must analyze and disclose all direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts on the environment caused by the proposed Project. An MND must also identify mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the potentially significant adverse impacts.
Diversion and sale of water
2 Rialto Recycled Water Interconnection Preliminary Design Report, Draft Report, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, page 2-2, June 26, 2023.
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
The MND states (p. 2-1) “The proposed Project would not change the flow rate or discharge location of effluent into the Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River.” However, the MND (p. 2-6) indicates that the RHNC “would be created by diverting approximately 10 percent of the treated water from the City’s WWTP and temporarily storing the reclaimed water in the lakes to provide passive outdoor and educational experiences and wetland/terrestrial wildlife habitat. … Once the lake has been created and becomes operational, the approximately 10 percent of water diverted and reclaimed from the WWTP into the lakes will be returned to the Rialto Channel and rejoin the majority of effluent flow into the channel.” The MND does not appear to disclose the amount of time that the diverted water will be stored in the lakes. In addition, the MND does not address the impacts of temporal loss of flow to the Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River on biological resources. Further, the MND states (p. 2-5) “The City has recently agreed to sell Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) 7 mgd of effluent in the first phase and up to 10 mgd in the future. The recycled water interconnect project would include a pump station located north of the RHNC site and within the WWTP property and an interconnection pipeline from the pump station easterly along the northern perimeter of the RHNC site to Rialto Channel.
From Rialto Channel, the pipeline would turn north towards Santa Ana Avenue and ultimately to IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 located at 12811 6th Street in Rancho Cucamonga.” It is unclear how the flow rate and amount of effluent into the Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River will remain unchanged if the City intends to maintain a 10 percent diversion of the effluent flow that is currently discharged into the Rialto Channel, while also selling 7 mgd and 10 mgd to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. CDFW recommends a recirculated MND clarify the discrepancy regarding the amount and rate at which water will be diverted/sold for the Project. In addition, a revised MND should indicate the amount of time water will be diverted and stored in the lakes. A revised MND should also include an analysis of impacts to biological resources as a result of the temporal loss of flow into the Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River. Absent this information, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.
The MND states (p. 2-1), “It should be noted that the City has the ability and capacity to choose not to divert any water into the lakes post construction, for the purposes of regulating flows into Rialto Channel or effectively concluding the existence of the lakes.
Reasons for temporarily or permanently stopping the diverting and storage of the water could be for maintenance of the lined and unlined portions of Rialto Channel, the 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 reserves the right to stop diverting water into the lakes and return to pre-project conditions.” CDFW is concerned that the lead agency has not considered the adverse environmental impacts that could result from temporary or permanent changes in water flow and frequency to the lakes once they are established. The MND indicates the Project would create 3-4 acres of wetland and terrestrial habitat and cites (p. 3-20) “creation of the lakes and adjacent habitats” as supporting evidence that the Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. However, if water is no longer supplied to the lakes, potential impacts to these habitats and the species that will utilize these habitats may occur. The MND does not analyze the potential impacts to biological resources if the newly created habitat is not maintained. In addition, the MND does not address how these areas will be designed, maintained, and managed over the life of the Project (i.e., species selection, vegetation management, erosion, invasives, movement of water). Many studies have shown that improper management of constructed wetlands can potentially result in poor-quality ecosystems if not adequately planned and under strict technical management and supervision (Wright et al. 2022, Liu et al. 2024). CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate project description, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources. CDFW recommends a recirculated MND include an analysis of any cumulative impacts that could result from temporarily or permanently ceasing diversion and storage of water to the Project. These impacts should include any adverse effects to adjacent riparian habitat and any adverse effects to downstream water sources (i.e., Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River). The MND Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
should also address how the lead agency plans to create and maintain these habitats over the life of the Project.
Water Quality
The MND (p. 3-52) states the RHNC would provide the City with “water quality benefits”; however, no further information is provided regarding this statement. It is unclear how and the process by which the City intends to improve water quality. Many studies have linked effluent from wastewater plants to physiological and reproductive abnormalities in fish species (Jenkins et al. 2009, Fuzzen et al. 2015, McCallum et al. 2019, Hamdhani et al. 2020). Wastewater effluent often contains high levels of nutrients and reduced dissolved oxygen levels. Contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, plastic by- products, and pesticides may not be adequately removed by wastewater treatment processes (McCallum et al. 2019). Estrogenic and other contaminants that occur in wastewater are known to disrupt the hormone systems of fish (Johnson and Sumpter 2001, Jenkins et al. 2009, Fuzzen et al. 2015, Hicks et al. 2017, Marjan et al. 2018, McCallum et al. 2019, Hamdhani et al. 2020). One of the most widely reported consequences is “intersex,” a condition in which both male and female characteristics exist in the same fish. This condition can result in lower reproductive success (Jenkins et al. 2009, Fuzzen et al. 2015, Hicks et al. 2017). Thus, CDFW recommends a recirculated MND provide information regarding the “water quality benefits” that are proposed for the Project. Information should include: (1) Data on the chemical characteristics of the water to be used for the Project, including contaminants likely to result in hormone disruption of fish species, as well as other contaminants; (2) Data on the physical characteristics of the water that are likely to impact fish species, such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH; (3) A comparison of the pre-Project water quality profile versus the estimated water quality profile following Project implementation; and (4) A provision for ongoing monitoring of water quality before it is discharged to the Rialto Channel. Absent this information, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.
Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) and Arroyo Chub (Gila orcutti)
Santa Ana sucker is a threatened species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act and is a California Species of Special Concern. Santa Ana sucker rely on flows with suitable water quality and substrate to support breeding, feeding, and sheltering3.
Furthermore, the Rialto Channel is an important water source for the species as one of its remaining populations occupies the Santa Ana River. Ongoing threats to the species are caused by halting and altering water releases critical to maintaining surface flows of the Santa Ana River, and degradation associated with significant changes in the hydrology of the tributaries to the River. Arroyo chub is a California Species of Special Concern and its numbers have also declined drastically in the Santa Ana River due to water extraction/addition (O’Brien and Barabe 2022). Thus, it is vital to maintain the required discharge to the River as changes could result in significant impacts to fish downstream, including Santa Ana sucker and arroyo chub. CDFW is concerned about the inconsistencies in information regarding the amount and rate at which water will be diverted from the Rialto Channel, the amount time the water will be diverted and stored in the lakes, and the lack of analyses regarding subsequent impacts to sensitive fish species downstream. Absent this information, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of the potentially significant impacts to special-status fish that would be affected by this Project.
In addition, the MND (p. 5-1) states that with a no Project alternative (i.e., not continuing with the Project), “The current impacts to the threatened Santa Ana Sucker and Arroyo Chub would continue to increase resulting in further impacts from the current warm flows into the Rialto Channel form the WWTP.” However, no further information regarding this statement is provided making it unclear how the Project would improve conditions for Santa Ana sucker and arroyo chub. As stated above, CDFW recommends a recirculated
3 USFWS. FWS Focus: Santa Ana Sucker. https://www.fws.gov/species/santa-ana-sucker-catostomus-santaanae Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
MND include an analysis of any cumulative impacts that could result from the Project, specifically related to Santa Ana sucker and arroyo chub.
Impacts to the Vegetation Community
According to the MND (p. 3-18 and 3-19), “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.” Vegetation type (i.e., native versus non-native) or regional abundance does not necessarily determine habitat value or the use of these areas by wildlife, including special-status species. CDFW is concerned that the MND has trivialized the significance of the Project’s potential impacts on wildlife that utilize disturbed areas and non-native or common vegetation communities.
For instance, special-status species, such as southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), often utilize tamarisk thickets as breeding habitat (Daw 2013, Sogge et al. 2008) and could be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the Project. In addition, concluding that sensitive species are not present based on California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is not an accurate use of this database. CNDDB is a positive detection database. Records in the database exist only where surveys have been conducted and data have been reported. There are no organized inventory or survey efforts designed specifically to populate the database. Places that are empty or have limited information in the database often signify that little survey work has been done there. You should not conclude that species are absent due to lack of information. In addition, the general biological field survey conducted for the MND was not adequate in timing and scope to detect special-status species that could occur on-site. Losses of habitat that could be utilized by special-status species would constitute a significant impact under CEQA that must be mitigated. Impacts to special-status species, regardless of habitat quality, abundance, or location, must be identified, evaluated, and mitigated to a level below significance. Even though the MND (p. 3-20) states “implementation of the RHNC would include creation of new coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats. The creation of the lakes and adjacent habitats provides superior habitat than the vegetation communities being impacted,” impacts that could result from vegetation removal must be considered.
Replacement of vegetation does not offset Project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of biological values if these areas are utilized by special-status species.
Introducing Non-native Species
The MND does not address potential non-native species introduction (i.e., bull frog, sport fish) and management strategies if such species are identified. Amphibians, whether accidentally or intentionally introduced to the system, have potential adverse impacts that could include displacement, reduction, or extinction of native species4. With regard to sport fish, if introduced to the system, such species could have potential adverse impacts including competition with native species for food and habitat, reduction of natives by predation, transmission of diseases or parasites, and habitat alteration5. Non-native species disrupt the complex native ecological communities and the natural evolution of those communities, degrading native habitats and polluting gene pools by hybridization.
The presence of nonnative species can also alter water, nutrient cycles, and food chains6.
All these impacts could directly affect the Project site if non-native introduction occurs, and indirectly affect downstream habitat in the Santa Ana River if non-natives are not properly
4 USGS. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Amphibians. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/amphibians/ 5 USGS. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Fishes. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/fish/default.aspx 6 NPS. Environmental Factors: Nonnative Species. https://www.nps.gov/glca/learn/nature/nonnativespecies.htm Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
considered and managed. A recirculated MND should include a comprehensive plan stating how the Project intends to manage non-native species that could potentially be introduced to the system.
Assessment of Biological Resources
The MND does not adequately identify the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. The MND bases its analysis of impacts to biological resources on a general biological field survey conducted by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions, Inc. on January 27, 2023, and a focused survey for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly by Osborne Biological Consulting on February 15 and March 2, 2023. No focused or protocol-level surveys were performed for the detection of other special-status species, and the general biological field survey was not conducted at the appropriate time(s) of year to detect such species. CDFW is concerned about the potential for special-status species to occur on or near the Project site. The Project area encompasses open and disturbed areas, shrubs and grasslands, and waterbodies, and there is high potential for special- status species to be impacted directly, indirectly, and cumulatively by Project activities.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) indicate that occurrences of ESA-listed, CESA-listed, Fully Protected, and other special-status species have been reported near the Project area including, but not limited to, the following:
Plants: Los Angeles sunflower (Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii), marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), Parish’s bush-mallow (Malacothamnus parishii), Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), Pringle’s monardella (Monardella pringlei), salt marsh bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum), Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), bristly sedge (Carex comosa),
Birds: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia),
Fish: arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii), Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), steelhead – southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10),
Invertebrates: Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis),
Reptiles: California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti), Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi),
Mammals: Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus).
Recent surveys during the appropriate times of the year are needed to identify potential impacts to biological resources; inform appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and determine whether impacts to biological resources have been mitigated to a level that is less than significant. CDFW generally considers field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years.
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting with respect to biological resources has not been adequately analyzed in the MND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the MND likely provides an incomplete or inaccurate analysis of Project-related environmental impacts and whether those impacts have been mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are adequately investigated and discussed. The California Rare Plant Rank 1B indicates plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and California Rare Plant Rank 2B indicates plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Impacts to these species must be analyzed during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA because they meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines §15125 (c) and/or §15380.
To establish the existing environmental setting with respect to biological resources, CDFW recommends that a revised MND include the results of recent biological surveys, at the appropriate time(s) of year, as described in the following mitigation measure as well as any necessary mitigation measures:
MM BIO-[A]: Assessment of Biological Resources
Prior to adoption of the CEQA document, a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species- specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for revised MM-BIO 1, and CDFW- recommended MM-BIO [A] through [F] (see Attachment 1).
Nesting Birds
CDFW is concerned that the MND does not sufficiently identify Project impacts to nesting birds or ensure that impacts are mitigated to a level less than significant. Fourteen avian species were observed on-site during the biological assessment (p. 3-19), and the MND states “the Project site has nesting and foraging habitat for avian species due to the location, surrounding land uses, and the built nature of the Project site.” The MND (Appendix B, sub-Appendix D) also states the Project site has potential to support the following special-status species: tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). CDFW is concerned about Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
the impacts to nesting birds including loss of nesting/foraging habitat and potential take from ground-disturbing activities and construction. Conducting work outside the peak breeding season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al. 2017). CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site. CDFW therefore recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and migratory birds.
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: Fish and Game Code section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders 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 Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).
CDFW appreciates the inclusion of MM BIO-1; however, the measure is insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant. Project- specific avoidance and minimization measures for nesting birds may include, but are not limited to, Project phasing and timing, monitoring of Project-related noise (where applicable), sound walls, and buffers, where appropriate. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within 3 days prior to Project activities to determine the presence and location of nesting birds. CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as follows:
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for each phase of construction. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. If grading, site disturbance, or operational vegetation maintenance is to Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
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, on-site 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 on-site 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 on-site or within the surrounding buffer area. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the buffer 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.
Burrowing Owl
CDFW is concerned that the MND does not sufficiently identify Project impacts to burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) or ensure that impacts are mitigated to a level less than significant. CDFW notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs (Haug et al. 1993), and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity (Gervais et al. 2003). In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats (Chipman et al. 2008; Coulombe 1971). The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl.
The MND (Appendix B, p. 36) states “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.”. However, the MND also states (p. 3-19) that California ground squirrels have been observed on the Project site and are active, which indicates the potential for establishment of suitable burrows for burrowing owl since the time of the field survey. Additionally, CNDDB/BIOS report occurrences of several burrowing owls 1.5 miles north of the Project site. Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on-site and there is a potential for suitable burrows to be established on-site before and during construction. Impacts to burrowing owl from the Project could include take of burrowing owls, their nests, or eggs or destroying nesting, foraging, or over- wintering habitat, thus impacting burrowing owl populations. Impacts can result from grading, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compaction and crushing of burrows, general Project disturbance that has the potential to harass owls at occupied burrows or to cause nest abandonment or failure, and other activities.
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows:
section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders 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 Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).
CDFW recommends focused surveys for burrowing owl be conducted for the entirety of the Project site by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012 or most recent version) and that results be included in a revised MND. CDFW recommends the City include the following additional mitigation measure in a revised MND:
MM BIO-[B]: Focused and Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, monitoring, relocation, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and compensatory mitigation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall identify compensatory mitigation for the temporary or permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the “Mitigation Impacts” section of the 2012 Staff Report and shall implement CDFW-approved mitigation prior to initiation of Project activities. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. If no suitable habitat is available nearby, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.
Least Bell’s Vireo
Least Bell’s vireo is an endangered species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and the federal Endangered Species Act and is additionally afforded protection under Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513. The MND (Appendix B, p. 39) states no suitable habitat occurs onsite, but acknowledges that the species “uses habitat which is limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses,” which is in proximity to the Project site. Because San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have lost much of the native riparian habitat, the Santa Ana Watershed and Prado Basin provide the best suitable habitat and happen to have the largest Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
concentration/density of least Bell’s vireo in the region. CNDDB/BIOS report recent occurrences of several least Bell’s vireo approximately 0.5 miles south of the Project at the Rialto Channel/Santa Ana River outlet. Additionally, the Project site is within 6 miles of the USFWS designated Final Critical Habitat for least Bell’s vireo. CDFW is concerned about the impacts to least Bell’s vireo including loss of foraging habitat and potential take from ground-disturbing activities and construction noise (see “Construction Noise” section below).
Impacts to birds, their nests, or their habitat would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, CDFW recommends focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo be conducted for the entirety of the Project site and buffer by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS, January 2001) prior to commencing project-related activities. CDFW recommends the City include the following additional mitigation measure in a revised MND:
MM BIO-[C]: Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys
Prior to commencement of Project activities, a CDFW-approved qualified biologist shall complete necessary surveys, impact assessments, and associated reports within all locations subject to Project activities and a 500-foot buffer following the protocols provided within the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS, January 2001) to ensure avoidance of impacts. All potential least Bell’s vireo habitat should be surveyed at least eight times during the period from April 10 through July 31. CDFW and USFWS should be notified of survey findings, including negative findings, within 45 calendar days following the completion of protocol-level surveys. If least Bell’s vireos are identified within 500 linear feet of Project site activities, the City shall develop a plan to completely avoid impacts to the species. The City shall not conduct any project activities within 1000 linear feet of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat from March 1 through July 15. The City shall not conduct any project activities within 500 linear feet of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat from July 15 to September 15. If full avoidance cannot be accomplished, the City shall postpone the Project until appropriate CESA authorization is obtained. This may include an incidental take permit (ITP) or a consistency determination.
CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program
The MND (p. 2-6) acknowledges that “Drainage for the RHNC site would be accomplished by a network of v-ditches located on the outside of the perimeter trails that encircle the lakes and on the east side of the site approximately 15 to 20 feet above the perimeter trails. The v-ditches would convey off site stormwater flowing onto the site and on-site flow into the lake via down drains located around the lake.” Also, the MND (p. 3-20) indicates the Project vicinity includes the Rialto Channel located on the eastern portion of the Project boundary, but states “the channel is a concrete lined channel with no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.” Canals and ditches, regardless of whether they are concrete lined, may provide suitable habitat for biological resources. Additionally, CDFW review of aerial imagery confirms the location of the West Riverside Canal that borders the Project area to the south. Thus, impacts to resources subject to Fish and Game Code section 1602 are likely to occur. Depending on how the Project is designed and constructed, it is likely that potential direct and indirect impacts to streams and to associated fish and wildlife resources, such as burrowing owl and nesting birds, would result from Project construction.
Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Note that “any river, stream or lake” includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply to Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. Upon receipt of a complete notification, CDFW determines if the proposed Project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may suggest ways to modify the Project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement is a “project” subject to CEQA (see Pub.
Resources Code § 21065). Early consultation with CDFW is recommended since modification of the proposed Project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To submit a Lake or Streambed Alteration notification, visit:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA.
Because of the potential for impacts to resources subject to Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW recommends the City include the following additional mitigation measure in a revised MND:
MM BIO-[D]: CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall obtain written correspondence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) stating that notification under section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code is not required for the Project, or the Project Sponsor should obtain a CDFW-executed Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources associated with the Project.
Construction Noise
The MND does not include an assessment of impacts to biological resources resulting from construction noise or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to a level less than significant. The MND (p. 3-47) states “it is expected that noise levels during construction at the off-site receiver located significantly farther than 50 feet to the north would not exceed the FTAs 80 dBA Leq threshold,” and states noise levels for a grader are expected to be approximately 84 dBA and approximately 80 dBA for a front-end loader.
However, the MND includes no noise impact assessment or an analysis of the impacts of construction noise on biological resources. Noise levels are expected to exceed exposure levels that may adversely affect wildlife species at 55 to 60 dBA.
Construction may result in substantial noise through road use, equipment, and other Project-related activities. This may adversely affect wildlife species in several ways as wildlife responses to noise can occur at exposure levels of only 55 to 60 dB (Barber et al. 2009). Anthropogenic noise can disrupt the communication of many wildlife species including frogs, birds, and bats (Sun and Narins 2005, Patricelli and Blickley 2006, Gillam and McCracken 2007, Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008). Noise can also affect predator- prey relationships as many nocturnal animals such as bats and owls primarily use auditory cures (i.e., hearing) to hunt. Additionally, many prey species increase their vigilance behavior when exposed to noise because they need to rely more on visual detection of predators when auditory cues may be masked by noise (Rabin et al. 2006, Quinn et al. 2017). Noise has also been shown to reduce the density of nesting birds (Francis et al. 2009) and cause increased stress that results in decreased immune responses (Kight and Swaddle 2011).
Because of the potential for construction noise to negatively impact wildlife, CDFW recommends a revised MND include a noise impact assessment and an analysis of impacts to biological resources accompanied by specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to wildlife are avoided or reduced to less than significant.
CDFW recommends adding the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
MM BIO-[E]: Construction Noise Impacts to Biological Resources
During all Project construction, the City shall restrict use of equipment to hours least likely to disrupt wildlife (e.g., not at night or in early morning) and restrict Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. Power to sites can be provided by solar PV (photovoltaic) systems, cogeneration systems (natural gas generator), small micro-hydroelectric systems, or small wind turbine systems. The City shall ensure the use of noise suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosures for generators. Sounds generated from any means must be below the 55-60 dB range within 50-feet from the source.
Artificial Nighttime Light
The MND does not analyze impacts to biological resources from artificial nighttime lighting and includes no mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to a level less than significant. The MND includes contradictory statements, stating (p. 3-33) the proposed Project would include “possible lighting for security and safety of the perimeter trails,” while also stating (Appendix B, p. 8) “no lighting is planned on the trail system around the lakes.” The MND should correct the discrepancy in the lighting information provided. Designs for artificial nighttime lighting to be used during operation of the Project should be included in a revised MND. The direct and indirect impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources including migratory birds that fly at night, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife should be analyzed, and appropriate avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to less than significant should be included in a revised MND.
Artificial nighttime lighting often results in light pollution, which has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation (Gatson et al. 2013). Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song; Miller 2006), determining when to begin foraging (Stone et al. 2009), behavior thermoregulation (Beiswenger 1977), and migration (Longcore and Rich 2004). Phototaxis, a phenomenon which results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it (Longcore and Rich 2004).
Because of the potential for artificial nighttime light to negatively impact wildlife, CDFW recommends a revised MND include details of the use of artificial nighttime lighting proposed for the operation of the Project and an analysis of impacts to biological resources, as well as specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to wildlife are reduced to less than significant. CDFW recommends the City include the following mitigation measure in a revised MND:
MM BIO-[F]: Artificial Nighttime Light
During Project construction and operation, the City shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City shall ensure that lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants- and-Animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal.
Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Rialto in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant impacts on biological resources. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that recirculation is required when insufficient information in the MND precludes a meaningful review (§ 15088.5) or when a new significant effect is identified and additional mitigation measures are necessary (§ 15073.5). CDFW recommends that a revised MND with a recent and complete assessment of impacts to biological resources, as well as mitigation to avoid and reduce those impacts to less than significant, be recirculated for public comment. If the revised MND cannot demonstrate that impacts to biological resources are mitigated to a level that is less than significant, CDFW recommends that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared by the City of Rialto for the Project.
CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Alyssa Hockaday, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) at (760) 920-8252 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures
ec: Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
Eric Kawamura-Chan, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
Arron Brown, Assistant City Manager, City of Rialto
[email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
REFERENCES
Barber, J. R., K. R. Crooks, and K. M. Fristrup. 2009. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:180-189.
Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on western burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Raptor Research 42(2): 87-98.
Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162–176.
Daw, S. 2013. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: National Park Service, Southern Colorado Plateau Network I&M Program. https://www.nps.gov/articles/southwestern-willow- flycatcher.htm#:~:text=The%20replacement%20of%20native%20riparian,do%20successfully%20nest%2 0in%20tamarisk.
Francis, C. D., C. P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Current Biology 19:1415–1419.
Fuzzen, M. L., Bennett, C. J., Tetreault, G. R., McMaster, M. E., & Servos, M. R. 2015. Severe intersex is predictive of poor fertilization success in populations of rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum). Aquatic Toxicology 160:106–116.
Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews.
Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155 -164.
Gillam, E. H., and G. F. McCracken. 2007. Variability in the echolocation of Tadarida brasiliensis: effects of geography and local acoustic environment. Animal Behaviour 74:277–286.
Hamdhani, H., Eppehimer, D. E., & Bogan, M. T. 2020. Release of treated effluent into streams: A global review of ecological impacts with a consideration of its potential use for environm ental flows. Freshwater Biology 65(9):1657–1670.
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsyl vania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
Hicks, K. A., Fuzzen, M. L., McCann, E. K., Arlos, M. J., Bragg, L. M., Kleywegt, S., & Servos, M. R. 2017.
Reduction of intersex in a wild fish population in response to major municipal wastewater treatment plant upgrades. Environmental Science & Technology 51(3):1811–1819.
Jenkins, J. A., Goodbred, S. L., Sobiech, S. A., Olivier, H. M., Draugelis-Dale, R. O., & Alvarez, D. A. 2009.
Effects of wastewater discharges on endocrine and reproductive function of western mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.) and implications for the threatened Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae). US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Johnson, A. C., & Sumpter, J. P. 2001. Removal of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in activated sludge treatment works. Environmental Science & Technology 35(24):4697–4703.
Kight, C. R., and J. P. Swaddle. 2011. How and why environmental noise impacts animals: An integrative, mechanistic review. Ecology Letters 14:1052–1061.
Liu S., Y. Zhang, X. Feng, S. Pyo. 2024. Current problems and countermeasures of constructed wetland for wastewater treatment: A review, Journal of Water Process Engineering, Volume 57:104569.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution – Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.
Marjan, P., Van Der Kraak, G. J., MacLatchy, D. L., Fuzzen, M. L., Bragg, L. M., McMaster, M. E., & Servos, M. R. 2018. Assessing recovery of in vitro steroid production in male rainbow darter ( Etheostoma caeruleum) in response to municipal wastewater treatment plant infrastructure changes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 37(2):501–514.
McCallum, E. S., Nikel, K. E., Mehdi, H., Du, S. N., Bowman, J. E., Midwood, J. D., & Balshine, S. 2019.
Municipal wastewater effluent affects fish communities: A multi-year study involving two wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Pollution 252:1730–1741.
Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130–139.
O’Brien, J. W., and R. M. Barabe. 2022. Status and distribution of Arroyo Chub within its native range.
California Fish and Wildlife Journal 108:e5.
Patricelli, G., and J. J. L. Blickley. 2006. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and conseq uences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639–649.
Quinn, J. L., M. J. Whittingham, S. J. Butler, W. Cresswell, J. L. Quinn, M. J. Whittingham, S. J. Butler, W.
Cresswell, and W. Noise. 2017. Noise, predation risk compensation and vigilance in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Journal of Avian Biology 37:601–608.
Rabin, L. A., R. G. Coss, and D. H. Owings. 2006. The effects of wind turbines on antipredator behavior in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Biological Conservation 131:410–420.
Socolar JB, Epanchin PN, Beissinger SR and Tingley MW. 2017. Phenological shifts conserve thermal niches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49): 12976-12981.
Sogge, M.K., S.J. Sferra, and E.H. Paxton. 2008. Tamarix as Habitat for Birds: Implications for Riparian Restoration in the Southwestern United States. Restoration Ecology, 16:1, pp.146–154.
Slabbekoorn, H., and E. A. P. Ripmeester. 2008. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: Implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 17:72–83.
Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123–1127. Elsevier Ltd.
Sun, J. W. C., and P. M. Narins. 2005. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate.
Biological Conservation 121:419–427.
Wright, A.S., M.A. Doblin, and P.R. Scanes. 2022. Improper Maintenance Activities Alter Benefits of Urban Stormwater Treatment in a Temperate Constructed Wetland in NSW, Australia. Front. Environ. Chem., vol 3.
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation Measure (MM) Description Implementation
Schedule
Responsible
Parties
MM BIO-[A]: Assessment of Biological Resources
Prior to adoption of the CEQA document, a complete and
recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and
other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC)
and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game
Code § 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should
address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused
species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified
biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species- specific survey procedures should be developed in
consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally
considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare
plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa,
particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are
completed during periods of drought.
Prior to adoption
of the CEQA
document.
City of Rialto
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing
activities for each phase of construction. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and
monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre- construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results.
Construction activities may not occur inside the
established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has
been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.
No more than
three (3) days
prior to vegetation
clearing or
ground-disturbing
activities for each
phase of
construction.
City of Rialto
MM BIO-[B]: Focused and Pre-Construction Burrowing
Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version)
Focused
surveys: Prior to
the start of
Project-related
activities.
City of Rialto
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities.
If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project
activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, monitoring, relocation, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other
avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be
avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe
minimization and compensatory mitigation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow
exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as
exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take.
The Burrowing Owl Plan shall identify compensatory
mitigation for the temporary or permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the “Mitigation
Impacts” section of the 2012 Staff Report and shall
implement CDFW-approved mitigation prior to initiation of Project activities. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. If no suitable habitat is available nearby, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist
following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl
habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW
and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing
Project activities.
Pre-construction
surveys: No less
than 14 days prior
to start of Project-
related activities
and within 24
hours prior to
ground
disturbance.
MM BIO-[C]: Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys
Prior to commencement of Project activities, a CDFW-
approved qualified biologist shall complete necessary
surveys, impact assessments, and associated reports
within all locations subject to Project activities and a 500- foot buffer following the protocols provided within the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS, January 2001) to ensure avoidance of impacts. All potential least Bell’s vireo habitat should be surveyed at least eight times during the period from April 10 through July 31. CDFW and USFWS
should be notified of survey findings, including negative findings, within 45 calendar days following the completion of protocol-level surveys. If least Bell’s vireos are identified within 500 linear feet of project site activities, the City shall develop a plan to completely avoid impacts to the species.
The City shall not conduct any project activities within 1000 linear feet of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat from No more than
three (3) days
prior to vegetation
clearing or
ground-disturbing
activities for each
phase of
construction.
City of Rialto
Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
City of Rialto
March 18, 2024
March 1 through July 15. The City shall not conduct any project activities within 500 linear feet of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat from July 15 to September 15. If full avoidance cannot be accomplished, the City shall
postpone the Project until appropriate CESA authorization is obtained. This may include an incidental take permit (ITP) or a consistency determination.
MM BIO-[D]: CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration
Program
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall obtain written correspondence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) stating that notification under section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code is not required for the Project, or the Project Sponsor should obtain a CDFW-executed Lake
and Streambed Alteration Agreement, authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources
associated with the Project.
Prior to
construction and
issuance of any
grading permit.
City of Rialto
MM BIO-[E]: Construction Noise Impacts to Biological
Resources
During all Project construction, the City shall restrict use of equipment to hours least likely to disrupt wildlife (e.g., not at night or in early morning) and restrict use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. Power to sites can be provided by solar PV (photovoltaic) systems,
cogeneration systems (natural gas generator), small
micro-hydroelectric systems, or small wind turbine
systems. The City shall ensure the use of noise
suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosures for
generators. Sounds generated from any means must be
below the 55-60 dB range within 50-feet from the source.
During Project
activities.
City of Rialto
MM BIO-[F]: Artificial Nighttime Light
During Project construction and operation, the City shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are
most active. The City shall ensure that lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City shall ensure use of LED
lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000
Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.
During Project
construction
activities and
operation.
City of Rialto
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 20
Response to Comment A-1:
Commentor explains their role as a Trustee Agency responsible for stewardship of fish and wildlife resources in California. The Commentor also states they are a Responsible Agency regarding the proposed Project based on an expectation the proposed Project will require regulatory approval as part of the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) program as well as approval of a take permit pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). As discussed in responses to subsequent comments, there is no evidence that either an LSAA or a CESA take permit would be required to approve or implement the proposed Project.
Response to Comment A-2:
The Commentor suggests the City has not adequately identified and disclosed impacts to biological resources and whether those impacts are less than significant, and for this reason offers comments and recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant or potentially significant impacts on biological resources. As discussed in responses below to subsequent comments, the Commentor appears to have misinterpreted the Project objectives and goals. Based on the information, data, analysis and conclusions contained in the IS/MND plus the minor text additions to address the Commentor’s comments, the City believes some comments and recommendations result in an inaccurate depiction of the Project and speculative conclusions regarding impacts. The City believes the IS/MND as circulated provides a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project. In order to further clarify the proposed Project, the City has made minor changes to the IS/MND and associated impact analyses to provide the Commentor clarification of the extent of impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Response to Comment A-3:
The Commentor recommends additional information and analyses be added to a revised (and recirculated) IS/MND, along with additional mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. The comments and mitigation measures as recommended by the Commentor appear to be based on an inaccurate depiction of the Project goals, objectives and conclusions regarding speculative impacts as discussed in Response to Comment A-2. As noted above, the City has made minor text additions to the IS/MND to further clarify and describe the proposed Project and associated impact analyses to assist the Commentor in understanding the extent of impacts associated with the proposed Project. The minor text additions provide clarification language and do not constitute a substantial revision and therefore the IS/MND does not require recirculation.
Response to Comment A-4:
The Commentor correctly notes the proposed lakes would be created by temporarily utilizing fully treated effluent generated by the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Treated effluent generated by the City’s WWTP will be utilized to fill the lakes and filling operations will be managed to ensure that effluent discharges to the Rialto Channel are within the historical daily and seasonal variability as planned. Additional detail regarding existing daily and seasonal WWTP flow into the Rialto Channel are described in Section 2.4.3 of the IS/MND – revised to provide the Commentor with additional information regarding existing flow conditions. When the lakes are full and at operating level, approximately ten (10) percent of the WWTP effluent flow will be routed through the lakes to maintain water quality and habitat. Effluent routed through the lakes will then comingle with the remaining ninety (90) percent of the WWTP effluent before being discharged to the concrete lined Rialto Channel. The added text in revised Section 2.4.3 of the IS/MND is shown as follows:
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 21
2.4.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Flows
The existing wastewater system for the City encompasses approximately 25 square miles and collects and treats wastewater from domestic, commercial, and industrial customers at the City’s WWTP located in the southeast portion of the WWTP service area. The WWTP property occupies approximately 25 acre s inclusive of the proposed 13 -acre RHNC site and has a maximum treatment capacity of 11.7 million gallons per day (mgd). The WWTP provides secondary and tertiary treatment prior to discharging the treated effluent into the concrete-lined Rialto Channel, w hich is a tributary to the Santa Ana River Watershed. Rialto Channel is concrete-lined for approximately 0.50 miles along the east property boundary of the WWTP and extends to Agua Mansa Road, and the channel is unlined from Agua Mansa Road south approximately 0.30 miles before discharging into the Santa Ana River. The WWTP discharges 100 percent of its treated effluent into the concrete-lined Rialto Channel v ia a 36 -inch diameter effluent pipeline at a location adjacent to the southeast portion of the proposed eastern lake.
Effluent discharged into the channel has varied over the years. To assist with characterizing existing effluent conditions at the WWTP, the most recent 5-year historical period has been used, October 2019 thru October 2024. Based on the last 5 years, the average monthly effluent flow to the Rialto Channel was 6.9 mgd, with a minimum average monthly flow of 5.74 mgd and maximum monthly flow of 7.62 mgd. The high variability of effluent flows to the Rialto Channel is expected and will likely continue as a result of the natural daily variability from high to low demand times of the day, seasonal variability from wet to dry periods of the year and resulting rainfall infiltration, ongoing water use efficiency and conservation efforts, the COVID pandemic, and increases from new growth and development within the City’s service area and adjacent Sphere of Influence. Figures 2- 3 and 2-4 present historical effluent flows to the Rialto Channel and resulting seasonal variability.
Figure 2-3: 1-Year Historical Effluent Flows to the Rialto Channel
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 22
Figure 2-4: 20-Year Historical Effluent Flows to the Rialto Channel
The Commentor also notes the IS/MND does not disclose the amount of time the effluent would be “stored” in the lakes and does not address potential impacts to biological resources from this temporary storage. To address this comment, the first paragraph on page 2-6 in Section 2.5 of the IS/MND has been modified to provide further clarification regarding the temporal nature of effluent flow in/out of the lake:
RHNC would provide the citizens of Rialto and the region with an approximately 13-acre outdoor public natural space including a 10-acre lake consisting of two connected lakes that would hold approximately 39.5 million gallons or 121 acre-feet of water, one mile of pedestrian perimeter trails, passive recreation, environmental education programming, and public outreach (Figure 2- 53, Grading Plan). The filling of the lakes for the RHNC would be accomplished created by temporarily diverting approximately 10 percent of the treated effluent water from the City’s WWTP and temporarily storing the reclaimed water in the lakes to provide passive outdoor and educational experiences and wetland/terrestrial wildlife habitat. While the lakes are being filled, theThe remaining 90 percent of treated effluent waters would continue to be discharged into the Rialto Channel to maintain the minimum 7 cfs requirement. The temporary reduction in effluent flow from the WWTP will be managed to ensure that effluent discharged to the Rialto Channel remains above the historical minimum discharge flows described in revised Section 2.4.3 and managed to be within daily and seasonal historical variability. During this time, the effluent flow into Rialto Channel would temporarily be reduced by approximately ten percent. This slight reduction in flow is within the daily and seasonal effluent flow variation generated by the WWTP and would remain at 6.57 MGD or above (7.3 MGD existing – 0.73 MGD = 6.57 MGD). Once the lake has been created and becomes filledoperational, a steady-state condition will be obtained and the amount of effluent into the lake will equal the amount of effluent out from the lake and back into the approximately 10 percent of water diverted and reclaimed from the WWTP into the lakes will be returned to the Rialto Channel and rejoin the majority of effluent flow into the channel.
Regarding the proposed Project’s effects from potential changes to effluent flow on biological resources, the following text has been added to page 3-19 within 3.4.2a between Wildlife and Critical Habitat.
These changes clarify the proposed Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on biological resources associated with flow rate changes to the Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River.
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 23
Effluent Flow into Rialto Channel
As indicated in the Project Description on page 2-6 and further clarified in response to CDFW comments, the proposed Project will have no effect on the effluent flow into Rialto Channel.
Although the flow rate would be temporarily reduced during the time in which the lakes are filled, this reduction of effluent discharged to the Rialto Channel will be within the historical daily and seasonal variability as shown in previously referenced Figures 2-3 and 2-4. Based on current average flow of 7.3 MGD and a temporary reduction of 10 percent during filling, average flow into the channel would remain at 6.57 MGD during initial lake filling (7.3 MGD existing –
0.73 MGD = 6.57 MGD). For this reason, the flow reduction into Rialto Channel that would occur during filling of the lakes would not result in impacts to biological resources because the temporary change is within existing baseline conditions and normal fluctuations of the effluent flows. Once the lakes are filled, the quantity of flow in and out of the lakes would equalize and no change in flow would occur from the original baseline resulting in less than significant impacts to biological resources located downstream.
Response to Comment A-5:
The Commentor correctly notes the City has intensions to sell reclaimed water from its WWTP to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) in the future, and comments that it is unclear how flow would remain unchanged upon implementation of the agreement with IEUA. The agreement with IEUA is an unrelated project, and ultimate implementation of the City/IEUA project will be subject to CEQA environmental review, approval, and any required Resource Agency permits. The purpose of noting this unrelated project, as well as the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Upper Santa Ana River (SAR) watershed in Section 2.4.3 on page 2-5 of the IS/MND as revised in response to comments from the Commenter, is to disclose other factors are in play that may have an effect on flow rates in the Rialto Channel and the Santa Ana River outside of the temporary filling of the lakes associated with the proposed Project. The following clarifications regarding the IEUA agreement have been added to the last paragraph on page 2-5 as follows:
Currently, the WWTP discharges 100 percent of its treated effluent flows (average flow 7 mgd; minimum flow 6 mgd; maximum flow 8 mgd) into the concrete-lined Rialto Channel via a 36- inch diameter effluent pipeline. Existing effluent discharge exceeds the 7 cfs or 3.8 mgd flow the City has previously agreed to provide into Rialto Channel as part of prior agreements coordinated with other agencies for the benefit of the Santa Ana River.
The City has recently agreed in concept to sell Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) 7 mgd of effluent in the first phase and up to 10 mgd in the future, subject to future CEQA analysis and potentially Resource Agency permits. The recycled water interconnect project would include a pump station located north of the RHNC site and within the WWTP property and an interconnection pipeline from the pump station easterly along the northern perimeter of the RHNC site to Rialto Channel. From Rialto Channel, the pipeline would turn north towards Santa Ana Avenue and ultimately to IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 located at 12811 6th Street in Rancho Cucamonga. The City/IEUA project will be subject to its own environmental review including assessment of potential impacts to biological resources associated with effluent flow changes into the Rialto Channel and Santa Ana River associated with the reclaimed water project.
Response to Comment A-6:
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 24
The Commentor suggests the City recirculate the IS/MND to clarify the discrepancy regarding the amount and rate of flow to be diverted/sold for the Project. As noted in response to comment A-5, the City/IEUA project is not part of the proposed Project, has not been approved, is in concept phase only, and will be subject to its own environmental review as a separate Project per CEQA. As noted in response to comment A-4 and in revised IS/MND Section 3.4.2a, regarding the proposed Project no impact to biological resources would occur during the temporary period of time the lakes are filled because the quantity of flow used to fill the lakes would fall within the range of the current daily and seasonal variations typical of the system. Once the lakes are filled, the quantity of flow in and out of the lakes would equalize and no change in flow would occur from the original baseline therefore resulting in no impact to biological resources downstream.
Response to Comment A-7:
The Commentor correctly notes the City has the ability and capacity to regulate flow into the lake for the purposes of lake maintenance regulating flow into Rialto Channel for the benefit of downstream habitat.
The Commentor notes that the IS/MND should address potential impacts to any future habitat created by the proposed Project if the lakes are terminated in the future. Page 2-1 of the IS/MND has been clarified to eliminate references to termination of the lakes as follows:
It should be noted that the City has the ability and capacity to choose not to divert any water into the lakes post construction, for the purposes of regulating flows into Rialto Channel or maintenance of the lakes effectively concluding the existence of the lakes. Reasons for temporarily or permanently stopping the diverting and storage of the water from the lakes could be for maintenance of the lined and unlined portions of Rialto Channel, the 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 reserves the right to stop diverting water into the lakes and return to pre-project conditions.
The City recognizes that filling of the lakes would create riparian habitat and open water areas subject to CDFW jurisdiction. The City would prepare an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan for the lakes that would be subject of a Long- Term Maintenance Agreement (LTMA) with CDFW. The O&M plan would address the temporary maintenance of the lakes, including the reduction or stoppage of discharge for a short duration. The O&M Plan would include project design features to off-set impacts, such as avoiding nesting bird season or conducting maintenance in cooler weather to minimize stress on downstream aquatic resources. Furthermore, the City is committed to perpetual operation and maintenance of the lakes. Should that change, a separate Environmental Document and Analysis would be required to decommission the lakes and appropriate Jurisdictional Permits would be obtained.
Response to Comment A-8:
The Commentor states the IS/MND does not address how the newly created habitat associated with the proposed Project would be designed, maintained, and managed over the life of the Project. It should be noted that the City will prepare an Operation & Maintenance (O&M) manual regarding all aspects of the Project. As part of the O&M document preparation, the City will apply for and obtain a CDFW Long- Term Maintenance Agreement (LTMA) addressing maintenance of the newly created biological resources associated with the Project in perpetuity.
Response to Comment A-9:
The Commentor recommends the City recirculate the IS/MND to address potential impacts associated with termination of the Project. As noted in responses to comments A-7 and A-8, the City does not plan to City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 25
terminate the Project. However, an LTMA and O&M would be submitted to CDFW and obtained prior to the lake operations, which addresses maintenance of any newly created biological resources associated with the Project in perpetuity. Currently no riparian habitat/wetlands exist onsite. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 26
Response to Comment A-10:
The Commentor correctly notes on page 3-52 of the IS/MND that the Project would provide the City and surrounding area with water quality benefits. The Commentor notes that there is not supporting analysis of this statement and provides further comment that effluent from WWTPs contains high level of various contaminants, in the existing baseline condition. The effluent discharged from the WWTP is routinely tested and meets all Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for discharge. Therefore, there is no contaminant release in the baseline condition that exceeds required standards. The Commentor’s suggestion that the Project would cause an increase in contaminant release means the addition of open water lakes and riparian vegetation would increase the contaminant levels. There is no evidence to support this comment. The Project, as designed, included extensive research of operations and water quality benefits at two similar projects in the area, the Mill Creek Wetlands and Irvine Ranch Water District San Joaquin Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. Furthermore, using Mill Creek Wetlands and San Joaquin Marsh as models, both of these wetlands are historically known to improve water quality with the removal of total dissolved solids, decrease of harmful nutrients and bacteria, and increase in dissolved oxygen. The known positive effects of the wetlands would have no impact on water quality within Rialto Channel and at most a positive benefit. Regardless no impact to water quality would occur and recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.
Response to Comment A-11:
The Commentor expresses concerns about the “inconsistencies in information regarding the amount and rate at which water will be diverted from the Rialto Channel, the amount time the water will be diverted and stored in the lakes, and the lack of analyses regarding subsequent impacts to sensitive fish species downstream. Absent this information, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of the potentially significant impacts to special-status fish that would be affected by this Project.” As noted in responses to comments A-4 through A-10, the proposed Project will have no effect on flow rates in the unlined portion of Rialto Channel and the Santa Ana River. Impacts to associated habitat and species including the Santa Ana sucker located downstream would not occur.
Response to Comment A-12:
The Commentor provides comment on the alternative analysis contained in Chapter 5 of the IS/MND.
This chapter is included in the IS/MND as a “CEQA Plus” addition to satisfy NEPA compliance for federal agency grant applications. The text of the IS/MND has been revised to clarify the effects of the “No Project” alternative. The No Project Alternative would have no change of conditions to downstream arroyo chub or Santa Ana sucker and operations, including water quality, since flows would continue as in the existing baseline condition. In the No Project Alternative, the potential impacts to Arroyo Chub and Santa Ana Sucker would not come from the Project, since there would be no change to existing conditions, but could come from other external forces unrelated to the proposed Project. Furthermore, one benefit of the Project is to improve water quality, which would not occur in the No Project Alternative condition. Therefore, in the No Project Alternative there would be a lost opportunity to improve water quality, which could have offset impacts from other external forces. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.
Response to Comment A-13:
The Commentor disagrees with conclusions found on pages 3-18 through 3-19 of the IS/MND regarding impacts to vegetation communities, because vegetation type or regional abundance does not necessarily determine habitat value or the use of these areas by wildlife, including special-status species. CDFW states that the IS/MND “has trivialized the significance of the Project’s potential impacts on wildlife that City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 27
utilize disturbed areas and non-native or common vegetation communities.” Furthermore, the Commentor stated, “southwestern willow flycatcher may utilize tamarisk thickets as breeding habitats.” Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) include habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, and reproduction. As identified in the Biological Resource Assessment (Appendix B of the IS/MND) a tamarisk stand occurs onsite. The PCEs for southwestern willow flycatchers (SWFL) include dense riparian vegetation along rivers or lakeside, typically including willow and cottonwood trees, but may utilize tamarisk. SWFL nests are usually built close to water sources and often within the floodplain. The Project site does not currently include any water onsite, and specifically does not include any water near the tamarisk stand. The closest water source is the Rialto Channel located to the east of the Project site. The Channel is concrete lined and contains no riparian habitat. Therefore, while tamarisk occurs onsite, the Project site lacks the necessary PCEs for the Southwestern willow flycatcher. Furthermore, the Biological Resource Assessment includes a comprehensive and adequate evaluation of impacts to vegetation communities and species.
Response to Comment A-14:
The Commentor states the general biological field survey conducted for the MND was not adequate in timing and scope to detect special-status species that could occur on-site. The Biological Resource Assessment was prepared in accordance with industry standards. Since the comment does not provide specificity, no further response is required.
Response to Comment A-15:
The Commentor states the IS/MND should address impacts to the future habitat that would be created as part of the lakes including vegetation removal. The newly created habitat associated with the proposed Project is not an existing condition. Therefore, analysis of the removal of such newly created habitat would be speculative and expressly not required as part of CEQA. However, as noted in response to comment A-8, the City will prepare an O&M manual detailing the maintenance and operations activities associated with the Project, including best management practices designed to minimize maintenance impacts, such as avoiding nesting bird season for vegetation maintenance. As part of the O&M document preparation, the City will submit and obtain a Long-Term Maintenance Agreement addressing maintenance of newly created biological resources associated with the Project.
Response to Comment A-16:
The Commentor states the IS/MND does not address the introduction of non-native species and management strategies if such species are identified. These are topics that are not part of the existing condition and are speculative. However, as noted in response to comment A-8, the City will prepare an O&M manual detailing the maintenance and operations activities associated with the Project, including addressing the introduction and management of non-native species. . Recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.
Response to Comment A-17:
The Commentor states the IS/MND does not adequately address impacts to biological resources because no focused or protocol-level surveys were performed for any species other than the Delhi Sands flower- loving fly, suggesting there is high potential for special-status species to be impacted onsite either directly, indirectly, and cumulatively by Project activities. The Project site is a heavily used disturbed area that is currently operating as a wastewater treatment plant. The area of the proposed Project is currently used as a storage site and staging area at various times throughout the year, with extensive truck and equipment traffic across the entirety of the Project site. As such, the Project site is extensively disturbed City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 28
and lacks suitable habitat for sensitive species. The IS/MND provides a brief summary of the comprehensive Biological Resource Assessment contained in its entirety as Appendix B to the IS/MND.
As contained in Biological Resource Assessment, a comprehensive and adequate evaluation of impacts to vegetation communities, wildlife, and critical habitat has been conducted. Due to the existing Delhi sand soils mapped onsite and known occurs in the surrounding undisturbed area, a focused habitat assessment for the Delhi sands flower-loving fly was conducted and it was concluded that the site does not contain any suitable habitat for the species. A complete assessment of the potential for sensitive plants and animals to occur onsite was included within Appendix C and D of the Biological Resources Assessment, which was included as Appendix B of the IS/MND. Additional surveys are not required due to the lack of suitable habitat or soils that occur onsite.
Response to Comment A-18:
The Commentor expresses concerns that the IS/MND does not accurately assess impacts to nesting birds and recommended Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 on page 3-20 does not adequately prohibit construction activities during peak breeding season. The Commentor offers a revised mitigation measure to replace MM BIO-1. The City concurs and will update MM BIO-1 on page 3-20 of the IS/MND in accordance with the Commentor’s suggested language and require pre-construction breeding bird surveys throughout the year.
Response to Comment A-19:
The Commentor expresses concerns that the IS/MND does not accurately assess impacts to burrowing owl. The Commentor contends the Project site contains suitable burrowing owl habitat due to the presence of California ground squirrels observed onsite. The Commentor offers a mitigation measure requiring a protocol level burrowing owl survey and pre-construction survey. As identified within the Biological Resource Assessment, the Project site is dominated by steep sides and the bottom of the pit dug out years ago. Furthermore, the Project site is a heavily used disturbed area that is currently operating as a wastewater treatment plant. The area of the proposed Project is the location of truck and equipment traffic that is used as a storage site and staging area at various times throughout the year. These conditions and activities are not favored by burrowing owl. Although California ground squirrel was observed onsite, the lack of suitable habitat and satellite burrows is not conducive for the species to be present and therefore protocol level surveys are not required. The City concurs with the pre-construction survey for burrowing owl and will incorporate the text into MM BIO-1 on page 3-20 of the IS/MND.
Response to Comment A-20:
The Commentor expresses concerns that the IS/MND does not accurately assess impacts to least Bell’s vireo. The Commentor acknowledges the Project site contains no suitable habitat, but contends suitable habitat exists in close proximity in the form of water courses near the Project site. The Commentor notes least Bell’s vireo has been observed approximately 0.50 miles to the south of the site at the Santa Ana River and the site is within 6 miles of the USFWS designated Final Critical Habitat for least Bell’s vireo.
The Commentor contends the Project site contains foraging habitat for the least Bell’s vireo offers a mitigation measure requiring protocol level least Bell’s vireo surveys, impact assessments, and related reports. The Project site does not include any PCE for least Bell’s vireo in the form of water source onsite or suitable nesting habitat. The section of Rialto Channel bordering the Project site is concrete lined and does not contain riparian habitat. Furthermore, the Project site is a heavily used disturbed area that is currently operating as a wastewater treatment plant. The area of the proposed Project is the location of truck and equipment traffic that is used as a storage site and staging area at various times throughout the year. Impacts to least Bell’s vireo are less than significant and no mitigation is required consistent with the IS/MND conclusions.
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 29
Response to Comment A-21:
The Commentor notes potential jurisdictional features that may be subject to the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program occurs onsite. Specifically, the Commentor states the West Riverside Canal borders the Project to the south. West Riverside Canal is a historical canal that extends through the City of Riverside and adjacent Cities. The commentor suggests impacts to these features are likely to occur and would be subject to Fish and Game Code section 1602, and CDFW suggests the City include an additional mitigation measure in a revised MND that would require review and approval of an LSAA. As included within the Biological Resource Assessment, no features were identified within the Project site that meet the definition of waters of the State as defined in Fish and Game Code section 1602, nor was West Riverside Canal identified to occur on the Project site. The Rialto Channel located to the east of the Project is a concrete lined channel and was identified in the Biological Resource Assessment as Waters of State. The concrete lined channel is maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for the purposes of conveying storm water to the Santa Ana River. The Project is not anticipated to impact Rialto Channel.
The future proposed onsite lakes are part of the Project construction and are not existing features requiring an LSA. As indicated in the Project Description on page 2-6 and further clarified in response to comments, the proposed Project will have no effect on the effluent flow into Rialto Channel. Although the flow rate would be temporarily reduced during the time in which the lakes are filled, the flow rate reduction is expected to be approximately ten percent of existing flow and well within the amount of variation that occurs on a daily and seasonal basis. For this reason, the flow reduction into Rialto Channel that will occur during the filling of the lakes would not result in impact to biological resources downstream because the temporary change is within existing baseline conditions and normal fluctuations of the flows. Once the lakes are filled, the quantity of flow in and out of the lakes would equalize and no change in flow would occur from existing baseline resulting in no impacts to biological resources located downstream. In addition, operation and maintenance of the future onsite lakes and the balance of the proposed Project will be subject to a forthcoming O&M manual and a LTMA to be reviewed and approved by CDFW.
Therefore, the City acknowledges the construction and operation of the Project will be subject to the CDFW regulation for the operation and maintenance procedures to be part of a forthcoming LTMA.
Response to Comment A-22:
The Commentor notes the IS/MND does not include an analysis of construction noise impacts to biological resources, correctly states the construction noise levels estimated from Project construction as contained in in the noise analysis, suggests such noise creates an impact requiring mitigation, and offers recommended mitigation to reduce expected construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Construction noise is temporary in nature and no sensitive wildlife was determined to occur onsite.
Impacts may occur if construction is anticipated to occur during breeding season. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 outlines a pre-construction survey is to be performed prior to any ground disturbances, mitigating any noise impacts to breeding species. Furthermore, the Project site and surrounding area is an urbanized industrial area. The wastewater treatment plant has active operations and the area of the proposed Project occurs in the location of truck and equipment traffic that is used as a storage site and staging area at various times throughout the year. Furthermore, the City restricts construction activities to daylight hours during the week plus Saturday, with no nighttime construction allowed. The O&M will outline the RHNC hours of operation that will likely close at sundown. Therefore, the suggested construction mitigation measure is not required.
City of Rialto Appendix E – Responses to Pubic Comments Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project 30
Response to Comment A-23:
The Commentor notes the IS/MND does not include an analysis of artificial nighttime lighting impacts to biological resources. The Commentor offers recommended mitigation to reduce expected nighttime lighting impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. The Commentor notes inconsistencies in the IS/MND regarding whether or not lighting will be included within the Project. To clarify, the intent of the Project is to provide a minimal amount of nighttime lighting for safety to ensure police, fire response, and maintenance personal have a reasonable minimum level of night lighting to perform their duties. Such lighting would occur on and around the lakes may include minimal lighting along the access trail on the adjacent Rialto Channel utility road and would be determined during the O&M document. Furthermore, the WWTP is an operational plant and includes existing nighttime lighting, in additional to the surrounding developed areas. In addition, the City restricts construction activities to daylight hours during the week plus Saturday, with no nighttime construction allowed. The O&M will outline the RHNC hours of operation that will likely close at sundown. Therefore, the suggested construction mitigation measure is not required.
Response to Comment A-24:
The Commentor notes certain biological data is required to be reported to applicable databases including the CNDDB. Comment noted.
Response to Comment A-25:
The Commentor notes certain filing fees are required. Comment noted.
Response to Comment A-26:
This comment is a summary statement suggesting the IS/MND should be recirculated based on the need to include data/information/analysis to address the prior comments. As detailed within the response to comments, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.