Initial Study and MND - Part 3 — Riverside City Council, April 21, 2026

Appendix C2
Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,
and Energy Data

Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
1 / 67
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
2 / 67

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Paving (2024) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
3 / 67

4.3.1. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.4.1. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.5.1. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
4 / 67

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
5 / 67

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
6 / 67

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
7 / 67

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
8 / 67

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
9 / 67

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 33.9590588344432, -117.46494566956498
County Riverside-South Coast
City Riverside
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5453
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility City of Riverside
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 8.00 Acre 8.00 0.00 27,400 8,975 — —
Parking Lot 19.0 1000sqft 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
10 / 67

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Transportation T-33* Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane Transportation T-34* Provide Bike Parking
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.21 1.85 17.6 18.1 0.03 0.79 2.12 2.91 0.73 0.96 1.69 — 3,282 3,282 0.12 0.10 1.63 3,316 Mit. 2.21 1.85 17.6 18.1 0.03 0.79 2.12 2.91 0.73 0.96 1.69 — 3,282 3,282 0.12 0.10 1.63 3,316 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.34 1.25 9.80 13.6 0.02 0.46 0.32 0.78 0.43 0.08 0.50 — 2,340 2,340 0.09 0.06 0.05 2,360 Mit. 1.34 1.25 9.80 13.6 0.02 0.46 0.32 0.78 0.43 0.08 0.50 — 2,340 2,340 0.09 0.06 0.05 2,360 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.52 0.46 3.98 4.64 0.01 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.09 0.25 — 857 857 0.03 0.01 0.14 862 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
11 / 67
Mit. 0.52 0.46 3.98 4.64 0.01 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.09 0.25 — 857 857 0.03 0.01 0.14 862 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.09 0.08 0.73 0.85 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 143 Mit. 0.09 0.08 0.73 0.85 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 143 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.21 1.85 17.6 18.1 0.03 0.79 2.12 2.91 0.73 0.96 1.69 — 3,282 3,282 0.12 0.10 1.63 3,316 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.34 1.25 9.80 13.6 0.02 0.46 0.32 0.78 0.43 0.08 0.50 — 2,340 2,340 0.09 0.06 0.05 2,360 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.52 0.46 3.98 4.64 0.01 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.09 0.25 — 857 857 0.03 0.01 0.14 862 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.09 0.08 0.73 0.85 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 143

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
12 / 67
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.21 1.85 17.6 18.1 0.03 0.79 2.12 2.91 0.73 0.96 1.69 — 3,282 3,282 0.12 0.10 1.63 3,316 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.34 1.25 9.80 13.6 0.02 0.46 0.32 0.78 0.43 0.08 0.50 — 2,340 2,340 0.09 0.06 0.05 2,360 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.52 0.46 3.98 4.64 0.01 0.18 0.21 0.39 0.16 0.09 0.25 — 857 857 0.03 0.01 0.14 862 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.09 0.08 0.73 0.85 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 143

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.50 0.53 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,195 1,195 0.08 0.05 4.41 1,217 Mit. 0.50 0.53 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,195 1,195 0.08 0.05 4.41 1,217 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.47 0.50 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,124 1,124 0.08 0.05 0.11 1,142 Mit. 0.47 0.50 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,124 1,124 0.08 0.05 0.11 1,142 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
13 / 67
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45 0.49 0.53 3.83 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.37 1,108 1,108 0.08 0.05 1.86 1,127 Mit. 0.45 0.49 0.53 3.83 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.37 1,108 1,108 0.08 0.05 1.86 1,127 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.06 183 184 0.01 0.01 0.31 187 Mit. 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.06 183 184 0.01 0.01 0.31 187 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.50 0.45 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,162 1,162 0.04 0.05 4.41 1,183 Area 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.50 0.53 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,195 1,195 0.08 0.05 4.41 1,217 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
14 / 67
Mobile 0.47 0.42 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,091 1,091 0.04 0.05 0.11 1,108 Area — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.47 0.50 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,124 1,124 0.08 0.05 0.11 1,142 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.45 0.41 0.53 3.83 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.05 1.86 1,093 Area 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.45 0.49 0.53 3.83 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.37 1,108 1,108 0.08 0.05 1.86 1,127 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 178 178 0.01 0.01 0.31 181 Area 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 — 0.21 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.06 183 184 0.01 0.01 0.31 187

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
15 / 67
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.50 0.45 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,162 1,162 0.04 0.05 4.41 1,183 Area 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.50 0.53 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,195 1,195 0.08 0.05 4.41 1,217 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.47 0.42 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,091 1,091 0.04 0.05 0.11 1,108 Area — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.47 0.50 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.37 1,124 1,124 0.08 0.05 0.11 1,142 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.45 0.41 0.53 3.83 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.05 1.86 1,093 Area 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
16 / 67
Total 0.45 0.49 0.53 3.83 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.37 1,108 1,108 0.08 0.05 1.86 1,127 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 178 178 0.01 0.01 0.31 181 Area 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 — 0.21 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.06 183 184 0.01 0.01 0.31 187

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

1.40 1.18 11.6 10.3 0.02 0.52 — 0.52 0.47 — 0.47 — 1,668 1,668 0.07 0.01 — 1,674 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.70 1.70 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
17 / 67
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 72.0 72.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 73.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
18 / 67
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
19 / 67
Onsite
truck

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 72.0 72.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 73.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
20 / 67

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

2.12 1.78 17.0 16.9 0.02 0.79 — 0.79 0.72 — 0.72 — 2,668 2,668 0.11 0.02 — 2,677 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.84 1.84 — 0.89 0.89 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.12 0.10 0.93 0.93 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 147 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.3 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
21 / 67
———————0.010.01—0.020.02——————Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 180 180 0.01 0.01 0.71 183 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 434 434 0.01 0.07 0.92 456 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.18 9.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 25.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.94 3.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.13

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
22 / 67
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
23 / 67
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 180 180 0.01 0.01 0.71 183 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 434 434 0.01 0.07 0.92 456 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.18 9.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 25.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.94 3.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.13

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

1.11 0.93 8.71 10.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 1,913 1,913 0.08 0.02 — 1,920 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
24 / 67
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.11 0.93 8.71 10.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 1,913 1,913 0.08 0.02 — 1,920 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.27 0.23 2.15 2.48 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 472 472 0.02 < 0.005 — 473 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.39 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 78.1 78.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 78.4 Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 132 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
25 / 67
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 121 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.7 29.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.92 4.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.11 0.93 8.71 10.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 1,913 1,913 0.08 0.02 — 1,920 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.27 0.23 2.15 2.48 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 472 472 0.02 < 0.005 — 473 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 132 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
27 / 67
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 121 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.7 29.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.92 4.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.22 1.02 9.43 12.3 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 1,858 1,858 0.08 0.02 — 1,865 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
28 / 67
Paving — 0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 102 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 265 265 0.01 0.01 0.03 268 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 217 217 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 227 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
29 / 67
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.06 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.22 1.02 9.43 12.3 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 1,858 1,858 0.08 0.02 — 1,865 Paving — 0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 102 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
30 / 67

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 265 265 0.01 0.01 0.03 268 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 217 217 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 227 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.06 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
31 / 67
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.50 0.45 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,162 1,162 0.04 0.05 4.41 1,183 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.50 0.45 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,162 1,162 0.04 0.05 4.41 1,183 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.47 0.42 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,091 1,091 0.04 0.05 0.11 1,108 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.47 0.42 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,091 1,091 0.04 0.05 0.11 1,108 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 178 178 0.01 0.01 0.31 181 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 178 178 0.01 0.01 0.31 181

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.50 0.45 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,162 1,162 0.04 0.05 4.41 1,183 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.50 0.45 0.49 4.56 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,162 1,162 0.04 0.05 4.41 1,183 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
32 / 67
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.47 0.42 0.53 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,091 1,091 0.04 0.05 0.11 1,108 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 178 178 0.01 0.01 0.31 181

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
33 / 67
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
34 / 67

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

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

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
35 / 67
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

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

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
36 / 67

0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Landsca pe
Total 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
37 / 67
————————————————0.08—Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
38 / 67

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88

4.4.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
39 / 67
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.32 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
40 / 67
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 — 0.21 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 — 0.21

4.5.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
41 / 67
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 — 0.21 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 — 0.21

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

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

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
42 / 67
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
43 / 67
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
44 / 67
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
45 / 67
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
46 / 67
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
47 / 67
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
48 / 67
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
49 / 67
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
50 / 67
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/3/2024 6/14/2024 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 6/15/2024 7/12/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/13/2024 11/15/2024 5.00 90.0 — Paving/Concrete Pouring Paving 11/16/2024 12/14/2024 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
51 / 67
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.20 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Cement and Mortar
Mix
ers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
52 / 67
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.20 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Cement and Mortar
Mix
ers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving/Concrete
Pouring
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 6.20 20.0 HHDT
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
53 / 67
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 9.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving/Concrete Pouring — — — —
Paving/Concrete Pouring Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving/Concrete Pouring Vendor 7.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving/Concrete Pouring Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving/Concrete Pouring Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 6.20 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 9.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
54 / 67
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving/Concrete Pouring — — — —
Paving/Concrete Pouring Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving/Concrete Pouring Vendor 7.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving/Concrete Pouring Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving/Concrete Pouring Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Building Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,140

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 985 20.0 0.00 —
Paving/Concrete Pouring 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
55 / 67

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.49 100%
Parking Lot 0.44 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 787 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear City Park 98.2 90.0 90.0 34,975 1,372 1,258 1,258 488,955 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear City Park 98.2 90.0 90.0 34,975 1,372 1,258 1,258 488,955 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
56 / 67

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 660 220 1,140

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
57 / 67
City Park 0.00 600 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 16,644 600 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) City Park 0.00 600 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 16,644 600 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 608,375
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 608,375
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 0.69 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
58 / 67

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 0.69 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refr
igerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refr
igerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
59 / 67

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
60 / 67

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.5 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.35 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 2.10 annual hectares burned
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
61 / 67
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
62 / 67
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 93.9
AQ-DPM 20.0
Drinking Water 99.2
Lead Risk Housing 55.8
Pesticides 71.9
Toxic Releases 67.8
Traffic 77.9
Effect Indicators —
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
63 / 67
CleanUp Sites 74.0
Groundwater 53.1
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 93.8
Impaired Water Bodies 33.2
Solid Waste 13.0
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 41.9
Cardio-vascular 54.7
Low Birth Weights 63.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 72.1
Housing 59.3
Linguistic 66.6
Poverty 69.6
Unemployment 28.2

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 24.13704607
Employed 35.14692673
Median HI 29.41100988
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 22.99499551
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 4.414217888
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
64 / 67
Transportation —
Auto Access 69.12613884
Active commuting 55.6268446
Social —
2-parent households 42.47401514
Voting 15.89888361
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 97.0101373
Park access 42.16604645
Retail density 12.498396
Supermarket access 22.90517131
Tree canopy 7.262928269
Housing —
Homeownership 32.58052098
Housing habitability 13.46079815
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 14.16655973 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 2.75888618
Uncrowded housing 21.62196843
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 11.85679456
Arthritis 53.0
Asthma ER Admissions 74.9
High Blood Pressure 50.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
Asthma 9.8
Coronary Heart Disease 57.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 17.9
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
65 / 67
Diagnosed Diabetes 41.8
Life Expectancy at Birth 90.2
Cognitively Disabled 60.3
Physically Disabled 88.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 79.9
Mental Health Not Good 10.1
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
Obesity 11.3
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 17.6
Stroke 39.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 47.1
Current Smoker 6.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 15.9
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.3
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 17.1
Elderly 93.7
English Speaking 41.1
Foreign-born 63.2
Outdoor Workers 31.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 83.2
Traffic Density 51.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
66 / 67
Other Indices —
Hardship 74.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 25.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 84.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 19.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Per project applicant Construction: Off-Road Equipment Per project applicant
Construction: Paving Calculated using Jurupa Ave Master Plan Jurupa Ave Trailhead 032723 Detailed Report, 3/27/2023
67 / 67
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Per project applicant Construction: Architectural Coatings Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 Land Use Landscape areas calculated using Jurupa Ave Trailhead Masterplan Construction: Trips and VMT Per project assumptions
Operations: Vehicle Data Per 2023 Rick Engineering Traffic Report, in addition to 161 weekday trips per year for maintenance pur
poses, per project applicant.

Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Project Construction Fuel Consumption Summary
Source Category Diesel Gasoline
Offroad Equipment 12,996 ‐‐
Haul Trucks 416 ‐‐
Vendor Trucks 223 ‐‐
Workers ‐‐ 1,040
Total Fuel Consumption 13,635 1,040
Construction Duration (years): 0.5
Average Annual Diesel (gal): 13,635
Average Annual Gasoline (gal): 1,040
County Fuel Consumption (2021) 1
County: Riverside
Source Fuel Type
Gallons (Retail +
Non‐Retail
Percent of Project Compared to
County
Workers Gas 981,000,000 0.0001%
Off‐Road/Haul & Vendor Trucks Diesel 290,258,449 0.0047% Notes:

1. California Energy Commission, California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC‐A15), 2010‐2021 https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022‐10/2010‐2021_CEC‐A15_Results_and_Analysis_ADA.xlsx Accessed December 2022. Diesel is adjusted to account for retail (50.3%) and non‐retail (49.7%) diesel sales.

Fuel Consumption (gal)
Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Offroad Equipment
Value

0.408

7.11 0.0574
125,703
7,214
Value

0.367

7.11 0.0516
111,992
5,782
Total diesel gallons (off‐road equipment): 12,996
Phase Name Equipment # of Equipment Hours/Day HP Load Factor Days Total HP‐HR Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.400 10 11744 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.370 10 2486.400 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.400 20 23488
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.370 20 9945.6 Grading Excavators 1 8 36 0.380 20 2188.8
Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.410 20 9708.8
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.370 90 39160.8 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 367 0.290 90 67050.9
Building Construction Forklifts 2 8 89 0.200 90 25632
Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.450 90 14904
Paving/Concrete Pouring Pavers 2 8 81 0.420 20 10886.4
Paving/Concrete Pouring Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.360 20 10252.8 Paving/Concrete Pouring Rollers 2 8 36 0.380 20 4377.6
Paving/Concrete Pouring Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 10 0.560 20 896 Paving/Concrete Pouring Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.370 20 4972.8 Total >100HP 111,991.70
Total <100HP 125,703.20
Notes:

1. CARB, 2017 Off‐road Diesel Emission Factors
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel/ordas_ef_fcf_2017_v7.xlsx Total HP‐HR >100
Total Diesel Fuel (gal)
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Factor (lb/hp‐hr)1
Fuel Density (lb/gal)1
Consumption Factor (gal/hp‐hr)
Total HP‐HR <100
Total Diesel Fuel (gal)
Fuel Consumption: Equipment ≤ 100HP
Fuel Consumption: Equipment > 100HP
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Factor (lb/hp‐hr)1
Fuel Density (lb/gal)1
Consumption Factor (gal/hp‐hr)
Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Haul Trucks
Onroad Travel Consumption Value
EMFAC2021 Diesel Fuel Consumption Factor (gal/mi):1 0.165 Total VMT (mi): 2,480
Total diesel gallons 410
Idling Consumption Value
Idling Fuel Consumption Factor (gal/hr):2 0.6400
Total Idle‐Hours per Year: 10
Total diesel gallons 7
Total diesel gallons: 416
Phase
Total Truck
Trips (In/Out)
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Category VMT Idle Hours
Onroad Travel
Consumption
(gal)
Idling
Consumption
(gal)
Total Fuel
Consumption (gal)
Site Preparation 0 20.00 HHDT ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐
Grading 124 20.00 HHDT 2480 10.33 409.65 6.61 416.26
Building Construction 0 20.00 HHDT ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐
Paving/Concrete Pouring 0 20.00 HHDT ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐
Total VMT: 2,480 409.65 6.61 416.26
Total Idle‐Hours: 10

1. 2.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact‐861‐february‐23‐2015‐idle‐fuel‐consumption‐selected‐gasoline‐and‐diesel‐vehicles CARB, EMFAC2021 (BAAQMD; HHDT; Annual; CY 2022; Aggregate MY; Aggregate Speed,DSL) Department of Energy, Fact #861, 2015 Idle Fuel Consumption for Selected Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles, February 23, 2015.

Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Vendor Trucks
Onroad Travel Consumption Value
EMFAC2021 Diesel Fuel Consumption Factor (gal/mi):1 0.151 Total VMT (mi): 1,428
Total diesel gallons 215
Idling Consumption Value
Idling Fuel Consumption Factor (gal/hr):2 0.6400
Total Idle‐Hours per Year: 12
Total diesel gallons 7
Total diesel gallons: 223
Phase Days/year
Truck Trips
per Day
(In/Out)
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Category VMT Idle Hours
Onroad Travel
Consumption (gal)
Idling Consumption
(gal)
Total Fuel
Consumption (gal)
Site Preparation 10 0 10.20 HHDT/MHDT 0 0 ‐‐ ‐
Grading 20 0 10.20 HHDT/MHDT 0 0 ‐‐ ‐
Building Construction 90 0 10.20 HHDT/MHDT 0 0 ‐‐ ‐
Paving/Concrete Pouring 20 7 10.20 HHDT/MHDT 1,428 12 215.21 7.47 222.68 Total VMT: 1,428 215.21 7.47 222.68
Total Idle‐Hours: 12

1. 2.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact‐861‐february‐23‐2015‐idle‐fuel‐consumption‐selected‐gasoline‐and‐diesel‐vehicles CARB, EMFAC2021 (BAAQMD; HHDT/MHDT; Annual; CY 2022; Aggregate MY; Aggregate Speed,DSL) Department of Energy, Fact #861, 2015 Idle Fuel Consumption for Selected Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles, February 23, 2015.

Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Worker Vehicles
Onroad Travel Consumption Value
EMFAC2021 Gasoline Fuel Consumption Factor (gal/mi):1 0.037 Total VMT (mi): 27,935
Total gasoline gallons 1,040
Phase Days/year
Vehicle Trips
per day
(In/Out)
Trip Length
(miles) Vehicle Category VMT
Onroad Travel
Consumption (gal)
Site Preparation 10 5.0 18.50 LD Fleet Mix 925 34
Grading 20 12.5 18.50 LD Fleet Mix 4,625 172
Building Construction 90 9.0 18.50 LD Fleet Mix 14,985 558 Paving/Concrete Pouring 20 20.0 18.50 LD Fleet Mix 7,400 275 Total VMT: 27,935 1,040
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact‐861‐february‐23‐2015‐idle‐fuel‐consumption‐selected‐gasoline‐and‐diesel‐vehicles

1. 2.

CARB, EMFAC2021 (BAAQMD; LDA/LDT1/LDT2; Annual; CY 2022; Aggregate MY; Aggregate Speed,GAS) Department of Energy, Fact #861, 2015 Idle Fuel Consumption for Selected Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles, February 23, 2015.

Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Idling Fuel Consumption Factors
VEHICLE TYPE FUEL TYPE ENGINE SIZE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT IDLING FUEL USE (LITER) (GVW) (LBS) (GAL/HR WITH NO LOAD)
Compact Sedan Gas 2 ‐ 0.16
Large Sedan Gas 4.6 ‐ 0.39
Compact Sedan Diesel 2 ‐ 0.17
Medium Heavy Truck Gas 7‐May 19,700 ‐26,000 0.84
Delivery Truck Diesel ‐ 19,500 0.84
Tow Truck Diesel ‐ 26,000 0.59
Medium Heavy Truck Diesel 10‐Jun 23,000 ‐33,000 0.44
Transit Bus Diesel ‐ 30,000 0.97
Combination Truck Diesel ‐ 32,000 0.49
Bucket Truck Diesel ‐ 37,000 0.9
Tractor‐Semitrailer Diesel ‐ 80,000 0.64
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact‐861‐february‐23‐2015‐idle‐fuel‐consumption‐selected‐gasoline‐and‐diesel‐vehicles Department of Energy, Fact #861, 2015 Idle Fuel Consumption for Selected Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles, February 23, 2015.

Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis This tool provides a quick estimation of the fuel use and emissions for your equipment in a specific year. The results may slightly differ from those from the official inventory model.

Instructions:

Enter the horsepwer, model year, and other details about your equipment in the Input box Make sure to update the load factor for your equipment using the lookup table.

The Output box gives a quick estimation of the fuel use, NOx, PM, and THC emission for your equipment.

Input Input Engine Here Results
Horsepower (hp) 70 Fuel Used (gallon) 201 Equipment
Category Equipment Type Details Load Factor
Model year 2011 NOx Emissions (kg) 9.8 Agricultural tractors 0.48 Calendar year 2015 PM Emissions (kg) 0.5 Combine harvesters 0.44 Activity (annual hours) 250 THC Emissions (kg) 0.4 Forage & silage harvesters 0.44 Accumulated hours on equipment (estimate
using annual‐hours*age if you only know the age
of the equipment)
1000 CO2 Emissions (kg) 2050.9 Cotton pickers 0.44
Load factor (check the lookup table) 0.2 NOx Emission Factor (including deterioration and fuel correction factor): gram/bhp‐hr 2.79 Nut harvester 0.44 PM Emission Factor (including deterioration and
fuel correction factor): gram/bhp‐hr 0.15 Other harvesters 0.44 Intermediate steps
THC Emission Factor (including deterioration and
fuel correction factor): gram/ bhp‐hr 0.11 Balers (self propelled) 0.50 HPbin 75 Bale wagons (self propelled) 0.50
NOx_EF0 2.90 Swathers/windrowers/hay
conditioners 0.48
NOx_DR 3.8E‐05 Hay Squeeze/Stack retriever 0.42
NOx_FCF 0.950 Sprayers/Spray rigs 0.42
PM_EF0 0.16 Construction equipment 0.40
PM_DR 1.2E‐05 Other non‐mobile 0.48
PM_FCF 0.90 Forklifts 0.40
THC_EF0 0.10 Atvs 0.40
THC_DR 2.5E‐05 Others 0.40
THC_FCF 0.90 Portable
equipment All portable equipment 0.31
NOx_EF (g/hp‐hr) 2.79 Construction equipment 0.55
PM_EF (g/hp‐hr) 0.15 Container handling
equipment 0.59
THC_EF (g/hp‐hr) 0.11 Forklift 0.30
CO2_EF (kg/gallon‐diesel)* 10.21 Other general industrial equipment 0.51
BSFC (lb/hp‐hr) 0.408 Rtg crane 0.20
Unit conversion (lb/gallon) 7.109 Yard tractor 0.39
TRU on trailers 25 HP and over, MY2012
and Older 0.46
TRU on trailers 25 HP and over, MY2013
and Newer 0.38
TRU on trailers 23 HP and Over, below
25 HP, All years 0.46
TRU on trucks Below 23 HP, All Model
years 0.56
TRU on railcars 25 HP and over, MY2012
and Older 0.33
TRU on railcars 25 HP and over, MY2013
and Newer 0.27
TRU on railcars Below 25 HP, All Model
years 0.33
TRU with generators 25 HP and over, MY2012
and Older 0.46
TRU with generators 25 HP and Over, MY2013
and Newer 0.38
TRU with generators 23 HP and Over, below 25
HP, All Model Years 0.46
Passenger Stand 0.40
A/C Tug Narrow Body 0.54
A/C Tug Wide Body 0.54
Baggage Tug 0.37
Belt Loader 0.34
Bobtail 0.37
Cargo Loader 0.34
Cargo Tractor 0.36
Forklift (GSE) 0.20
Lift (GSE) 0.34
Other GSE 0.34
Cranes 0.29
Crawler Tractors 0.43
Excavators 0.38
Graders 0.41
Off‐Highway Tractors 0.44
Ground
Support
Equipment
Loac Factor Lookup Table
Agriculture
equipment
Cargo
Handling
Equipment
*Reference: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐
07/documents/emission‐factors_2014.pdf
Transport
Refrigeration
Units (TRU)
Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis Off‐Highway Trucks 0.38
Other Construction
Equipment 0.42
Pavers 0.42
Paving Equipment 0.36
Rollers 0.38
Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.40
Rubber Tired Dozers 0.40
Rubber Tired Loaders 0.36
Scrapers 0.48
Skid Steer Loaders 0.37
Surfacing Equipment 0.30
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.37
Trenchers 0.50
Aerial Lifts 0.31
Forklifts 0.20
Other General Industrial
Equipment 0.34
Other Material Handling
Equipment 0.40
Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.46
Drill Rig (Mobile) 0.50
Workover Rig (Mobile) 0.50
Bore/Drill Rigs 0.50
Construction
and
Industrial
Equipment
Oil and Drill
Rigs
Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Metro G Line Stormwater Project Construction Energy Analysis Worker Fuel Consumption Factor Year: 2024
Vehicle
Category VMT (mi/day) Fuel Consumption (1000gal/day)
Fuel Consumption Factor
(gal/mi)
Fuel Economy
(mi/gal) Fleet Mix
Fuel Consumption
Factor (gal/mi)
LDA 218661478.4 7518.83 0.034 29.08 64% 0.037
LDT1 18293108.56 753.63 0.041 24.27 5%
LDT2 105566684.3 4474.43 0.042 23.59 31%
Source: EMFAC2021, Output: Onroad Emissions, Model Version: EMFAC2021 v1.0.0, Air District: SCAQMD, Vehicle Categories: EMFAC2007, Model Year: Aggregate, Speed:

Aggregate, Fuel: All, Output Unit: tons/operation day
Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Metro G Line Stormwater Project Construction Energy Analysis 2024
Vehicle
Category VMT (miles/day) Fuel Consumption (1000 gal/day) Fuel Consumption Factor
(gal/mi)
Fuel Economy
(mi/gal) Fleet Mix
Fuel Consumption
Factor (gal/mi)
HHDT 13368763.56 2208.3 0.165 6.05 73% 0.151
MHDT 5002001.319 560.4 0.112 8.93 27%
Source: EMFAC2021, Output: Onroad Emissions, Model Version: EMFAC2021 v1.0.0, Air District: SCAQMD, Vehicle Categories: EMFAC2007, Model Year: Aggregate, Speed:

Aggregate, Fuel: All, Output Unit: tons/operation day
Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis PhaseName PhaseType PhaseStartDate PhaseEndDate NumDaysWeek NumDays Start End Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/3/2024 6/14/2024 51 0 Construction Duration (years) 2024/06/0 3 2024/12/14 194 0.53 Grading Grading 6/15/202 4 7/12/2024 52 0
Building Construction Building Construction 7/13/202 4 11/15/2024 59 0 Paving/Concrete Pouring Paving 11/16/2024 12/14/2024 52 0 Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Metro G Line Stormwater Project Construction Energy Analysis (Millions of Gallons)
County
2010 Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2010 Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2011 Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2011 Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2012A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2012A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2013A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2013A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2014A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2014A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2015A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2015A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2016A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2016A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2017A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2017A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2018A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2018A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2019A
Survey
Response
s (Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2020A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions of
Gallons)
2021A
Survey
Response
s (Millions
of
Gallons)
2021A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
Alameda 456 551 476 548 480 568 473 603 341 491 432 542 518 582 521 583 495 569 505 591 400 442 393 492 Amador 12 15 12 14 12 14 10 12 11 15 10 13 12 14 13 15 14 17 16 18 12 13 11 14 Butte 66 81 70 81 66 78 64 81 59 85 62 78 74 83 78 87 75 86 62 78 58 68 58 74 Calaveras 11 14 12 14 10 12 10 13 10 14 11 14 13 15 14 15 13 15 14 15 14 15 11 13 Colusa 13 17 9 11 8 10 10 13 7 10 7 91 0 11 11 12 11 13 11 13 12 15 11 16 Contra Costa 332 403 344 395 354 419 331 422 272 392 303 380 384 431 385 430 346 397 374 427 304 336 304 374 Del Norte 6 86 76 74 55 75 66 76 76 74 65 54 5 El Dorado 55 68 57 67 64 75 56 72 36 52 65 81 72 81 73 82 66 76 64 74 58 62 52 65 Fresno 285 342 290 335 288 341 269 344 209 300 264 331 318 358 328 367 320 368 306 376 296 347 294 387 Glenn 12 14 12 14 11 12 11 14 11 16 13 16 15 17 17 18 15 17 14 18 13 15 14 17 Humboldt 44 54 46 54 45 53 51 64 31 44 47 59 54 61 49 55 51 58 42 53 51 56 47 52 Imperial 56 69 51 60 46 54 46 58 58 83 63 79 77 86 74 83 78 89 73 86 59 64 56 74 Inyo 16 19 16 18 13 16 12 16 12 17 14 18 16 18 16 18 16 18 14 17 14 16 14 15 Kern 293 362 309 359 301 356 287 367 267 384 299 375 362 407 349 390 345 396 340 392 318 364 331 406 Kings 42 51 41 48 40 47 38 49 31 45 41 51 50 57 54 60 52 60 67 76 49 52 42 58 Lake 20 25 18 22 17 20 19 24 17 25 19 23 19 21 19 21 20 23 18 24 17 20 17 20 Lassen 6 76 75 65 66 87 97 85 64 55 76 67 7 Los Angeles 3,005 3,658 3,069 3,554 2,916 3,451 2,700 3,445 2,606 3,749 2,762 3,465 3,184 3,577 3,272 3,659 3,169 3,638 3,189 3,559 2,513 2,770 2,700 3,061 Madera 47 57 54 61 44 53 43 54 31 45 35 44 52 59 56 62 49 57 44 62 45 63 53 71 Marin 78 94 91 103 91 107 83 106 52 75 83 105 91 102 90 101 71 82 86 96 72 77 66 88 Mariposa 6 76 75 64 56 95 67 85 66 77 84 56 7 Mendocino 33 41 34 40 36 43 33 42 28 40 32 40 37 42 34 38 35 40 27 44 35 37 33 39 Merced 86 106 81 95 78 92 74 94 58 83 84 105 101 114 105 117 115 132 100 119 91 106 90 122 Mono 6 75 62 26 86 86 77 85 56 77 86 75 6 Monterey 124 152 134 155 124 147 139 177 87 126 147 184 157 177 155 174 157 181 148 174 123 141 116 162 Napa 42 52 42 47 49 58 41 52 27 39 50 63 50 57 47 53 53 61 54 57 40 44 42 47 Nevada 34 42 30 35 29 34 19 25 19 27 31 40 36 40 35 39 33 38 29 39 31 36 28 35 Orange 1,162 1,406 1,162 1,338 1,145 1,355 1,044 1,332 1,018 1,465 1,092 1,370 1,224 1,375 1,236 1,382 1,222 1,402 1,198 1,325 943 1,029 1,037 1,159 Placer 154 190 162 189 162 192 131 167 118 170 167 209 181 204 182 203 179 206 177 198 150 163 160 178 Plumas 6 77 86 73 45 85 75 55 65 65 65 64 7 Riverside 781 952 792 916 756 895 725 925 702 1,010 828 1,039 921 1,035 941 1,052 916 1,052 921 1,046 799 876 847 981 Sacramento 467 566 482 553 473 560 446 568 308 442 465 584 534 600 535 599 511 586 536 600 475 689 448 557 San Benito 15 18 14 16 17 20 5 71 0 14 12 15 15 17 18 20 15 17 12 21 10 18 11 17 San Bernardino 747 902 761 871 742 878 697 889 659 948 725 909 899 1,010 888 993 862 990 851 977 757 823 786 926 San Diego 1,094 1,320 1,122 1,291 1,079 1,277 972 1,241 940 1,352 1,123 1,408 1,221 1,372 1,231 1,377 1,208 1,387 1,197 1,325 973 1,055 964 1,165 San Francisco 112 138 129 151 126 149 126 161 71 102 107 134 119 134 120 134 105 120 107 118 76 91 82 99 San Joaquin 248 303 260 301 253 299 254 325 217 312 287 360 303 340 310 347 293 336 289 352 255 292 265 321 San Luis Obispo 121 147 123 144 105 124 109 140 101 145 117 147 127 142 127 142 131 150 125 138 103 115 101 125 San Mateo 232 275 272 310 258 306 244 311 159 229 243 304 289 325 291 326 264 304 293 322 215 238 217 269 Santa Barbara 141 174 140 164 140 166 135 172 124 178 148 186 161 181 152 170 167 191 166 177 136 146 148 168 Santa Clara 514 621 600 691 589 697 546 696 460 661 580 727 638 717 613 685 560 643 614 713 446 511 488 599 Santa Cruz 84 103 91 106 89 105 79 101 53 77 77 96 85 95 84 94 78 90 72 90 69 74 64 88 Shasta 72 88 73 85 77 91 65 83 55 79 76 95 73 82 83 92 76 87 72 82 68 76 67 79 Siskiyou 20 25 17 19 19 23 9 12 10 14 21 27 24 27 26 29 25 28 26 27 22 25 19 28 Solano 158 190 191 218 180 213 158 202 116 167 160 201 187 210 194 217 188 216 182 216 155 180 161 196 Sonoma 157 189 155 178 160 189 163 208 146 210 160 201 186 209 186 208 167 192 169 204 146 167 159 181 Stanislaus 191 230 184 212 173 205 144 183 159 229 201 252 217 244 227 253 212 244 196 245 178 197 205 243 Sutter 30 37 31 37 34 40 33 42 17 24 30 38 35 39 35 39 35 40 27 38 28 30 30 34 Tehama 27 33 24 28 23 27 19 24 18 26 24 30 25 29 26 29 27 31 28 30 25 26 25 30 Trinity 3 43 41 23 43 43 44 54 54 42 43 43 4 Tulare 109 132 121 139 120 142 91 116 107 155 114 143 136 152 149 167 147 168 144 174 126 149 138 181 Tuolumne 14 17 13 16 15 18 12 15 14 21 18 23 21 23 22 25 22 25 21 23 19 20 17 19 Ventura 285 345 290 335 262 310 246 314 249 358 256 321 294 330 302 338 298 342 297 329 242 262 255 294 Yolo 82 100 76 87 74 87 75 96 63 90 82 103 98 110 101 113 96 110 97 114 76 91 83 101 Yuba 24 29 26 30 22 26 23 30 14 20 24 30 32 36 30 34 40 46 27 32 26 35 28 40 Other Counties* 2 32 21 21 11 22 22 22 21 12 22 21 2 Total 12,238 14,860 12,644 14,596 12,241 14,486 11,396 14,540 10,220 14,701 12,044 15,108 13,785 15,491 13,936 15,584 13,475 15,471 13,473 15,365 11,174 12,572 11,618 13,818 A ‐ 2012 to 2021 data are not directly comparable to other years since an improved methodology is used, but is within 5 percent compared to the previous methodology. * Other Counties include Alpine, Modoc and Sierra.
* Other Counties include Alpine, Modoc and Sierra.

Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis County
2010
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2010
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2011
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2011
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2012A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2012A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2013A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2013A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2014A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2014A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2015A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2015A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2016A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2016A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2017A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2017A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2018A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2018A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
Alameda 29 32 26 28 30 36 27 34 19 27 38 49 47 54 51 58 56 62 48 55 47 51 Amador 2 2 2 22 21 21 21 22 22 2233322 Butte 9 10 9 10 7 98 10 8 10 9 11 11 13 11 13 12 13 12 15 10 11 Calaveras 2 2 2 22 21 21 22 23 33 3233333 Colusa 3 3 2 34 54 52 23 44 42 34477 1 0 1 1 Contra Costa 15 18 19 21 17 20 17 21 12 17 19 24 23 26 24 28 31 34 24 27 22 23 Del Norte 1 2 1 11 11 11 11 22 22 2221212 El Dorado 6 8 6 76 75 64 67 98 98 1 0898 1 088 Fresno 30 33 35 38 33 40 23 29 18 25 39 50 40 46 40 45 46 51 39 49 62 66 Glenn 5 5 4 44 54 54 55 61 2 14 16 19 16 17 18 19 17 18 Humboldt 10 12 10 12 10 12 11 14 4 51 0 13 13 14 8 9786766 Imperial 9 10 8 97 88 10 8 11 9 11 14 16 11 12 20 22 21 25 22 24 Inyo 3 4 3 42 23 43 33 43 43 4333434 Kern 111 117 125 129 133 158 118 148 124 171 125 160 131 149 107 121 97 108 96 105 108 116 Kings 7 7 7 87 95 64 67 95 67 7898977 Lake 3 3 3 32 22 32 33 31 13 3343434 Lassen 1 1 1 21 11 11 23 34 41 1111211 Los Angeles 212 235 221 239 205 245 190 239 194 267 257 328 273 309 267 301 228 253 246 276 279 299 Madera 23 24 23 24 24 28 18 23 22 31 26 33 28 31 29 33 28 31 23 24 30 32 Marin 3 4 2 33 32 32 22 34 44 4334444 Mariposa 1 1 1 11 1 ‐ 12 21 11 21 1111111 Mendocino 6 7 7 87 96 64 56 79 10 6 6565899 Merced 44 45 37 38 46 55 49 62 49 68 54 69 59 66 38 42 35 39 28 36 28 30 Mono 1 1 1 1 ‐ 11 11 11 11 11 1111111 Monterey 21 23 24 26 25 30 22 27 13 18 23 29 24 28 24 27 24 26 23 26 21 22 Napa 2 2 2 26 72 32 36 86 76 7676766 Nevada 5 5 5 54 41 24 67 88 98 9785878 Orange 38 47 36 42 38 46 33 42 37 51 46 59 52 59 54 61 49 55 51 56 49 53 Placer 13 16 13 15 12 15 9 12 10 13 13 16 15 17 15 17 16 17 16 17 32 35 Plumas 1 2 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 2111111 Riverside 84 93 87 94 89 107 86 109 100 138 119 152 128 145 131 148 119 132 108 122 134 144 Sacramento 33 37 32 35 27 32 18 21 21 29 28 36 38 42 42 48 41 45 37 41 41 44 San Bernardino 141 149 136 142 158 189 164 206 152 210 198 253 223 252 235 265 176 195 165 178 148 159 San Diego 69 80 64 72 62 74 58 73 67 93 87 111 93 105 92 103 92 103 94 110 88 94 San Francisco 3 3 3 33 44 51 25 66 65 6555544 San Joaquin 73 75 85 87 84 99 90 113 86 119 102 131 116 131 111 126 105 117 101 113 86 93 San Luis Obispo 12 14 16 18 11 13 9 12 12 17 19 24 20 23 19 21 20 22 20 22 19 20 San Mateo 10 12 8 10 8 10 8 10 4 61 5 19 13 14 15 17 16 17 18 19 12 13 Santa Barbara 13 14 16 17 10 13 12 15 13 18 20 26 22 25 17 19 21 24 18 19 16 17 Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects ‐ Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Construction Energy Analysis County
2010
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2010
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2011
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2011
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2012A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2012A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2013A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2013A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2014A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2014A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2015A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2015A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2016A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2016A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2017A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2017A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2018A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2018A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
Alameda 29 32 26 28 30 36 27 34 19 27 38 49 47 54 51 58 56 62 48 55 47 51 Amador 2 2 2 22 21 21 21 22 22 2233322 Butte 9 10 9 10 7 98 10 8 10 9 11 11 13 11 13 12 13 12 15 10 11 Santa Clara 23 26 26 28 27 32 28 35 25 35 36 47 30 34 32 36 43 48 33 42 32 35 Santa Cruz 4 5 5 64 54 62 35 65 66 6674678 Shasta 20 23 19 21 16 19 18 22 13 18 21 27 21 24 22 25 21 24 14 16 13 14 Siskiyou 5 6 11 11 16 20 15 19 16 20 20 26 19 22 18 21 16 17 16 17 17 18 Solano 14 17 18 20 14 16 14 17 8 11 14 18 17 19 22 24 23 25 24 27 25 27 Sonoma 14 16 18 19 13 16 14 18 12 17 15 20 20 23 20 23 20 22 28 32 28 30 Stanislaus 33 36 27 29 25 30 15 19 20 27 26 33 20 22 30 34 32 36 33 35 36 39 Sutter 4 5 2 33 44 52 34 55 63 4455655 Tehama 31 32 38 39 35 42 37 47 25 35 37 48 35 39 34 38 18 20 17 18 7 8 Tulare 23 25 33 35 27 32 31 39 31 43 34 43 37 42 37 41 31 34 42 45 47 51 Tuolumne 2 2 2 21 22 22 22 32 33 3333333 Ventura 20 23 32 34 23 27 23 29 25 34 27 34 29 32 32 36 30 33 33 35 29 32 Yolo 33 34 26 27 27 33 30 37 29 40 27 35 32 37 27 30 25 28 24 26 21 22 Yuba 4 4 4 53 43 42 32 34 58 9 1 1 1 24544 Other Counties* 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 Total 1,285 1,414 1,346 1,447 1,327 1,589 1,261 1,587 1,226 1,691 1,592 2,033 1,742 1,971 1,717 1,937 1,602 1,777 1,559 1,756 1,624 1,744 A ‐ 2012‐2021 data are not directly comparable to other years since an improved methodology is used, but is within 5 percent compared to the previous methodology. * Other Counties include Alpine, Modoc, San Benito, Sierra and Trinity.

Note: Non‐Retail diesel sales, which comprise approximately 49.7% of all diesel sales, are not reported in this chart.

Jurupa Ave Trail CSTN En Cons_120922 12/12/2022 4:42 PM Riverside Gateway Projects - Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Operations Energy Consumption Operations Energy Consumption Summary - 2024 Ops year.

Transportation Fuel
Fuel Type Gallons/Year
GAS 18,828
DSL 3,533
County: Riverside
Fuel Type
Gallons (Retail + Non-
Retail)1
Percent of Project
Compared to County
Gas 981,000,000 0.0019193%
Diesel 290,258,449 0.0012171%
Electricity
Comparison GWh/year
Riverside County (2020)2 8,256.71
Project Electricity 0.02
Project % of Sales 0.0002%

1. California Energy Commission, California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15), 2010-2021 https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874
Accessed March 2022.Non-Retail diesel sales, which comprise approximately 49.7% of all diesel sales, are not reported in this total.

2.California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption By County - Riverside 2021 Non-Residential http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx?msclkid=c6576070a71211ec90029fbdf184242d Jurupa Ave Trail OPS En Ops_03272023 3/27/2023 3:10 PM
Riverside Gateway Projects - Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Operations Energy Consumption Utility Consumption
Electricity3
Land Use kWh/year GWh/year Comparison GWh/year
City Park 16,644 0.017
Riverside County Non-Residential
Electricity Consumption 8,256.71
Total 16,644 0.017 Project Electricity 0.02
Project % of Sales 0.0002%
Notes:
1 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption By County - Riverside 2021 Non-Residential http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx?msclkid=c6576070a71211ec90029fbdf184242d Jurupa Ave Trail OPS En Ops_03272023 3/27/2023 3:10 PM
Loring Park Project Operations Energy Consumption
Annual Miles
Fuel Consumption - 2024 488,955.00
Vehicle Category DSL GAS DSL GAS DSL GAS
HHDT 0.17 0.25 100.0% 0.0% 3.00% 14,684.79 2,424.84 1.21 LDA 0.02 0.03 0.2% 99.8% 49.21% 240,611.28 12.25 8,256.26 LDT1 0.04 0.04 0.0% 99.98% 4.11% 20,091.10 0.16 827.55
LDT2 0.03 0.04 0.3% 99.7% 23.79% 116,320.97 12.78 4,913.27 LHDT1 0.05 0.07 35.8% 64.2% 2.83% 13,860.42 241.80 652.23 LHDT2 0.06 0.08 62.4% 37.6% 0.71% 3,491.53 126.29 109.87 MCY 0.00 0.02 0.0% 100.0% 0.36% 1,749.17 0.00 42.11
MDV 0.04 0.05 1.3% 98.7% 14.29% 69,865.70 37.94 3,589.44 MH 0.10 0.21 29.6% 70.4% 0.09% 449.70 13.15 65.18
MHDT 0.11 0.19 78.4% 21.6% 1.43% 7,001.81 615.36 292.33 OBUS 0.14 0.20 52.0% 48.0% 0.10% 501.93 37.25 47.47
SBUS 0.14 0.11 35.2% 64.8% 0.04% 218.25 10.47 15.84
UBUS 0.15 0.14 1.7% 98.3% 0.02% 108.35 0.29 15.26
Project 488,955.00 3,532.60 18,828.01
* 4,651 trips/year for a total of 65,023 VMT 22,360.61 0.84 Gal/mi Fuel Distribution
Fleet Mix
Miles/Vehicle
Category
Gallons of Fuel
Jurupa Ave Trail OPS En Ops_03272023 3/27/2023 3:10 PM
Riverside Gateway Projects - Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Operations Energy Consumption 1 2.0 3.0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (Millions of Gallons)
County
2010 Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2010 Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2011 Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2011 Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2012A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2012A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2013A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2013A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2014A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2014A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2015A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2015A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2016A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2016A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2017A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2017A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2018A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2018A Estimated
Totals (Millions of
Gallons)
2019A
Survey
Response
s (Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A Survey
Responses
(Millions of
Gallons)
2020A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
Alameda 456 551 476 548 480 568 473 603 341 491 432 542 518 582 521 583 495 569 505 591 400 442 Amador 12 15 12 14 12 14 10 12 11 15 10 13 12 14 13 15 14 17 16 18 12 13 Butte 66 81 70 81 66 78 64 81 59 85 62 78 74 83 78 87 75 86 62 78 58 68 Calaveras 11 14 12 14 10 12 10 13 10 14 11 14 13 15 14 15 13 15 14 15 14 15 Colusa 13 17 9 11 8 10 10 13 7 10 7 9 10 11 11 12 11 13 11 13 12 15 Contra Costa 332 403 344 395 354 419 331 422 272 392 303 380 384 431 385 430 346 397 374 427 304 336 Del Norte 6 8 6 7 6 7 4 5 5 7 5 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 4 6 5 5 El Dorado 55 68 57 67 64 75 56 72 36 52 65 81 72 81 73 82 66 76 64 74 58 62 Fresno 285 342 290 335 288 341 269 344 209 300 264 331 318 358 328 367 320 368 306 376 296 347 Glenn 12 14 12 14 11 12 11 14 11 16 13 16 15 17 17 18 15 17 14 18 13 15 Humboldt 44 54 46 54 45 53 51 64 31 44 47 59 54 61 49 55 51 58 42 53 51 56 Imperial 56 69 51 60 46 54 46 58 58 83 63 79 77 86 74 83 78 89 73 86 59 64 Inyo 16 19 16 18 13 16 12 16 12 17 14 18 16 18 16 18 16 18 14 17 14 16 Kern 293 362 309 359 301 356 287 367 267 384 299 375 362 407 349 390 345 396 340 392 318 364 Kings 42 51 41 48 40 47 38 49 31 45 41 51 50 57 54 60 52 60 67 76 49 52 Lake 20 25 18 22 17 20 19 24 17 25 19 23 19 21 19 21 20 23 18 24 17 20 Lassen 6 7 6 7 5 6 5 6 6 8 7 9 7 8 5 6 4 5 5 7 6 6 Los Angeles 3,005 3,658 3,069 3,554 2,916 3,451 2,700 3,445 2,606 3,749 2,762 3,465 3,184 3,577 3,272 3,659 3,169 3,638 3,189 3,559 2,513 2,770 Madera 47 57 54 61 44 53 43 54 31 45 35 44 52 59 56 62 49 57 44 62 45 63 Marin 78 94 91 103 91 107 83 106 52 75 83 105 91 102 90 101 71 82 86 96 72 77 Mariposa 6 7 6 7 5 6 4 5 6 9 5 6 7 8 5 6 6 7 7 8 4 5 Mendocino 33 41 34 40 36 43 33 42 28 40 32 40 37 42 34 38 35 40 27 44 35 37 Merced 86 106 81 95 78 92 74 94 58 83 84 105 101 114 105 117 115 132 100 119 91 106 Mono 6 7 5 6 2 2 6 8 6 8 6 7 7 8 5 5 6 7 7 8 6 7 Monterey 124 152 134 155 124 147 139 177 87 126 147 184 157 177 155 174 157 181 148 174 123 141 Napa 42 52 42 47 49 58 41 52 27 39 50 63 50 57 47 53 53 61 54 57 40 44 Nevada 34 42 30 35 29 34 19 25 19 27 31 40 36 40 35 39 33 38 29 39 31 36 Orange 1,162 1,406 1,162 1,338 1,145 1,355 1,044 1,332 1,018 1,465 1,092 1,370 1,224 1,375 1,236 1,382 1,222 1,402 1,198 1,325 943 1,029 Placer 154 190 162 189 162 192 131 167 118 170 167 209 181 204 182 203 179 206 177 198 150 163 Plumas 6 7 7 8 6 7 3 4 5 8 5 7 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 Riverside 781 952 792 916 756 895 725 925 702 1,010 828 1,039 921 1,035 941 1,052 916 1,052 921 1,046 799 876 Sacramento 467 566 482 553 473 560 446 568 308 442 465 584 534 600 535 599 511 586 536 600 475 689 San Benito 15 18 14 16 17 20 5 7 10 14 12 15 15 17 18 20 15 17 12 21 10 18 San Bernardino 747 902 761 871 742 878 697 889 659 948 725 909 899 1,010 888 993 862 990 851 977 757 823 San Diego 1,094 1,320 1,122 1,291 1,079 1,277 972 1,241 940 1,352 1,123 1,408 1,221 1,372 1,231 1,377 1,208 1,387 1,197 1,325 973 1,055 San Francisco 112 138 129 151 126 149 126 161 71 102 107 134 119 134 120 134 105 120 107 118 76 91 San Joaquin 248 303 260 301 253 299 254 325 217 312 287 360 303 340 310 347 293 336 289 352 255 292 San Luis Obispo 121 147 123 144 105 124 109 140 101 145 117 147 127 142 127 142 131 150 125 138 103 115 San Mateo 232 275 272 310 258 306 244 311 159 229 243 304 289 325 291 326 264 304 293 322 215 238 Santa Barbara 141 174 140 164 140 166 135 172 124 178 148 186 161 181 152 170 167 191 166 177 136 146 Santa Clara 514 621 600 691 589 697 546 696 460 661 580 727 638 717 613 685 560 643 614 713 446 511 Santa Cruz 84 103 91 106 89 105 79 101 53 77 77 96 85 95 84 94 78 90 72 90 69 74 Shasta 72 88 73 85 77 91 65 83 55 79 76 95 73 82 83 92 76 87 72 82 68 76 Siskiyou 20 25 17 19 19 23 9 12 10 14 21 27 24 27 26 29 25 28 26 27 22 25 Solano 158 190 191 218 180 213 158 202 116 167 160 201 187 210 194 217 188 216 182 216 155 180 Sonoma 157 189 155 178 160 189 163 208 146 210 160 201 186 209 186 208 167 192 169 204 146 167 Stanislaus 191 230 184 212 173 205 144 183 159 229 201 252 217 244 227 253 212 244 196 245 178 197 Sutter 30 37 31 37 34 40 33 42 17 24 30 38 35 39 35 39 35 40 27 38 28 30 Tehama 27 33 24 28 23 27 19 24 18 26 24 30 25 29 26 29 27 31 28 30 25 26 Trinity 3 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 4 3 4 Tulare 109 132 121 139 120 142 91 116 107 155 114 143 136 152 149 167 147 168 144 174 126 149 Tuolumne 14 17 13 16 15 18 12 15 14 21 18 23 21 23 22 25 22 25 21 23 19 20 Ventura 285 345 290 335 262 310 246 314 249 358 256 321 294 330 302 338 298 342 297 329 242 262 Yolo 82 100 76 87 74 87 75 96 63 90 82 103 98 110 101 113 96 110 97 114 76 91 Yuba 24 29 26 30 22 26 23 30 14 20 24 30 32 36 30 34 40 46 27 32 26 35 Other Counties* 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 Total 12,238 14,860 12,644 14,596 12,241 14,486 11,396 14,540 10,220 14,701 12,044 15,108 13,785 15,491 13,936 15,584 13,475 15,471 13,473 15,365 11,174 12,572 A - 2012 to 2021 data are not directly comparable to other years since an improved methodology is used, but is within 5 percent compared to the previous methodology. * Other Counties include Alpine, Modoc and Sierra.

Jurupa Ave Trail OPS En Ops_03272023 3/27/2023 3:10 PM
Riverside Gateway Projects - Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Operations Energy Consumption 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Diesel Sales by County
(Millions of Gallons)
County
2010
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2010
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2011
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2011
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2012A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2012A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2013A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2013A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2014A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2014A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2015A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2015A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2016A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2016A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2017A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2017A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2018A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2018A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2019A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A
Survey
Response
s
(Millions
of
Gallons)
2020A
Estimated
Totals
(Millions of
Gallons)
Alameda 29 32 26 28 30 36 27 34 19 27 38 49 47 54 51 58 56 62 48 55 47 51 Amador 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 Butte 9 10 9 10 7 9 8 10 8 10 9 11 11 13 11 13 12 13 12 15 10 11 Calaveras 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 Colusa 3 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 2 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 7 7 10 11 Contra Costa 15 18 19 21 17 20 17 21 12 17 19 24 23 26 24 28 31 34 24 27 22 23 Del Norte 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 El Dorado 6 8 6 7 6 7 5 6 4 6 7 9 8 9 8 10 8 9 8 10 8 8 Fresno 30 33 35 38 33 40 23 29 18 25 39 50 40 46 40 45 46 51 39 49 62 66 Glenn 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 6 12 14 16 19 16 17 18 19 17 18 Humboldt 10 12 10 12 10 12 11 14 4 5 10 13 13 14 8 9 7 8 6 7 6 6 Imperial 9 10 8 9 7 8 8 10 8 11 9 11 14 16 11 12 20 22 21 25 22 24 Inyo 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 Kern 111 117 125 129 133 158 118 148 124 171 125 160 131 149 107 121 97 108 96 105 108 116 Kings 7 7 7 8 7 9 5 6 4 6 7 9 5 6 7 7 8 9 8 9 7 7 Lake 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 Lassen 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Los Angeles 212 235 221 239 205 245 190 239 194 267 257 328 273 309 267 301 228 253 246 276 279 299 Madera 23 24 23 24 24 28 18 23 22 31 26 33 28 31 29 33 28 31 23 24 30 32 Marin 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 Mariposa 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mendocino 6 7 7 8 7 9 6 6 4 5 6 7 9 10 6 6 5 6 5 8 9 9 Merced 44 45 37 38 46 55 49 62 49 68 54 69 59 66 38 42 35 39 28 36 28 30 Mono 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Monterey 21 23 24 26 25 30 22 27 13 18 23 29 24 28 24 27 24 26 23 26 21 22 Napa 2 2 2 2 6 7 2 3 2 3 6 8 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 Nevada 5 5 5 5 4 4 1 2 4 6 7 8 8 9 8 9 7 8 5 8 7 8 Orange 38 47 36 42 38 46 33 42 37 51 46 59 52 59 54 61 49 55 51 56 49 53 Placer 13 16 13 15 12 15 9 12 10 13 13 16 15 17 15 17 16 17 16 17 32 35 Plumas 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Riverside 84 93 87 94 89 107 86 109 100 138 119 152 128 145 131 148 119 132 108 122 134 144 Sacramento 33 37 32 35 27 32 18 21 21 29 28 36 38 42 42 48 41 45 37 41 41 44 San Bernardino 141 149 136 142 158 189 164 206 152 210 198 253 223 252 235 265 176 195 165 178 148 159 San Diego 69 80 64 72 62 74 58 73 67 93 87 111 93 105 92 103 92 103 94 110 88 94 San Francisco 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 1 2 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 San Joaquin 73 75 85 87 84 99 90 113 86 119 102 131 116 131 111 126 105 117 101 113 86 93 San Luis Obispo 12 14 16 18 11 13 9 12 12 17 19 24 20 23 19 21 20 22 20 22 19 20 San Mateo 10 12 8 10 8 10 8 10 4 6 15 19 13 14 15 17 16 17 18 19 12 13 Santa Barbara 13 14 16 17 10 13 12 15 13 18 20 26 22 25 17 19 21 24 18 19 16 17 Jurupa Ave Trail OPS En Ops_03272023 3/27/2023 3:10 PM
Riverside Gateway Projects - Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Operations Energy Consumption Santa Clara 23 26 26 28 27 32 28 35 25 35 36 47 30 34 32 36 43 48 33 42 32 35 Santa Cruz 4 5 5 6 4 5 4 6 2 3 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 7 4 6 7 8 Shasta 20 23 19 21 16 19 18 22 13 18 21 27 21 24 22 25 21 24 14 16 13 14 Siskiyou 5 6 11 11 16 20 15 19 16 20 20 26 19 22 18 21 16 17 16 17 17 18 Solano 14 17 18 20 14 16 14 17 8 11 14 18 17 19 22 24 23 25 24 27 25 27 Sonoma 14 16 18 19 13 16 14 18 12 17 15 20 20 23 20 23 20 22 28 32 28 30 Stanislaus 33 36 27 29 25 30 15 19 20 27 26 33 20 22 30 34 32 36 33 35 36 39 Sutter 4 5 2 3 3 4 4 5 2 3 4 5 5 6 3 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 Tehama 31 32 38 39 35 42 37 47 25 35 37 48 35 39 34 38 18 20 17 18 7 8 Tulare 23 25 33 35 27 32 31 39 31 43 34 43 37 42 37 41 31 34 42 45 47 51 Tuolumne 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ventura 20 23 32 34 23 27 23 29 25 34 27 34 29 32 32 36 30 33 33 35 29 32 Yolo 33 34 26 27 27 33 30 37 29 40 27 35 32 37 27 30 25 28 24 26 21 22 Yuba 4 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 12 4 5 4 4 Other Counties* 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 Total 1,285 1,414 1,346 1,447 1,327 1,589 1,261 1,587 1,226 1,691 1,592 2,033 1,742 1,971 1,717 1,937 1,602 1,777 1,559 1,756 1,624 1,744 A - 2012-2021 data are not directly comparable to other years since an improved methodology is used, but is within 5 percent compared to the previous methodology. * Other Counties include Alpine, Modoc, San Benito, Sierra and Trinity.

Note: Non-Retail diesel sales, which comprise approximately 49.7% of all diesel sales, are not reported in this chart.

Jurupa Ave Trail OPS En Ops_03272023 3/27/2023 3:10 PM

Appendix D
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
(STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES)

RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PROJECT
P R E P A R E D F O R :

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department 6927 Magnolia Avenue #2
Riverside, CA 92506
P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF
49 Discovery Way, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact: Kristen Klinefelter
[email protected]
May 2022

ICF. 2022. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, Riverside Gateway Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California. May. (ICF 104147) Irvine, CA. Prepared for City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department, Riverside, California.

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project i May 2022

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 Regulatory Background and Methodology by Agency ........................................................ 2-1

2.1 Desktop Research ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Field Investigation and Mapping...................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board .............. 2-4

2.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction .................................................. 2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3.1 Precipitation ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.4 Hydrologic Units and Aquatic Resources Mapping .......................................................... 3-2

3.5 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.5.1 Soil Series ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 4 Jurisdictional Delineation Results ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Delineated Feature Descriptions ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Feature 1 – Upper Santa Ana River .................................................................................. 4-3

4.1.2 Feature 2 – Old Ranch Creek ........................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.3 Feature 3 – Hole Creek .................................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.4 Feature 4 .......................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.5 Feature 5 .......................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Summary of Jurisdictional Delineation Results ................................................................ 4-5

4.3 List of Delineators and Report Preparers/Reviewers ...................................................... 4-5 Chapter 5 References ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department

Contents

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project ii May 2022

List of Appendices
A Jurisdictional Delineation Figures
Figure 1 – Regional Location Map
Figure 2 – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 – Watershed Map
Figure 4 – Water Resources Map
Figure 5 – Soils Map
Figure 6 – USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Results Map
Figure 7 – CDFW Jurisdictional Results Map
B Ordinary High Water Mark Data Sheets
C Wetland Determination Forms
D Site Photographs
E Santa Ana River Tributary Restoration Projects Jurisdictional Delineation Report

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department

Contents

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project iii May 2022

Tables
Page
Table 2-1. Jurisdictional Delineation Field Dates .................................................................................... 2-1 Table 3-1. Regional Rainfall Data Summary for Riverside Municipal Airport (inches)............................... 3-2 Table 4-1. Summary of Potential USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW Jurisdiction Aquatic Resources .............. 4-2

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department

Contents

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project iv May 2022

Acronyms and Abbreviations
amsl above mean sea level
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CFG Code California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Riverside
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAC facultative
FACU facultative upland
FACW facultative wetland
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GIS geographic information system
GPS global positioning system
HUC hydrologic unit code
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OHWM ordinary high water mark
OHWM Datasheet Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
Procedures State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State
proposed project Riverside Gateway Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
UPL upland
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WoS waters of the State
WoUS waters of the U.S.

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project ES-1 May 2022

Executive Summary
On December 2 and 3, 2021, ICF conducted a routine-level delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands of the Riverside Gateway Project (proposed project).

The purpose of this delineation was to identify the extent of potentially jurisdictional wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. (WoUS) and waters of the State (WoS) (“aquatic resources”) within and adjacent to the project site to support federal and state regulatory permitting processes. The project limits of disturbance of five different sites within the project are collectively referred to as the “study area.” Relevant jurisdictions include:
⚫ Federal jurisdiction regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as WoUS under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) ⚫ State jurisdiction regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as WoUS under Section 401 of the CWA ⚫ SWRCB/RWQCB surface WoS regulated under Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter-Cologne Act)
⚫ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) aquatic resources regulated under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code) Based on the investigation and analysis documented in this report, potential CWA Section 404/401 aquatic resources within the study area are determined to be 0.40 acre (615 linear feet) of non- wetland WoUS and 0.09 acre (369 linear) of non-wetland WoUS with wetland conditions subject to regulation by USACE and RWQCB. Lastly, approximately 13.07 acre (3,240 linear feet) of streambed and 19.35 acre (3,731 linear feet) of associated riparian vegetation subject to CDFW jurisdiction were mapped within the study area.

Jurisdictional delineation maps are included as Appendix A. Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) data sheets and wetland determination forms are included as Appendices B and C, respectively.

Lastly, Site photographs are included as Appendix D. The Santa Ana River Restoration Projects, Early Implementation Services for the Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan Jurisdictional Delineation Report is included as Appendix E.

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 1-1 May 2022

Chapter 1
Introduction
On December 2 and 3, 2021, ICF conducted a routine-level aquatic resource delineation of potential WoUS, WoS, and CDFW jurisdiction for the Riverside Gateway Project (proposed project) as part of the federal and state regulatory permitting process for the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department in the City of Riverside (City) in Riverside County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). The study area is composed of the proposed project limits.

The purpose of this delineation is to identify the extent of potentially jurisdictional federal and state aquatic resources within and adjacent to the project site to support federal and state regulatory permitting processes pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA (33 U.S. Code §1251 et seq. [1972]), as well as Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act, Section 1600 et seq. of the CFG Code.

Section 404 of the CWA is administered by USACE with oversight from EPA and regulates the discharge of dredge or fill material within WoUS, including wetland and non-wetland WoUS. Section 401 of the CWA is administered by the SWRCB/RWQCB and regulates at the state level all Section 404 activities that are regulated by USACE. The SWRCB/RWQCB may also regulate activities affecting non-federal wetland and non-wetland WoS (e.g., surface waters and isolated features) under the Porter-Cologne Act. Section 1600 et seq. of the CFG Code is administered by CDFW and regulates activities that may affect lakes, streams with a defined bed and bank, and/or associated riparian vegetation. If a proposed project has the potential to affect waters, wetlands, lakes, streams, and associated riparian vegetation, then the project site must be evaluated to determine the presence, type, and extent of aquatic resources. Details regarding each of these agencies and their regulatory authority, jurisdiction, permitting, and delineation methodologies are provided in Chapter 2, Regulatory Background and Methodology.

The information and results presented herein document the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of ICF. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. However, all jurisdictional delineations should be considered preliminary until reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies.

1.1 Project Description
The project proposed by the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department involves a multidisciplinary effort for the planning, design, engineering, and associated community outreach and environmental compliance for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for nine identified park sites in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California.

This aquatic resources delineation report includes five locations, Tequesquite North Extension, Tequesquite South Extension, 5200 Tequesquite Avenue, Santa Ana River Greenway, and Jurupa Avenue Trailhead. All these sites with the exception of Jurupa Avenue Trailhead are by Tequesquite Avenue in the City. The sites combined comprise approximately 140 acres of City- and privately owned land and are situated along the Santa Ana River. The City received funding from the Coastal Conservancy to provide master planning for improvements within these sites. Proposed improvements for the three Tequesquite sites include Santa Ana River Trail trailhead, native plant interpretive garden, habitat conservation areas, community garden, nature playground, horse City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 1
Introduction

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 1-2 May 2022

stables, interpretive trails/signage, vehicular access control, lighting, bike repair café, dog and/or skate park. The Santa Ana River Greenway components propose to add a decomposed granite path parallel to the existing paved trail to separate slower recreational users from higher-speed users as well as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, signage, emergency phones, and other trail user support amenities to create a shady and aesthetically inviting space. The Jurupa Avenue Trailhead improvement features would include drinking fountains, shade resting areas, parking, bike lockers and racks, a bicycle repair station, and equestrian facilities to support users of the Santa Ana River Trail.

1.2 Project Location
The five project sites within the study area are along the Santa Ana River Trail within the City (Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The study area is mapped in land grants on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Riverside West, CA quadrangle map (USGS 2001).

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 2-1 May 2022

Chapter 2
Regulatory Background and Methodology by Agency

2.1 Desktop Research
Prior to the field delineation, the following resources were reviewed to identify potential aquatic resources in the study area:
⚫ Aerial imagery for various dates between 1994 and 2021 (Google Earth 2021) ⚫ USGS 7.5-minute Riverside West, CA topographic quadrangle map (USGS 2001) (Appendix A, Figure 2)
⚫ Watershed maps available from National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2017) (Appendix A, Figure 3)
⚫ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain maps (FEMA 2014) (Appendix A, Figure 4)
⚫ NHD and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2017) data for the study area (Appendix A, Figure 4) ⚫ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (USDA/NRCS 2006) for the study area (Appendix A, Figure 5)
The above resources were used to identify approximate locations of potential aquatic resources subject to regulation by USACE, SWRCB/RWQCB, and CDFW within the study area.

In addition to the regionally available data (e.g., NWI, NHD, and FEMA) the approximate location and extent of potential aquatic resources were identified on field maps based on changes in vegetation type and cover, topographic changes, and visible drainage patterns.

2.2 Field Investigation and Mapping
ICF conducted the jurisdictional waters and wetland delineation for the study area in 2021 and conducted site visits on December 2 and 3, 2021 to confirm existing conditions. Additionally, a site visit was conducted on November 24 to set up dig alert points to submit for digging approval. Table 2-1 shows the date, delineator(s), and purpose of each site visit.

Table 2-1. Jurisdictional Delineation Field Dates
Date Delineators Purpose
November 24, 2021 Paul Schwartz, Cole Sutter Dig alert setup December 2, 2021 Kristen Klinefelter, Cole Sutter Jurisdictional delineation field survey December 3, 2021 Kristen Klinefelter, Cole Sutter Jurisdictional delineation field survey The 2021 field investigation was conducted in December within the study area, which is defined as the limits of disturbance for the proposed project sites.

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 2
Regulatory Background and Methodology by Agency

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 2-2 May 2022

During the field efforts, the study area was surveyed on foot where access was possible, and jurisdictional limits were recorded using ArcMap Collector on an iPad unit with an external global positioning system (GPS) receiver providing sub-meter accuracy. If no access was possible, then jurisdictional features were delineated based on visual estimates and aerial photographs and then digitized in a geographic information system (GIS). Common plant species observed were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Taxonomic nomenclature for plants follows the Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and the Arid West 2020 Regional Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020).

The site visit was conducted 56 days following a storm event that resulted in 0.15 inch of rain on October 8, 2021, as recorded at the Riverside Municipal Airport (National Weather Service 2021).

Representative photos for features in the study area were taken to depict existing conditions (Appendix D).

The below subsections provide the regulatory background and aquatic resource delineation methods used per agency.

2.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE regulates activities proposed within navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and WoUS under Section 404 of the CWA. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates work, structures, obstructions, or alterations occurring within navigable WoUS, which is defined as those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high-water mark and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The project site does not support tidal waters; therefore, Section 10 of the act is not discussed further.

The pre-2015 definition of WoUS became effective on September 3, 2021, in all states and territories (USACE/EPA 2021). This definition establishes the scope of USACE and EPA authority under the CWA and includes seven categories of jurisdictional WoUS (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3(a)(1)–(7)) and two categories of non-jurisdictional aquatic features (33 CFR 328.3(a)(8)). The seven categories of jurisdictional WoUS are as follows:
⚫ All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (33 CFR 328.3(a)(1));
⚫ All interstate waters including interstate wetlands (33 CFR 328.3(a)(2)); ⚫ All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters (33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)):
 Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes (33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)(i)); or
 From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)(ii)); or
 Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce (33 CFR 328.3(a)(3)(iii)).

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 2
Regulatory Background and Methodology by Agency

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 2-3 May 2022

⚫ All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition (33 CFR 328.3(a)(4));
⚫ Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section (33 CFR 328.3(a)(5));
⚫ The territorial seas (33 CFR 328.3(a)(6));
⚫ Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section (33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)).

The two categories of non-jurisdictional aquatic features (33 CFR 328.3(a)(8)) are as follows:
⚫ Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; and
⚫ Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.

2.2.1.1 Delineation Methods for CWA Section 404 (Non-tidal) Non-wetland WoUS
Aquatic resources with a defined OHWM would be considered potential non-wetland WoUS. USACE regulations at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(7) define OHWM as “the line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clean natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (85 Federal Register 22339, April 21, 2020). The lateral limits of non-wetland WoUS were mapped using guidance provided in Ordinary High Water Flows and the Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Arid West Region (USACE 2011), A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Determination Manual (USACE 2008b), and Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (USACE 2005).

ICF completed the 2010 Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets (OHWM Datasheets) for representative non-wetland water features within the study area. Completed OHWM Datasheets are provided in Appendix B, and the location of each OHWM sample point is depicted on Figure 6 in Appendix A. The OHWM Datasheets were completed following guidance provided in the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2010). Common indicators of OHWM include changes in average sediment texture, break in slope, changes in vegetation species, and/or changes in vegetation cover.

2.2.1.2 Delineation Methods for CWA Section 404 (Non-tidal) Wetland WoUS Wetlands consist of areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Normally, three criteria (parameters) must be satisfied to classify an area as a wetland: (1) a predominance of plant life that is adapted to life in wet conditions (hydrophytic vegetation); (2) soils that saturate, flood, or pond City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 2
Regulatory Background and Methodology by Agency

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 2-4 May 2022

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (hydric soils); and (3) permanent or periodic inundation or soils saturation, at least seasonally (wetland hydrology).

In areas that exhibited evidence of wetland hydrology and/or hydrophytic vegetation, wetland soil pits were established to examine soil color and texture and determine the wetland boundary. A paired-pit technique (i.e., one sample point with wetland results paired with one sample point with non-wetland results) was used to identify the wetland boundary. The wetland delineation was conducted pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008a). The Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2 (USDA/NRCS 2018) was used to identify hydric soil; vascular plants were identified using The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012); and nomenclature and associated wetland ratings follow the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020). Wetland determination forms are provided in Appendix C.

Most of the Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site was inaccessible due homeless encampments and unsafe working conditions. Therefore, ICF biologists used results data collected in 2016 from the Santa Ana River Tributary Restoration Projects, Early Implementation Services for the Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan Jurisdictional Delineation Report where its study area overlapped with the Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site and confirmed that conditions had not changed wherever accessible within the study area. The report can be found in Appendix E for reference.

2.2.2 State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board
In California, the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs regulate activities within WoUS under Section 401 of the CWA and within WoS under the Porter-Cologne Act. The SWRCB defines WoS broadly to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”

2.2.2.1 Delineation Methods for CWA Section 401 Non-wetland WoUS and Porter-Cologne Non-wetland WoS
The SWRCB and RWQCBs do not have regulations or guidance defining the extent of non-wetland WoUS or WoS. Therefore, lateral limits of potential non-wetland WoUS and WoS were identified and delineated using the same methods for determining OHWM per USACE as described above in Section

2.2.1, as they have generally been considered coincident.

2.2.2.2 Delineation Methods for CWA Section 401 Wetland WoUS and Porter- Cologne Wetland WoS
On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures; SWRCB 2019). The Procedures became effective on May 28, 2020, and define wetland WoS as follows:

An area is a wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 2
Regulatory Background and Methodology by Agency

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 2-5 May 2022

The Procedures provide that RWQCBs shall rely on a wetland delineation from a final aquatic resources delineation report verified by USACE to determine the extent of wetland WoUS and WoS.

If any potential wetland areas have not been delineated in a final aquatic resources delineation report verified by USACE, the limits of such potential wetland waters WoS shall be identified using the same wetland delineation methods per USACE as described in Section 2.2.1, except that a lack of vegetation (i.e., less than 5 percent areal coverage of plants during the peak of the growing season) does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland when hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present (SWRCB 2019).

2.2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction Pursuant to Sections 1600 et al. of the CFG Code, CDFW regulates any activity that would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow—or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank—of any river, stream, or lake. CDFW jurisdiction relies on the presence of a lake and/or streambed and associated riparian or wetland habitat. CDFW regulation under CFG Code Section 1602 requires that all lakes and streams on a project site are identified in order to assess the proposed activity’s potential impacts on these aquatic resources.

2.2.3.1 Delineation Methods for CFG Code Section 1600 Lakes, Streambeds, and Associated Riparian and/or Wetland Habitat
CDFW defines lakes as “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs” (14 California Code of Regulations §

1.56). With respect to streams, it has been the practice of CDFW to define a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in which water currently flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators” (Brady and Vyverberg 2014). The historic hydrologic regime is defined as circa 1800 to the present. In addition, streams include “watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (14 California Code of Regulations § 1.72). Riparian habitat refers to vegetation and habitat associated with a stream. CDFW-jurisdictional habitat includes all riparian shrub or tree canopy that may extend beyond the banks of a stream. Isolated riparian habitat (i.e., where riparian vegetation does not appear associated with a stream channel) is not considered CDFW jurisdictional.

Historical court cases have further extended CDFW jurisdiction to include watercourses that seemingly disappear but re-emerge elsewhere. Under the CDFW definition, a watercourse need not exhibit evidence of an OHWM to be claimed as jurisdictional. Water features such as vernal pools and other seasonal swales—where the defined bed and bank are absent and the feature is not contiguous or closely adjacent to other jurisdictional features—are generally not asserted to fall within CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1600. CDFW generally does not assert jurisdiction over human-made water bodies unless they are located where such natural features were previously located or where they are contiguous with existing or prior natural jurisdictional areas.

Based on the above, potential CDFW-jurisdictional aquatic resources delineated included lakes and/or streambeds and their associated riparian and wetland habitats. Staff delineated the lateral extent of potential CDFW jurisdiction to be “bank to bank” for a streambed or to the “dripline” of riparian habitat and/or wetland boundary, if present.

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 3-1 May 2022

Chapter 3
Environmental Setting
The study area consists of the proposed project limits of disturbance, including proposed temporary construction access, staging, and storage areas. The following section describes the topography, land use, hydrology, soils, and vegetation characteristics associated with the study area.

3.1 Topography
The study area is within the Riverside West, CA USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle at an elevation between approximately 213 to 244 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The topography within the three Tequesquite sites and the Riverside Greenway site gradually slopes from northeast to southwest in the direction of the Santa Ana River. The Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site slopes from south to north along Hole Creek toward the Santa Ana River to the north. USGS topographic mapping for the study area is provided as Appendix A, Figure 2.

3.2 Land Use
The study area is along or adjacent to the Santa Ana River. The three Tequesquite sites and the Riverside Greenway site are generally surrounded by residential development to the southeast and open space and the Santa Ana River to the northwest. Paved and dirt paths are within and around this area for recreational use. The Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site is surrounded by residential development to the west, open space to the north and south, and commercial development to the east. The Santa Ana River is directly north of the site.

3.3 Hydrology

3.3.1 Precipitation
The regional climate is characterized by hot, dry summer months with relatively mild, wet winters.

Precipitation data was obtained from the Riverside Municipal Airport approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site and 3 miles southwest of the three Tequesquite sites and the Riverside Greenway site. The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in a typical year with precipitation totals on track to be close to the 20-year average. Table 3-1 summarizes the monthly and annual precipitation for 2017 to 2021 and provides the average monthly and annual precipitation for 2001 to 2021.

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 3
Environmental Setting

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 3-2 May 2022

Table 3-1. Regional Rainfall Data Summary for Riverside Municipal Airport (inches)

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December Total
Average
Precipitation
(inches)
2017 5.48 2.19 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.22 T 0.03 T 8.49 2018 1.55 0.85 1.65 T 0.15 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.78 1.10 7.20 2019 2.84 5.39 1.43 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.81 2.52 14.48 2020 0.08 0.06 3.64 2.65 T T 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.16 1.16 7.75 2021 1.59 T 1.45 T T 0.02 0.16 T T 0.29 0.00 - 3.51
2001–
2021 1.59 1.94 1.00 0.61 0.14 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.12 0.40 0.60 1.77 7.93 Source: National Weather Service (2021) for Riverside Municipal Airport T=Trace

3.4 Hydrologic Units and Aquatic Resources Mapping
The study area is within the Santa Ana hydrologic unit code (HUC) 8 watershed and the Middle Santa Ana River HUC 10 subwatershed (Appendix A, Figure 3). The study area is also within the Calwatershed Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit. The FEMA 100-year floodplain, NHD database results, and the USFWS NWI database query results for the study area are depicted on the water resources map (Appendix A, Figure 4).

3.5 Soils

3.5.1 Soil Series
The NRCS has mapped the following soil series as occurring within the study area based on the SSURGO database (USDA/NRCS 2006): Buchenau, Dello, Grangeville, Tujunga, Riverwash, and Terrace Escarpments (Appendix A, Figure 5). The figure depicts the following soil types:
⚫ Buchenau loam, slightly saline-alkali, 2 to 8 percent slopes ⚫ Dello loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
⚫ Dello loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
⚫ Grangeville loamy fine sand, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes ⚫ Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes ⚫ Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes
⚫ Riverwash
⚫ Terrace escarpments
A description of the series included within the SSURGO mapping units is provided below based on the official soil descriptions provided by USDA (USDA/NRCS 2006). Hydric soil determinations are City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 3
Environmental Setting

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 3-3 May 2022

based off the NRCS Field Office List of Hydric Soil Map Units for Orange County and part of Riverside County, California (USDA/NRCS 2017).

3.5.1.1 Buchenau Series
Soils in the Buchenau Series occur on small alluvial fans at elevations between 300 and 1,500 feet amsl. Buchenau series form from metasedimentary rocks and consist of well to moderately well drained soils with medium to very slow runoff and moderately slow permeability to the hardpan, then very slow (USDA/NRCS 2006). Within the study area, these soils are mapped as Buchenau loam, slightly saline-alkali, 2 to 8 percent slopes. The Buchenau series is not listed as hydric within the study area (USDA/NRCS 2017).

3.5.1.2 Dello Series
Soils in the Tujunga Series occur in small depressions at elevations between about 10 feet below sea level to 500 feet amsl. Dello series form in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources and consist of very poorly drained soils with low runoff and rapid permeability (USDA/NRCS 2006). Within the study area, these soils are mapped as Dello loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes and Dello loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The Dello series is not listed as hydric within the study area (USDA/NRCS 2017).

3.5.1.3 Grangeville Series
Soils in the Grangeville Series occur on alluvial fans and floodplains at elevations between 0 and 1,800 feet amsl. Grangeville series form in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources and consist of somewhat poorly drained soils with negligible to very low runoff and moderately rapid permeability (USDA/NRCS 2006). Within the study area, these soils are mapped as Grangeville loamy fine sand, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes and Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes. The Grangeville series is not listed as hydric within the study area (USDA/NRCS 2017).

3.5.1.4 Tujunga Series
Soils in the Tujunga Series occur in washes, inset fans, and stream terraces at elevations between 400 and 2,350 feet amsl. Tujunga series form in alluvium derived from granitic rock and consist of somewhat excessively drained soils with low runoff and low permeability (USDA/NRCS 2006).

Within the study area, these soils are mapped as Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent. The Tujunga series is not listed as hydric within the study area (USDA/NRCS 2017).

3.5.1.5 Riverwash
Soils within riverwashes form from sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed sources and are found at approximately 700 to 2,900 feet amsl. Riverwash soils are excessively drained with very low runoff and high to very high permeability (USDA/NRCS 2006). These soils are considered hydric within the study area (USDA/NRCS 2017).

3.5.1.6 Terrace Escarpments
Soils within terrace escarpments form in alluvium derived from mixed sources (USDA/NRCS 2006).

These soils are not considered hydric within the study area (USDA/NRCS 2017).

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 4-1 May 2022

Chapter 4
Jurisdictional Delineation Results
This chapter describes the potential jurisdictional features and expected jurisdictional status mapped within the study area. An impact analysis is not included as a part of this report.

The information and results included herein document the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of ICF. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. However, all jurisdictional delineations should be considered preliminary until reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies.

Supporting information includes maps of jurisdictional features within the study area (Appendix A), OHWM data sheets (Appendix B), wetland determination forms (Appendix C), photographs for all delineated features (Appendix D).

4.1 Delineated Feature Descriptions
Within the study area, five aquatic features that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW were delineated (Table 4-1). All features evaluated in this delineation met the definition of a CWA Section 404 and 401 WoUS and were determined to be CDFW jurisdictional under Section 1600 of the CFG Code. The features are described by agency jurisdiction in detail below Table 4-1. Detailed maps depicting USACE/RWQCB WoUS and CDFW jurisdictions are included in Appendix A, Figures 6 and 7, respectively.

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department Chapter 4
Jurisdictional Delineation Results

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 4-2 May 2022

Table 4-1. Summary of Potential USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW Jurisdiction Aquatic Resources Feature Project Site Lat/Long (centroid)
Cowardin
Classification1
USACE Section 404 and RWQCB Section 401
Aquatic Resources CDFW Aquatic Resources
Non-Wetland
WoUS (acres/
linear feet)
Non-Wetland WoUS with
Wetland Conditions
(acres/linear feet)
Streambed
(acres/
linear feet)
Riparian
(acres/
linear feet)
Feature 1 – Upper
Santa Ana River
Tequesquite
North Extension

33.97645, -117.40330 PUB2 -- -- 12.90/
2,849

17.87/
3,183
Feature 2 – Old
Ranch Creek
Santa Ana River
Greenway

33.96918, -117.41154 R4SB4 -- 0.05/247 0.02/38 0.62/204 Feature 3 – Hole
Creek
Jurupa Avenue
Trailhead

33.95865, -117.46441 R2UB1 0.34/323 0.04/122 0.09/83 0.78/242 Feature 4 Jurupa Avenue
Trailhead

33.95941, -117.46368 R4SB4 0.02/47 -- -- 0.09/102
Feature 5 Santa Ana River
Greenway

33.97569, -117.39927 R4SBr 0.04/240 -- 0.06/240 --
Total 0.40/615 0.09/369 13.07/
3,240

19.35/
3,731
Data based on ICF GIS Calculations, January 2022
-- equals null value (zero)
1 Cowardin et al. 1979
City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 4
Jurisdictional Delineation Results

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 4-3 May 2022

4.1.1 Feature 1 – Upper Santa Ana River
Feature 1 is the Upper Santa Ana River, a large earthen perennial stream that conveys flows from the northeast to the southwest. Only the feature’s upper eastern banks above the OHWM are included within the study area. The feature runs along the western edge of the Santa Ana River Trail and is within the eastern half of the Tequesquite Extension North site. The banks of the feature contain well-established walking trails throughout that do not show signs of flows.

Feature 1 exhibits an even mix of both well-established riparian and upland vegetation throughout the feature. In general, upland areas are dominated by shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, upland [UPL]), California croton (Croton californicus, UPL), and yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum, UPL) while riparian areas are dominated by arrowweed (Pluchea sericea, facultative wetland [FACW]), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii, facultative [FAC]), and black willow (Salix gooddingii, FACW).

The OHWM associated with Feature 1 exists outside of the study area to the northwest. Top of bank and/or associated riparian vegetation widths associated with Feature 1 range from 3 to 596 feet within the study area (Figures 7d, 7e, and 7f).

4.1.2 Feature 2 – Old Ranch Creek
Feature 2 is Old Ranch Creek, a small earthen intermittent stream that conveys flows from south to north and eventually empties into the Santa Ana River approximately 1.3 miles downstream of the study area. The feature is within the Santa Ana River Greenway site and runs along Rubidoux Avenue before passing under the Santa Ana River Trail via a 16-inch culvert. The feature generally carries runoff collected from the residential development directly upstream.

Feature 2 is dominated by shortpod mustard (UPL) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum, FACW) in the southernmost portion, arrowweed (FACW) along the western edge, and Fremont’s cottonwood (FAC) in the northern portion.

OHWM indicators within Feature 2 included change in vegetation cover, change in vegetation species, change in average sediment size, debris wracking, and a break in slope. The OHWM associated with Feature 2 is approximately 8 feet in width and supported wetland conditions entirely within the OHWM (Appendix A, Figure 6b). Top of bank and/or associated riparian vegetation widths associated with Feature 2 range from 12 to 211 feet within the study area (Appendix A, Figure 7b).

4.1.3 Feature 3 – Hole Creek
Feature 3 is Hole Creek, an earthen perennial stream that conveys flows from south to north and eventually empties into the Santa Ana River approximately 0.3 mile downstream of the study area.

The feature is within the Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site and contains many man-made paths and homeless encampments throughout. The feature enters the study area via a 40-foot concrete box culvert that runs under Jurupa Avenue and the Santa Ana River Trail with concrete reinforcement and riprap near the outflow. During the site review on December 3, 2021, Feature 1 had flowing water within the low-flow channel.

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 4
Jurisdictional Delineation Results

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 4-4 May 2022

In general, Feature 3 is dominated by black willow (FACW) and contains a mix of Fremont’s cottonwood (FAC), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima, facultative upland [FACU]), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina, FACU), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia, FAC), saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima, FAC), and giant reed (Arundo donax, FAC) throughout as well as castor bean (Ricinus communis, FACU) and rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL) on the upper banks.

Feature 3 exhibited OHWM and flow indicators consistent with the Jurisdictional Delineation report attached in Appendix E including sediment deposition, a break in slope, and debris wracking. The OHWM associated with Feature 3 ranges from approximately 40 to 62 feet in width and supported wetland conditions in parts of the feature below the OHWM (Appendix A, Figure 6a). Top of bank and/or associated riparian vegetation widths associated with Feature 3 range from 40 to 130 feet within the study area (Appendix A, Figure 7a).

4.1.4 Feature 4
Feature 4 is an earthen ephemeral-to-intermittent stream that conveys flows from east to west and is a tributary to Feature 4 approximately 107 feet downstream of where it exits the study area. The feature is within the Jurupa Avenue Trailhead site and collects urban runoff from the surrounding area and flows out of a small culvert under Van Buren Boulevard before entering the study area. The feature is characterized by steep, eroded banks and compacted man-made trails within the upper banks.

The channel bed of Feature 4 is predominantly unvegetated with dense castor bean (FACU) on the upper southern banks and velvet ash (FACU), black willow (FACW), and California sycamore (Platanus racemose, FAC) on either side of the feature.

Feature 4 exhibited OHWM and flow indicators consistent with the Jurisdictional Delineation report attached in Appendix E including a break in slope and change in vegetation cover. The OHWM associated with Feature 4 is approximately 16 feet in width (Appendix A, Figure 6a). Top of bank and/or associated riparian vegetation widths associated with Feature 4 range from 5 to 52 feet within the study area (Appendix A, Figure 7a).

4.1.5 Feature 5
Feature 5 is a large, unvegetated concrete box channel that conveys flows from east to west and eventually empties into the Santa Ana River approximately 0.46 miles downstream from the study area. The feature is within the Santa Ana River Greenway site and runs along the south side of Tequesquite Avenue before passing under a 20-foot box culvert and outflowing on the north side of the road. The feature generally carries runoff collected from the residential development directly upstream.

OHWM indicators within Feature 5 included staining on the channel walls. The OHWM associated with Feature 5 ranges from approximately 20 to 28 feet in width (Appendix A, Figure 6d). Top of bank widths associated with Feature 5 range from 20 to 37 feet within the study area (Appendix A, Figure 7d).

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 4
Jurisdictional Delineation Results

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 4-5 May 2022

4.2 Summary of Jurisdictional Delineation Results
Based on the investigation and analysis documented in this report, potential CWA Section 404 and 401 USACE/RWQCB aquatic resources documented within the study area consist of 0.40 acre (615 linear feet) of non-wetland WoUS and 0.09 acre (369 linear feet) of non-wetland WoUS with wetland conditions.

No potential RWQCB Porter Cologne Act WoS-only aquatic resources are mapped within the study area.

Lastly, potential CDFW jurisdiction documented in the study area consist of 13.07 acre (3,240 linear feet) of streambed and 19.35 acre (3,731 linear feet) of associated riparian vegetation. All jurisdictional determinations in this report should be considered preliminary until reviewed and approved by applicable regulatory agencies.

4.3 List of Delineators and Report Preparers/Reviewers
Kristen Klinefelter—Delineator/Report Preparer
Lanika Cervantes—Report Reviewer
Brad Stein—GIS/Graphics Support

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 5-1 May 2022

Chapter 5
References
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brady, Roland H. III, and Kris Vyverberg. 2014. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility-Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2014.013.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Available:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 04DEC1998).

Environmental Laboratory, United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Final, Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Prepared for: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Available: http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/USACE%2087%20Wetland%20 Delineation%20Manual.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. 100-Year Floodplain Maps. Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. Accessed: January 2022.

Google Earth. 2021. Aerial Imagery for the Study Area. Various dates between 1994 and 2021.

Available: https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed: January 2022.

National Weather Service. 2021. Riverside Municipal Airport, California. Available:
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sgx. Accessed: January 2022.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. April.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 05-05. December.
———. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

September.
———. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the OHWM in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Determination Manual. August. Available: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ library/technicalreports/ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf.
———. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. July. ERDC/CRREL TN-10-1. Available:
https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/regulatory/JD/UpdatedDatasheetforIDOHW M_ERDC_2010.pdf.

City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Department
Chapter 5
References

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project 5-2 May 2022

———. 2011. Ordinary High Water Flows and the Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Arid West Region. July.
———. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.5. Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Available: https://wetland- plants.sec.usace.army.mil/. Accessed: January 2022.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Environmental Protection Agency (USACE/EPA). 2021. Current Implementation of Waters of the United States. September.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2006. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.

Prepared by Soil Survey Staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available:
http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed: January 2022. ———. 2017. Hydric Soils for the Orange County and part of Riverside County, California Area.

Available: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/ ?cid=nrcs142p2_053961. Accessed: January 2022.
———. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. Available:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053171.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory Website. Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed: January 2022.

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2001. 7.5-Minute Riverside West, California, Quadrangle. ———. 2017. National Hydrography Dataset Website. U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with EPA, USDA Forest Service, and other federal, state and local partners. Available:
ftp://nhdftp.usgs.gov/DataSets/Staged/States. Accessed: January 2022.

Appendix A
Jurisdictional Delineation Figures
Pacific Ocean
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2010)
0 8 164
Miles
San Bernardino
Riverside
San Diego
Orange
Los Angeles
Kern
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
USA
MEXICO
^_
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig01_Regional_Vicinity.mxd Date: 5/16/2022 35528 ^_Project Location
Project Location
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Figure 2a
Local Vicinity Map
±
Source: USGS
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig02_LocalVicinity.mxd Date: 5/16/2022 35528 Study Area
Project Sites with the Study Area
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension1:24,000
Jurupa Ave.

Trailhead
Figure 2b
Local Vicinity Map
±
Source: USGS
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig02_LocalVicinity.mxd Date: 5/16/2022 35528 Study Area
Project Sites with the Study Area
Jurupa Ave. Trailhead1:24,000
Lower San
Jacinto River
HUC 10
San Timoteo
Wash
HUC 10
Upper Santa
Ana River
HUC 10
Temescal
Wash
HUC 10
Chino Creek
HUC 10
Middle Santa
Ana River
HUC 10
Santiago
Creek
HUC 10
Lower Santa
Ana River
HUC 10

SANTA ANA

RIVER HU

SAN JACINTO

VALLEY HU
Figure 3
Watersheds
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig03_Watersheds.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
Calwatersheds Hydrologic Units
Watersheds (HUC 10)
N
[ Source: ICF, ESRI Basemaps (2018)
0 31.5
Miles
1:190,080
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Figure 4a
Water Resources
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig04_WaterResources.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
NHD Stream/River
Wetlands (NWI)
Project Sites with the Study Area
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension
N
[
Source: ICF; ESRI Basemaps; USGS; FEMA
0 1,000500
Feet
1:12,000
a
b
c
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Figure 4b
Water Resources
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig04_WaterResources.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
NHD Stream/River
Wetlands (NWI)
Project Sites with the Study Area
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension
N
[
Source: ICF; ESRI Basemaps; USGS; FEMA
0 1,000500
Feet
1:12,000
a
b
c
Jurupa Ave.

Trailhead
Figure 4c
Water Resources
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig04_WaterResources.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
NHD Stream/River
100-year Floodplain
Wetlands (NWI)
Project Sites with the Study Area
Jurupa Ave. Trailhead
N
[
Source: ICF; ESRI Basemaps; USGS; FEMA
0 1,000500
Feet
1:12,000
a
b
c
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
DmA
RsC
VsF2
TvC
GoB
Cf
TeG
TeG
Du
GuB GuB
GuB
Figure 5a
Soils
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig05_Soils.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
Project Sites with the Study Area
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension
Non-Hydric Soils
Cf - Chino silt loam, drained, saline-alkali
Du - Domino silt loam
GoB - Grangeville loamy fine sand, drained, 0 to 5 percent sl opes GuB - Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slo TeG - Terrace escarpments
TvC - Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes VsF2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, erode d Hydric Soils
DmA - Dello loamy sand, poorly drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes RsC - Riverwash
N
[
Source: ICF; ESRI Basemaps; NRCS
0 1,000500
Feet
1:12,000
a
b
c
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Santa Ana
River Greenway
DmA
RsC
TvC
GoB
Cf
TeG
Du
GuB
DoA
TeG
Figure 5b
Soils
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig05_Soils.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
Project Sites with the Study Area
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension
Non-Hydric Soils
Cf - Chino silt loam, drained, saline-alkali
DoA - Dello loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Du - Domino silt loam
GoB - Grangeville loamy fine sand, drained, 0 to 5 percent sl opes GuB - Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slo TeG - Terrace escarpments
TvC - Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes Hydric Soils
DmA - Dello loamy sand, poorly drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes RsC - Riverwash
N
[
Source: ICF; ESRI Basemaps; NRCS
0 1,000500
Feet
1:12,000
a
b
c
Jurupa Ave.

Trailhead
TeG
DgB
BhC
Figure 5c
Soils
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig05_Soils.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/16/2022 Legend
Study Area
Project Sites with the Study Area
Jurupa Ave. Trailhead
Non-Hydric Soils
BhC - Buchenau loam, slightly saline-alkali, 2 to 8 percent s lopes DgB - Dello loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
TeG - Terrace escarpments
N
[
Source: ICF; ESRI Basemaps; NRCS
0 1,000500
Feet
1:12,000
a
b
c
#*
#*
D
DJurupa Ave.

Trailhead
F e a t ur e 3
H o l e C r e e k
F e a t ur e 4

33.958883
-117.466104

33.960013
-117.463985
47'
P 2 0
P 1 9
P 1 6
P 1 7
P 1 8
O H WM - 3
O H WM - 4
F ig ur e 6 a
J ur isd ic t io n a l A q ua t ic R e so ur c e s M a p ( U S A C E / R WQ C B ) \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 10050
Feet
L e g e n d
Study Area
#* OHWM Sample Point
E
Photo Point
Feature Width
P r o je c t S it e s w it h t h e S t ud y A r e a
Jurupa Ave. Trailhead
Wa t e r s o f t h e U . S . a n d S t a t e ( U S A C E / R WQ C B )
Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Non-Wetland Water of the U.S.
with Wetland Conditions
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:1,200
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
D
D
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Feature
2 - Old
Ranch Creek

33.967392
-117.413006

33.971159
-117.409247
8'
P12
P10P11
P13
P09
P14
P15
P08
SP3-Up
SP4-Wet
SP5-Up
OHWM-1
SP6-Up
SP7-Up
Figure 6b
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (USACE/RWQCB)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
#* OHWM Sample Point
#* Wetland Sample Point
E
Photo Point
Feature Width
Culvert
Project Sites with the Study
Area
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite South Extension
Waters of the U.S. and State
(USACE/RWQCB)
Non-Wetland Water of the U.S.
with Wetland Conditions
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
#*
#*
#*
8'
SP4-Wet
SP5-Up
OHWM-1
P12
P10
P11
P13
Feature 2 Detail
D
D
Tequesquite
South
Extension

33.974029
-117.40296

33.969506
-117.405364
Figure 6c
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (USACE/RWQCB)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
Project Sites with the Study
Area
5200 Tequesquite
Tequesquite South Extension
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
#*
D
D
D
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Feature 5

33.974029
-117.40296

33.977519
-117.396418

33.977802
-117.40275
3'
37'
P07
P21OHWM-2
Figure 6d
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (USACE/RWQCB)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
#* OHWM Sample Point
E
Photo Point
Feature Width
Culvert
Project Sites with the Study
Area
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension
Waters of the U.S. and State
(USACE/RWQCB)
Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
#*
#*
D
D
D
D
Tequesquite
North
Extension

33.977802
-117.40275

33.982017
-117.396545

33.982378
-117.399643
P02
P03
P04
P06
P05
SP2-Up
Figure 6e
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (USACE/RWQCB)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
#* Wetland Sample Point
E
Photo Point
Feature Width
Project Sites with the Study
Area
Tequesquite North Extension
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
#*
D
D
D
Tequesquite
North
Extension

33.982017
-117.396545

33.982378
-117.399643

33.986425
-117.393659
P02
P01
SP1-Up
Figure 6f
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (USACE/RWQCB)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
#* Wetland Sample Point
E
Photo Point
Project Sites with the Study
Area
Tequesquite North Extension
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
D
D
Tequesquite
North
Extension

33.986425
-117.393659

33.989133
-117.390823
Figure 6g
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (USACE/RWQCB)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig06_USACERWQCB.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
Project Sites with the Study Area
Tequesquite North Extension
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
Jurupa Ave.

Trailhead
F e a t u re 4F e a t u re 3
H o l e C re e k

33.958883
-117.466104

33.960013
-117.463985
52'
118'
P 2 0
P 1 9
P 1 6
P 1 7
P 1 8
F i g u re 7 a
J u ri s d i c t i o n a l A q u a t i c R e s o u rc e s M a p ( C D F W) \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 10050
Feet
L e g e n d
Study Area
E
Photo Point
Feature Width
D e l i n e a t i o n S t u d y A re a s Jurupa Ave. Trailhead
Wa t e rs o f t h e S t a t e ( C D F W) Streambed
Riparian
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:1,200
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Feature
2 - Old
Ranch Creek

33.967392
-117.413006

33.971159
-117.409247
82'
P12
P10
P11
P13
P09
P14
P15
P08
Figure 7b
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (CDFW)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
E
Photo Point
Culvert
Feature Width
Delineation Study Areas
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite South Extension
Waters of the State (CDFW)
Streambed
Riparian
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
#*
#*
Santa
Ana River
Greenway
Feature
2 - Old
Ranch Creek
8'
P12
P10
P11
P13
SP4-Wet
SP5-Up
Feature 2 Detail
Tequesquite
South
Extension

33.974029
-117.40296

33.969506
-117.405364
Figure 7c
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (CDFW)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
Delineation Study Areas
5200 Tequesquite
Tequesquite South Extension
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
5200
Tequesquite
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Tequesquite
South
Extension
Santa Ana
River
Greenway
Feature 1
- Santa
Ana River
Feature 5

33.974029
-117.40296

33.977519
-117.396418

33.977802
-117.40275
3'
37'
596'
P07
P21
Figure 7d
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (CDFW)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
E
Photo Point
Culvert
Feature Width
Delineation Study Areas
5200 Tequesquite
Santa Ana River Greenway
Tequesquite North Extension
Tequesquite South Extension
Waters of the State (CDFW)
Streambed
Riparian
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Feature 1
- Santa
Ana River

33.977802
-117.40275

33.982017
-117.396545

33.982378
-117.399643
596'
P02
P03
P04
P06
P05
Figure 7e
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (CDFW)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
E
Photo Point
Feature Width
Delineation Study Areas
Tequesquite North Extension
Waters of the State (CDFW)
Streambed
Riparian
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
Tequesquite
North
Extension
Feature 1
- Santa
Ana River

33.982017
-117.396545

33.982378
-117.399643

33.986425
-117.393659
P02
P01
Figure 7f
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (CDFW)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
E
Photo Point
Delineation Study Areas
Tequesquite North Extension
Waters of the State (CDFW)
Streambed
Riparian
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a
Fairmount Park
- Camp Evans
Carlson St.

Francis Falls
Tequesquite
North
Extension

33.986425
-117.393659

33.989133
-117.390823
Figure 7g
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Map (CDFW)
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_Riverside\P0766_20_Riverside_Gateway\Figures\Doc\JD\Fig07_CDFW.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 5/19/2022 0 200100
Feet
Legend
Study Area
Delineation Study Areas
Tequesquite North Extension
Source: ICF, ESRI 2022
1:2,400
[
N
b c
d
e f
g
a

Appendix B
Ordinary High Water Mark Data Sheets

Appendix C
Wetland Determination Forms

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/2/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP1-Up
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
terrace
none
0 C-Med

33.982572
-117.398231
WGS-84
Tujungo loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes, 0 to 5 percent slopes Wetlands
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
Salix gooddingii
25 Y
FACW
10'
Salix exigua
20 Y
FACW
5'
Brassica nigra
15 Y
UPL
NA
SP is located in the Tequesquite Extension North site on terrace of SAR, above the OHWM and below ToB. The SP is representative of riparian mapped portions of the SAR terrace due to similar vegetation and hydrology throughout these areas. 80 5
2 3

66.6%
✔
✔
SP located in between Salix gooddingii tree and Salix exigua shrub with scatterd Brassica nigra within the area.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc
2 Texture Remarks

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP1-Up
1-16
10YR 3/2
100
fine sand
Sand very loose and dry; uniform throughout entire pit. No redox present. ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Very small amounts of biotic crust scattered within sample pit area but not strong enough to be an indicator.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/2/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP2-Up
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
bottom of low point
concave
0 C-Med

33.980415
-117.399458
WGS-84
Tujungo loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Wetlands
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
Populus fremontii
15 Y
FAC
Salix gooddingii
5 N
FACW
Tamarix sp.
10 Y
FAC
10'
Ricinus communis
25 Y
FACU
Nicotiana glauca
10 Y
FAC
Baccharis salicifolia
2 N
FAC
5'
Artemisia douglasiana
2 Y
FAC
Croton californicus
2 Y
UPL
Brassica nigra
5 Y
UPL
NA
SP located in the Tequesquite Extension North site within a low point within the riparian area surrounding the SAR (within the SAR terrace). Does not appear to show signs of flow, however the ground is difficult to see due to recent Arundo donax mulching within the floodplain.

SP is representative of riparian forests within the SAR terrace. 91 0
4 7
57%
✔
✔
Area also contains recently mulched Arundo donax but can't tell where exactly it's been growing.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP2-Up
1-4
10YR 5/2
100
Sand
dry
4-14
10YR 5/2
100
Sand
moist
Sand very loose and difficult to get consistent profile. No hydric soil indicators present. ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Hydrology indicators have possibly been masked by recently mulched Arundo donax, though area does not appear to receive regular flows.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/2/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP3-Up
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
terrace
none
0 C-Med

33.969168
-117.409711
WGS-84
Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alkali None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
Populus fremontii
25 Y
FAC
Schinus molle
20 Y
FACU
10'
5'
Distichlis spicata
98 Y
FAC
Bassia hyssopifolia
2 N
FACU
NA
SP located with Tequesquite South Extension site within salt grass flat with scattered cottonwood and willow trees, however it does not appear to be associated with a hydrologic feature. 0 0
2 3

66.7%
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP3-Up
1-14
10YR 3/2
100
Sandy loam
Thick layer of salt grass on surface
Soil is loose and dry with some thick roots within the pit. ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/2/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP4-Wet
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
channel bed
concave
0 C-Med

33.959463
-117.411453

33.969675
Dellow loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Wetlands
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
10'
Pluchea sericea
15 Y
FACW
Brassica nigra
15 Y
UPL
Conium maculatum
20 Y
FACW
Baccharis salicifolia
15 Y
FACW
Verbasina encelioides
15 Y
FACU
SP located within Santa Ana River Greenway site and is associated with Feature 2. SP taken below OHWM upstream from culvert.
35 0
3 5
60%
✔
✔
Vegetation is representative of species growing near and below the OHWM.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP4-Wet
1-8
10YR 2/1
100
Sandy loam
8-15
10YR 3/2
95 10YR 5/4
5 C
M
SaClLo
Prominent redox
Meets for F6 because second layer starts less than or equal to 8in from the surface and has a matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and greater than or equal to 5% distinct or prominent redox. ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Dead vegetation choking the entrance to the culvert downstream as well as drift deposits within the channel.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/2/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP5-Up
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
terrace
none
2 C-Med

33.969349
-117.411277
WGS-84
Dellow loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
Populus fremontii
35 Y
FAC
10'
Pluchea sericea
70 Y
FACW
5'
Conium maculatum
5 Y
FACW
NA
SP located within Santa Ana River Greenway site and is associated with Feature 2. SP paired with SP4-Wet.

Representative of cottonwood forest and arrowweed thicket banks of feature. 95 0
3 3

66.7%
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP5-Up
1-11
10YR 3/2
100
Loam
Hardpan soils
11in
Could not dig past 11 inches - reached hard dense soils. Soils above that were dry and loose. No hydric soil indicators present.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No discernible hydrology within feature's terrace.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/3/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP6-Up
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
flats
none
0 C-Med

33.968426
-117.412828
WGS-84
Dellow loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
10'
Pluchea sericea
30 Y
FACW
5'
Distichlis spicata
80 Y
FAC
Brassica nigra
10 N
UPL
NA
SP located within Santa Ana River Greenway site located within saltgrass flats and arrowweed thickets along the Santa Ana River Trail. SP is representative of salt grass flats/arrowweed thicket mix along the entirety of the trail. 10 0
2 2
100%
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP6-Up
1-15
10YR 3/2
100
Sandy loam
Soils dry throughout pit
Roots present throughout soil pit. Does not meet for any hydric soil indicators. ✔
✔
Area is flat and does not appear to be associated with any hydrologic feature.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
1 Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation
1 (Explain)

1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

Riverside Gateway
Riverside/Riverside
12/3/21
City of Riverside PRCSD
CA
SP7-Up
K. Klinefelter, C. Sutter
Land Grant
flats
none
<1
C-Med

33.966967
-117.414422
WGS-84
Dellow loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30'
Salix lasiolepis
20 Y
FACW
Baccharis salicifolia
10 Y
FAC
10'
Baccharis salicifolia
5 Y
FACW
5'
Ambrosia psilosthachya
5 N
FACU
Distichlis spicata
25 Y
FAC
Rumex crispus
5 N
FAC
Xanthum strumarium
2 N
FAC
NA
SP located within Santa Ana River Greenway site adjacent to an E-Corps restoration area and on the boundary of a willow woodland with saltgrass understory.
63 0
4 4
100%
✔
✔
Many of the surrounding annual herbs have died back/in dormancy.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SP7-Up
1-4
10YR 4/2
100
Sandy loam
4-15

2.5YR 3/2
100
Sandy loam
Roots in higher concentration in 1-4in layer. Does not meet for depleted matrix (or depleted below dark surface)because top layer has value of greater than or equal to 4 and chroma of less than or equal to 2 but does not contain redox and bottom layer does not have value greater than or equal to 4 or chroma less than or equal to 2. ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No observable hydrologic feature associated with the area.

Appendix D
Site Photographs

Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Riverside Gateway Project D-1 May 2022

Site Photographs – December 2021

Photograph: 1
Photo Date: 12/2/21
Location: Feature 1 – Upper
Santa Ana River, Tequesquite
North Extension
Direction: Northeast
Comment: Looking upstream
at the top of bank of Feature

1. Photograph: 2
Photo Date: 12/2/21
Location: Feature 1 – Upper
Santa Ana River, Tequesquite
North Extension
Direction: Southeast
Comment: Looking at
wetland sample point SP1-
Up.