Roseville City Council
October 7, 2026

Ascent Air Quality
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-39 Summary
Construction of Phase 1 would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors for an extended period. Operational activities associated with Phase 1 could generate perceptible odors following construction. New odor sources would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 205. However, because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances and planned future growth in Roseville could occur prior to operations of Phase 1, resulting in new sensitive uses within the 2-mile buffer, the potential for the project to cause objectionable odors remains. Thus, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: Implement Facility Odor Reduction Plan Prior to commencement of operations involving municipal green waste and food organics, the City shall prepare, implement, and maintain a comprehensive Odor Reduction Plan to minimize the potential for objectionable odors affecting existing and reasonably foreseeable future sensitive receptors. The Odor Reduction Plan shall apply to all odorgenerating activities at the facility and shall be implemented for the life of the project. At a minimum, the Odor Reduction Plan shall include the following elements:
 Odor source identification and controls
The Odor Reduction Plan shall identify all odor-generating sources, and for each source, the Odor Reduction Plan shall specify operational and engineering controls designed to minimize odor generation and release. Odor sources include, but are not limited to:
 receiving, unloading, and sorting of organics within the organics building enclosure; and  pre-processing and mixing of feedstocks.

Odor sources associated with Phase 2 of the project include, but are not limited to:
 covered aerated static pile (ASP) composting operations;  curing, screening, and product handling; and
 management of leachate or contact water.
 Receiving and material recovery building requirements To address the highest odor potential activities, the Odor Reduction Plan shall require that:
 reception and sorting of organic waste occur within the building enclosure, with doors closed except during active vehicle ingress and egress;
 the organics building enclosure be operated to minimize odor emissions, including use of enclosures, ventilation, and odor control measures as applicable (e.g., negative pressure and treatment through a biofilter, scrubber, or equivalent system, if deemed necessary);  onsite staging time for unprocessed food organics be limited to a defined maximum duration of time not beyond the time necessary to move to the next stage, with covered or contained storage; and  putrescible residuals and screened contaminants be stored in covered containers and removed from the site on a regular schedule sufficient to prevent odor buildup.  Covered aerated static pile operational controls
The Odor Reduction Plan shall include procedures to maintain aerobic conditions within covered ASP bays, including monitoring and management of aeration, moisture, and pile conditions. Corrective actions shall be identified for upset conditions (e.g., power outages, aeration system failures, excessive moisture, or indications of anaerobic conditions) to promptly reduce odor potential.  Odor monitoring, complaints, and adaptive management
The Odor Reduction Plan shall include an odor monitoring and response program consisting of:

Air Quality Ascent
City of Roseville

3.3-40 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR  installation of odor sensors throughout the site, surrounding the compost, collection, sorting, transfer, storage, areas, and any ancillary process location or odor source (e.g., stationary combustion sources, waste water retention or treatment)
 routine odor patrols during operations and under meteorological conditions conducive to odor transport;  a public odor complaint reporting system and complaint log;  defined response times for investigating and addressing complaints; and  adaptive management triggers (e.g., repeated verified offsite odor events or complaint patterns) that require implementation of additional corrective actions or operational changes. Corrective actions will vary depending upon the trigger but could include, and are not limited to, improved containment, increased treatment capacity, modified operations, and increased monitoring and response.

If monitoring indicates that applicable controls are not met, the City shall implement corrective actions within 7 days and increase monitoring and patrol frequency. The City shall also publish an annual report that summarizes complaints, response times, and measures implemented to address complaints. This report shall be kept on file at the facility and made available to the public/PCAPCD upon request.

Documentation and updates
The Odor Reduction Plan shall be kept on file at the facility, made available to the public/PCAPCD upon request, and updated as necessary to reflect changes in operations, waste streams, control technologies, or regulatory requirements.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 would require that an Odor Reduction Plan be established for the life of project operations, and specifically, the Odor Reduction Plan would be designed to address all potential odor sources. The Odor Reduction Plan would also require ongoing monitoring and adjustments, should odor issues arise.

With specifically designed odor control measures in place at the facility, offsite odor emissions would be substantially controlled and limited. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant after mitigation.

Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project would include the construction and operation of additional square footage at the RRTO and the construction and operation of a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Phase 2 of the project would introduce new odor sources into the area such as composting and/or biomass operations. Construction odor sources would be temporary, intermittent, and dissipate rapidly from the source. Although Phase 2 would include implementation of odor minimization design features, implementation of an OIMP as required by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 17863.4, and compliance with applicable PCAPCD BMPs, specific details relating to the anticipated future technology for the biomass facility and specific BMPs for each odor source have not been identified at this time. Therefore, Phase 2 could produce objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be potentially significant.

Construction
As described for Phase 1, exhaust odors from diesel engines, as well as emissions associated with paving and the application of architectural coatings may be considered offensive to some individuals. The generation of these odor emissions would vary greatly on a day-to-day basis depending on the type of construction activities. Application of architectural coatings would also be a source of offensive odors from volatile organic compounds. However, because the application of architectural coatings would be required to comply with PCAPCD Rule 218 (Architectural Coatings) which requires volatile organic compound limits on coatings used, potential construction odors would be minimized.

Minor odors from the use of heavy-duty diesel equipment would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Existing off-site receptors include residences located approximately 235 feet south, 0.25 mile west, and 1.7 miles east of the project site. Given the temporary nature of construction activities and the distance of the sensitive receptors from the project site, Phase 2 construction is not anticipated to result in a significant odor-related impact.

Ascent Air Quality
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.3-41 Operations
Operational odor sources associated with Phase 2 of the project would include the additional waste delivery anticipated with expansion of the RRTO facility. In addition, odors would be associated with the potential future compost facility, which would be designed to receive and process organic materials, and with a potential biomass facility, which would convert biomass (woody material) into energy using thermal means. These odors are identified as major odor sources by PCAPCD (PCAPCD 2017: 63-64).

Compost facilities involve active biological decomposition, which produces odorous gases. Compost odors vary depending upon whether the materials are breaking down aerobically (with oxygen) or anaerobically (without oxygen). Although compost facilities are designed to break down materials aerobically, anaerobic pockets in the piles can occur if they aren’t sufficiently aerated. Within these pockets, sulfur compounds can be created that cause a characteristic rotten egg or skunky odor. Ammonia and nitrogenous odors can also be created due to the presence of nitrogen-rich waste materials in the compost feedstock. Contaminated feedstock such as pet waste or residual liquids can also create objectionable odors. When the compost has matured, or generally completed the curing process, it can have an earthy, soil-like smell that can be categorized as neutral or pleasant.

Biomass facilities primarily generate odors associated with wood combustion (smoke), diesel exhaust from onsite equipment, and mild organic odors from stored biomass feedstocks. Putrescible odors typical of composting operations are generally absent. Objectionable odors can be created during periods of incomplete combustion or feedstock degradation.

Future planned development is anticipated to be located approximately 2 miles east of the project site. Depending on development timing of future planned growth, it is possible that the operation of Phase 2 would begin after new future residences are built. If this were to occur, there would be more existing (future) receptors prior to operation of the primary onsite odor sources (i.e., composting) associated with the project. To address odors, the City would prepare and maintain a site-specific OIMP for the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, as required by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 17863.4 to reduce potential odors. The OIMP would be designed to provide guidance to on-site operations personnel by describing, at a minimum, the following items:
 an odor monitoring and data collection protocol for on-site odor sources, which describes the proximity of possible odor receptors and a method for assessing odor impacts at the locations of the possible odor receptors;  a description of meteorological conditions affecting migration of odors and/or transport of odor-causing material off-site, including seasonal variations that affect wind velocity and direction;  a complaint response and recordkeeping protocol;
 design considerations and/or projected ranges of optimal operation to be employed in minimizing odor, including method and degree of aeration, moisture content of materials, feedstock characteristics, airborne emission production, process water distribution, pad and site drainage and permeability, equipment reliability, personnel training, weather event impacts, utility service interruptions, and site-specific concerns as applicable; and  operating procedures for minimizing odor, including aeration, moisture management, feedstock quality, drainage controls, pad maintenance, wastewater pond controls, storage practices (e.g., storage time and pile geometry), contingency plans (i.e., equipment, water, power, and personnel), biofiltration, and tarping, as applicable.

In accordance with 14 CCR Section 17863.4(e), the OIMP would be reviewed annually by the operator to determine if any revisions are necessary. Although the project site is located within 2 miles of existing sensitive receptors (i.e., PCAPCD suggested screening criteria for odor impacts associated with composting facilities), one of the project objectives is to limit odors associated with recycling and composting by maintaining an appropriate distance from nearby residential and other sensitive uses. In accordance with this objective, the RRTO Facility and Potential Future Organics Waste Facility would be strategically configured such that more industrial features (e.g., waste unloading and transfer) are located further from Phillip Road and from nearby sensitive uses. Specifically, the potential future compost and/or biomass facility operations would be located at the northernmost portion of the project site, the farthest from Phillip Road to maximize separation between odor sources and offsite receptors. In addition, emissions of odors would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials that would cause detriment, nuisance,

Air Quality Ascent
City of Roseville

3.3-42 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR or annoyance to any considerable number of people. The Aeriated Static Pile (ASP) technology, implementation of the OIMP, and compliance with applicable PCAPCD BMPs (e.g., limited storage duration for unprocessed materials), would reduce odors. However, because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances and planned future growth in Roseville could occur prior to operations of Phase 2, resulting in new sensitive uses within the 2-mile buffer, the potential for the project to cause objectionable odors remains. Further, while the OIMP would be required and BMPs likely would be in place, because specific details relating to the anticipated future technology for the biomass facility and specific BMPs for each odor source have not been identified at this time, this impact would be potentially significant.

Summary
Construction of Phase 2 would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors for an extended period. Operational activities associated with Phase 2 could generate perceptible odors associated with composting and/or operation of a potential biomass facility. Because existing sensitive uses are located within PCAPCD-screening distances and planned future growth in Roseville could occur prior to operation of Phase 2, resulting in new sensitive uses within a 2-mile buffer of the project site, the potential for the project to cause objectionable odors remains.

Further, while the OIMP would be required and BMPs likely would be in place, specific details relating to the anticipated future technology for the potential future biomass facility and specific BMPs for each odor source have not been identified at this time. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-5, described above.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 would require that an Odor Reduction Plan be established for the life of project operations, and specifically, the Odor Reduction Plan would be designed to address all potential odor sources. The Odor Reduction Plan would also require ongoing monitoring and adjustments, should odor issues arise.

With specifically designed odor control measures in place at the facility, offsite odor emissions would be substantially controlled and limited. Nonetheless, considering the subjective nature of odors and how people perceive them in conjunction with the anticipated future growth in the vicinity, placing more people in closer proximity to odor sources compared to existing conditions, and that the proposed project is a known major odor source, the possibility remains that odors could affect a substantial number of people, resulting in odor complaints. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-1

3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section presents a summary of regulations applicable to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a summary of the current state of climate change science and GHG emissions sources in California, quantification of GHG emissions generated by the project, and a discussion about their potential contribution to global climate change. In addition, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the project’s contribution to climate change as necessary. For the purposes of this analysis, GHG emissions are measured as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). The atmospheric impact of a GHG is based on the global warming potential (GWP) of that gas. The GWP of a gas is a measure of the heat trapping ability of one unit of that gas over a certain timeframe relative to the GWP of one unit of carbon dioxide (CO2). The GWP of CO2 is one (IPCC 2014). Consistent with the methodology used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in estimating statewide GHG emissions, this analysis uses GWP values from the Fourth Assessment Report Values by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Several comments regarding the project’s contribution to GHG emissions were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix A). The comments include requests to evaluate emissions generated by moving City divisions to a location at the edge of the city versus a centralized location, mobile-source GHG emissions, and on-site operational GHG emissions. These issues are addressed in this section as well as in Chapter 6, “Alternatives.”

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
There is no overarching federal law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of GHG emissions.

Additionally, in March 2025, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will undertake 31 actions, focusing primarily on reconsidering actions adopted by previous administrations, including numerous actions and regulations related to climate change and the reduction of GHG emissions. These include, but are not limited to, reconsideration of regulations on power plants, the Mandatory Reporting Rule, the Endangerment Finding, and fuel economy standards, among others. As of the writing of this Draft EIR, none of these regulations have been repealed or replaced with newly adopted regulations. Therefore, these regulations are discussed below.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations Under the Clean Air Act
Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Finding
On December 7, 2009, the EPA administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 202(a) (42 United States Code [USC] Section 7521).  Endangerment Finding: The administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. On July 29, 2025, EPA announced a proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding and repeal all GHG emission standards for lightduty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines pursuant to CAA Section 202(a). The public comment period closed on September 22, 2025. As of the writing of this EIR, EPA has not adopted this proposal. Notably, the following regulations detailed under the heading, “Greenhouse Gas Regulations Under the Clean Air Act,” above are subject to repeal if EPA’s proposed action is adopted.  Cause or Contribute Finding: The administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health and welfare.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Mandatory Reporting Rule
EPA adopted a mandatory GHG reporting rule in September 2009. The rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or entities that emit industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of GHG emissions to submit annual reports to EPA beginning in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers were required to begin reporting GHG emissions starting with model year (MY) 2011.

Fuel Economy Standards
In 2024, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were finalized for MYs 2027 through 2031. The final rule establishes standards that require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger cars and light trucks. The final rule establishes standards that would require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 50.4 mpg in MY 2031 for passenger cars and light trucks and an industry fleet-wide average for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (HDPUVs) of roughly 2.851 gallons per 100 miles in MY 2035. The final CAFE standards increase at a rate of 2 percent per year for passenger cars in MYs 2027–2031 and 2 percent per year for light trucks in MYs 2029–2031. The final HDPUV fuel efficiency standards increase at a rate of 10 percent per year in MYs 2030–2032 and 8 percent per year in MYs 2033–2035 (NHTSA 2024).

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also set fuel efficiency and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In 2011, EPA and NHTSA finalized a joint rule that established a national program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. This rule—called the Phase 1 standards—requires fuel efficiency standards for engines in MYs 2014 through 2018 (40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1065, 1066, and 1068). In 2016, EPA and NHTSA adopted the Phase 2 standards, which require fuel efficiency standards for engines in MYs 2018 through 2027 (40 CFR Parts 9, 22, 85, 86, 600, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1065, 1066, and 1068). On March 29, 2024, a final rule was issued to revise existing standards to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in MY 2027 and set new, more stringent standards for MYs 2028 through 2032 (EPA 2024a).
2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan
EPA’s 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan focuses on priority actions to address the impacts of climate change and help build a more climate-resilient nation. The plan allows EPA to deliver on its mission to protect human health and the environment, even as the climate changes. Through the plan, EPA will modernize its financial assistance programs to encourage climate-resilient investments throughout the United States. The intent of the plan is to offer financial resources to local jurisdictions, as well as tools, data, information, and technical support needed to assess climate risks and develop climate-resilience solutions based on geographic-specific climate threats. The plan measures potential exposure of extreme heat, extreme precipitation, sea-level rise, wildfire risk, and flooding at federally owned facilities under IPCC’s Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 (intermediate emissions scenario) and 8.5 (high emissions scenario) and identifies adaptation strategies to improve the resilience of identified federal facilities (EPA 2024b).

Public Law No. 119-15
On June 12, 2025, Public Law 119-15, enacting House Joint Resolution 87, was signed into law. The law utilized the Congressional Review Act to nullify EPA’s rule that had granted California a waiver to enforce stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles under the CAA. The disapproved rule included programs such as the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation and zero-emission requirements for airport shuttles. Passed under the Congressional Review Act, the law prevents EPA from implementing or reissuing the same or similar rules without new congressional authorization. This effectively blocks California, and other states that follow its standards, from enforcing these specific vehicle emission and warranty regulations.

Public Law No. 119-16
In early May 2025, the US House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 88 under the Congressional Review Act, aiming to void EPA’s December 2024 waiver under the CAA that allowed California to implement the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC II) regulation. ACC II includes a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate targeting 100 percent new lightduty ZEV sales by 2035. In late May 2025, the Senate followed suit, approving the resolution; the first ever occurrence

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-3 that waivers under the CAA have been revoked from a Congressional Review Act. With both chambers’ approval, the resolution was signed by the President on June 12, 2025, to formally rescind the State’s ability to enforce the ACC II regulation. The implications of this federal resolution on the State’s capability to enforce its independent fuel economy standards are uncertain at this time, as the California Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal government on June 12, 2025, to challenge House Joint Resolution 88. Whether this action is successful is unknown, as is the possibility that a federal judge will issue a stay to halt the implementation of the ACC II regulation during the legal process.

Notably, the mobile source emissions calculations and estimates disclosed in this analysis do not account for this regulatory update as emissions factors have not been updated by CARB at this time.

STATE
The state has adopted several laws addressing various aspects of climate change, GHG mitigation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Much of this establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG and energy reduction goals and climate change adaptation program. Governors have also issued several executive orders (EOs) related to the state’s evolving climate change policy. A summary of key laws, regulations, plans, and policies, relevant to the proposed Plan is provided below, organized by general categories.

Notably, the CAA allows California, and other states, to seek a waiver of preemption, which prohibits states from enacting emission standards for new motor vehicles. EPA must grant a waiver, however, before California’s rules may be enforced. According to the CAA Section 209(b), “State Standards,” EPA shall grant a waiver unless the EPA administrator finds that California:
 was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards;
 does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or  such standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with Section 202(a) of the CAA.

As of April 2025, CARB has rescinded its waiver requests for several regulations including the In-Use Locomotive Regulation, portions of the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation, and the Transportation Refrigeration Unit regulation.

Executive Orders
There are four overarching EOs related to the state’s GHG-reduction efforts. In general, EOs provide direction to state government agencies but do not place mandates on regional or local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-3-05
Issued by the California Governor on June 1, 2005, EO S-3-05 set intermittent emissions reduction targets intended to provide incremental progress toward Assembly Bill (AB) 32’s GHG emissions reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. EO S-3-05 set forth the following GHG reduction targets:
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 emission levels.  By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 emission levels.  By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order S-30-15
On April 15, 2015, EO B-30-15 was issued which established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. EO B-30-15 was issued to align California’s GHG emissions reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, held in 2015.

The emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is intended to keep California on track to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Executive Order N-19-19
Among other things, this EO required the Department of Finance to create a climate investment framework and required the State Transportation Agency to align transportation spending with achieving objectives of the Climate Change Scoping Plan, and to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through strategic discretionary investments. In July 2021, the California State Transportation Agency adopted the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI). The CAPTI was prepared in the wake of EO N-19-19 and serves as an integrated climate change infrastructure plan. An update to the CAPTI was adopted in February 2025. The update maintains the existing CAPTI framework while committing to new strategies and actions (CalSTA 2025).

Legislative Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets
State law sets forth the following requirements for reducing statewide levels of GHG emissions by 2020, 2030, and 2045.

Assembly Bill 32, Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq.

AB 32 codified the 2020 reduction target of EO S-03-05 (i.e., reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020).

AB 32 required CARB to develop a scoping plan that describes California’s strategy for achieving the 2020 target and to update it every five years.

Senate Bill 32, Health and Safety Code Section 38566
Senate Bill (SB) 32 codified the 2030 reduction target of EO B-30-15 (i.e., reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). Adopted in tandem with SB 32, AB 197 of 2016 (Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016) required CARB, in implementing SB 32’s 2030 GHG-reduction target, to (1) prioritize emissions reductions to consider the “social costs” of GHG emissions and (2) prioritize “direct emission reductions” at large stationary sources and at mobile sources.

Assembly Bill 1279, Health and Safety Code Section 38562.2 On September 16, 2022, the California legislature enacted AB 1279, which codified stringent emissions targets for the state of achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and negative emissions thereafter, and an 85 percent reduction in 1990 anthropogenic emissions level by 2045. (This superseded the previous GHG emissions-reduction target set forth by EO S-3-05.)
State Agency Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans and Strategies CARB and other state agencies have adopted several plans and strategies to reduce statewide GHG emissions as described below.

Senate Bill 605, Senate Bill 1383, and Assembly Bill 1826 SB 605 (Chapter 523, Statutes of 2014) requires CARB to develop a plan to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), such as methane, hydrocarbons, black carbon, halocarbons, and tropospheric ozone, because of their high GWP. AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) required businesses to recycle their organic waste beginning in 2016. SB 1383 (Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) required CARB to approve and implement a plan by January 2018 to achieve reductions of short-lived climate pollutants such as methane and tropospheric ozone. SB 1383 also sets a target for reduction of methane emissions to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. Pursuant to SB 605 and SB 1383, CARB subsequently developed the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, adopted in March 2017. As part of this strategy, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with CARB, was required to develop regulations to reduce statewide disposal of organic waste by 50 percent of 2014 levels by 2020, and by 75 percent of 2014 levels by 2025, including recovery of at least 20 percent of edible food for human consumption. CalRecycle adopted these regulations in 2017, and they became effective on January 1, 2022. The proposed project is designed to address SB 1383 goals.
2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
CARB adopted the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 16, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan traces the state’s pathway to achieve its goals of carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction in emissions by 2045 relative to 1990 levels, as codified by AB 1279 in September 2022. These targets are in

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-5 line with scientifically established levels to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2°C, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation [including off-road mobile-source emissions], industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste) to achieve these goals. The 2022 Scoping Plan details a multitude of strategies for reducing GHG emissions in each of these sectors. Examples of statewide goals include achieving a per capita VMT reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045 to reduce GHGs from the transportation sector; installing/retrofitting three million all-electric and electric-ready homes by 2030 and seven million by 2035 with six million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030 to reduce GHG emissions in the commercial and residential building sector; and using long-term planning processes to support grid reliability, expansion of renewable and zero-carbon resources, and infrastructure deployment to reduce energy sector GHG emissions. The 2022 Scoping Plan is the state’s current scoping plan.

California State Priority Climate Action Plan
California’s State Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP), as funded by EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CRPG) Program, was developed to achieve GHG reductions across the geographic extent of California from nearly every economic sector. The PCAP includes several elements: a 2021 statewide GHG emissions inventory, the state’s overarching GHG targets codified by AB 32 and AB 1279, an overview of the state’s approach to low-income and disadvantaged community benefits analysis, workforce considerations, and GHG-reduction measures that target reductions in the transportation, industrial, energy, high GWPs, agriculture, natural and working lands, and waste sectors. The PCAPs were submitted on March 1, 2024 (April 1 for Tribal Nations). Those who received funding under the CRPG must now complete the Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP), which is due by June 1, 2026. The CRPG program will then track the efficacy of the CCAP in a status report in 2027.

Mobile Sources
Mobile Source Strategy
The Mobile Source Strategy was developed by CARB to provide an integrated planning perspective and common vision for transforming the mobile sector to achieve air quality and climate change goals. It uses conceptual scenarios to illustrate the emissions-reduction potential of different vehicle technology mixes and VMT reductions to inform state policy development (CARB 2024). The Mobile Source Strategy addresses on-road vehicles, including passenger cars and light-duty trucks, medium and heavy-duty trucks, and buses, as well as off-road vehicles and equipment, including locomotives, cargo-handling equipment, and construction equipment. It supports multiple planning efforts, including the state implementation plans for criteria air pollutants, the scoping plan, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (discussed below), and the Sustainable Freight Action Plan (discussed below). CARB is required to update the Mobile Source Strategy every 5 years. The 2020 Mobile Source Strategy continued the multipollutant planning approach to illustrate the pathways forward for the various mobile sectors that are necessary in order to achieve California’s numerous goals and targets through 2050. CARB is currently developing the 2025 Mobile Source Strategy. A discussion draft of the 2025 Mobile Source Strategy was released on October 11, 2024 (CARB 2024).

Advanced Clean Cars (Passenger Vehicles)
AB 1493 of 2002 (known as Pavley I, Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) provided the nation’s first GHG standards for automobiles. AB 1493 required CARB to adopt vehicle standards that lowered GHG emissions from new light-duty automobiles to the maximum extent feasible beginning in 2009. Additional strengthening of the Pavley standards referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) Program’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) III Regulation was adopted for vehicle MYs 2017–2025 in 2012 (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 1900 et seq.).

The ACC Program also includes the Zero Emission Vehicle Program and the Clean Fuels Outlet Regulation. The Zero Emission Vehicle Program is designed to achieve California’s long-term emission reduction goals by requiring manufacturers to offer for sale specific numbers of ZEVs, which include battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The Clean Fuels Outlet regulation is intended to ensure that fuels, such as electricity and hydrogen,

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR are available to meet the fueling needs of new advanced technology vehicles as they come to market. The ACC II Program was adopted by CARB in August 2022 and provides the regulatory framework for ensuring the sales requirement goal of EO N-79-20 to ultimately reach 100 percent ZEV sales in the state by 2035.

CARB certified the ACC II Program on August 25, 2022. The ACC II Program builds upon the existing ACC program and establishes more stringent ZEV sales requirements for future benchmark years. CARB also established more stringent GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for fossil fuel–powered on-road vehicles than EPA’s standards. In addition, the program’s ZEV regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid EVs to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The ACC II Program also sets sales requirements to ultimately reach the goal of 100 percent ZEV sales in the state by 2035.

The implications of Public Law 119-16, summarized above, on the State’s capability to enforce its independent fuel economy standards are uncertain at this time, as the California Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal government on June 12, 2025, to challenge Public Law 119-16 (in addition to Public Laws 119-15 and 119-17). Whether this action is successful is unknown, as is the possibility that a federal judge will issue a stay to halt the implementation of the ACC II regulation during the legal process. Notably, the mobile source emissions calculations and estimates disclosed in this analysis do not account for this regulatory update as emissions factors have not been updated by the CARB at this time.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) originally mandated a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 (17 CCR Section 95480 et seq.). In September 2018, to help achieve SB 32’s emission reduction target, the LCFS regulation was amended to increase the statewide goal to a 20 percent reduction in carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2030. The majority of the emissions benefits due to the LCFS come from the production cycle (upstream emissions) of the fuel rather than the combustion cycle (tailpipe) (CARB 2020). On November 8, 2024, CARB approved amendments to the LCFS regulation to maintain momentum for global, national, and local private sector investment toward increasing cleaner fuel and transportation options for consumers, accelerating the deployment of zero-emission infrastructure and clean fuel production to support clean vehicle regulations, and keeping the state on track to meet statutorily mandated air quality and climate targets (CARB 2025a). On January 3, 2025, CARB submitted the final proposed amendments to the LCFS regulation to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review in accordance with Government Code Section 11349.1 (CARB 2025a). On February 18, 2025, OAL issued a routine disapproval of amendments to the LCFS regulation on technical grounds, not on the merits of the regulation. CARB staff have 120 days to make necessary revisions and resubmit the regulation for OAL approval (CARB 2025a). As of the writing of this Draft EIR, CARB has not resubmitted the regulation for OAL approval.

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
In 2008, CARB approved the Phase 1 Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation to reduce GHG emissions by requiring the use of aerodynamic tractors and trailers that are also equipped with low-rolling-resistance tires (13 CCR Section 2020 et seq.). The regulation applies to certain Class 8 tractors manufactured for use in California and is harmonized with the parallel EPA and NHTSA Phase 1 heavy-duty truck standards. CARB amended the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation in 2019 (Phase 2 standards) to align with EPA and NHTSA Phase 2 heavy-duty truck standards.

Advanced Clean Fleets
CARB’s 2022 Advanced Clean Fleets regulation was developed to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) through the transition of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to become fully electric by 2045. At the time of the writing of this Draft EIR, California has withdrawn its request for a waiver and authorization for the addition of the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to its emissions control program (CARB 2025b). CARB is not enforcing the existing portions of the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation that require a federal waiver or authorization, such as the portions of the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation that apply to high-priority and drayage fleets. However, not all elements of the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation require a federal waiver or authorization (CARB 2025b). State and local government fleets will still be required to be fully electric by 2045 as this portion of the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation does not require a federal waiver.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-7 Energy Sources
Renewables Portfolio Standard
SB 1078 (Sher 2002) established California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The program sets continually escalating renewable electricity procurement requirements for the state’s load-serving entities. Generation must be procured from RPS-certified facilities. SB 2 (1X) of 2011 obligates all California electricity providers to obtain at least 33 percent of their energy from renewable resources by 2020. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Energy Commission (CEC) are jointly responsible for implementing the program. All electricity retail sellers had an interim target between compliance periods to serve at least 38.5 percent of their load with RPS-eligible resources by December 31, 2022. In general, retail sellers either met or exceeded the interim 38.5 percent target and are on track to achieve their compliance requirements. In 2018, SB 100 (Public Utilities Code Sections 399.11, 399.15, 399.30 and, Section 454.53) was signed into law, which again increases the RPS to 60 percent by 2030 and requires all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

SB 100 established a new RPS target of 50 percent by 2026, increases the RPS target in 2030 from 50 to 60 percent, and establishes a goal of 100 percent zero-carbon energy sources by 2045. SB 1020 superseded the goals of SB 100 by requiring that 90 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers are procured from renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2035. The requirement increases to 95 percent by December 31, 2040, and to 100 percent by December 31, 2045. Under SB 1020, state agency facilities must use 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon energy resources by December 31, 2035.

Building Efficiency
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) California’s energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings is regulated by the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years with more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption. The 2022 California Energy Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 California Energy Code advances on-site energy generation progress started in the 2019 California Energy Code by encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. CEC estimates that the 2022 California Energy Code will save consumers $1.5 billion and reduce GHGs by 10 MMTCO2e over the next 30 years (CEC 2021). The 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2025 California Energy Code) were adopted on September 11, 2024, and will go into effect on January 1, 2026. CEC estimates that the 2025 California Energy Code is projected to save $4.8 billion in energy costs over its lifetime and reduce GHGs by about 4 MMTCO2e, equivalent to the annual energy consumption of over half a million homes (CEC 2024).

California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a portion of the California Building Code developed by CEC that consists of both voluntary and mandatory requirements related to green building standards for statewide residential and nonresidential construction. The standards are updated every 3 years, and the current version is the 2022 CALGreen Code. However, the 2025 CALGreen Code was adopted on September 11, 2024, and will go into effect on January 1, 2026. The 2025 version proposes increased requirements for EV charging infrastructure (i.e., a higher percentage of parking spaces that must be equipped with EV chargers and more stringent requirements for the types of chargers that must be installed) in both residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2025 CALGreen Code also includes required analysis of embodied carbon in building materials, which was not required under the 2022 CALGreen Code. Lastly, the 2025 CALGreen Code includes updates to energy efficiency standards aimed at further reducing energy consumption in buildings and promoting the use of renewable energy sources (CEC 2024).

CALGreen requirements are complementary with the California Energy Code discussed above.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR LOCAL
Placer County Air Pollution Control District
The Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) has issued guidance on the analysis of GHG emissions in Chapter 5 of the District’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (PCAPCD 2017). The chapter outlines expectations and methodologies for the analysis of GHG emissions generated by a proposed project, and guidance on determining the significance of impacts and appropriate mitigation. PCAPCD recommends that both construction and operations related GHG emissions be quantified for a proposed project, and that the significance of GHG emissions be determined in a manner based on whether such emissions are cumulatively considerable.

PCAPCD has developed thresholds of significance for land use development projects, including a de minimis level of 1,100 MTCO2e/year, applicable to the operational phase of projects, as well as an efficiency matrix based on per capita or per square feet of land use development. In addition, they have adopted a brightline mass emissions threshold (10,000 MTCO2e/year) applicable to stationary sources operational emissions and construction emissions for all project types.

As explained below in Section 3.4.3 under “Thresholds of Significance,” PCAPCD participated with other local air districts within the greater Sacramento region in development of a GHG threshold of significance for CEQA.

City of Roseville General Plan 2035
The City of Roseville General Plan 2035 contains a number of policies applicable to the proposed project that address air quality and climate change (City of Roseville 2020). Key provisions from the Air Quality and Climate Change Elements are summarized below. Numerous other General Plan elements also address sustainability and the reduction of GHG emissions, including the Circulation Element, Land Use Element, and Public Facilities Element.

Air Quality and Climate Change Element Policies
 Policy AQ1.6 Require new development and City projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sources in the Planning Area consistent with the State’s legislative framework, to the greatest degree feasible.  Policy AQ1.7 The City will participate in and support regional greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation programs that are consistent with the General Plan and have available funding.  Policy AQ1.8 Use the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and regional collaborations to guide implementation of adaptation and resilience strategies associated with the anticipated local impacts of climate change.  Policy AQ1.10 Improve overall health and sustainability of the community by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
 Policy AQ1.17 Conserve energy and reduce air pollutant emissions by encouraging energy efficient building designs and transportation systems and promoting energy efficiency retrofits of existing structures.  Policy AQ1.19 Encourage energy efficiency by identifying potential cost savings, resource, and health benefits.

General Plan Implementation Measures
Appendix A of the General Plan identifies the General Plan’s implementation measures, which are proactive activities designed to implement General Plan policies. The following may apply to the project:

Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Strategies - Area and Stationary Sources (Ongoing in General Plan) Require area and stationary source projects that generate significant amounts of air pollutants to incorporate air quality mitigation in their design, including the use of best available control technology for stationary industrial sources; clean fuel sources for heating and cooling; clean fuel technology at fueling stations; and other strategies, in consultation with PCAPCD.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-9 Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Strategies - Mobile Sources (Ongoing in General Plan) Implement mitigation strategies to reduce air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. These strategies, which may consist of improvements and refinements to the transportation and circulation infrastructure, may include, but are not limited to:
 Promote commercial/industrial project proponent sponsorship of van pools or club buses;  Encourage commercial/industrial project day care and employee services at the employment site;  Encourage the provision of transit, especially for employment-intensive uses; and  Provide incentives for the use of transportation alternatives.

Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Strategies - Land Use (Ongoing in General Plan) Encourage development to be located and designed to minimize greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions and avoid exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations by doing the following:
 Locate point sources, such as manufacturing and extracting facilities, in areas designated for industrial development and separated from residential areas and other sensitive receptors (e.g., homes, schools, and hospitals); and  Provide separation between sources of substantial air pollutant emissions and sensitive receptors and/or provide landscaping using plant species that are shown to reduce pollutant exposure.

City of Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan The Roseville Communitywide Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) sets forth a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions, as well as to promote economic growth based on clean technology and sustainable practices (City of Roseville 2010). While the 2035 General Plan includes goals and policies that guide the City’s approach to addressing sustainability and climate change, the SAP serves as a more detailed strategy to implement the City’s sustainability and climate change policies.

The SAP contains the City’s GHG emissions baseline inventory and sets a GHG emissions reduction target of reducing emissions from the baseline level (conducted in 2008) of 7.5 MTCO2e per service population to 6.0 MTCO2e per service population by 2020 (City of Roseville 2010). The GHG reduction measures are summarized in Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1 Roseville Sustainability Action Plan Strategies and GHG Emission Reductions Sustainable Action
Strategy Summary of Measures Total Estimated GHG Emission Reductions Percent of Total GHG Reductions
Required to Meet Target
Transportation Rideshare and Carpooling
Transit Expansion
Bike and Pedestrian Enhancements
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure
Intelligent Transportation Systems
49,130 MTCO2e 66%
Land Use and Green
Building
Urban Forestry
Numerous supporting measures related to
alternative transportation modes
NA 2%
Energy Retrofits of Existing Residential Buildings
Retrofits of Existing Commercial Buildings
New Residential Building Energy Efficiency
New Commercial Building Energy Efficiency
19,460 MTCO2e 26%
Solid Waste Food Waste to Energy 1,090 MTCO2e 1%
Water Reduce Water Use 20% Per Capita 3,520 MTCO2e 5%
Marketing and Education Community-Based Social Marketing Promote sustainable lifestyles
NA NA
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; NA = not available. Totals may not be exact due to rounding.

Source: City of Roseville 2010; adapted and compiled by Ascent in 2025.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

3.4.2 Environmental Setting
The Physical Scientific Basis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth.

Human-caused emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is very likely that human-induced GHG increases were the main driver of tropospheric warming since comprehensive satellite observations started in 1979, and virtually certain that humaninduced GHG forcing (i.e., heating effect caused by GHGs in the atmosphere) is the primary driver of the observed changes in hot and cold extremes on the global scale (IPCC 2023).

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent are estimated to be sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere (Ciais et al. 2013: 467).

The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere responsible for climate change is not precisely known, but it is enormous.

No single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature or to global or local climates or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources and Sinks
Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from offgassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices, landfills, and forest fires. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water) and are two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
The City of Roseville conducted a GHG baseline inventory for the year 2008 as part of the SAP. The City’s baseline year inventory is summarized in Table 3.4-2.

Table 3.4-2 City of Roseville Communitywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for 2008 (MTCO2e) Sector Emissions (MTCO2e)
On-Road Mobile Sources 530,088
Commercial/Industrial Energy Use 292,730
Residential Energy Use 156,267

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-11 Sector Emissions (MTCO2e)
Residential Natural Gas Use 102,996
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Use 53,827
Wastewater Treatment 39,068
Solid Waste 13,110
Water Use 14,298
Total 1,202,383
Notes: MTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: City of Roseville 2010: Table A-1.

As shown in Table 3.4-2, on-road mobile sources and commercial/industrial energy use sectors are the largest GHG emission sectors for the city.

Effects of Climate Change on the Environment
According to the IPCC, which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, global average temperature will increase by 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (6.7 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) by the end of the century unless additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions are made (IPCC 2014: 10).

According to California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment, with global GHGs reduced at a moderate rate California will experience average daily high temperatures that are warmer than the historic average by 2.5°F from 2006 to 2039, by 4.4°F from 2040 to 2069, and by 5.6°F from 2070 to 2100; and if GHG emissions continue at current rates then California will experience average daily high temperatures that are warmer than the historic average by 2.7°F from 2006 to 2039, by 5.8°F from 2040 to 2069, and by 8.8°F from 2070 to 2100 (OPR et al. 2018).

Since its previous climate change assessment in 2012, California has experienced several of the most extreme natural events in its recorded history: a severe drought from 2012 to 2016, an almost non-existent Sierra Nevada winter snowpack in 2014-2015, increasingly large and severe wildfires, and back-to-back years of the warmest average temperatures (OPR et al. 2018). According to California Natural Resource Agency’s Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, California experienced the driest 4-year statewide precipitation on record from 2012 through 2015; the warmest years on average in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and the smallest and second smallest Sierra snowpack on record in 2015 and 2014 (CNRA 2018). The year 2024 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.29°C (2.32°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.10°C (0.18°F) more than the previous record set in 2023. The 10 warmest years in the 175-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2015–2024) (NOAA 2025). In contrast, the northern Sierra Nevada experienced one of its wettest years on record during the 2016-2017 water year (CNRA 2018).

The changes in precipitation exacerbate wildfires throughout California through a cycle of high vegetative growth coupled with dry, hot periods which lowers the moisture content of fuel loads. As a result, the frequency, size, and devastation of forest fires have increased. In November 2018, the Camp Fire destroyed the town of Paradise in Butte County and caused 85 fatalities, becoming the state’s deadliest fire in recorded history, and the largest fires in the state’s history have occurred in the 2018–2020 period. Moreover, changes in the intensity of precipitation events following wildfires can also result in devastating landslides. In January 2018, following the Thomas Fire, 0.5 inches of rain fell in 5 minutes in Santa Barbara causing destructive mudslides formed from the debris and loose soil left behind by the fire. These mudslides resulted in 21 deaths.

As temperatures increase, the amount of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also increases, which could lead to increased flooding because water that would normally be held in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and the Cascade Range until spring would flow into the Central Valley during winter rainstorm events. This scenario would place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system (CNRA 2018). Furthermore, in the extreme scenario involving the rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet and the glaciers atop Greenland, the sea level along California’s coastline is expected to rise 54 inches by 2100 if GHG emissions continue at current rates (OPR et al. 2018).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Temperature increases and changes to historical precipitation patterns will likely affect ecological productivity and stability. Existing habitats may migrate from climatic changes where possible, and those habitats and species that cannot retreat will be severely threatened. Altered climate conditions will also facilitate the movement of invasive species to new habitats, thus potentially outcompeting native species. Altered climatic conditions dramatically endanger the survival of arthropods (e.g., insects, spiders) which could have cascading effects throughout ecosystems (Lister and Garcia 2018). Conversely, a warming climate may support the populations of other insects such as ticks and mosquitos, which transmit diseases harmful to human health such as the Zika virus, West Nile virus, and Lyme disease (European Commission Joint Research Centre 2018).

Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, extreme weather events, wildfires, and sea-level rise have the potential to threaten transportation and energy infrastructure, crop production, forests and rangelands, and public health (CNRA 2018; OPR et al. 2018). The effects of climate change will also have an indirect adverse impact on the economy as more severe natural disasters cause expensive physical damage to communities and the state.

3.4.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
GHG emissions associated with the project would be generated during project construction and during operations after the project is built. Estimated levels of construction- and operation-related GHGs are presented below. The project is evaluated for its consistency with adopted regulations, plans, and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions, including the 2022 Scoping Plan, City of Roseville General Plan, communitywide Sustainability Action Plan, and PCAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance.

Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O), primarily associated with construction equipment and vehicle use. As described in more detail in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” construction-related emissions were modeled using a combination of methods, consistent with PCAPCD methods. Exhaust emissions were quantified based on project-specific information (e.g., construction phasing, building square footage, earthwork quantities) and defaults contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) [equipment horsepower, equipment type]. Annual emissions associated with on-site equipment use, worker commute, and material hauling/off hauling were modeled and summed based on the anticipated worst-case year of construction, for comparison to PCAPCD’s annual GHG emissions threshold. Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations are presented in Appendix C.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational emissions of GHGs were estimated for Phase 1 operation beginning in the year 2028, Phase 2 operation beginning in the year 2040, and full operation in the year 2058. The full operation (2058) emissions reflect full operation to the capacity allowed in Phase 2. Sources of operational emissions would include building operation, onsite off-road equipment exhaust, employee vehicle exhaust, and waste pickup and transfer truck exhaust, fuel delivery truck exhaust, fuel station dispensing emissions, fleet service and maintenance equipment emissions, composting emissions, and biomass gasification stack emissions. While current City waste haul fleets use Tier 4 equipment with renewable diesel, the emissions modeling applied all fuel consumption emissions as standard diesel. Greenhouse gas emissions from material decomposition at the composting facility, including CO2, CH4, and N2O, were calculated using average emission factors (Nordahl et al. 2023) based on a total throughput of 210,000 tons at full operational capacity. Non-biogenic MTCO2e was calculated as the combined MTCO2e contributions from CH₄ and N₂O. The methodologies of other operational GHG estimations are the same as the methodologies of estimating operational criteria pollutant emissions, as described in Section 3.3, “Air Quality.” Indirect emissions associated with electricity were estimated in CalEEMod using GHG intensity factors based on project location and operational year.

Comprehensive assumptions and calculation details are presented in Appendix C.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-13

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The issue of global climate change is inherently cumulative as the GHG emissions of individual projects cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Thus, the project’s impact on climate change is addressed only as a cumulative impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 and relevant portions of Appendix G recommend that a lead agency consider a project’s consistency with relevant, adopted plans and discuss any inconsistencies with applicable regional plans, including plans to reduce GHG emissions. Under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, implementing a project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change if it would:
 generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or  conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

PCAPCD developed recommended thresholds of significance for evaluating construction- and operation-related GHG emissions for proposed land use and stationary development projects in their jurisdiction as follows:
 Bright‐line Threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year applies to the construction phase of land use development projects as well as to operational emissions of stationary projects.

Thus, based on the project type and available thresholds of significance, the project would result in a significant impact related to climate change, if it would result in:
 construction-related emissions that exceed 10,000 MTCO2e/year,  operational-related emissions that exceed 10,000 MTCO2e/year, or  inconsistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and City General Plan.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All issues pertaining to GHG emissions are discussed below.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.4-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
Phase 1
Phase 1 of the project is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 4,445 MTCO2e from construction activities and 6,676 MTCO2e/year during operations. Annual maximum construction emissions and operational emissions would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore, Phase 1 of the project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative emissions related to global climate change. This impact would be less than significant.

Construction
Implementation of Phase 1 of the project would include the partial construction of the RRTO, the Vendor Lease Area, and the Corporation Yard, for a total developed area of 116 acres and 402,400 square feet of building area. Construction activities associated with this phase would result in the generation of GHG emissions. Heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes during construction of Phase 1 would result in exhaust emissions of GHGs. Phase 1 construction activities are anticipated to begin in March 2027 and be completed in 2028. Occupancy for Phase 1 is projected to occur in 2028. Table 3.4-3 summarizes the projected emissions associated with construction of Phase 1. See Appendix C for detailed input parameters and modeling results.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-14 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Table 3.4-3 Summary of Maximum Construction-Generated Emissions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Phase 1 of the Project
Construction Component Unmitigated GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year) Project Earthwork 798
RRTO Facility (phase 1) 523
EU Services Facility 758
Equipment Maintenance Facility 1,008
Vendor Lease Area 280
Phillips Rd and Force Main Improvements 849
Electrical Substation 229
Phase 1 Total 4,445
Bright-Line Threshold of Significance 10,000
Exceeds Threshold of Significance? No
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2025.

The maximum level of GHG emissions generated by the Phase 1 construction in a single year of construction between 2027 and 2028 would be 4,445 MTCO2e, as shown in Table 3.4-3. This would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

Operations
Operation of Phase 1 of the project would result in mobile-source GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips to and from the project site, area-source emissions from maintenance equipment (e.g., landscape equipment, waste processing equipment), energy-source emissions from the consumption of electricity, water-related energy consumption associated with water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater, and waste-generated emissions from MSW and organic waste. Refer to Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” for detailed methodology. Operational emissions associated with Phase 1 of the project are shown in Table 3.4-4.

Table 3.4-4 Phase 1 Project-Generated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Area Sources 3
Building Energy 580
Water 37
Waste 59
Mobile - Trucks 3,117
Mobile - Worker Commute 1,866
MRF Material Sorting/Handling1 865
MRF Material Transfer Offroad Emission 155
Total Annual Emission 6,676
Bright-Line Threshold of Significance 10,000
Exceeds Threshold of Significance? No
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. 1 Based on the Roseville Electric Power Content Label, approximately 34 percent of the electricity supply is non-renewable. Accordingly, GHG emissions from project electricity use were estimated by multiplying the project’s annual electricity demand (MWh) by Roseville Electric’s reported GHG emission intensity factor and applying the 34-percent non-renewable proportion.

Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2025.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-15 As shown in Table 3.4-4, Phase 1 operational activities would generate GHG emissions of 6,676 MTCO2e/year and, thus, would not exceed the 10,000 MTCO2e bright-line threshold. Because Phase 1 operations would not result in an increase in GHG emissions that exceed applicable thresholds, it would not result in a considerable contribution to global climate change.

Summary
The maximum level of GHG emissions generated by Phase 1 construction would be 4,445 MTCO2e and, therefore, would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e. Operation of Phase 1 of the project would generate 6,676 MTCO2e and, thus, would also not exceed the applicable threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e. For these reasons, implementation of Phase 1 of the project would not result in an increase in GHG emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Phase 2
Phase 2 of the project is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 1,106 MTCO2e from construction activities, which would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. However, Phase 2 operational emissions of 13,980 MTCO2e/year would exceed the bright-line threshold. In addition, full operation of the project (2058) is estimated to generate maximum annual emissions of 17,862 MTCO2e, which would also exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore, implementation of Phase 2 would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative emissions related to global climate change. This impact would be potentially significant.

Construction
Implementation of Phase 2 of the project would include the construction of 37,000 square feet of building area for the potential Future Organics Processing Facility (including the development of 34 acres of land). The RRTO Facility Expansion (Phase 2) would be constructed on an as-needed basis and construction of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility is anticipated to begin in 2035 (see Table 2-4 in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” for additional detail) and would result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction emissions were quantified for one maximum year of construction during Phase 2 activities. Heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes during construction of Phase 2 would result in exhaust emissions of GHGs. Table 3.4-5 summarizes the projected emissions associated with the construction of Phase 2. See Appendix C for detailed input parameters and modeling results.

Table 3.4-5 Summary of Unmitigated Maximum Construction-Generated Emissions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Phase 2 of the Project
Construction Component GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
RRTO Facility (phase 2) 513
Potential Future Organics Processing Facility 594
Phase 2 Total 1,106
Bright-Line Threshold of Significance 10,000
Exceeds Threshold of Significance? No
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2025.

As shown in Table 3.4-5, the total level of GHG emissions generated by Phase 2 construction would be 1,106 MTCO2e/year. This would not exceed the PCAPCD bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

Operations
Operation of Phase 2 (2040) and full operation (2058) of the project would result in mobile-source GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips to and from the project site, area-source emissions from the operation of landscape

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR maintenance equipment, energy-source emissions from the consumption of electricity, water-related energy consumption associated with water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater, and waste-generated emissions from MSW and organic waste and biomass compost emissions. Refer to Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” for detailed methodology.

Operational emissions associated with Phase 2 (2040) and full operation (2058) of the project are shown in Table 3.4-6.

Table 3.4-6 Phase 2 Project-Generated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Phase 2 (2040)
Area Sources 8
Building Energy 2,110
Water 49
Waste 153
Mobile - Trucks 4,931
Mobile - Worker Commute 1,052
MRF Material Sorting/Handling1 844
MRF Material Transfer Off-road 293
Organic Material Transfer Off-road 288
Composting2 4,253
Biomass Gasification3 0
Total Annual Emission 13,980
Bright-Line Threshold of Significance 10,000
Exceeds Threshold of Significance? Yes
Full Operation (2058)
Area Sources 8
Building Energy 0
Water 50
Waste 153
Mobile - Trucks 8,260
Mobile - Worker Commute 419
MRF Material Sorting/Handling1 0
MRF Material Transfer Off-road 381
Organic Material Transfer Off-road 544
Composting2 8,047
Biomass Gasification3 0
Total Annual Emission 17,862
Significance Threshold 10,000
Exceed Threshold? Yes
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

1. Based on the Roseville Electric Power Content Label, approximately 34 percent of the electricity supply is non-renewable. Accordingly, GHG emissions from project electricity use were estimated by multiplying the project’s annual electricity demand (MWh) by Roseville Electric’s reported GHG emission intensity factor and applying the 34-percent non-renewable proportion. Operational GHG emissions during full buildout in 2058 would be zero as all material sorting and handling equipment would be electrically powered, and electricity-related emissions are expected to be substantially reduced as California progresses toward its 2045 carbon-neutrality goal.

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-17

2. Only fossil-based CO₂ is treated as a net increase in GHG emissions. Biogenic CO₂, which results from the natural decomposition of organic material, is not counted toward a project’s net GHG increase as these do not result in net increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions into the atmosphere. For composting operations, the net GHG increase is driven by methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O), which could be generated during organic materials processing and storage. Accordingly, the project’s 8,047 MTCO2e represents emissions of CH4 and N2O. Although the composting process also emits 10,726 MT CO2, these emissions are not included in the project’s net GHG emissions under CEQA. Detailed composting GHG emission breakdowns are included Appendix A.

3. CO₂ emissions from the gasification process—estimated at approximately 455 metric tons of CO₂e per year at Ultimate Build—originate from renewable organic feedstock and are considered biogenic. As such, these emissions are not counted toward the project’s net increase in GHG emissions.

Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2025.

As shown in Table 3.4-6, Phase 2 operational activities would generate GHG emissions of 13,980 MTCO2e/year. This would exceed the applicable bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. In addition, at full operation (2058) the project would generate 17,862 MTCO2e/year, also exceeding the applicable threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. It is important to note that the emissions associated with composting are a substantial portion of the total emissions and the estimated emissions do not include any emissions control technology that are likely to be installed in conjunction with the composting (e.g. use of biofiltration and/or best management practices) or with gasification equipment (e.g., exhaust filtration, flare, gas-to-energy, etc.). These controls either convert methane to CO2 when combusted as a flare, which has a lower GWP than methane, or reuse some of the methane gas to generate energy (i.e., through the gasification process), resulting in cogeneration benefits. Due to the programmatic nature of this analysis, specific technologies and processes including details required to quantify this potential GHG emissions benefit, are not known but it can reasonably be assumed that the GHG emissions will likely be less than estimated now. Further, while a comparative analysis between composting/gasification and landfilling organic waste was not conducted, because CEQA requires an evaluation of project emissions compared to baseline conditions, based on knowledge of typical emissions factors between composting and landfilling organic waste (e.g., 0.0009 kg CH4/kg of waste [Nordahl et al. 2023] for composting compared to 0.038 kg CH4/kg of organic waste landfilled [EPA 2023]), emissions associated with landfilling organic waste can be as much as six times that of composting.

Nevertheless, because Phase 2 and full operation of the project would result in GHG emissions increases that exceed applicable thresholds, the project would result in a considerable contribution to global climate change. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Use Low- or Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks and Equipment The City shall expedite a transition to zero GHG emission vehicles for all vehicle fleets that the City owns (i.e., no net increase in anthropogenic emissions [renewable diesel counts toward compliance]), with the applicable City fleet fully zero-emission by December 31, 2039 to coincide with Phase 2 becoming operational. The City shall ensure use of a “clean fleet” of vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 7) as part of Phase 2 operations as follows:
 For any vehicle (Class 2 through 6) domiciled at the project site, the following “clean fleet” requirements apply:
 50 percent of the fleet shall be zero emissions by the year 2035,  100 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by January 1, 2040.  "Domiciled at the project site” shall mean the vehicle is either (1) parked or kept overnight at the project site more than 70 percent of the calendar year or (2) dedicated to the project site (defined as more than 70 percent of the truck routes (during the calendar year) that start at the project site even if parked or kept elsewhere). This applies to City vehicles and fleets that the City has direct control over, but not personal employee vehicles.  For on-site diesel-powered equipment, the following shall be required:
 During Phase 2 operations, all on-site diesel-powered equipment shall use 100 percent renewable diesel fuel.

Alternatively, as comparable zero-emission equipment alternatives (e.g., renewable natural gas, electric) to diesel-powered equipment become available and existing equipment are replaced, they shall be replaced with such equipment.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-18 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR This shall be enforced through bi-annual reports submitted for review by the City, submitted to the Placer APCD if so directed.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Prepare an Emissions Capture and Control Plan The following mitigation measure will be required if the City constructs and operates the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility. Prior to the approval of final design plans and issuance of any building or operating permits for a composting or biomass gasification facility developed under the project, the City shall prepare an Emissions Capture and Control Plan that shall demonstrate incorporation of best available methane capture and control technology that is reasonably expected to be commercially available and technically feasible at the time of facility construction (anticipated prior to 2040). At a minimum, the plan shall:
 Technology Benchmarking: Identify and evaluate technologies anticipated to represent Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Maximum Achievable Control Technology for methane and other short-lived climate pollutants (e.g., advanced biofilters, composting with negative aeration and gas collection, anaerobic digestion with biogas upgrading, or comparable capture systems).
 Design Requirements: Include design features to achieve at least 95 percent capture efficiency of methane generated within process areas of the biomass gasification facility, or the highest level of capture demonstrated to be achievable at the time of permitting, whichever is greater. For composting operations, methane generation will be mitigated through implementation of BACT to optimize aerobic conditions and/or provide biofiltration appropriate to the technology application selected for the project.  Control System Integration: Ensure captured methane is directed to beneficial use (e.g., renewable natural gas production, combined heat and power) or, if beneficial use is not feasible, to destruction through flaring or equivalent high-temperature oxidation consistent with BACT for the biomass gasification facility. Composting technology deployment will provide controls consistent with BACT, as described in the Design Requirements above.  Performance Verification: Incorporate monitoring, reporting, and verification protocols (continuous monitoring or periodic testing) to demonstrate ongoing compliance with methane capture and control performance standards.

Significance after Mitigation
Most operational GHG emissions would be generated from mobile sources, including on-site equipment use, City fleet vehicles, and waste collection vehicles, and composting, as shown in Table 3.4-6. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would require that the City’s vehicle fleet meet a zero-emissions standard by operational year 2040, which could include a combination of renewable diesel fuel use and vehicle electrification. The use of renewable diesel, which would still result in tailpipe emissions, would not result in increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions and, therefore, emissions associated with vehicles/equipment fueled by this fuel type would be counted as “zero.” As shown in Table 3.4-6, during Phase 2 of the project, emissions from off-road material transfer and organic material transfer using off-road vehicles would result in 581 MTCO2e/year and emissions from trucks would be 4,931 MTCO2e/year, totaling 5,512 MTCO2e/year. During full operation (2058), these sources would amount to 9,185 MTCO2e/year.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would establish a zero-emissions City-owned fleet target. Based on emissions modeling and project-specific information, approximately 70 percent of vehicles that would be operated would be City-owned and, therefore, emissions associated with these vehicles could reach zero emissions with implementation of this mitigation. For Phase 2, mitigating 70 percent of vehicle emissions results in a reduction of 3,858 MTCO2e/year (i.e., 70 percent * 5,512 MTCO2e/year = 3,858 MTCO2e/year), bringing total project emissions to 10,122 MTCO2e/year. For full buildout, mitigating 70 percent of vehicle emissions results in a reduction of 6,430 MTCO2e/year (i.e., 70 percent * 9,185 MTCO2e/year = 6,430 MTCO2e/year), bringing total project emissions to 11,433 MTCO2e/year. In both project phases, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a, project-generated emissions would continue to exceed PCAPCD’s 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold.

Further, while Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would substantially reduce emissions, there remains uncertainty that the technological advancements in off-road vehicles and trucks, in combination with the availability of 100 percent zero

Ascent Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.4-19 carbon fuels would be available in sufficient quantities, such that achieving the prescribed target (i.e., 100 percent fleet shall be zero emissions by 2040) would be achieved. Due to this uncertainty, it is possible that Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would be less effective than discussed above.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b requires that the City prepare and implement an Emissions Capture and Control Plan that incorporates the best available methane capture and control technology that is reasonably expected to be commercially available and technically feasible at the time of facility construction (anticipated prior to 2040). Although the preparation and implementation of this plan would reduce operational emissions associated with the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the emission reductions cannot be quantified. Given this uncertainty, this analysis conservatively assumes that emission thresholds could still be exceeded with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b. For these reasons, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.4-2: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Phase 1
One of the project objectives is to meet organics and recycling diversion requirements established by SB 1383 and, thus, the project would be designed to align with the CARB SLCP Reduction Strategy to decrease GHG emissions.

Therefore, Phase 1 of the project would not conflict with an applicable state plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In addition, Phase 1 of the project would result in construction-related GHG emissions totaling 4,445 MTCO2e and would result in 6,676 MTCO2e/year in operational emissions. Because the construction and operational emissions would not exceed the applicable bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year, the project would not be inconsistent with applicable local and state GHG reduction targets. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses the State’s progress toward achieving the 2030 target for reduced GHG emissions and lays out the framework for achieving the statewide goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan includes strategies for achieving success, including maximizing and expanding infrastructure to reduce landfill disposal with strategies such as composting and investing in the infrastructure needed to support growth in organic recycling capacity (CARB 2022: 235). In March 2017, CARB adopted the SLCP Reduction Strategy, establishing a path to decrease GHG emissions and displace fossil-based natural gas use. Strategies include avoiding landfill methane emissions by reducing the disposal of organics through edible food recovery, composting, in-vessel digestion, and other processes. Phase 1 of the project would support the goals of the SLCP Reduction Strategy and compliance with SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statues of 2016) by diverting organic materials from landfills. In addition, the project would be consistent with City General Plan Policy AQ1.6 which requires City projects to reduce GHG emissions consistent with the State’s legislative framework. As detailed in Section 3.4.2, “Regulatory Setting,” SB 1383 targets SLCPs, including methane emissions related to organic waste disposal in landfills. To reduce methane emissions at landfills, SB 1383 requires the reduction of landfill disposal of organic waste to 75 percent below 2014 levels by 2025, including establishing energy infrastructure development and procurement policies needed to encourage in-vessel digestion projects and increase the production and use of renewable gas. The project, in and of itself, is intended to achieve SB 1383 requirements and reduce GHGs.

By diverting organic waste out of a landfill, the project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent
City of Roseville

3.4-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Phase 2
As described for Phase 1, one of the project objectives is to meet organics and recycling diversion requirements established by SB 1383 and, thus, the project would be designed to align with the CARB SLCP Reduction Strategy to decrease GHG emissions. Phase 2 would include the construction of 37,000 square feet of building area for the potential Future Organics Processing Facility, the implementation of which would align with the state strategies to decrease GHG emissions. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not conflict with an applicable state plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.

As discussed above, CARB adopted the SLCP Reduction Strategy in 2017, establishing a path to decrease GHG emissions and displace fossil-based natural gas use. The project would not require the installation of new or expansion of existing natural gas infrastructure; however, at full operation, approximately 149,296 gallons of compressed natural gas (CNG) would be consumed by on-road trucks as part of the project.

Phase 2 of the project would include an additional 122,000 square feet of building area for the RRTO Facility and the construction of 37,000 square feet of building area for the potential Future Organics Processing Facility (including the development of 34 acres of land). The potential Future Organics Processing Facility could involve a composting facility and/or biomass facility. Alternative organics processing technologies are possible, and while not specifically evaluated in this EIR, should other options be chosen, they would be subject to additional review. Composting and/or biomass were analyzed as conservative options from an emissions standpoint. The potential future compost facility would involve the composting of green waste, wood, and food wastes. The compost facility would use an Aerated Static Pile (ASP) or an Covered Aerated Static Pile (CASP) type of composting system which are considered BACT for reducing pollutants (SJVAPCD 2023). The potential future biomass facility would convert biomass (woody materials) into energy using thermal means and would likely include food, agricultural, and yard trimming waste though the specific type of biomass facility is currently unknown. The conversion of woody materials to electricity results in cobenefits as the energy is using non-fossil fuel while also diverting organic waste from the landfill and avoiding landfill-related methane emissions. Although biomass gasification would result in 455 MTCO2e/year, the conversion of woody materials to energy releases GHG emissions already contained in woody mass. Thus, biomass gasification emissions are considered biogenic and not an increase in anthropogenic emissions (see Table 3.4-6). Further, and as described above, composting and associated biomass gasification would result in substantially lower emissions than the likely alternative of landfilling organic waste. The implementation and operation of Phase 2 and full operation (2058) of the project would support the goals of the SLCP Reduction Strategy and compliance with SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statues of 2016) by diverting organic materials from landfills and potentially increasing the production and use of renewable energy. The project, in and of itself, is intended to achieve SB 1383 requirements and reduce GHGs and thus would be consistent with the strategies of the 2022 Scoping Plan and City General Plan, as discussed above. By diverting organic waste out of a landfill, the project would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-1

3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section addresses biological resources that could be affected by implementation of the Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Project. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the potential direct and indirect impacts of project implementation, and mitigation measures recommended to address impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant. Federal, state, and local laws and regulations that pertain to biological resources are summarized. This analysis is based on the following:
 results of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record search of the Citrus Heights, Rio Linda, Taylor Monument, Roseville, Pleasant Grove, Verona, Lincoln, Sheridan, and Nicolaus US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangles (CNDDB 2025);
 results of California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California search of the Citrus Heights, Rio Linda, Taylor Monument, Roseville, Pleasant Grove, Verona, Lincoln, Sheridan, and Nicolaus USGS 7.5-minue quadrangles (CNPS 2025);
 list of species that may be affected by activities implemented on the project site obtained from US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2025);  the Placer County Conservation Program Western Placer County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Placer County 2020);
 results of records searches of the online databases eBird and iNaturalist (eBird 2025; iNaturalist 2025);  the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville 2035 General Plan (City of Roseville 2020);  the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roseville Industrial Park Project (City of Roseville 2023);  the Wetlands and Biological Resources Assessment on APN: 017-101-008 6382 Phillip Road in Placer County, California 95747 (Barnett Environmental 2026);
 reconnaissance-level survey of the project site by an Ascent wildlife biologist on April 3, 2024; and  aerial photographs and topographic maps of the project site and region.

Comment letters regarding biological resources were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Placer County, and the Placer Conservation Authority in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix A).

CDFW requested that the EIR include a complete project description that identifies any areas that would be temporarily affected and a reasonable range of feasible alternatives; these issues are addressed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” and Chapter 6, “Alternatives.” Regarding the regional setting for biological resources, CDFW requested that the EIR include an assessment of all habitat types located within the project footprint; a general biological inventory of the fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species that are present or have the potential to be present on or adjacent to the project site; a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the project footprint and within off-site areas that could be affected; a thorough, recent (within the last 2 years), floristic-based assessment of special-status plants and natural communities; and information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region. Regarding the analysis of biological resources impacts, CDFW requested that the EIR include thresholds of significance and a discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. CDFW noted that the EIR should identify appropriate and adequate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures for all significant impacts. Finally, CDFW provided information related to potential permits and approvals that may be needed for the project, including compliance with the California Endangered Species Act, Native Plant Protection Act, and Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. These issues are addressed in this section.

Placer County requested that the EIR analyze the direct and indirect effects of the project on special-status species, wetlands, waters and streams, including Pleasant Grove Creek, as well as the Mourier West Property. In addition, the

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR County recommended that the EIR analyze whether the project is consistent with the Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP). These issues are addressed in this section.

The Placer Conservation Authority requested that the EIR include an assessment of both the direct and indirect effects of the conversion of lands from natural and semi-natural habitat into urban development land uses associated with the project and the surrounding conservation lands including the overall viability of the associated conservation plans and listed and unlisted species. These issues are addressed in this section.

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 US Code [USC] Section 1531 et seq.), USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries regulate the taking of species listed in ESA as threatened or endangered. In general, persons subject to ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property, and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take.

Section 10 of ESA applies if a non-federal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take, and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting the action. Section 7 of ESA applies if a federal discretionary action is required (e.g., a federal agency must issue a permit), in which case the involved federal agency consults with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries regarding the project’s potential to adversely affect species listed under ESA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it will be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities.” A take does not include habitat destruction or alteration, as long as birds, nests, eggs, or parts thereof are not directly taken. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.

Clean Water Act
Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC Section 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, except as permitted under separate regulations by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Fill material is material placed in waters of the United States where the material has the effect of replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry land or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the United States. To discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, Section 404 requires projects to receive authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting through USACE. Waters of the United States include navigable waters of the United States; interstate waters; all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce; tributaries to any of these waters that are relatively permanent standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; and wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to these waters. Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-3 vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands must meet three wetland delineation criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil types, and wetland hydrology. Wetlands that meet the delineation criteria may be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA pending USACE verification.

Section 401
Under Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC Section 1341), an applicant for a Section 404 permit must obtain a certificate from the appropriate state agency verifying that the intended dredging or filling activity is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to grant water quality certification is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to the regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs).

STATE
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a permit from CDFW is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the state as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but does not include “harm” or “harass,” as does the federal definition. As a result, the threshold for take is higher under CESA than under the federal ESA. Authorization for take of state-listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 incidental take permit.

California Fish and Game Code
Protection of Bird Nests and Raptors
Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal or disturbance caused by project construction or other activities that cause the adults to abandon the nest, resulting in loss of eggs or young.

Fully Protected Species
The regulation of fully protected species is described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species and generally do not provide for authorization of incidental take unless the species is covered and conserved in a natural community conservation plan (NCCP) or the project activities qualify for incidental take permitting under Section 2080.15 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing as threatened or endangered under CESA.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife resources are subject to regulation by CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1602, it is unlawful for any person, governmental agency, or public utility to do any of the following without first notifying CDFW:
 substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from, the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or
 deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

The regulatory definition of a stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel that has banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This definition includes watercourses with a surface

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section

1.72). CDFW jurisdiction over altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. A streambed alteration agreement must be obtained for any diversion or alteration that would substantially adversely affect a fish or wildlife resource in a river, stream, or lake. A substantial change or use of material from bed, bank, or channel includes the alteration or removal of riparian vegetation associated with a lake or stream.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Act, waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the appropriate RWQCB. The project site is within the Central Valley RWQCB. The RWQCB must prepare and periodically update water quality control plans (basin plans). Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control point and nonpoint sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction includes federally protected waters as well as areas that meet the definition of “waters of the state.” Waters of the state are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.

In addition to water quality certifications under Section 401 of the federal CWA, discharges to waters of the state, including wetlands, must meet the RWQCB waste discharge requirements. RWQCB has the discretion to take jurisdiction over areas not federally protected under Section 401 of the CWA provided they meet the definition of waters of the state, including meeting the state definition of a wetland. The state definition of a wetland is an area that, under normal circumstances, (1) 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 either lacks vegetation or the vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes (i.e., wetland plants).

The California Water Code generally regulates more substances contained in discharges and defines discharges to receiving waters more broadly than does the CWA. Waste discharge requirements are addressed comprehensively in Section 3.11, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” as well as in this section with respect to state protected wetlands.

Requirements related to fill or discharge to waters of the state subject to the Porter-Cologne Act are described in the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (California Water Boards 2019). Mitigation requiring no net loss of wetland functions and values of waters of the state typically is required by the RWQCB if there will be impacts to state protected wetlands.

California Native Plant Protection Act
State listing of plant species began in 1977 with the passage of the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), which directed CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect, and enhance endangered plants in this state.” NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. CESA expanded on the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants. CESA established threatened and endangered species categories and grandfathered all rare animals—but not rare plants—into the act as threatened species. Thus, three listing categories for plants are employed in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Sixty-four species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The act prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants but includes exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; for emergencies; and, after proper notification of CDFW, for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other building sites, changes in land use, and other situations.

LOCAL
City of Roseville General Plan 2035
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Roseville General Plan 2035 contains the following policies related to biological resources that may be relevant to the project (City of Roseville 2020):
 Policy OS2.1 Incorporate existing trees into development projects with an emphasis on avoiding the removal of groupings or groves of trees. Where preservation is not feasible, continue to require mitigation for the loss of removed trees.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-5  Policy OS2.2 Preserve and restore continuous riparian corridors and adjacent habitat along the City’s creeks and waterways.
 Policy OS2.4 Require preservation of contiguous areas in excess of the City’s Regulatory Floodplain, as defined in the Safety Element, as merited by special resources or circumstances. Special circumstances may include, but are not limited to, sensitive wildlife or vegetation, wetland habitat, oak woodland areas, grassland connections in association with other habitat areas, slope or topographical considerations, recreation opportunities, and maintenance access requirements.
 Policy OS2.6 Provide for the protection and enhancement of native fishery resources, as informed by continued coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Policy OS2.7 Require consistency with the City of Roseville Open Space Preserve Overarching Management Plan for dedication and management of on-site wetland mitigation as part of new development.  Policy OS2.8 Consider off-site mitigation for federally non-regulated wetlands, provided that such mitigation will provide comparable habitat values.
 Policy OS2.11 Habitat preservation and mitigation for woodlands, creeks, riparian, and seasonal wetland areas should occur within the defined boundaries of the impacting projects where long-term resource viability is feasible and desirable, consistent with applicable state and federal permits.  Policy OS2.12 Consider the use of City property for habitat preservation and mitigation requirements resulting from new development proposals when such efforts do not conflict with existing resources, recreational opportunities, or other City goals, policies, or programs.  Policy OS2.13 Work with adjacent jurisdictions, regulatory agencies, and community organizations to explore opportunities for regional mitigation banking.

City of Roseville Municipal Code
Chapter 19.66 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation,” contains requirements for projects that would remove protected trees (i.e., native oak trees equal to or greater than six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) measured as a total of a single trunk or multiple trunks). Project applicants shall not harm, destroy, kill, or remove any protected tree or conduct project activities within the protected zone (i.e., a circle equal to the largest radius of a protected tree’s dripline plus one foot) unless authorized by a Tree Permit. The City would also be required to obtain a Tree Permit for approval by the City Council.

Protected trees that are retained on a project site would be subject to the tree preservation measures contained in the Municipal Code, including protective fencing, signing, and modified ground disturbance activities (e.g., trenching with hand tools). If project implementation would include removal of protected trees, mitigation for loss of the trees would be required, and would include one of the following four methods: replacement of trees, relocation of trees, revegetation, or in-lieu mitigation fees. The City Planning Manager may allow removal of a protected tree that has been certified by an arborist to be a dead tree without any replacement or mitigation requirements.

Placer County Conservation Program
On September 1, 2020, Placer County adopted the PCCP, which is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under the federal ESA and an NCCP under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. The PCCP includes the County Aquatic Resources Program to issue permits related to the CWA and the California Fish and Game Code (Placer County 2020).

The permit coverage area under the PCCP has two main parts and associated subcomponents. Plan Area A is the main focus of the PCCP and where all future growth and most of the covered activities will take place; the area is covered by a comprehensive permit. Plan Area A is the City of Lincoln plus all unincorporated lands within western Placer County: approximately 210,000 acres, or roughly five-sixths of western Placer County. Plan Area B comprises several specific additional areas in Placer County and adjacent Sutter County where only specific covered activities may occur (Placer County 2020).

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-6 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR The PCCP addresses 14 Covered Species and several Covered Natural Communities, and includes conservation measures to protect all 14 Covered Species and their habitats. Avoidance and minimization measures are set forth in Chapter 6 of the PCCP, and are intended to ensure that adverse effects on Covered Species and natural communities are avoided and minimized (Placer County 2020).

The City of Roseville is not a participant in the plan and the project site is not within the plan area, but is immediately adjacent to Plan Area A of the plan (Placer County 2020).

West Roseville Specific Plan
As part of the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP), the Public Utility Easement (PUE) area, which is the alignment in which the project’s proposed power poles would be installed from Roseville Energy Park to the project site, was previously authorized under the Department of Army Permit No. 200200666, later amended. This authorization allowed the discharge of fill into approximately 21.76 acres of waters of the United States to support development within the Westpark/Fiddyment Ranch portion of the WRSP. The permit also established permanent requirements for mitigation and long-term management.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting

HABITAT TYPES
The project site is in an undeveloped portion of the City of Roseville and is surrounded by agricultural land uses to the west, south, and east; and Pleasant Grove Creek and undeveloped areas containing vernal pool-grassland complexes to the north (Figure 3.5-1). The project site contains agricultural habitats including hay fields/row crops and rice fields. The site also contains annual grassland habitat and developed areas consisting of a former residence and associated structures. A segment of Pleasant Grove Creek with associated valley oak riparian woodland habitat forms the northern boundary of the project site (Figure 3.5-1). Total acreage of each habitat type present on the project site is summarized in Table 3.5-1, and descriptions of each habitat type are provided below.

In addition to the habitats described on the project site, the area of the PUE (not included in Table 3.5-1) contains a mix of agricultural habitat, as well as vernal pool wetland (Barnett Environmental 2026).

Table 3.5-1 Habitats on the Project Site
Habitat Area or Length
Agricultural (Hay Fields/Row Crops) 31.06 acres
Agricultural (Rice Field) 188.55 acres
Annual Grassland 7.74 acres
Valley Oak Riparian Woodland 1.70 acres
Disturbed/Developed 4.59 acres
Disturbed - Grass 14.89 acres
Drainage Ditch 0.17 acres (2,463 feet)
Irrigation Ditch 0.10 acres (725 feet)
Source: Compiled by Ascent in 2025.

Agricultural (Rice Fields)
Approximately 189 acres of rice fields are present on the project site (Table 3.5-1, Figure 3.5-1). This land is currently being leased for rice farming. The northern portion of the project site has been in cultivation at least since 1947, with some off years in between. The south portion of the project site has been in rice cultivation since at least 1957 (NETR Online n.d.).

During the April 2024 site visit, the rice fields had limited vegetation and only the edges of the fields contained vegetation including small patches of cattails (Typha latifolia), broadleaf arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon).

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-7 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3.5-1 Habitat Types on the Project Site

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-8 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Berms supported annual grasses and forbs including barley (Hordeum marinum), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), wild oat (Avena fatua), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), pineapple weed (Matricaria discoidea), shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), yellowbeak owl’s clover (Triphysaria versicolor), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica).

Agricultural (Hay Fields/Row Crops)
Approximately 31 acres in the western portion of the project site is leased for hay farming. The hay field had a majority of wildrye (Elymus spp.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and barley (Hordeum sp.). Plant species observed along the periphery include barley, Italian rye grass, wild oat, wild radish, birdsrape mustard, pineapple weed, annual lupine (Lupinus bicolor), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), and California poppy.

Annual Grassland
This habitat type occupies 7.74 acres around the former residence and associated buildings on the eastern side of the project site. A small portion of the annual grassland habitat next to the former residence is used as pasture for grazing livestock. The annual grassland habitat is an open, herb-dominated landscape characterized predominantly by nonnative grasses but also containing some native and nonnative forbs. Plants species observed in the annual grassland include barley, Italian rye grass, wild oat, wild radish, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), tidy tips (Layia sp.), buttercup, plantain (Plantago lanceolata), burclover (Medicago sp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Bermuda grass, and Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum).

Valley Oak Riparian Woodland
This habitat type forms the northern and northwest boundary of the project site. The area is 1.70 acres and is associated with Pleasant Grove Creek and a connected drainage ditch. It is characterized by a dense tree canopy with shrubby understory and herbaceous species in openings. This habitat is dominated by valley oak, interior live oak, Fremont cottonwood, and willow. Understory plant species include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and nonnative grasses dominated by barley, ripgut brome, and wild oat.

Disturbed/Developed
Disturbed or developed land cover is approximately 4.6 acres, and it is associated with the former residence, sheds, and associated buildings. It also includes the access road to the former residence and shed. Vegetation in this area consists of ornamental vegetation such as roses (Rosa sp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), variegated privet (Ligustrum sp.), bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), and rosemary (Salvia sp.). Trees in this area include valley oak, cottonwood, eucalyptus, pine (Pinus sp.), deodar cedar, mulberry (Morus alba), and cedar (Calocedrus sp.). A number of trees are planted along the driveway and fence lines associated with the former residence, including interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), valley oak (Quercus lobata), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), deodar cedar (Cedrus deorara), fig (Ficus carica), Paradox black walnut (Juglans x Paradox), willow (Salix sp.), and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis).

Disturbed – Grass
This area (14.89 acres) includes all the access roads around the agricultural areas. These areas are typically mowed, but during the April 3, 2024 visit, they were overgrown with nonnative grasses dominated by barley and wild oats.

Drainage Ditch
The project site supports two drainage ditches that help drain uplands into lowlands. One drainage ditch runs south to north between the annual grasslands and adjacent rice fields near the former residence. The drainage ditch (725 feet long) was bare and supported no vegetation during the April 3, 2024 visit. The vegetation on both sides of the ditch consisted of annual grasses.

The second drainage ditch (1,710 feet) runs south to north along the northwest boundary of the site, between the project site and the adjacent property. This ditch drains into Pleasant Grove Creek. This drainage ditch supports a narrow strip of valley oak riparian woodland habitat on its banks.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-9 Irrigation Ditch
An approximately 0.14-mile segment of irrigation ditch runs east to west in the central portion of the project site, southwest of the former residence. No vegetation was observed within the ditch and the top portions of the ditch are covered in nonnative grasses such as wild oat.

Vernal Pool Wetlands
Wetland features, having strong floristic assemblages and hydro geomorphological signatures associated with vernal pools, were identified in portions of the off-site PUE area (Barnett Environmental 2026). These features were previously identified within the open space preserve within the WRSP. These features had characteristic basin-rim hydrogeomorphology that appears to sustain saturated soils and/or ponded water for a sufficient hydroperiod during the wet season to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, and contain floristic assemblages allied with or having vernal pool indicator species.

SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sensitive biological resources include those species, natural communities, and habitats that receive special protection through ESA, CESA, CWA, California Fish and Game Code, or local plans, policies, and regulations; or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies. Sensitive biological resources evaluated as part of this analysis include special-status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities, state and federally protected wetlands, and wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites. These resources are discussed below.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as species that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special-status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:
 officially listed by California under the CESA or the federal government under ESA as endangered, threatened, or rare;
 a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered or threatened under CESA or ESA;  taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the definitions of rare and endangered under CEQA; CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 provides that a plant or animal species may be treated as “rare or endangered” even if not on one of the official lists;
 species identified by CDFW as “species of special concern,” which is a term applied by CDFW to animals not listed under ESA or CESA, but that are declining at a rate that could result in listing or that historically occurred in low numbers and face known threats to their persistence;
 species listed as fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code;  species afforded protection under local planning documents; and  plant taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, or 2. The CDFW system includes rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing plant species of concern, and ranks 1 and 2 are summarized as follows:
 CRPR 1A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California;  CRPR 1B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;  CRPR 2A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California but common elsewhere; and  CRPR 2B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

A preliminary list of special-status species with potential to occur on the project site was developed based on review of the information sources listed in the introduction to Section 3.5 and the biological reconnaissance survey. Of the 10

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-10 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR special-status plant species that are known to occur within the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles including and surrounding the project site, eight species were determined to have potential to occur on the project site based on the presence of habitat suitable for the species (CNDDB 2025; CNPS 2025; Table 3.5-1). Six of these species are associated with vernal pool or other wetland habitat, which may be present in the off-site portion of the PUE. Of the 52 specialstatus wildlife species that could occur in area, 18 species were determined to have potential to occur on the project site based on the presence of habitat suitable for the species (CNDDB 2025; USFWS 2025; Table 3.5-2). Four of these species are associated with vernal pool or other wetland habitat, which may be present in the off-site portion of the PUE. Tables

3.5-1 and 3.5-2 describe the species’ regulatory status, habitat, and potential for occurrence on the project site.

Table 3.5-1 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site and Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Big-scale balsamroot
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
– – 1B.2 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland. Often on
serpentine. 115–4,806 feet in elevation.

Blooms March–June.

Not expected to occur. Although the
project site does contain grassland habitat,
the grassland has been modified over
more than 70 years of farming activities
and is no longer suitable for this species.

Hispid salty bird's-beak
Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum
– – 1B.1 In damp alkaline soils, especially in alkaline meadows and alkali sinks with Distichlis.
3–509 feet in elevation. Blooms June–
September.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain alkaline meadows or
sinks.

Dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
– – 2B.2 Vernal lake and pool margins with a
variety of associates. In several types of
vernal pools. 3–1,608 feet in elevation.

Blooms March–May.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool habitat; however, the
wetlands identified in the off-site portion
of the PUE may provide suitable habitat.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiola heterosepala
– SE 1B.2 Clay soils; usually in vernal pools,
sometimes on lake margins. 33–7,792 feet
in elevation. Blooms April–August.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool or lake margin
habitat; however, the wetlands identified
in the off-site portion of the PUE may
provide suitable habitat.

Woolly rose-mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
– – 1B.2 Moist, freshwater-soaked riverbanks and
low peat islands in sloughs of the Delta,
Central Valley, and Cascade Range foothills;
can also occur on riprap and levees. 0–509
feet in elevation. Blooms June–September.

May occur. Vernal pool wetland in the
off-site portion of the PUE may provide
habitat suitable for woolly rose-mallow.

Ahart's dwarf rush
Juncus leiospermus var.
ahartii
– – 1B.2 Vernal pools and swales in areas of low
cover of competing vegetation; most
often on gopher turnings along margins
of pools (Witham 2006: 38). 98–328 feet in
elevation. Blooms March–May.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool or swale habitat;
however, the wetlands identified in the
off-site portion of the PUE may provide
suitable habitat.

Red Bluff dwarf rush
Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus
– – 1B.1 Vernal pools, meadows and seeps, and
other seasonally wet habitats. 98–3,363
feet in elevation. Blooms March–June.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool habitat; however, the
wetlands identified in the off-site portion
of the PUE may provide suitable habitat.

There is one CNDDB record of this species
from Placer County (Roseville), which is
outside the species’ typical range and
thought to be erroneous (CNDDB 2025).

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-11 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
CRPR Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Legenere
Legenere limosa
– – 1B.1 In beds of vernal pools. 3–2,887 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–June.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool habitat; however, the
wetlands identified in the off-site portion
of the PUE may provide suitable habitat.

Pincushion navarretia
Navarretia myersii ssp.
myersii
– – 1B.1 Vernal pools in clay soils (often acidic).
65–1,085 feet in elevation. Blooms April–
May.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool habitat; however, the
wetlands identified in the off-site portion
of the PUE may provide suitable habitat.

Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
– – 1B.2 In standing or slow-moving freshwater
ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0–2,133 feet
in elevation. Blooms May–October.

May occur. The northwest drainage ditch
and the wetlands identified in the off-site
portion of the PUE may provide habitat
suitable for this species.

Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; ESA = Endangered Species Act. 1 Legal Status Definitions
State:

SE State Listed as Endangered (legally protected by CESA) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR):
1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA). 2B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA).

CRPR Threat Ranks:

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

0.2Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat) Sources: CNDDB 2025; CNPS 2025.

Table 3.5-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site and Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site
Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Amphibians and Reptiles
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
– SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most
common in lowlands along sandy washes with
scattered low shrubs. Open areas for sunning,
shrubs for cover, patches of loose soil for burial,
and abundant supply of native ants and other
insects.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain shrub habitat or loose,
sandy soil suitable for this species.

Giant gartersnake
Thamnophis gigas
FT ST Prefers freshwater marsh and low gradient
streams. Has adapted to drainage canals and
irrigation ditches. This is the most aquatic of the
garter snakes in California.

Not expected to occur. The project site is
outside of the current known range of
this species.

Northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
FC SSC An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation, below 6,000 feet elevation.

Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks
or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.3
miles from water for egg-laying.

May occur. The segment of Pleasant Grove
Creek that forms the northern boundary of
the project site contains aquatic habitat
potentially suitable for northwestern pond
turtle. Due to ongoing rice farming, the
project site does not provide suitable
upland habitat for the species; however,
the species may travel through the site
looking for nesting habitat.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-12 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
FC PT SSC Occurs primarily in grassland habitats but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.

May occur. The project site does not
contain vernal pool habitat suitable for
this species; however, vernal pools
present on the off-site portion of the PUE
may provide suitable habitat.

Birds
American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
FD SD
FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on
cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds; also, human-made
structures. Nest consists of a scrape or a
depression or ledge in an open site.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain natural or human-made
nesting habitat suitable for this species.

While American peregrine falcons may
forage on the project site occasionally,
the site does not contain high-quality
foraging habitat for this species.

American white pelican
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
– SSC Colonial nester on large interior lakes. Nests on large lakes, providing safe roosting and breeding
places in the form of well-sequestered islets.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain lake nesting habitat
suitable for this species.

Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
FD SE
FP
Ocean shore, lake margins, and rivers for both
nesting and wintering. Most nests within 1 mile
of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or
dominant live tree with open branches,
especially ponderosa pine. Roosts communally
in winter.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain nesting habitat (i.e.,
large trees near open water) suitable for
this species.

Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
– ST Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and
other lowland habitats west of the desert.

Requires vertical banks or cliffs with finetextured or sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole.

Not expected to occur. The banks of
Pleasant Grove Creek are not vertical
with sandy soils, and do not provide
nesting habitat suitable for bank
swallows.

Black tern
Chlidonias niger
– SSC Freshwater lakes, ponds, marshes and flooded
agricultural fields. At coastal lagoons and
estuaries during migration. Breeding range
reduced. Breeds primarily in Modoc Plateau
region, with some breeding in Sacramento and
San Joaquin valleys
Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain lake, pond, or marsh
habitats or flooded agricultural fields.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
– SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground squirrel.

Not expected to occur. Although the
project site contains earthen berms that
may provide burrow habitat suitable for
this species, the grass covering the berms
is high and dense likely precluding use
by this species.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
– ST
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and
shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering
larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch
that do not fluctuate during the year and dense
vegetation for nesting habitat.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain freshwater or saltwater
marsh habitat.

Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
– FP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper
flats, and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide
nesting habitat in most parts of range; also,
large trees in open areas.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain nesting habitat (i.e.,
large trees in open areas) suitable for this
species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-13 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
– SSC Dense grasslands on rolling hills, lowland plains, in valleys and on hillsides on lower mountain
slopes. Favors native grasslands with a mix of
grasses, forbs and scattered shrubs. Loosely
colonial when nesting.

Not expected to occur. The grassland
around the former residence and
associated structures is maintained for
fire prevention. The grassland habitat
within the enclosed pasture is not large
enough to support the species and it is
also mowed for fire prevention.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
– SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper,
Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert
oases, scrub and washes. Prefers open country
for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly
dense shrubs and brush for nesting.

May occur. The project site contains
suitable foraging habitat and on-site
trees and shrubs provide potential
nesting habitat.

Long-eared owl
Asio otus
– SSC Riparian bottomlands containing tall willows and
cottonwoods and belts of live oak paralleling
stream courses. Require adjacent open land
productive of mice and the presence of old nests
of crows, hawks, or magpies for breeding.

Not expected to occur. The project site is
outside of the known breeding range of
this species.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
– SSC Nest and forage in grasslands, from salt grass
in desert sink to mountain cienagas. Nests on
ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh
edges; nest built of a large mound of sticks in
wet areas.

May occur. Rice field berms at the project
site may provide nesting habitat suitable
for northern harrier.

Olive-sided flycatcher
Contopus cooperi
– SSC Nesting habitats are mixed conifer, montane
hardwood-conifer, Douglas fir, redwood, red fir,
and lodgepole pine. Most numerous in montane
conifer forests where tall trees overlook canyons,
meadows, lakes or other open terrain.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain montane conifer forest
habitat.

Purple martin
Progne subis
– SSC Inhabits woodlands, low elevation coniferous
forest of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and
Monterey pine. Nests in old woodpecker
cavities mostly, also in human-made structures.

Nest often located in tall, isolated tree or snag.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain coniferous forest
habitat or human-made structures
suitable for nesting purple martins.

Redhead
Aythya americana
– SSC Overwater nests constructed in relatively tall,
dense emergent vegetation of deeper
semipermanent and permanent marshes.

Modoc county to Mono County in lacustrine
waters, Central Valley and central California
foothills and coastal lowlands, and along the
coast from Monterey County south to Ventura
County and along the Colorado river.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain open water or marsh
habitat suitable for this species.

Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
— SSC Great Basin grassland, marsh and swamp,
meadow and seep, valley and foothill grassland,
and wetlands. Found in swamp lands, both
fresh and salt; lowland meadows; irrigated
alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall grass needed for
nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests on dry ground
in depression concealed in vegetation.

May occur. Agricultural landcover and
wetlands identified in the off-site portion
of the PUE may provide habitat suitable
for nesting short-eared owls.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-14 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Song sparrow ("Modesto"
population)
Melospiza melodia
– SSC Emergent freshwater marshes, riparian willow
thickets, riparian forests of valley oak, and
vegetated irrigation canals and levees.

May occur. The riparian habitat adjacent
to Pleasant Grove Creek may provide
nesting habitat suitable for this species.

Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
– ST Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees,
juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or
lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or
grain fields supporting rodent populations.

Present. Trees on the project site,
especially trees within the riparian
corridors along Pleasant Grove Creek on
the northern edge of the project site,
provide nesting habitat suitable for
Swainson’s hawk. A pair of Swainson’s
hawks were observed nesting during the
April 2024 site visit along the riparian
corridor of Pleasant Grove Creek. Annual
grassland and hay fields within the
project area provide foraging habitat
suitable for Swainson’s hawk.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
– ST
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect
prey within a few kilometers of the colony.

May occur. Riparian vegetation (e.g.,
cattails, Himalayan blackberry) adjacent
to Pleasant Grove Creek may provide
nesting habitat suitable for tricolored
blackbirds.

Vaux's swift
Chaetura vauxi
– SSC Redwood, Douglas-fir, and other coniferous
forests. Nests in large hollow trees and snags.

Often nests in flocks. Forages over most
terrains and habitats but shows a preference for
foraging over rivers and lakes.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain coniferous forest
habitat.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT SE Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Nests in
riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with
cottonwoods, with lower story of blackberry,
nettles, or wild grape.

May occur. Riparian vegetation (e.g.,
cottonwoods, willows) along Pleasant
Grove Creek may provide nesting habitat
suitable for western yellow-billed cuckoo.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
– FP Rolling foothills and valley margins with
scattered oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging
close to isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching.

Present. Trees on the project site,
especially trees within the riparian
corridors along Pleasant Grove Creek,
provide nesting habitat suitable for whitetailed kite. A pair was observed foraging on-site during the April 2024 survey.

Willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
– SE Inhabits extensive thickets of low, dense willows
on edges of wet meadows, ponds, or
backwaters; 2,000-8,000 feet elevation Requires
dense willow thickets for nesting/roosting. Low,
exposed branches are used for singing
posts/hunting perches.

Not expected to occur. The riparian
habitat adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek
does not provide the habitat
components (e.g., meadow, marsh)
preferred by this species.

Yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
– SSC Riparian plant associations in close proximity to water. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open
conifer forests in Cascades and Sierra Nevada.

Frequently found nesting and foraging in willow
shrubs and thickets, and in other riparian plants
including cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and
alders.

Not expected to occur. The project site is
outside of the known breeding range of
this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-15 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
– SSC Summer resident; inhabits riparian thickets of
willow and other brushy tangles near
watercourses. Nests in low, dense riparian,
consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape;
forages and nests within 10 feet of ground.

Not expected to occur. The project site is
outside of the known breeding range of
this species.

Yellow-headed blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
– SSC Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with tall,
dense, emergent vegetation and deep water.

Most commonly along borders of lakes,
reservoirs, or ponds. Nests only where large
insects such as Odonata are abundant, nesting
timed with maximum emergence of aquatic
insects. Forages in emergent wetland and moist,
open areas, especially cropland and muddy
shores of lacustrine habitat.

May occur. Freshwater marsh wetlands
that maintain deep water through the
breeding season are not present on the
project site; however vernal pool wetlands
in the off-site PUE area may provide
habitat suitable for the species, and
agricultural landcover in the project area
and off-site PUE area provides foraging
habitat.

Fish
Chinook salmon - Central
Valley fall / late fall-run ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
pop. 13
– SSC Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters.

Populations spawning in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries.

Not expected to occur. No portions of
Pleasant Grove Creek or its tributaries
provide habitat suitable for salmonid
species because of warm summer
temperatures, high organic content,
absence of gravel or cobble substrate, and
lack of instream cover.

Chinook salmon - Central
Valley spring-run ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
pop. 6
FT ST Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters. Adult
numbers depend on pool depth and volume,
amount of cover, and proximity to gravel.

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

Not expected to occur. No portions of
Pleasant Grove Creek or its tributaries
provide habitat suitable for salmonid
species because of warm summer
temperatures, high organic content,
absence of gravel or cobble substrate, and
lack of instream cover.

Chinook salmon -
Sacramento River winter-run
ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
pop. 7
FE SE Sacramento River below Keswick Dam. Spawns
in the Sacramento River, but not in tributary
streams. Requires clean, cold water over gravel
beds for spawning.

Not expected to occur. No portions of
Pleasant Grove Creek or its tributaries
provide habitat suitable for salmonid
species because of warm summer
temperatures, high organic content,
absence of gravel or cobble substrate, and
lack of instream cover.

Delta smelt
Hypomesus transpacificus
FT SE Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Seasonally in
Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait, and San Pablo Bay.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain aquatic habitat suitable
for this species.

Green sturgeon
Acipenser medirostris
FT SSC The most marine species of sturgeon.

Abundance increases northward of Point
Conception. Spawns in the Sacramento,
Klamath, and Trinity Rivers. Preferred spawning
substrate is large cobble, but can range from
clean sand to bedrock.

Not expected to occur. Green sturgeon is
not known to occur in Pleasant Grove
Creek and the project site is outside of
the known range of this species.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-16 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Hardhead
Mylopharodon conocephalus
– SSC Low to mid-elevation streams in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage. Also present
in the Russian River. Clear, deep pools with
sand-gravel-boulder bottoms and slow water
velocity.

Not expected to occur. The portion of
Pleasant Grove Creek on the northern
edge of the project site may provide
habitat suitable for this species; however,
Pleasant Grove Creek is outside of the
proposed development area.

Longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys
FC SSC Found in open waters of estuaries, mostly in
middle or bottom of water column. Prefer
salinities of 15-30 ppt, but can be found in
completely freshwater to almost pure seawater.

Not expected to occur. The project site
does not contain aquatic habitat suitable
for this species.

Pacific lamprey
Entosphenus tridentatus
– SSC Found in Pacific Coast streams north of San Luis
Obispo County, however regular runs in Santa
Clara River.

Not expected to occur. Pacific lamprey is
not known to occur in Pleasant Grove
Creek. However, Pleasant Grove Creek is
hydrologically connected to watercourses
occupied by this species.

Riffle sculpin
Cottus gulosus
– SSC Found in headwater streams with cold water
and rocky or gravelly substrate. Prefer
permanent streams.

Not expected to occur. Riffle sculpin is
not known to occur in Pleasant Grove
Creek; however, Pleasant Grove Creek is
hydrologically connected to watercourses
occupied by this species.

Sacramento hitch
Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda
– SSC Found in slow, warm water, including lakes and
quiet stretches of river. Sometimes found in
cool, clear, low-gradient streams.

Not expected to occur. The portion of
Pleasant Grove Creek on the northern
edge of the project site may provide
habitat suitable for this species; however,
Pleasant Grove Creek is outside of the
proposed development area.

Sacramento splittail
Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus
– SSC Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central
Valley, but now confined to the Delta, Suisun
Bay, and associated marshes. Slow moving river
sections, dead end sloughs. Requires flooded
vegetation for spawning and foraging for young.

Not expected to occur. The project site is
outside of the current known range of
this species.

Steelhead - Central Valley
DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 11
FT – Populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers and their tributaries.

Not expected to occur. Steelhead are not
known to occur in Pleasant Grove Creek.

No portions of Pleasant Grove Creek or its
tributaries provide habitat suitable for
salmonid species because of warm
summer temperatures, high organic
content, absence of gravel or cobble
substrate, and lack of instream cover.

Western river lamprey
Lampetra ayresii
– SSC Lower Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and
Russian River. May occur in coastal streams
north of San Francisco Bay.

Not expected to occur. Western river
lamprey is not known to occur in
Pleasant Grove Creek; however, Pleasant
Grove Creek is hydrologically connected
to watercourses occupied by this species.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-17 Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Invertebrates
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
– SC
Found primarily in California: mediterranean,
Pacific coast, western desert, Great Valley, and
adjacent foothills through most of
southwestern California. Habitat includes open
grassland and scrub. Nests underground.

May occur. The project site is within the
current known range of this species. The
project site contains flowering plants that
may provide foraging habitat for Crotch’s
bumble bee. Berms, annual grassland, and
dilapidated buildings/sheds may provide
nesting habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee.

Conservancy fairy shrimp
Branchinecta conservatio
FE – Endemic to the grasslands of the northern twothirds of the Central Valley; found in large, turbid pools. Inhabit astatic pools located in
swales formed by old, braided alluvium; filled
by winter/spring rains, last until June.

Not expected to occur. While the project
site may have historically contained vernal
pool habitat, the original hydrology of the
site has been modified over more than 70
years of farming activities, and this habitat
is no longer present. Vernal pool wetland
in the off-site portion of the PUE does not
include cooler-water, moderately turbid
vernal pool habitat suitable for the species.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT – Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley,
Central Coast mountains, and South Coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit
small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools
and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow
depression pools.

May occur. While the project site may
have historically contained vernal pool
habitat, the original hydrology of the site
has been modified over more than 70
years of farming activities, and this habitat
is no longer present; however, the off-site
portion of the PUE contains vernal pool
habitat suitable for the species.

Monarch
Danaus plexippus
FP
Habitat requirements include host plants for larvae
(primarily milkweeds [Asclepias spp.]); adult nectar
sources (i.e., flowering plants); and sites for
roosting, thermoregulation, mating, hibernation,
and predator escape. Additionally, monarch
butterfly requires conditions and resources for
initiating and completing migration both to and
from winter roosting areas. Winter roost sites
extend along the coast from northern Mendocino
to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts located in windprotected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby.

May occur. The project site is within the
current known range of this species. The
project site contains flowering plants that
may provide foraging habitat and
milkweed plants at the site could serve as
host plants for egg laying and caterpillar
food.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT – Riparian scrub. Occurs only in the Central Valley
of California, in association with blue elderberry
(Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Prefers to lay
eggs in elderberries 2-8 inches in diameter; some
preference shown for "stressed" elderberries.

Not expected to occur. No elderberry
shrubs are present on the project site.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE – Inhabits vernal pools and swales in the
Sacramento Valley containing clear to highly
turbid water. Pools commonly found in grass
bottomed swales of unplowed grasslands.

Some pools are mud-bottomed and highly
turbid.

May occur. While the project site may
have historically contained vernal pool
habitat, the original hydrology of the site
has been modified over more than 70
years of farming activities, and this
habitat is no longer present; however,
the off-site PUE area contains vernal pool
habitat suitable for the species.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-18 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Species
Listing
Status1
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
– SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils,
and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on
burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Not expected to occur. The land in the
vicinity of the project site is composed of
a grassland and agricultural complex that
likely supports American badgers.

However, the agricultural land on the
project site is regularly cultivated and
flooded and it is unlikely that American
badgers would establish dens on the
project site. The annual grassland habitat
is regularly mowed and is too small and
fragmented to support this species.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
– SSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and
forests. Most common in open, dry habitats
with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must
protect bats from high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

May occur. The project site contains large
valley oak trees that may provide roosting
habitat for pallid bats. Some of the old,
dilapidated buildings may provide night
roost habitat for this species.

Northern California ringtail
Bassariscus astutus raptor
– FP Riparian habitats, forest habitats, and shrub
habitats in lower to middle elevations.

May occur. Large valley oak trees within
the Pleasant Grove Creek riparian habitat
may provide den habitat suitable for
ringtails and this habitat may also act as
a movement corridor for the species.

Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
– SSC Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40 feet above ground, from sea level up through mixed conifer forests.

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

May occur. The project site contains large
broadleaf trees that may provide
roosting habitat for western red bat.

Notes: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act. 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Federally Listed as Endangered (legally protected)
FT Federally Listed as Threatened (legally protected)
FC Federally Candidate
PT Proposed Threatened
FD Federally Delisted
State:

FP Fully protected (legally protected)
SSC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) SE State Listed as Endangered (legally protected)
ST State Listed as Threatened (legally protected)
SC State Candidate for listing (legally protected)
SD State Delisted
Sources: CNDDB 2025; USFWS 2025.

Fisheries
Pleasant Grove Creek and its tributaries support warmwater fisheries characterized by introduced species (Wildlands 2005; Placer County 2006). Fish species known to occur in these streams in the project vicinity include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), carp (Cyprinus carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), yellow shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (Wildlands 2005). A number of invasive aquatic organisms are also found in these waterways, including Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), American bullfrog (Lithobates

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-19 catesbeianus), and crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus). No portions of Pleasant Grove Creek or its tributaries provide habitat suitable for salmonid species because of warm summer temperatures, high organic content, absence of gravel or cobble substrate, and lack of instream cover. Similarly, assessments by Bailey Environmental (2003) found that the middle and lower reaches of Pleasant Grove Creek were also unsuitable for salmonids because of warm water temperatures and lack of suitable spawning substrates.

Sensitive Natural Communities and Sensitive Habitat Types Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or are afforded specific consideration through CEQA, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, Section 404 of the CWA, and the state’s PorterCologne Act. Sensitive habitat may be of special concern to agencies and conservation organizations for a variety of reasons, including their locally or regionally declining status, or because they provide important habitat to common and special-status species.

Sensitive natural communities are native plant communities defined by CDFW as having limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and that are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects (CDFW 2018). These communities may or may not contain special-status plants or their habitat (CDFW 2018). CDFW designates sensitive natural communities based on their state rarity and threat ranking using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology.

Natural communities with rarity ranks of S1 to S3—where S1 is critically imperiled, S2 is imperiled, and S3 is vulnerable—are considered sensitive natural communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents (CDFW 2018).

Sensitive natural communities are generally identified at the alliance level of vegetation classification hierarchy using the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Known occurrences of sensitive natural communities are included in the CNDDB; however, no new occurrences have been added to the CNDDB since the mid-1990s when funding was cut for this portion of the CNDDB program. In addition, the sensitive natural communities identified in the CNDDB are classified according to an outdated vegetation classification system no longer used by CDFW to designate sensitive natural communities; however, each of these meet the definition of a sensitive habitat type either because they are state or federally protected wetland habitats, they are riparian habitats that are subject to review pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, or they may support vegetation alliances that are designated as sensitive natural communities by CDFW based on the current Manual of California Vegetation classification system.

The six sensitive habitat types identified within the nine USGS quadrangles including and surrounding the project site through a query of the CNDDB are northern hardpan vernal pool, northern claypan vernal pool, northern volcanic mud flow vernal pool, alkali meadow, alkali seep, and great valley mixed riparian forest (CNDDB 2025).

Two sensitive natural communities have potential to occur on the project site based on the habitat types present on the project site: valley oak riparian forest and woodland and vernal pools.

Valley Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland
Valley oak is the dominant component of the canopy of the valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site.

Membership rules for the valley oak woodland and forest sensitive natural community include habitats with over 35 percent relative tree canopy cover composed of valley oak, often with the remainder of the canopy composed of other tree species including Fremont cottonwood (Sawyer et al. 2009). The valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site meets these membership rules. This sensitive natural community has a state rarity ranking of S3 (vulnerable).

Vernal Pool Wetland
Wetlands with floristic assemblages associated with vernal pools are present in the off-site portion of the PUE. Vernal pools are not present on the remainder of the project site. While the parcel is surrounded by vernal pool-grassland complex habitat, continuous cultivation over the past 78 or more years has modified the original hydrology of the project site to effectively remove any native vernal pool wetlands that likely occurred historically.

Wildlife Nursery Sites
Nursery sites are locations where fish or wildlife concentrate for hatching, birthing, or raising young, such as nesting rookeries for birds (e.g., herons, egrets), spawning areas for native fish, fawning areas for mule deer (Odocoileus

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-20 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR hemionus), and maternal roosts for bats. Based on historic aerial imagery, rookeries likely associated with snowy egrets (Egretta thula), great egrets (Ardea alba), or black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) are present in trees approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. Large accumulations of guano within rookery trees tends to eventually kill the tree. There were no signs of rookeries within the portion of Pleasant Grove Creek bordering the project site; however, large trees along Pleasant Grove Creek provide habitat for potential rookeries now or in the future.

In addition, some large valley oak, blue oak, and Fremont cottonwood trees on the project site contain structural features (e.g., cavities, crevices, sloughing bark) that may provide roosting habitat for common bat species (e.g., big brown bat [Eptesicus fuscus], Mexican free-tailed bat [Tadadira brasiliensis]).

Wildlife Movement Corridors
A wildlife movement corridor is generally a topographical or landscape feature or movement zone that connects two or more natural habitat areas. Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are separated by variation in vegetation, rugged terrain, human disturbance, and habitat fragmentation, or other biophysical factors. Movement corridors may provide favorable locations for wildlife to travel between different habitat areas, such as foraging sites, breeding sites, cover areas, and preferred summer and winter range locations. They may also function as dispersal corridors allowing animals to move between various locations within their range. Therefore, wildlife movement and migration corridors are considered an important ecological resource by CDFW and other agencies and are protected by many local governments in California.

Some of the important areas for habitat connectivity in California were mapped as Essential Connectivity Areas for the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, which was commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW with the purpose of making transportation and land-use planning more efficient and less costly, while helping reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions (Spencer et al. 2010). The Essential Connectivity Areas were not developed for the purpose of defining areas subject to specific regulations by CDFW or other agencies. The northwest corner of the project site, which is bordered by Pleasant Grove Creek, is identified as a wildlife linkage area for conservation planning (Figure 3.5-2).

As noted above, the project site is surrounded by agricultural land uses and vernal pool-grassland complex habitat.

The undeveloped nature of the project site likely supports movement of local wildlife, including small mammals (e.g., rodents, rabbits), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Pleasant Grove Creek and the valley oak riparian woodland habitat associated with the creek likely function as wildlife movement corridors for fish, amphibians, birds, and small mammals.

Waters of the United States and Waters of the State
Natural aquatic habitat on the project site includes wetlands in the off-site portion of the PUE. Pleasant Grove Creek would qualify as waters of the United States due to its connectivity to other waters of the United States; however, it is north of the project site and lies outside the project’s proposed development area. The irrigation and drainage ditches in the center of the project site would not be considered waters of the United States because these were excavated in dry land and do not convey a relatively permanent flow of water. The northern portion of the drainage ditch, along the northwestern boundary, supports riparian vegetation, indicating that it is a relatively permanent water and it drains into Pleasant Grove Creek and, thus, may qualify as a water of the United States; however, this ditch would be avoided because it is outside of the area of disturbance. All waters of the United States are also waters of the state; however, wetlands and waters disclaimed by USACE may still meet the definition of waters of the state.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-21 Source: Data downloaded from CNDDB in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3.5-2 Modeled Wildlife Linkage Areas in the Region

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-22 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR

3.5.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
This impact evaluation is based on data collected during a reconnaissance-level field survey conducted on April 3, 2024, review of aerial photographs, review of existing databases that address biological resources in the project vicinity, and review of existing resource reports as described previously.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. An impact on biological resources is considered significant if implementation of the project would do any of the following:
 have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;  have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;  interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;  conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Although some special-status fish species have potential to occur within Pleasant Grove Creek, the creek and riparian corridor are outside of the proposed construction area. The proposed development area of the project site would be between 930 and 1,614 feet away from Pleasant Grove Creek. The project’s Phase 1 anticipated stormwater output would be managed on-site or would utilize the Pleasant Grove Stormwater Retention Basin Project (depending on the implementation schedule for that project). Stormwater from the potential future compost facility would be managed using a stormwater retention basin. Contact water from the compost facility would be retained, treated in accordance with regulatory requirements, and reused in the organics process. Each on-site stormwater detention basin would be designed to accommodate its respective tributary runoff area to limit runoff from the site and manage it in a manner that is consistent with applicable regulations and historic discharge levels. Therefore, the project would have no direct or indirect effects on special-status fish species, or their habitat, and this issue is not discussed further.

The project site is not within the plan area of any adopted HCP or NCCP. The nearest PCCP Reserve Acquisition Area [Mourier West Property] is approximately 930 feet north of the proposed development area (Placer County 2020).

The City of Roseville is not a participant in this PCCP and the project site is not within the PCCP plan area. Therefore, this issue is not discussed further.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.5-1: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Plant Species Phase 1
One special-status plant (Sanford’s arrowhead) may occur on the project site, associated with the drainage ditch along the northwest boundary of the project site. Project construction would avoid the drainage ditch, and no direct effects would occur. In addition, eight special-status plant species may occur in association with the vernal pools that may be present in the off-site portion of the PUE. The installation of utilities in the PUE may result in disturbance to or loss of special-status plants if they are present. Because the loss of special-status plants could substantially affect the abundance, distribution, and viability of local and regional populations of these species, this would be a potentially significant impact.

One special-status plant (Sanford’s arrowhead) may occur on the project site. This species is associated with aquatic habitats that have a hydrologic regime that can support marsh vegetation. The only habitat suitable for this species on the project site is the drainage ditch along the northwest boundary of the project site. Project construction would avoid the drainage ditch, and no direct effects would occur. The rice fields just south of Pleasant Grove Creek would continue to be used as rice fields and drainage into the drainage ditch would continue. Potential indirect effects from project operation include reduction in water quality caused by storm water runoff, erosion, and siltation; alteration of the hydrologic regime through modification of surface flows or perched groundwater flows; and introduction or spread of invasive species that could result in habitat degradation. As explained in Section 3.11, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” construction activities are subject to NPDES General Permit requirements as well as the City’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Compliance with these regulations would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and hydrology. Therefore, changes to habitat that could support Sanford’s arrowhead on the project site would be avoided.

Eight special-status plant species (dwarf downingia, Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop, woolly rose-mallow, Ahart’s dwarf rush, Red Bluff dwarf rush, legenere, pincushion navarretia, and Sanford’s arrowhead) are associated with vernal pools that may be present in the off-site area of the PUE. The installation of utilities in the off-site portion of the PUE may include ground disturbance and vegetation removal. As a result, direct loss of these special-status plants or indirect damage could occur through trampling or damage to root systems of these species, if present. Loss or damage of specialstatus plants would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Conduct Special-Status Plant Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures and Mitigation  Prior to implementation of project activities within the PUE, and during the blooming period for the special-status plant species with potential to occur within the PUE (i.e., approximately May to October), a qualified botanist shall conduct protocol-level surveys for special-status plants within the PUE following survey methods from CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts on Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018 or most recent version). The qualified botanist shall: (1) be knowledgeable about plant taxonomy, (2) be familiar with plants of the Sacramento Valley region, including special-status plants and sensitive natural communities, (3) have experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in CDFW 2018, (4) be familiar with the California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/), and (5) be familiar with federal and state statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting.  If special-status plants are not found, the botanist shall document the findings in a report to the City of Roseville, and no further mitigation shall be required.
 If special-status plant species are found during protocol-level surveys, the plant shall be avoided completely, if feasible (i.e., project objectives can still be met). This may include establishing a no-disturbance buffer around the

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-24 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR plants and demarcation of this buffer by a qualified biologist or botanist using flagging or high-visibility construction fencing. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist or botanist and shall be large enough to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the plant.  If special-status plants are found during special-status plant surveys and cannot be avoided, the City of Roseville shall, in consultation with CDFW as appropriate depending on the particular species, develop and implement a site-specific mitigation strategy to offset the loss of occupied habitat and individual plants. Mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, preserving and enhancing existing populations, establishing populations through seed collection or transplantation from the site that is to be affected, and/or restoring or creating habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations within or outside of the project site, with a preference for on-site mitigation. Habitat and individual plants lost shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio, considering acreage as well as function and value. Success criteria for preserved and compensatory populations shall include:
 The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations shall be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat.  Compensatory and preserved populations shall be self-producing. Populations shall be considered selfproducing when:
• plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and
• reestablished and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity. • If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures shall be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long-term viable populations.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce significant impacts on special-status plants to a less-thansignificant level by requiring a protocol-level survey for special-status plants for project activities associated with installation of utilities in the PUE and implementation of avoidance measures and compensation for impacts on special-status plants.

Phase 2
One special-status plant (Sanford’s arrowhead) may occur on the project site, associated with the drainage ditch along the northwest boundary of the project site. Project construction would avoid the drainage ditch, and no direct effects would occur. Further, the Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in disturbance to or loss of special-status plants. This impact would be less than significant.

As described for Phase 1, one special-status plant (Sanford’s arrowhead) may occur on the project site, associated with the drainage ditch along the northwest boundary of the project site. For the same reasons described for Phase 1, project construction would avoid the drainage ditch, and no direct effects would occur.

As described for Phase 1, eight special-status plant species are associated with vernal pools that may be present in the off-site area of the PUE; however, the Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area because the new electrical substation, 60 kV line extension, and other associated infrastructure would be installed during Phase 1.

Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in disturbance to or loss of special-status plants. This impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-25 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 3.5-2: Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Phase 1
Implementation of Phase 1 would involve land use conversion and associated development activities such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal both within the project site and in the PUE, resulting in the overall loss of wildlife habitat. These actions could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species, if present, as well as reduced breeding success and habitat loss. This impact would be potentially significant.

Table 3.5-2 provides information about the special-status wildlife species that may occur on the project site and/or within the PUE: northwestern pond turtle; western spadefoot; vernal pool fairy shrimp; vernal pool tadpole shrimp; Crotch’s bumble bee; monarch; special-status birds (including loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, short-eared owl, song sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored black bird, western yellow-billed cuckoo, white-tailed kite, yellow-headed blackbird); ringtail; pallid bat; and western red bat. Common native nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA may also be present on the project site.

Northwestern Pond Turtle
Aquatic habitat suitable for northwestern pond turtle is present in Pleasant Grove Creek. Northwestern pond turtles use upland habitat for basking and egg-laying, sometimes a significant distance from aquatic habitat (i.e., up to 0.3 miles). Stream bank habitat adjacent to the creek on the project site as well as uncultivated areas in the understory of the valley oak riparian woodland habitat adjacent to the creek may provide upland habitat suitable for northwestern pond turtle nesting. The agricultural land on the project site likely does not provide upland habitat suitable for this species because the land is disturbed and regularly disked.

All project activities would occur within the agricultural land on the project site and would avoid Pleasant Grove Creek and associated valley oak riparian woodland habitat because the planned development area is a minimum of 930 feet south of Pleasant Grove Creek. Construction activities would include ground disturbance and vegetation removal.

However, the berms and road shoulders on the project site provide marginal upland habitat for northwestern pond turtle and, as a result, construction activities associated with Phase 1 could result in loss of or injury to northwestern pond turtles if present on the project site.

Potential indirect effects from project operation include reduction in water quality caused by storm water runoff, erosion, and siltation; increased litter; noise and light pollution; alteration of the hydrologic regime through modification of surface flows or perched groundwater flows; intrusion of humans; and introduction or spread of invasive species that could result in habitat degradation. As explained in Section 3.11, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” construction activities for the project are subject to NPDES General Permit requirements as well as the City’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Compliance with these regulations would reduce potential indirect effects on water quality and hydrology.

Phase 1 includes development of new municipal uses on land that is currently undeveloped. This development would result in approximately 116 acres of new impervious surfaces. Phase 1 also has the potential to generate polluted runoff associated with storage of chemicals and vehicle/equipment leaks. However, the project would be designed to minimize impacts to water quality including stormwater ponds, retention basins, and providing landscape setbacks that would serve as a buffer between the project and Pleasant Grove Creek.

In addition, the City operates under an NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit administered by the state. The City’s Stormwater Management Plan was adopted and approved by the Central Valley RWQCB and the City received a Phase II Stormwater Permit in 2004. The waste discharge requirements contained in the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit have been designed to be consistent with the water quality standards and goals established in the Central Valley RWQCB’s Basin Plan. In compliance with City’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance including implementing measures from the Stormwater BMP Guidance Manual for Construction,

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-26 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR PCFCWCD’s Stormwater Management Manual, and the West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual, potential long-term water quality impacts from Phase 1 would be minimized.

Phase 1 would include implementation of design measures, including stormwater detention basins shown in Figure 2- 4 in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” to minimize impacts to Pleasant Grove Creek by limiting runoff from the site and managing it in a manner that is consistent with applicable regulations and historic discharge levels. In addition, Phase 1 would be required to comply with the City’s Phase II Stormwater Permit, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, West Placer Storm Water Quality Design Manual, and Section 16.20.040 of the Roseville Municipal Code that include measures to control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution. Thus, short- and long-term impacts on surface and groundwater quality would be less than significant.

To minimize trespassing into Pleasant Grove Creek after buildout of Phase 1, the project design measures include the installation of a perimeter fence that may include screening as necessary, thus reducing potential trespassing into the creek area from the project site. The RRTO Facility, EU Services Facility, and Equipment Maintenance Facility areas would be fenced separate from one another with gates providing controlled access between the facilities. The Vendor Lease Area would be fenced separately. This fencing would also help maintain potential debris within the project site.

In addition, project operation may attract nuisance wildlife that could prey on northwestern pond turtles. Raccoons, skunks, Virginia opossums, foxes, coyotes, feral cats, ravens, and gulls are known to prey on northwestern pond turtle adults, their nests, and juveniles. Without mitigation, the project may attract predators that could result in the loss or injury of northwestern pond turtles.

Although compliance with water quality and stormwater management regulations would reduce indirect impacts on northwestern pond turtle, pond turtles could be killed or mortally wounded during project construction and operation. Loss or injury of northwestern pond turtles would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Northwestern Pond Turtle, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
 Prior to implementation of project activities within the project site, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of northwestern pond turtles and experienced in performing surveys for northwestern pond turtle shall conduct a focused survey of aquatic habitat and upland habitats suitable for the species within approximately 1,600 feet of aquatic habitat. The qualified biologist shall inspect the project site for northwestern pond turtles as well as burrow habitat suitable for the species.
 If northwestern pond turtles are not detected during the focused survey, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and further mitigation will not be required.  If northwestern pond turtles are detected, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet shall be established around any identified nest sites or overwintering sites. These nest and overwintering sites shall be monitored until the northwestern pond turtles have left the nest on their own accord.  A qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit that allows handling of reptiles shall be present during initial ground disturbance activities and shall inspect the project site before initiation of project activities. If northwestern pond turtles are detected, the qualified biologist shall move the turtles downstream and out of harm’s way.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2b: Provide Stream Setbacks, Best Management Practices Although the project would have a buffer between the edge of construction and Pleasant Grove Creek of between 930 and 1,614 feet, the following protection measure shall be implemented during construction:
 Prior to the start of construction activities on the project site, the limits of disturbance shall be established, flagged or fenced with brightly visible construction flagging and or fencing under the direction of a qualified biologist, and no project activities (e.g., vegetation removal, ground disturbance, staging) shall occur beyond

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-27 these areas. All workers and contractors shall be made aware that this area is an environmentally sensitive area and it is off-limits. After construction is completed, this temporary fencing shall be removed from the area.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2c: Develop and Integrate a Nuisance Wildlife Management Plan into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan
 The City shall develop a nuisance wildlife management plan and incorporate it into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan that includes BMPs to minimize attracting nuisance wildlife, ensuring the measures comply with local, state and federal regulations.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a, 3.5-2b, and 3.5-2c would reduce potential impacts on northwestern pond turtle to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for the species, implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of northwestern pond turtles if detected, and relocation of individual turtles by a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit, implementing construction BMPs and providing stream setbacks by fencing or flagging the limits of disturbance, and developing a nuisance wildlife management plan and incorporating it into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan.

WESTERN SPADEFOOT
Vernal pool habitat potentially suitable for western spadefoot is present in the off-site portion of the PUE. Most project activities would occur within the agricultural land on the project site and would avoid potential western spadefoot habitat. However, installation of new public utilities in the PUE may result in disturbance of western spadefoot habitat, as well as possible encroachment by buildings and paved areas. Construction activities associated with these project features may include ground disturbance and vegetation removal. As a result, these activities could result in loss of or injury to western spadefoot if present within the project site. Loss or injury of western spadefoot would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2d: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Western Spadefoot, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
 Within three days of commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of western spadefoot and experienced in performing surveys for western spadefoot shall conduct a focused survey of wetland habitat in the PUE. The qualified biologist shall inspect the project site for western spadefoot, western spadefoot tadpoles and eggs, and suitable terrestrial and overwintering habitat (i.e., burrows).  If an overwintering western spadefoot, western spadefoot tadpoles, or western spadefoot eggs are observed on the project site during the preconstruction survey, the area shall be fenced off and avoided until the eggs hatch, tadpoles develop, and/or the burrow is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. The fenced area shall be open on one side with the opening facing the nearest aquatic or upland dispersal habitat so that young or overwintering western spadefoot can freely travel from the fenced area to the aquatic or dispersal habitat. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nest area to ensure that western spadefoot do not disperse into the construction area. Monitoring shall occur until the qualified biologist determines the area to no longer be actively occupied by western spadefoot.  A qualified biologist shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities to monitor these activities. If a western spadefoot is encountered, work shall be suspended in a 100-foot radius of the animal until the animal leaves the project site of its own volition. If necessary, a qualified biologist shall notify CDFW to determine the appropriate procedures related to relocation, which shall include, but not be limited to, obtaining a valid and applicable CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit. Any worker who inadvertently injures or kills a western spadefoot or who finds a western spadefoot dead, injured, or entrapped must immediately report the incident to the

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-28 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR City, who must immediately notify CDFW. Entrapped western spadefoot shall be relocated by a qualified biologist with a valid and applicable CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit if approved by CDFW. • Because western spadefoot is proposed for listing under ESA, if the species is listed before completion of project construction activities that could result in injury or mortality of western spadefoots (i.e., ground disturbance, grading, land conversion), then the City may be required to consult with USFWS under Section 7 or Section 10 of ESA. If it is determined, in consultation with USFWS, that take of this species could occur after implementation of the measures described above, then the City may be required to obtain incidental take authorization through Section 7 consultation or a Section 10 permit pursuant to ESA. In this case, the project shall not proceed until a Biological Opinion is issued by USFWS. Any conservation measures developed in coordination with USFWS during the course of formal or informal consultation under Section 7 or during Section 10 consultation would supersede the measures listed here. • Such conservation measures could include, but would not be limited to, seasonal work restrictions for initial ground disturbance, preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist, installation of wildlife exclusion fencing, biological monitoring, and worker environmental awareness training. Additional measures could include preservation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat on-of off-site; purchase of habitat credits from an agency-approved mitigation/conservation bank; work with a local land trust to preserve land; or any other method acceptable to USFWS.  If USFWS determines that listing of western spadefoot under ESA is not warranted, or the species is not listed prior to project completion, then the above measures related to consultation with USFWS would not be applicable.

Documentation of compliance with this mitigation measure and the coordination/consultation process with CDFW shall be provided to the City of Roseville before commencement of any project construction activities.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2d would reduce potential impacts on western spadefoot to a less-thansignificant level by requiring focused surveys for the species and implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of western spadefoot if detected, biological monitoring, and relocation of individuals by a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Vernal pool branchiopods, including special-status fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp species, may occur in vernal pool wetlands in the off-site portion of the PUE. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp is listed as endangered under ESA, and vernal pool fairy shrimp is listed as threatened under ESA. These species are endemic to vernal pools, primarily in the Central Valley of California. Installation of utilities in the PUE may remove vernal pool habitat suitable for these species or result in loss (i.e. take) of these species. Direct and indirect adverse effects on vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2e: Conduct Pre-construction Vernal Pool Avoidance Surveys, Protocol-Level Branchiopod Surveys, and Compensate for Loss of Vernal Pool Branchiopods  Prior to implementation of project activities in the PUE, wetland and vernal pool habitat in the PUE area shall be delineated and a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be implemented, as determined by a qualified biologist. No project activities, including staging of equipment, will occur within the no-disturbance buffer, if feasible.  If the no-disturbance buffer is not feasible, a qualified biologist familiar with vernal pool branchiopods shall conduct a focused survey for vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, following Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2017), or any subsequently published guidelines. Protocollevel surveys for branchiopods require authorization from the USFWS Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-29  The City of Roseville shall report all survey results to USFWS. If no vernal pool branchiopods are identified, no further mitigation shall be required.
 If vernal pool branchiopods are identified on the project site, the City shall initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS. USACE is presumed to be the federal action agency because it has jurisdiction over the aquatic habitat on the project site. If it is determined, in consultation with USFWS, that take of these species will occur as a result of project activities, then the City may be required to obtain incidental take authorization pursuant to Section 7 of ESA. The project shall not proceed until a Biological Opinion is issued by USFWS.  Any conservation measures developed in coordination with USFWS during formal or informal consultation under Section 7 shall be implemented.
 Additional measures may include preservation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat on- or off-site; purchase of habitat credits from an agency-approved mitigation/conservation bank; work with a local land trust to preserve land; or any other method acceptable to USFWS at a no-net-loss level.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2e would reduce impacts on vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of protection measures, and compensation for loss of vernal pool branchiopods where direct or indirect impacts on the species are unavoidable.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Bumble bees have three basic habitat requirements: suitable nesting sites for the colonies, availability of nectar and pollen from floral resources throughout the duration of the colony period (spring, summer, and fall), and overwintering sites for the queens. The long-term productivity of bumble bee populations is affected by the quantity and quality of nectar and pollen available and the proximity of these resources to nesting habitat.

Crotch’s bumble bees nest underground and likely use, at least in part, old rodent burrows (Williams et al. 2014; Xerces Society 2018). Some bumble bees favor nest sites near woody transitional habitats and nest in holes or crevices in leaf litter, beneath woody debris, at the base of a tree, in herbaceous plant debris, or near grass clumps (Lanterman et al. 2019).

Crotch’s bumble bees are generalist foragers and have been reported visiting a wide variety of flowering plants (Xerces Society 2018). Crotch’s bumble bee has a very short tongue and is best suited to forage at open flowers with short corollas (Xerces Society 2018). Very little is known about the hibernacula, or overwintering sites utilized by Crotch’s bumble bees. Generally, bumble bees overwinter in soft, well-drained, disturbed soil (Liczner and Colla 2019), or under leaf or needle litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014; Williams et al. 2019) in woody forest edges (CDFW 2023). Overwintering likely occurs primarily in woodlands (USFWS 2021). Overwintering queens may prefer shaded areas near trees in areas without dense vegetation and north-facing slopes (Liczner and Colla 2019; Williams et al. 2014). Bumble bees in California have been documented overwintering under 1–2 inches of duff, between leaf/needle litter and mineral soil (Williams et al. 2014).

In the Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species, CDFW recommends reviewing the CNDDB, iNaturalist (a citizen science database), and Bumble Bee Watch databases for recorded observations in the vicinity of a given project site (CDFW 2023). The CNDDB includes six Crotch’s bumble bee occurrences in the vicinity of the project site from 2020 through 2024 (CNDDB 2025). iNaturalist contains 10 observations and Bumble Bee Watch contains five observations, and at least five of these are also reported in the CNDDB (iNaturalist 2025; Xerces Society et al. 2021).

The annual grassland habitat on the project site and the ornamental vegetation surrounding the existing residence provide flowering plants that provide potential nectar sources for Crotch’s bumble bee. These areas also typically contain rodent burrows, dirt mounds, and clumps of dead grass, which may provide nesting habitat for Crotch’s bumble bees.

Agricultural areas on the project site (hay fields and rice fields) are routinely tilled, irrigated, or otherwise managed in a way that is generally not considered suitable for bumble bee nesting or overwintering. Most studies on the nesting habitat of bumble bees focus partly on agricultural areas, and few nests are found within arable agricultural land

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-30 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR (Liczner and Colla 2019). Most bumble bee nests found in agricultural areas are found in field margins or hedgerows, in adjacent patches of other habitat types (e.g., woodlands, gardens), or pastures (Liczner and Colla 2019).

Initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities could result in direct loss of bumble bees while foraging aboveground or nesting underground. Project implementation could result in loss of individual Crotch’s bumble bees or Crotch’s bumble bee nests and loss of foraging and breeding habitat for the species. While loss of individual Crotch’s bumble bees or a colony as a result of project activities may not cause the population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate the species, or substantially reduce the range of the species, the population status of this species is poorly understood, and loss of a colony could have a substantial effect on the population.

Loss of Crotch’s bumble bees would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2f: Conduct Take Avoidance Surveys for Crotch’s Bumble Bee and Implement Avoidance Measures  A qualified biologist familiar with bumble bees of California and experienced using survey methods for bumble bees shall conduct a habitat assessment and focused survey for Crotch’s bumble bees before the start of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be performed when Crotch’s bumble bee is most likely to be identified, typically from April through August when floral resources and ideal weather conditions are present and shall follow the methods in Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or any subsequent protocol approved by CDFW. Surveys shall be conducted during the colony active period closest to the start of planned construction activities. At least three (3) on-site surveys shall take place prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. Each survey shall be spaced 2-4 weeks apart during the Colony Active Period.
 The City of Roseville shall submit a survey report to CDFW within 1 month of survey completion and shall notify CDFW within 24 hours if Crotch’s bumble bees are detected.  If Crotch’s bumble bees are detected during the focused surveys, appropriate avoidance measures shall be implemented. Avoidance measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Protective buffers shall be implemented around active nesting colonies or overwintering queens until these sites are no longer active. A qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall determine the appropriate buffer size to protect nesting colonies or overwintering queens.
 If impacts on crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided, the City shall obtain an incidental take permit (ITP) from CDFW and shall implement all measures included in the ITP to reduce the amount of take and offset the loss of individuals or their habitat from the project site and provide compensatory mitigation for the loss of individuals or habitat.  Compensatory mitigation for the loss of individual bumblebees or their habitat may include:

1. Preserving existing habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity; this may entail purchasing mitigation credits and/or lands from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved entity in sufficient quantity to offset the residual significant impacts, generally at a ratio of 1:1 for habitat; and

2. Restoring or enhancing existing habitat within the project site or outside of the project site but within the range of the species in the City limits.
 The City shall prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects:
a. For preserving existing habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-31 City shall submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the City has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. b. For restoring or enhancing habitat within or outside of the project site, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2f would reduce the potential impact on Crotch’s bumble bee to a less-thansignificant level by requiring focused surveys for bumble bees, implementing measures to avoid mortality of Crotch’s bumble bees if nests or overwintering queens are detected, obtaining an ITP for unavoidable impacts, and developing a compensatory mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW to offset the loss of individuals or occupied habitat.

Monarch
The project site is located outside of the coastal overwintering range of this species but is located within the inland breeding and foraging range of the species. The project site contains annual grassland habitat that likely provides foraging habitat for monarch (i.e., floral resources) and provides breeding habitat for the species because milkweed (Ascelepias spp.) plants are present within the project site.

Project implementation would include conversion of annual grassland habitat and potential loss of foraging and breeding habitat suitable for monarch, as well as potential direct loss of individual monarch butterfly eggs and caterpillars if present on milkweed plants during construction. Project implementation could result in loss of individual monarchs and loss of foraging and breeding habitat. Direct loss of monarchs would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2g: Conduct Take Avoidance Survey for Monarch Eggs, Larvae and Pupae, and Implement Avoidance Measures
 No more than 14 days prior to implementing project activities that would result in ground disturbance or vegetation removal during the time when milkweed plants could host monarch eggs or caterpillars (approximately mid-March through late September), a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for milkweed plants and inspect these plants for monarch eggs, larvae (i.e., caterpillars), and pupae. If monarch eggs, caterpillars, or pupae are found, the host plants shall be avoided until metamorphosis is completed and adult butterflies emerge and leave the host plant. If no eggs, caterpillars or pupae are detected, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and further mitigation shall not be required.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2g would reduce potential impacts on monarch to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for milkweed plant, monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae and implementation of measures to avoid mortality of monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae if they are detected.

Special-Status Birds, Common Raptors, and Other Common Native Birds Nine special-status birds have potential to occur on the project site (Table 3.5-2). Nesting habitat for most of these special-status bird species is only present within the valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site; however, Swainson’s hawks could also nest within other large trees elsewhere on the project site. Other common raptor species could also nest in trees on the project site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi). Other common native birds could also nest on the project site within trees, shrubs, brambles (e.g., Himalayan blackberry), or on the ground (i.e., within the valley oak riparian woodland habitat). While not special-status species, common raptors and other common native birds and their nests are protected under California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-32 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Most project activities would occur within the agricultural land on the development area of the project site and would avoid the valley oak riparian woodland habitat. Activities within the development area would include grading and soil excavation, vegetation clearing, and tree removal which would require the use of equipment, vehicles, and heavy machinery. These activities could result in inadvertent disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status and common native birds nesting on the project site or in nearby habitats such as along Pleasant Grove Creek where Swainson’s hawks were observed nesting during the reconnaissance survey. If present during construction activities, special-status and common native birds could be disturbed by noise, vibration, or visual stimuli from equipment and personnel potentially leading to nest abandonment. Active nests could be inadvertently removed or destroyed during vegetation and tree removal activities, if present, potentially resulting in the loss of eggs or chicks. As shown in Table 3.5-1, the project site supports agricultural (hay field/row crops), annual grassland, and disturbed-grassland cover that provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Implementation of the project would result in removal of approximately 51.63 acres of these habitats. Removal of annual grassland, hay agricultural field, and disturbed-grass would reduce the available foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk in the area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment, reduced reproductive success, and ultimately, a decline in the local Swainson’s hawk population. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2h: Conduct Focused Surveys for Special-Status Birds, Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers; and Mitigate for the Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat  To minimize the potential for loss of special-status bird species, raptors, and other native birds, project construction activities (e.g., tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project construction activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, and before January 1, no further mitigation shall be required.
 If project construction activities, including tree removal, occur after January 1 but before February 1, a preconstruction survey for nesting great-horned owl shall take place. This survey shall be conducted within 500 feet of the development area where activities or tree removals are to take place. If no nesting great-horned owls are found, the qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a report summarizing the result of the survey to the City of Roseville, and construction or tree removals can move forward. If nesting great-horned owls are found, impacts on nesting great-horned owls shall be avoided by establishing a 500-foot buffer around the active nest site(s) identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer will not likely result in nest abandonment.  Within 14 days before the onset of project construction activities during the breeding season of other birds besides great-horned owl (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for special-status birds, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted within 0.25 miles of the project site for Swainson’s hawk; within 500 feet of the project site for other special-status birds and common raptors; and within 50 feet of the project site for non-raptor common native bird nests.  Because the nests of riparian-nesting birds (i.e., song sparrow [“Modesto” population], tricolored blackbird, and western yellow-billed cuckoo) are small and difficult to find, occupancy of habitat suitable for these species (i.e., riparian woodland) shall be determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of these species and with experience identifying the calls of these species. If special-status riparian-nesting birds are observed calling, exhibiting territorial displays, carrying nest materials, carrying prey, or other signs of breeding behavior, the habitat shall be considered occupied.
 If no nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Roseville, and no further mitigation shall be required.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-33  Impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project construction activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer will not likely result in nest abandonment. An avoidance buffer of a minimum of 0.25 miles shall be implemented for Swainson’s hawk in consultation with CDFW. An avoidance buffer of a minimum of 500 feet shall be implemented for western yellow-billed cuckoo in consultation with USFWS and CDFW and for tricolored blackbird in consultation with CDFW. Buffers typically will be 500 feet for other special-status birds and common raptors. For other species, a qualified biologist shall determine the size of the buffer for non-raptor nests after a site- and nest-specific analysis. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size will include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project construction activities. Generally, buffer size for these species will be at least 20 feet. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a special-status species shall require consultation with CDFW. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project construction activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project construction activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.  The City shall mitigate for the loss of 51.63 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat by purchasing foraging habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank in the area at a 1:1 ratio for each acre of foraging habitat removed by the project. This mitigation shall occur before the approval of any grading or improvement plans for the project.
 If egret or night heron rookeries are found within trees on the project site, an avoidance buffer shall be implemented, the size of which will be determined by a qualified biologist. Buffer size for large rookeries will likely be larger than for single nests due to the number of birds and nests within the rookery. Rookery trees identified on the project site shall be retained permanently.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2h would reduce potential impacts on special-status birds, raptors, and other common native nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for nesting birds, implementation of measures to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of the species if nests are detected and compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Northern California Ringtail
Large trees within the valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site may provide den habitat suitable for Northern California ringtail (i.e., large cavities). Most project activities would occur within the agricultural land in the development area of the project site and would avoid Pleasant Grove Creek, the drainage ditch, and associated valley oak riparian woodland habitat. However, ringtails are known to move between suitable habitat areas and occupy abandoned buildings. Removal of trees within the development area of the project site or activities associated with the repurposing of the former residence and related structures could result in injury or mortality of ringtails or direct loss of occupied dens during ground disturbance or vegetation removal, or disturbance to active dens potentially resulting in direct loss or abandonment of an active den with dependent young and subsequent mortality of ringtail kits. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2i Conduct Focused Surveys for Northern California Ringtail Dens and Implement Avoidance Measures
 To minimize the potential loss of ringtail and active ringtail dens, tree removal within the development area on the project site shall be conducted outside of the ringtail breeding season (not well defined, but likely approximately March 1 to July 31), if feasible.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-34 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR  Within seven days before initiation of tree removal within the development area on the project site or demolishing or repurposing of the associated buildings during the ringtail breeding season, a qualified biologist familiar with ringtail shall conduct a focused survey for potential ringtail dens (e.g., hollow trees, snags) within the trees planned for removal, and buildings within the development area of the project site. The qualified biologist shall identify individual ringtails, as well as potential dens.  If individuals or occupied dens are not found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and further mitigation shall not be required.  If ringtails are identified or if potential dens are found in the trees planned for removal or within one of the existing unoccupied buildings, an appropriate method, based on current professional standards, shall be used by the qualified wildlife biologist to confirm whether a ringtail is occupying the den. This may include use of remote field cameras, track plates, or hair snares. Other devices, such as a fiber optic scope, may be utilized to determine occupancy.
 If no ringtail occupies the potential den, the tree or structure may be removed.  If a den is found to be occupied by a ringtail, the tree or building may not be removed, and a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the occupied den. The no-disturbance buffer shall include the den tree or building plus a suitable buffer as determined by the biologist in coordination with CDFW. Project activities in the no-disturbance buffer shall be avoided until the den is no longer occupied as determined by the qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2i would reduce potential impacts on Northern California ringtail to a lessthan-significant level by requiring focused surveys for ringtail dens prior to tree removal, demolishing or repurposing of unoccupied buildings at the site, and implementation of no-disturbance buffers around active dens in consultation with CDFW.

Pallid Bat and Western Red Bat
Large trees within the valley oak riparian woodland habitat or individual large trees elsewhere on the project site may provide roost habitat suitable for pallid bat and western red bat (i.e., large cavities, foliage). The former residence and associated buildings could also provide roosting habitat for these species. Most project activities would occur within the agricultural land in the development area of the project site and would avoid Pleasant Grove Creek and associated valley oak riparian woodland habitat. However, large trees elsewhere on the project site may be removed during construction activities. Removal of trees and demolition or repurposing of existing buildings could result in roost abandonment and injury or mortality of pallid bats and western red bats if roosts are present. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2j: Conduct Focused Bat Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures  Prior to tree removal activities and demolition or repurposing of existing buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with bats and bat ecology and experienced in conducting bat surveys shall conduct surveys for bat roosts in large trees and existing buildings on the project site.
 If no evidence of bat roosts is found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Roseville, and no further mitigation will be required.  If evidence of bat roosts is observed, the species and number of bats using the roost shall be determined. Bat detectors shall be used if deemed necessary to supplement survey efforts by the qualified biologist.  A no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet shall be established around active pallid bat or western red bat roosts, and project construction activities shall not occur within this buffer until the roosts are no longer occupied by bats as determined by a qualified biologist.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-35  If roosts of pallid bat or western red bat are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or structure is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures shall be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) shall be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may require construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. If determined necessary during consultation with CDFW, replacement roosts shall be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site by a qualified biologist, the roost tree or building may be removed, demolished, or repurposed.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2j would reduce potential impacts on pallid bat and western red bat to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for bat roosts, no-disturbance buffers around active specialstatus bat roosts, and consultation with CDFW if special-status bat roosts would be removed.

Phase 2
Implementation of Phase 2 would involve an additional 34 acres of land use conversion. However, because the project site would need to be made suitable for development for Phase 1, the existing surface of the development area would need to be raised to be equal or higher than the flood elevation during Phase 1. Because the area of Phase 2 would also need to be raised to help achieve a buildable area concurrent with Phase 1, the area of Phase 2 would be disturbed concurrent with Phase 1. However, because the area would remain undeveloped, the site could revert to a natural state between completion of Phase 1 and the start of Phase 2 and, depending on conditions, could provide suitable habitat for special-status species. Development activities associated with Phase 2, such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal, would result in the overall loss of potential wildlife habitat. These actions could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species, if any are present, as well as reduced breeding success and habitat loss. This impact would be considered potentially significant.

Phase 2 of the project would include an additional 122,000 square feet of building area for the RRTO Facility and the construction of 37,000 square feet of building area for the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility (including the development of 34 acres of land). Similar to Phase 1, construction of Phase 2 would involve land conversion and associated development activities such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal. These actions could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species, if present, as well as reduced breeding success and habitat loss.

The Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area because the new electrical substation, 60 kV line extension, and other associated infrastructure would be installed during Phase 1. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species that are associated with vernal pool habitat (i.e., wester spadefoot, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp) or other habitat provided in the off-site PUE area (i.e., short-eared owl and yellow-headed blackbird).

Operation of Phase 2 would include a Potential Future Organics Processing Facility, which may involve a composting facility and/or biomass facility. The potential future compost facility would involve the composting of green waste, wood, and food waste. The potential future biomass facility would convert biomass (woody materials) into energy using thermal means and would likely include food, agricultural, and yard trimming waste. The specific type of biomass device is not yet known, and the potential biomass facility would be developed at a later time after being evaluated by the City on its financial, environmental, and regulatory merits.

Depending on the type of organics processing facility constructed, it may be housed in a fully enclosed environment or an open-air organics processing facility. Potential effects on wildlife will differ depending on the type of facility that is selected. A fully enclosed processing facility would reduce attraction of nuisance wildlife to the area, whereas an open processing facility would need to implement industry standard BMPs to minimize such attraction.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-36 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Phase 1 would involve the construction and operation of organics waste receipt, pre-processing, and transfer facilities, which would require the City to implement measures to minimize attracting nuisance wildlife species. As such, Phase 2 construction activities and operation would have similar impacts on wildlife as identified during the Phase 1 construction and operation.

Development and operation activities associated with Phase 2, such as ground disturbance, vegetation removal, new lighting sources, noise impacts, and nuisance wildlife species that could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status wildlife species, if present, as well as reduced breeding success and habitat loss, which would be similar as those impacts identified from Phase 1. For the same reasons described for Phase 1, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a, 3.5-2b, 3.5-2c, 3.5-2f, 3.5-2g, 3.5-2h, 3.5-2i, and 3.5-2j, described above.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a, 3.5-2b, and 3.5-2c would reduce potential impacts on northwestern pond turtle to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for the species, implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of northwestern pond turtles if detected, and relocation of individual turtles by a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit, implementing construction BMPs and providing stream setback by fencing or flagging the limits of disturbance, developing a nuisance wildlife management plan and incorporating it into the City’s Environmental Utilities Facility Management Plan.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2f would reduce the potential impact on Crotch’s bumble bee to a lessthan-significant level by requiring focused surveys for bumble bees and implementation of measures to avoid mortality of the Crotch’s bumble bees if nests or overwintering queens are detected.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2g would reduce potential impacts on monarch to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for milkweed plant, monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae and implementation of measures to avoid mortality of monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae if they are detected.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2h would reduce potential impacts on special-status birds, raptors, and other common native nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for nesting birds, implementation of measures to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of the species if nests are detected and compensate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2i would reduce potential impacts on Northern California ringtail to a lessthan-significant level by requiring focused surveys for ringtail dens prior to removing trees or demolishing or repurposing unoccupied buildings at the site and implementing no-disturbance buffers around active dens in consultation with CDFW.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2j would reduce potential impacts on pallid bat and western red bat to a less-than-significant level by requiring focused surveys for bat roosts, implementation of no-disturbance buffers around active special-status bat roosts, and consultation with CDFW if special-status bat roosts would be removed.

For the above reasons, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a, 3.5-2b, 3.5-2c, 3.5-2f, 3.5-2g, 3.5-2h, 3.5-2i, and 3.5-2j would reduce impacts to special-status wildlife species to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.5-3: Result in Degradation or Loss of Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities
Phase 1
Implementation of Phase 1 may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and direct removal of riparian habitat adjacent to wetlands identified in the off-site portion of the PUE, which could result in the degradation or loss of riparian and vernal pool habitat. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-37 Although valley oak riparian forest and woodland habitat is present along the northern and northwestern project site boundaries, these areas are outside of the proposed development area. Therefore, the project would have no effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities on the project site.

Wetlands with vegetation assemblages associated with vernal pools have been previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE. Ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and direct removal of riparian habitat adjacent to wetlands previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE could result in degradation and/or fill of the identified wetlands. Degradation (e.g., reduction of vegetation cover, trampling, alteration of root structure, anthropogenic noise and light, human trespass) or removal of riparian and vernal pool habitat would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Provide Stream Setbacks, Best Management Practices, and Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat
The City shall implement the following protection measures prior to implementation of project activities (e.g., construction, staging) within 50 feet of valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site:
 Setbacks shall be established around all valley oak riparian woodland habitat on the project site and shall be flagged or fenced with brightly visible construction flagging and/or fencing under the direction of the qualified biologist and no project activities (e.g., vegetation removal, ground disturbance, staging) shall occur within these areas. Setback distances shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the appropriate agency (e.g., CDFW), but will generally be a minimum of 50 feet. Foot traffic by personnel shall also be limited in these areas to prevent the introduction of invasive or weedy species or inadvertent crushing of plants and soil compaction. Periodic inspections during construction shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to maintain the integrity of exclusion fencing/flagging throughout the period of construction involving ground disturbance.  If project implementation cannot avoid and thus may adversely affect the bed, bank, channel, or associated riparian habitat subject to CDFW jurisdiction under California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, the following measures shall apply.
 A Streambed Alteration Notification shall be submitted to CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. If proposed project activities are determined to be subject to CDFW jurisdiction, the City shall abide by the measures to protect fish and wildlife resources required by any executed agreement prior to any vegetation removal or activity that may affect the resource. Measures to protect fish and wildlife resources shall include, at a minimum, a combination of the following mitigation.  The City shall compensate for the loss of riparian habitat and habitat function and value of this habitat by:
• restoring riparian habitat function and value within the project site; • restoring degraded riparian habitat outside of the project site; • purchasing riparian habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or • preserving existing riparian habitat of equal or better value to the affected riparian habitat through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of riparian habitat function (at least 1:1).  The City shall prepare and implement a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that will include the following:
• For preserving existing riparian habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The City will provide evidence in the plan that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the City has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-38 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR • For restoring or enhancing riparian habitat within the project site or outside of the project site, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat.
• Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the City (e.g., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 would reduce potential impacts on riparian and vernal pool habitat to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of avoidance measures, compensation for permanent loss of these to offset the loss with a minimum 1:1 ratio, and potentially including a streambed alteration agreement with CDFW.

Phase 2
Although valley oak riparian forest and woodland habitat is present along the northern and northwestern project site boundaries, these areas are outside of the proposed development area. Although the off-site PUE area does include vernal pools, the Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in the degradation or loss of riparian and vernal pool habitat. This impact would be less than significant.

As described for Phase 1, although valley oak riparian forest and woodland habitat is present along the northern and northwestern project site boundaries, these areas are outside of the proposed development area. Therefore, the project would have no effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities on the project site.

Wetlands with vegetation assemblages associated with vernal pools have been previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE; however, the Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area because the new electrical substation, 60 kV line extension, and other associated infrastructure would be installed during Phase 1. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in the degradation or loss of riparian and vernal pool habitat. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 3.5-4: Result in Degradation or Loss of State or Federally Protected Wetlands Phase 1
Implementation of Phase 1 would include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and direct removal of riparian habitat adjacent to wetlands previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE, which could result in inadvertent fill of the identified wetlands. Fill of wetlands would remove or degrade these features, which would be a potentially significant impact.

No state or federally protected wetlands or other waters of the United States or waters of the state are located within the proposed development area of the project site and, thus, the project would not result in any direct impacts to wetlands or other waters on the project site. Potential indirect effects from sedimentation or runoff from construction and operation of the project are addressed in Section 3.11, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Wetlands with vegetation assemblages associated with vernal pools have been previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE. Ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and direct removal of riparian habitat adjacent to wetlands previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE could result in inadvertent fill of the identified wetlands. Fill of wetlands would remove or degrade these features, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-39 Mitigation Measure 3.5-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 The City shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-3, described above.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4b: Identify State or Federally Protected Wetlands, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Obtain Permits for Unavoidable Impacts on Wetlands
The following measures shall be implemented prior to initiation of project construction activities:
 The City shall retain a qualified biologist, hydrologist, or wetland ecologist to prepare a formal delineation of the boundaries of state or federally protected wetlands and other waters within the project site according to methods established in the USACE wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Arid West regional supplement (USACE 2008). The qualified biologist shall also delineate the boundaries of wetlands that may not meet the definition of waters of the United States, but would qualify as waters of the state, according to the state wetland procedures (SWRCB 2019). This delineation report shall be submitted to USACE, and a preliminary jurisdictional determination shall be requested.  Where state or federally protected wetlands can be avoided, the boundary of the delineated ordinary high-water mark shall be demarcated with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). Project activities (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging) shall be prohibited within the established boundary. A qualified biologist shall periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided.  Authorization for fill of waters of the United States associated with project activities, including utility installation in the PUE, shall be secured from USACE through the Section 404, Section 10, and Section 408 permitting processes, as well as through CVFPB. Any state or federally protected wetlands that would be affected by the project shall be replaced or restored on a no-net-loss basis in accordance with the applicable USACE mitigation guidelines in place at the time of construction. In association with the Section 404 permit (if applicable) and prior to the issuance of any grading permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley RWQCB shall be obtained. For any activity that may result in discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state that may not be covered by the 401 Water Quality Certification, Panattoni shall secure a permit from the Central Valley RWQCB and provide compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of any waters of the state in accordance with State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (California Water Boards 2019), such that the project would not result in a net loss of overall abundance, diversity, and condition of aquatic resources within the affected watershed based on a watershed assessment using an assessment method approved by the permitting authority (e.g., Central Valley RWQCB or California Water Resources Control Board). The City shall comply with waste discharge requirements as described in Section 3.12, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”  The City shall notify CDFW before commencing activity that may divert the natural flow or otherwise alter the bed, bank, or riparian corridor of any stream protected pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. If project activities trigger the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent shall obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The City shall conduct project construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect the fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways or in riparian habitats associated with those waterways. These measures may include but not be limited to demarcation of the construction area, biological monitoring, environmental awareness training for construction crews, and compensatory measures (e.g., restoration, long-term habitat management). Compensatory mitigation for impacts on state or federally protected wetlands, described in the prior bullet, may count towards compensation for loss of fish and wildlife resources protected pursuant to CDFW’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.  The City shall obtain a permit for the installation of utility infrastructure in the PUE, or shall obtain an amendment to existing Army Permit #200200666 which previously permitted work in the PUE. The new permit or amendment shall be obtained through USACE in coordination with USFWS and additional agencies as required. The City shall adhere to all requirements of the new or amended permit, which may include the mitigation of any wetland habitat loss in the PUE through the purchase of equivalent wetland credits at an approved mitigation bank within the project’s service area.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-40 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-4a and 3.5-4b would reduce potential direct and indirect (i.e., downstream) impacts on wetlands in the PUE to a less-than-significant level by requiring protection measures to prevent discharge of silt into these features during project construction, implementation of avoidance measures for impacts on riparian habitat, delineation of wetlands on the project site and off-site PUE area, and permitting for unavoidable impacts.

Phase 2
No state or federally protected wetlands or other waters of the United States or waters of the state are located within the proposed development area of the project site. While the off-site PUE area does include wetlands, the Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in direct impacts to wetlands or other waters. This impact would be less than significant.

As described for Phase 1, no state or federally protected wetlands or other waters of the United States or waters of the state are located within the proposed development area of the project site and, thus, the project would not result in any direct impacts to wetlands or other waters on the project site. Potential indirect effects from sedimentation or runoff from construction and operation of the project are addressed in Section 3.11, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Wetlands with vegetation assemblages associated with vernal pools have been previously identified in the off-site portion of the PUE; however, the Phase 2 footprint does not include the off-site PUE area because the new electrical substation, 60 kV line extension, and other associated infrastructure would be installed during Phase 1. Therefore, Phase 2 of the project would not result in direct impacts to wetlands or other waters. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 3.5-5: Interfere with Wildlife Movement Corridors or Impede the Use of Wildlife Nurseries Phase 1
Project construction and implementation could result in temporary and permanent impacts on wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Construction
During Phase 1, short-term construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of equipment used. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities being performed; noise levels generated by those activities; distances to noise-sensitive receptors; the relative locations of noise attenuating features such as topography and existing structures; and existing ambient noise levels. No special construction techniques such as blasting or pile driving are anticipated to be required.

Noise-generating construction activities that occur during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours are of increased concern for wildlife. Because exterior ambient noise levels typically decrease during the late evening and nighttime hours as traffic volumes and commercial activities decrease, and because typical sleep hours occur during these times, construction activities performed during these more noise-sensitive periods of the day can result in increased annoyance for diurnal species and potential changes in behavior (i.e., place avoidance) for nocturnal species.

Based on the modeled construction noise exposure levels detailed in Section 3.12, “Noise and Vibration,” construction noise would attenuate to the City’s daytime noise standards at a distance of 835 feet and 153 feet and the nighttime noise standards at a distance of 912 feet and 265 feet, respectively.

Regarding wildlife nursery areas, there are records of egret and heron rookeries approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. Some of the trees along Pleasant Grove Creek on the northern boundary of the project site provide habitat suitable for egret and heron rookeries. Typically, if a colony is found within 1,000 feet of construction activities,

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-41 a 250- to 500-foot no-disturbance buffer would be implemented to reduce the risk of disrupting breeding or causing nest abandonment. However, the project’s proposed developmental area is between 930 and 1,614 feet away from potential rookery trees, which is greater than the typical no-disturbance buffer distance. The proposed development area of the project site would be between 930 and 1,614 feet away from Pleasant Grove Creek and, thus, construction noise would attenuate to background noise levels before reaching the riparian area that may be used as a wildlife movement corridor and where rookeries and other wildlife nursery sites would most likely occur in the project vicinity.

Most construction activities would occur during the day, however, construction noise would be temporary and cease once construction is completed for the day and once construction is finished. Although daytime construction may lead to wildlife avoiding the general area near the construction site, wildlife should resume their normal behavior after construction stops. Because there are sensitive human receptors close to the construction area, Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 would be implemented and would require the installation of temporary noise barriers, so that noise levels associated with nighttime construction activities could be reduced to daytime levels. Although this measure is aimed at reducing potential impacts to nearby residents, this measure would further reduce noise levels for wildlife species using the riparian area as a movement corridor or nursery site. Therefore, construction noise impacts on wildlife movement and nursery sites during day or nighttime would be a less-than-significant impact.

Phase 1 construction during night-time hours would require the use of artificial lights. Because of project site topography, this light could spill over onto the modeled wildlife linkage area and the riparian area of Pleasant Grove Creek. Increases in artificial lighting could interfere with the movement of terrestrial wildlife species, resulting in a potentially significant impact to migratory terrestrial wildlife species.

Operation
The project site is not within a modeled Essential Connectivity Area (Spencer et al. 2010). However, the northwest portion of the project site, which is bordered by Pleasant Grove Creek, is within a modeled Northern Sierra Nevada Foothills wildlife linkage area connecting natural landscape blocks between the Sierra Nevada and the valley floor and within habitat modeled as providing potential conservation planning linkages.

Although a portion of the project site (north and northwest portion) is identified as a potential conservation planning linkage, the current conditions (i.e., fields in agricultural production) are not ideal for wildlife movement corridors. The remainder of the project site is identified as having limited connectivity opportunities for wildlife likely due to the agricultural nature of the site. Pleasant Grove Creek likely serves as a local wildlife movement corridor.

The proposed development area of the project site is outside of the modeled wildlife linkage on existing active agricultural fields and associated access roads between 930 and 1,614 feet south of Pleasant Grove Creek. Therefore, project implementation would not interfere with wildlife movement along Pleasant Grove Creek over the long-term and the northern portion of the project site would continue to have the same habitat linkage value as it does currently.

Project development would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species because the project would not result in any areas of natural habitat becoming isolated and inaccessible.

After buildout of Phase 1, operating the RRTO facility, Corporation Yard, and Vendor Lease Area would generate heavy truck trips that could potentially generate noise levels that would disrupt breeding behaviors of wildlife species using the Pleasant Grove Creek riparian corridor as a nursery site (e.g., heron or egret rookeries). As discussed above, most noise sources associated with the operation of the project would attenuate to the background noise level before reaching Pleasant Grove Creek and the riparian area. However, because the exact locations of these facilities are not currently known and could be located as close as 930 feet, backup generators could potentially result in a substantial permanent increase in noise that results in loss of nursery sites. Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 requires the implementation of stationary noise reduction methods to reduce potential noise impacts associated with the operation of backup generators. In addition, spillover lighting from buildings and outdoor lighting once buildout of Phase 1 is completed could cause wildlife to avoid using adjacent habitat for breeding or movement. Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 requires the implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare.

Without mitigation, this impact would be potentially significant.

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-42 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR Summary
Project construction and implementation could result in temporary and permanent impacts on wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries from artificial lighting during construction and from noise disturbance during project operation, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.1-3, described in Section 3.1, ”Aesthetics and Visual Resources.” Implement Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 and 3.12-3, described in Section 3.12, ”Noise and Vibration.” Mitigation Measure 3.5-5: Utilize Wildlife-Friendly Building Design In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.1-3, described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” the City shall implement the following measures:
 Buildings and other permanent structures shall be designed to minimize impacts on wildlife, including disruption to wildlife movement.
 Building design shall utilize guidelines regarding building height, materials, external lighting, and landscaping provided in the American Bird Conservancy’s “Bird Friendly Building Design” (American Bird Conservancy 2015).  The City shall place structural barriers to screen construction lighting and construction vehicular headlights that are directed perpendicular to Pleasant Grove Creek. This may be accomplished through the placement of a 5-6- foot vegetated hedge or other structural method that would screen the northern portion of the project.  To minimize light spillage from the project during operation into Pleasant Grove Creek, outdoor lighting shall be the minimum wattage required for the particular use, shall be shielded, and shall be directed to the specific location intended for illumination to prevent stray light spillover onto sensitive riparian habitat.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 requires implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare that could affect wildlife movement and nursery sites. Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 and 3.12- 3 require the implementation of construction and stationary noise reduction methods that would minimize noise that could alter wildlife movement or nursery sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-5 would require the City to utilize wildlife-friendly design guidelines when designing the project and calls for the construction and installation of a structural barrier to screen construction and vehicular lighting associated with Phase 1 and follow BMPs to minimize light spillage into the riparian habitat. For the above reasons, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries to a less-than-significant level.

Phase 2
Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the project could result in temporary and permanent impacts on wildlife movement corridors or wildlife nurseries. However, a majority of the project site would be developed and operational by the time Phase 2 is developed. Further, implementation of project mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations would minimize noise as well as light and glare impacts along Pleasant Grove Creek. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Construction
Because construction of Phase 1 would include raising the Phase 2 project area, construction activity associated with Phase 2 would not be as disruptive as during Phase 1 and limited ground disturbance would likely be needed. Phase 2 of the project would include the construction of RRTO (Phase 2) and a potential future organics processing facility. Noise and new lighting sources associated with Phase 2 would be at a distance equal to those identified in Phase 1 construction.

Ascent Biological Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.5-43 As described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” light and glare would be introduced to the project area during construction of Phase 2 from windshields of vehicles and construction equipment which could startle wildlife if unintentionally directed towards Pleasant Grove Creek. Nighttime construction for Phase 2 is not expected to be necessary and, thus, project construction would have a less-than-significant impact on the Pleasant Grove Creek local wildlife corridor.

Operation
Operation of Phase 2 would add metal and other reflective surfaces (e.g., glass) associated with the expanded RRTO and Potential Future Organics Processing Facility and parked cars in the parking lot. These facilities would also include exterior night lighting, including parking lot lighting and lighting of the electrical substation which could create glare and nighttime lighting spillage into the riparian area potentially disrupting wildlife movement in the area or wildlife nursery activities. The addition of nighttime lighting could result in skyglow and light pollution if lights are cast in an upward direction. Outdoor lighting for the facilities would consist of pole or building mounted lighting to provide appropriate illumination for night operations and safety. Lights would employ cut-off type lights to minimize off-site light pollution and skyglow.

As described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” design of the project’s facilities would be required to comply with CALGreen Building Regulations, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards, and General Plan Policy LU7.9 to reduce light spillage and glare on adjacent properties and in private spaces and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 requiring that new buildings and other permanent structures follow guidelines regarding building height, materials, external lighting, and landscaping provided in the American Bird Conservancy’s “Bird Friendly Building Design.” In addition, a majority of the project site would be developed and operational by the time Phase 2 implementation begins and Mitigation Measure 3.1-3, which requires implementation of design standards to minimize potential sources of light and glare, would be implemented. While Phase 2 would introduce new sources of light, compliance with applicable regulations would minimize light and glare impacts comparable to that of existing and surrounding development onto Pleasant Grove Creek. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 3.5-6: Conflict with Local Policies and Ordinances Phase 1
Chapter 19.66 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation,” contains requirements for projects that would remove protected trees. Implementation of the project would result in direct removal of or damage to trees that may be protected under the City of Roseville Municipal Code. This impact would be potentially significant.

Implementation of Phase 1 would require the removal of trees present within the proposed development area of the project site that may qualify as protected trees (see the discussion of the City of Roseville Municipal Code in Section

3.5.1, “Regulatory Setting”). As defined by the City of Roseville Municipal Code (Chapter 19.66, Tree Preservation), native oak trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height are protected. A Tree Permit would be required for the removal of any protected tree, and for any regulated activity within the protected zone of a protected tree where the encroachment exceeds 20 percent. A survey of the trees on the project site has not been completed; therefore, trees planned for removal as part of project implementation may meet the definition of protected trees pursuant to the City of Roseville Municipal Code. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-6: Remove and Replace Protected Trees Consistent with Chapter 19.66 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation”
The City would implement the following measures to avoid or compensate for impacts on protected trees and comply with the City of Roseville Municipal Code (Chapter 19.66).

Biological Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.5-44 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR  The City shall retain an ISA-certified arborist to survey the trees within the project site and prepare an arborist report that meets the requirements under the City of Roseville Municipal Code.  Prior to the start of construction activities (i.e., ground disturbance, tree removal, staging), the City or its contractor shall apply for a Tree Permit from the City of Roseville. The application shall include the arborist report and a site plan map with information deemed necessary by the City Planning Manager. The site plan map shall include physical characteristics of the project (e.g., property lines, existing and proposed buildings and structures, existing and proposed grades), tree locations, and the location of the protected zone of each protected tree.  The number, location, species, health, and sizes of all protected trees to be removed, relocated, or replaced shall be identified. This information shall also be provided on a map or design drawing to be included in the project plans.  Protected trees that would be retained on the project site would be subject to tree preservation measures as outlined in the code, including protective fencing, signing, and modified ground disturbance activities (e.g., trenching with hand tools).
 The City shall compensate for the loss of protected trees using one of the following four methods, as approved by the City Planning Manager: replacement of trees, relocation of trees, revegetation, or in-lieu mitigation fees.  The City Planning Manager may allow removal of a protected tree that has been certified by an arborist to be a dead tree without any replacement or mitigation requirements.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would reduce potential impacts related to conflicts with the City of Roseville Municipal Code to a less-than-significant level by requiring a Tree Permit from the City of Roseville, implementation of tree preservation measures for protected trees that would be retained on the project site, and compensatory mitigation for removal of protected trees.

Phase 2
Implementation of Phase 2 of the project would result in direct removal of or damage to trees that may be considered protected under the City of Roseville Municipal Code. This impact would be potentially significant.

Phase 2 of the project would include the expansion of the RRTO and a potential future organics processing facility.

Although all tree removals would likely be necessary during Phase 1 to prepare the development area for construction, as described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” construction of the Potential Future Organics Processing Facility is intended to begin in 2035, with the facility becoming operational by 2040. As such, there would be a gap between when Phase 1 is completed and when Phase 2 commences. Based on typical oak growth patterns, a native oak may reach 6 inches diameter at breast height in approximately 10 to 15 years depending on environmental conditions. At this time, it is not known what measures will be implemented to maintain the area for Phase 2 during that time, therefore, if native oaks were to be established in that time, some may qualify as protected trees under the City of Roseville Municipal Code. Removal of protected trees would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5-6, described above.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would reduce potential impacts related to conflicts with the City of Roseville Municipal Code to a less-than-significant level by requiring a survey and obtaining a Tree Permit from the City of Roseville, implementation of tree preservation measures for protected trees that would be retained on the project site, and compensatory mitigation for removal of protected trees.

Ascent Cultural Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-1

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the project on known and unknown cultural resources. Impacts associated with Tribal cultural resources are discussed in Section 3.7, “Tribal Cultural Resources.” Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects generally older than 50 years and considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. They include prehistoric resources and historic-period resources. Archaeological resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of prehistoric or historic-period physical remains (e.g., stone tools, bottles, former roads, house foundations). Historical (or built environment) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges, roads, districts), or landscapes. A cultural landscape is defined as a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.

No comment letters regarding cultural resources were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix A).

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic properties. It is administered by the National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

The formal criteria (36 CFR 60.4) for determining NRHP eligibility are as follows:

1. The property is at least 50 years old (however, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP);

2. It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations; and

3. It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:

Criterion A Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).

Criterion B Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons).

Criterion C Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).

Criterion D Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (information potential).

For a property to retain and convey historic integrity it must possess most of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Integrity of location refers to whether the property has been moved since its construction. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property that illustrates the character of the place. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of

Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.6-2 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. This is an intangible quality evoked by physical features that reflect a sense of a past time and place. Association is the direct link between the important historic event or person and a historic property. Continuation of historic use and occupation helps maintain integrity of association.

Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection or assistance for a property but it does guarantee consideration in planning for federal or federally assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic preservation assistance. In addition, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

The National Register Bulletin series was developed to assist evaluators in the application of NRHP criteria. For example, National Register Bulletin #36 provides guidance in the evaluation of archaeological site significance. If a property cannot be placed within a particular theme or time period, and thereby lacks “focus,” it will be unlikely to possess characteristics that would make it eligible for listing in the NRHP. Evaluation standards for linear features (such as roads, trails, fence lines, railroads, ditches, and flumes) are considered in terms of four related criteria that account for specific elements that define engineering and construction methods of linear features: (1) size and length, (2) presence of distinctive engineering features and associated properties, (3) structural integrity, and (4) setting. The highest probability for NRHP eligibility exists in the intact, longer segments, where multiple criteria coincide.

STATE
California Register of Historical Resources
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant in the context of California’s history. It is a Statewide program with a scope and with criteria for inclusion similar to those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.

A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. As noted above, all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR.

The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria:

Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Similar to the NRHP, a historical resource must meet one of the above criteria and retain integrity to be listed in the CRHR. The CRHR uses the same seven aspects of integrity used by the NRHP.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources.

Ascent Cultural Resources
City of Roseville
Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR 3.6-3 Historical Resources
“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1).
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1[g]) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Unique Archaeological Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Public Resources Code Section 21083.2
Treatment options under PRC Section 21083.2(b) to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources include activities that preserve such resources in place in an undisturbed state. PRC Section 21083.2 states:
(a) As part of the determination made pursuant to Section 21080.1, the lead agency shall determine whether the project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the environmental impact report shall address the issue of those resources. An environmental impact report, if otherwise necessary, shall not address the issue of nonunique archaeological resources. A negative declaration shall be issued with respect to a project if, but for the issue of nonunique archaeological resources, the negative declaration would be otherwise issued. (b) If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites. (2) Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements. (3) Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.

Cultural Resources Ascent
City of Roseville

3.6-4 Roseville Environmental Utilities Operations Center Project Draft EIR (4) Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites. (c) To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place or not left in an undisturbed state, mitigation measures shall be required as provided in this subdivision. (d) Excavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project.
(e) In no event shall the amount paid by a project applicant for mitigation measures required pursuant to subdivision (c) exceed the following amounts:
(1) An amount equal to one-half of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of a commercial or industrial project. (2) An amount equal to three-fourths of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of a housing project consisting of a single unit. (3) If a housing project consists of more than a single unit, an amount equal to three-fourths of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of the project for the first unit plus the sum of the following:
(A)Two hundred dollars ($200) per unit for any of the next 99 units. (B) One hundred fifty dollars ($150) per unit for any of the next 400 units. (C)One hundred dollars ($100) per unit in excess of 500 units. (f) Unless special or unusual circumstances warrant an exception, the field excavation phase of an approved mitigation plan shall be completed within 90 days after final approval necessary to implement the physical development of the project or, if a phased project, in connection with the phased portion to which the specific mitigation measures are applicable. However, the project applicant may extend that period if he or she so elects. Nothing in this section shall nullify protections for Indian cemeteries under any other provision of law.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act (PRC Section 5097.9) applies to both State and private lands. The act requires, upon discovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which notifies and has the authority to designate the most likely descendant of the deceased. The act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner conducts an inquiry and can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC.

Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5(a)
Pursuant to PRC Section 5097:

A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.