Santa Maria City Council
June 4, 2024

Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water
Improvements Project
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

prepared by
Santa Maria-Bonita School District
708 South Miller Street
Santa Maria, California 93454
Contact: Javier Cavazos, Coordinator of Maintenance,
Operations, Facilities, Transportation

prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
April 2024

Attachment C
Table of Contents

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................1

6. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................1

7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................4

8. Description of Project .........................................................................................................4

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................................6

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ..........................................................6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................................7 Determination ........................................................................................................................................7 Environmental Checklist .........................................................................................................................9 1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................9 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 11 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 13 4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 21 5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 29 6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 33 7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 35 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 41 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 45 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 53 11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 57 12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 59 13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 61 14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 71 15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 73 16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 75 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 77 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 81 19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 83 20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 87 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 89 References ........................................................................................................................................... 93 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 93 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................... 97 Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

ii
Tables
Table 1 Estimated Annual Construction Emissions ...................................................................... 17 Table 2 Project Construction Energy Usage ................................................................................. 34 Table 3 Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 43 Table 4 Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage ........................................................ 63 Table 5 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ........................................................................... 63 Table 6 Short-Term Noise Level Measurement Results ............................................................... 64 Table 7 Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ........................................................... 67 Table 8 Vibration Levels at Nearest Receptors ............................................................................. 69 Table 9 City of Santa Maria Normal Year/Single Dry Year/Multiple Dry Year Average Water Supply and Demand ......................................................................................................... 85 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Site ..........................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................ 65 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Energy Calculations
Appendix E Noise and Vibration Modeling

Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
Bonita School Drinking Water Improvements Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
Santa Maria Bonita School District (SMBSD)
708 South Miller Street
Santa Maria, California 93454

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Javier Cavazos, Coordinator of Maintenance, Operations, Facilities, Transportation (559) 399-7698

4. Project Location
The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County approximately 2.9 miles west of Santa Maria, California. The project site includes an approximately 8,100-linear-foot pipeline alignment that would extend from the terminus of a planned water main in Black Road located at the northeast corner of the City of Santa Maria’s (City) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), proceed north along Black Road, proceed west along State Route (SR) 166 (also known as West Main Street), proceed north on Bonita School Road, and connect to Bonita Elementary School at 2715 West Main Street, Santa Maria on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 113-050-007. The project site also includes portions of Bonita Elementary School that would be modified as part of the proposed project. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project site at a local scale.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Santa Maria Bonita School District
708 South Miller Street
Santa Maria, California 93454

6. General Plan Designation
The portion of the project site at Bonita Elementary School on APN 113-050-007 has a General Plan designation of Educational Facility. The portion of the project site within existing public roadway rights-of-way (ROW) does not have a General Plan designation (County of Santa Barbara 2023a).

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

2 Figure 1 Regional Location

Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Site

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

4 7. Zoning
The portion of the project site located at Bonita Elementary School on APN 113-050-007 has a zoning designation of Agriculture-II (minimum lot size - 40 acres gross; AG-II-40). The portion of the project site located within existing public roadway ROW does not have a zoning designation (County of Santa Barbara 2023a).

8. Description of Project
Background
Bonita Elementary School’s water system currently consists of a 430-foot-deep well, two treatment vessels, a chlorination system, a pump, three expansion tanks, a 10,000-gallon steel tank, electrical/controls panel, two 500-gallon propane tanks, and a backup propane generator. The treatment process generates brine waste, which is stored on the site. Bonita Elementary School has a service contract for the system with Culligan, which includes maintenance of the treatment system, replacement or regeneration of treatment media, and brine disposal. All water system operations and maintenance services are currently outsourced to certified service providers Fluid Resources Management and Culligan.

The existing Bonita Elementary School water system is operated from a single groundwater well and has no redundant source of supply. Bonita Elementary School has encountered elevated sulfate and hexavalent chromium levels, which are common in groundwater in this area. Notices of violation have been issued by the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health for exceedances of state maximum contaminant levels in the water supply for the school. The water supply currently exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate and the recommended and upper secondary MCLs for total dissolved solids. In addition, the Kindergarten Building (Building K) is known to contain lead pipes, and lead concentrations in Building K currently exceed the lead MCL. As a result, Bonita Elementary School is seeking to obtain Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) grant funding through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance to fund the construction of a long-term, affordable solution to mitigate further water quality violations.

Project Description
The proposed project consists of the connection of the City’s water system to Bonita Elementary School via approximately 8,100 linear feet of a two-inch diameter service line from the planned terminus of the City’s water system near the northeast corner of the WWTP to Bonita Elementary School. (The City is currently in the design phase of extending City water service to the WWTP separately from the proposed project.) To meet peak demand, fire flow requirements, and irrigation demand, the project would also include repurposing the existing on-site 10,000-gallon storage tank and wells for non-potable use (i.e., irrigation and fire suppression) and potentially adding a hydropneumatic tank (up to approximately 1,000 gallons in capacity) with appurtenances such as an air compressor and additional above-grade piping and isolation valves.1 Minor piping modifications

1 At this time, it is uncertain whether the hydropneumatic tank will be included in the proposed project and if so, what the ex act capacity may be. Therefore, this IS-MND conservatively evaluates inclusion of this project element with its maximum estimated capacity of 1,000 gallons.

Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
to the existing system would be required to disconnect the proposed potable, domestic supply from the existing system. In addition, the project would involve replacing lead service lines in the school’s Building K. Other improvements would include installation of blowoffs along the proposed pipeline and other appurtenances on Bonita Elementary School’s property.

Construction
Construction of the project, including mobilization, would begin January 2025 and would occur over the course of approximately one year. Construction would occur from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No nighttime construction would be required. Construction on school property would primarily occur between June and September when school is not in session.

Construction of the pipeline would occur within the existing disturbed roadways and road shoulders, and no construction activities would occur within or below the stormwater and agricultural ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road. The pipeline would be installed primarily via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) pursuant to California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) requirements. The HDD pits would be placed approximately 500 feet apart from each other and/or be placed at a horizontal end or deflection in the pipe. All pits would be located within the pavement limits or adjacent to the shoulders of SR 166 and Black Road. Open trench construction techniques may also be utilized for minor portions of the pipeline on Bonita School Road and Black Road. The maximum depth of excavation for pipeline installation would be approximately six feet. Up to approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site, and up to approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soil would be imported for use as fill. All on-site existing infrastructure would be repurposed, so demolition activities would be minor. No lead-based paints or asbestos-containing materials are known to be present in the limited facilities that would be demolished.

Water produced by flushing of the proposed pipeline and potential hydropneumatic tank would be placed in the on-site storage tank and re-used for non-potable irrigation and fire suppression purposes. With regard to this discharge, the District would comply with the applicable requirements of Order R3-2019-0089 (General Waiver for Specific Types of Discharges), issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

A partial lane closure for pipeline installation along portions of SR 166 and Black Road may be required. Traffic control measures would be implemented during the lane closures, including flaggers at both ends. Construction equipment staging would occur in the southwest corner of Bonita Elementary School’s property. Construction workers would park along Bonita School Road on the eastern boundary of the school property. No tree trimming, or vegetation removal would be required.

Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance of the proposed pipeline would include periodically exercising isolation valves, blowoffs, and other appurtenances. The Bonita Elementary School’s meter would be periodically inspected and calibrated as part of the City’s meter maintenance program. The existing fire storage tank as well as the proposed hydropneumatic system would be inspected bi-annually and recoated as needed to prevent corrosion. In addition, water quality would be monitored, and flushing of the pipeline would occur as necessary. Overall, operation and maintenance activities would be less frequent than with the existing treatment system, and no new City or school employees would be required to operate the project.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

6 The proposed pipeline is anticipated to have a lifespan of 50 years or more. The project would not require transportation or storage of hazardous materials on site. No project components would generate significant noise levels during operation, and no modifications to existing light sources at the Bonita Elementary School property would occur. In addition, project operation would not result in a net increase in the City’s system-wide electricity consumption.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
As shown in Figure 2, surrounding land uses consist primarily of agricultural fields and agro- industrial facilities as well as the City’s WWTP.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The proposed project would require the following approvals:
 Approval of service from and formal agreement with the City  Approval of consolidation from the Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission  Encroachment permit from Caltrans
 Funding from State Water Resources Control Board
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
■ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
■ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources ■ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ □ ■
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The County of Santa Barbara (County) assigns areas with either low, moderate, or high scenic value, which takes into account the probability of a site containing a scenic vista (County of Santa Barbara 2009). The project site is not located in an area designated as high scenic value by the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2009). In addition, the proposed new hydropneumatic tank and aboveground appurtenances would be visually consistent with existing water infrastructure on the project site, and the proposed pipeline would be located entirely underground. Therefore, the project would have no potential to result in an adverse effect on scenic vistas. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

10 b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No officially designated state scenic highways are present within two miles of the project site (Caltrans 2018). Given the distance from a designated or eligible state scenic highway and the nature of project activities, the project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
According to Public Resources Code Section 21071(b), an unincorporated area is considered “urbanized” if 1) the area is completely surrounded by one or more incorporated cities, the total population of the unincorporated area and the surrounding cities is at least 100,000 persons, and the population density of the unincorporated area is at least equal to the population density of the surrounding cities; or 2) the area is located within an urban growth boundary and has an existing residential population of at least 5,000 persons per square mile. The project site is located in an unincorporated rural area that is not completely surrounded by incorporated cities and that does not have an existing residential population of at least 5,000 persons per square mile. Therefore, the project site would not be considered urbanized per Public Resources Code Section 21071(b).

The project would include installation of an underground pipeline in an existing roadway ROW and water storage on site at Bonita Elementary School. The proposed new hydropneumatic tank and aboveground appurtenances would be visually consistent with existing water infrastructure on the project site, and the proposed pipeline would be located entirely underground. Therefore, the project, as proposed, would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
No nighttime construction or nighttime lighting would be required for the project because construction activities would be conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. In addition, the project does not involve the permanent addition of reflective surfaces, such as windows or car windshields, or lighting to the project site or its surroundings. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area, and no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The portion of the project site located at Bonita Elementary School is designated as Urban and Built- Up Land by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC 2022a). The proposed pipeline alignment is mapped as Prime Farmland (DOC 2022a).

The project site is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts, but the portion of the project site located at Bonita Elementary School is zoned for agricultural use (AG-II-40) (DOC 2022b; County of Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

12 Santa Barbara 2023a). The portion of the project site zoned AG-II-40 is currently occupied by Bonita Elementary School and is not involved in active agricultural uses.

The proposed pipeline would be installed in the ROW of existing roadways and would not require construction activities (including equipment staging and materials laydown) within active agricultural fields located adjacent to the alignment. Furthermore, upon completion of construction, the proposed pipeline alignment would be located entirely underground. In addition, water system improvements at the Bonita Elementary School campus, which is zoned for agricultural use, would not change the current land use of the site. Therefore, the project would not convert Farmland to nonagricultural uses or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed pipeline alignment is located in an existing roadway ROW that does not have a General Plan or zoning designation. The portion of the project site at Bonita Elementary School has a land use of Educational Facility and a zoning designation of AG-II-40. The project site does not contain existing forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland and would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed under thresholds (a) and (b), portions of the project site are located on land designated as Prime Farmland and/or are zoned for agriculture, and the project site is surrounded by agricultural land uses. However, the project site itself consists of an elementary school and public roadway ROWs, and construction and operational activities would not change these land uses. In addition, the project does not include components with the potential to directly or indirectly affect adjacent agricultural land uses such that Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use. In addition, the project site does not contain forest land, so the project would not result in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ ■ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
The project site is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (Basin), which covers San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) monitors and regulates local air quality in Santa Barbara County. The analysis presented in this section is based on information found in the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (County of Santa Barbara 2021) and SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (Guidelines), adopted by the SBCAPCD in 2022.

Air quality is affected by stationary sources (e.g., industrial uses and oil and gas operations) and mobile sources (e.g., motor vehicles). Air quality at a given location is a function of several factors, including the quantity and type of pollutants emitted locally and regionally as well as the dispersion rates of pollutants in the region. Primary factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, temperature, the presence or absence of inversions, and topography. The climate of the Basin is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the location of the high-pressure cell in the northeastern Pacific. With a Mediterranean climate, Santa Barbara County is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool winters with occasional rainy periods.

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The SBCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are met. If the standards are met, the Basin is classified as being in “attainment.” If the standards are not met, the Basin is classified as being in “nonattainment,” and the SBCAPCD is required to develop strategies to meet the standards. Santa Barbara County is designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS and nonattainment for the CAAQS for particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) (County of Santa Barbara 2021).

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

14 Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The most recent 2022 Ozone Plan was adopted by SBCAPCD in December 2022 and is the tenth update to the initial state Air Quality Attainment Plan adopted by the SBCAPCD Board of Directors in 1991. The 2022 Ozone Plan only addresses SBCAPCD’s progress toward attaining the ozone CAAQS because SBCAPCD is designated “attainment” for the ozone NAAQS (SBCAPCD 2022b).

Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds
In January 2022, the SBCAPCD published the most recent update to its Guidelines, which establish criteria for determining the level of significance for project-specific impacts within its jurisdiction in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist thresholds.

SBCAPCD has not adopted quantitative significance criteria for temporary construction emissions associated with conventional land development projects. However, the SBCAPCD Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related emissions and uses 25 tons per year for reactive organic compounds (ROC) or nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a guideline for determining the significance of construction impacts. This is a limit that requires offsets if the construction activity is for a project that requires SBCAPCD permits (SBCAPCD 2022a), but also provides guidance for other construction projects involving standard construction activities. In addition, SBCAPCD notes that consistency with the applicable air quality plan requires the implementation of mitigation measures during construction activities to minimize dust generation, regardless of the level of the impact (SBCAPCD 2022a).

Based on the criteria suggested by the SBCAPCD Guidelines (2022), project operation would have a significant effect on air quality if project operation would:
 Generate greater than 240 pounds per day of ROC from all project sources (both stationary and mobile);
 Generate greater than 240 pounds per day of NOX from all project sources (both stationary and mobile);
 Generate greater than 80 pounds per day of PM10 from all project sources (both stationary and mobile);
 Generate greater than 25 pounds per day of ROC from motor vehicle trips only;  Generate greater than 25 pounds per day of NOX from motor vehicle trips only; or  Exceed the public notification health risk thresholds adopted by the SBCAPCD of 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk or a Hazard Index of more than 1.0 for non-cancer risk.

The Guidelines state that due to the relatively low background ambient carbon monoxide levels in Santa Barbara County, localized carbon monoxide impacts associated with congested intersections are not expected to exceed the carbon monoxide NAAQS or CAAQS. As such, carbon monoxide hotspot analyses are no longer required.

Applicable SBCAPCD Rules and Regulations
The SBCAPCD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of projects. Relevant rules and regulations to the project include the following:

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15  Rule 345 (Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities). This rule establishes fugitive dust control requirements for any activity associated with construction or demolition of a structure or structures.
 Rule 323.1 (Architectural Coatings). This rule establishes volatile organic content limits for architectural coatings that are manufactured, blended, repackaged, supplied, sold, or offered for sale within the SBCAPCD. Rule 323.1 limits the volatile organic content to 50 grams per liter for flat coatings and 100 grams per liter for nonflat coatings and traffic marking coatings.  Rule 329 (Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials). This rule establishes ROC content limits pertaining to the manufacture, application, and sale of cutback and emulsified asphalt materials for paving, construction, and maintenance of streets, highways, parking lots, and driveways.

Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including land use, square footage for different uses, and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions.

Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutants from on-site construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site, and off-site export of materials. Construction of the proposed project was analyzed based on information provided by the project engineer, which includes the construction schedule, construction equipment list, and soil import/export quantities. The analysis assumes construction equipment would be diesel-powered and would be equipped with Tier 3 or Tier 4 engines, based on engineer-provided details. The project would be required to comply with applicable regulatory standards, in particular SBCAPCD Rules 345, 323.1, and 329.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The SBCAPCD Guidelines (2022) state a project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan if 1) its direct and indirect emissions have been accounted for in the Clean Air Plan’s emissions forecast assumptions and 2) it would incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBCAPCD during construction activities. The 2022 Ozone Plan’s direct and indirect emissions inventory for Santa Barbara County as a whole is reliant on population projections provided by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). The SBCAG generates population projections based on local General Plans. In this case, SBCAG utilized population projections contained in the County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan, which are based on existing and anticipated land uses in the county. The project would not result in new residential uses because it is a water system improvements project that would serve the existing Bonita Elementary School and would not require a zoning change or expansion of school enrollment capacity that would result in additional employment opportunities beyond those anticipated for the site by the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, no new City or school employees would be required to operate the project. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly contribute to an unplanned increase in population and would be consistent with the population projections on which the emissions forecast of the 2022 Ozone Plan is based. Nevertheless, the SBCAPCD requires implementation of standard fugitive dust control measures during construction to achieve project consistency with air quality plans. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would be potentially significant, and implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

16 Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 SBCAPCD Fugitive Dust Control Measures
SMBSD shall require the project contractor(s) to implement the following fugitive dust control measures during construction activities:
 During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding SBCAPCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for greater than three minutes in any 30-minute period. At a minimum, this shall include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever feasible. However, reclaimed water shall not be used in or around crops for human consumption.  The amount of disturbed area shall be minimized.
 On-site vehicle speeds shall be no greater than 15 miles per hour when traveling on unpaved surfaces.
 A track-out prevention device shall be installed and operated where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device can include any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out of dirt such as gravel pads, pipe-grid track-out control devices, rumble strips, or wheel washing systems.  If stockpiling of material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than one day shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.  After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering, or using roll-compaction, or revegetating, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved/surfaced shall be completed as soon as feasible.  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.

Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SBCAPCD prior to the start of project construction activities.
 The project contractor(s) shall comply with SBCAPCD Rule 345: Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities, including all applicable standards and measures therein.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction activities would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter [PM2.5]), exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles, and ROC that would be released during the drying phase after application of coatings. Table 1 summarizes emissions that would be generated by project construction. As shown therein, construction emissions generated would not exceed the SBCAPCD-recommended threshold of 25 tons per year for ROC or NOx. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 Table 1 Estimated Annual Construction Emissions
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Construction Year ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
2026 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Annual Emissions <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
SBCAPCD Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
ROC = reactive organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SBCAPCD = Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data accounts for compliance with regulations (including SBCAPCD Rules 345, 323.1, and 329).

Operation
The project would require periodic maintenance and inspections but would not require any substantial new operations or maintenance activities. Overall, operation and maintenance activities would be less frequent than for the existing treatment system, and no new employees would be required to operate the project. Therefore, no new operational emissions would be generated, and project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. No impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. According to CARB, sensitive receptors are most likely to spend time at schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (CARB 2005). The closest sensitive receptors are Bonita Elementary School located partially within the project site, a single-family residence at 410 Black Road located approximately 60 feet west of the proposed pipeline, and a single-family residence at 2475 West Main Street located approximately 260 feet north of the proposed pipeline alignment. The potential for project construction to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is discussed in the following subsections. The project does not include any stationary sources of air pollutant emissions, and once construction is complete, the proposed project would not require additional operation and maintenance activities beyond those already occurring to operate and maintain the existing system. Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and is not discussed further.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

18 Criteria Pollutant and Fugitive Dust Emissions
As discussed under threshold (b), project construction would result in emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust, ROC, and NOX. However, such emissions would be temporary in nature and would be reduced through compliance with existing regulations, such as SBCAPCD Rule 345. Furthermore, construction activities on school property would occur in June through September when school is not in session, and emissions at any given sensitive receptor along the proposed pipeline alignment would occur for only a limited portion of the overall construction timeframe because project construction would progress across the pipeline alignment, thereby limiting the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from active construction. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutant and fugitive dust emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs generally consist of four types: organic chemicals, such as benzene, dioxins, toluene, and perchloroethylene; inorganic chemicals such as chlorine and arsenic; fibers such as asbestos; and metals such as mercury, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. The primary TAC emitted by project implementation would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) generated by heavy-duty equipment and diesel-fueled delivery and haul trucks during construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by the CARB in 1998 and is primarily composed of PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emissions (CARB 2023).

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur in phases over approximately one year. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that a person has to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual.

The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., one year) is approximately 1.4 percent of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation. Current models and methodologies for conducting health- risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of nine, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2023).

Maximum DPM emissions would occur during site preparation and grading construction activities.

DPM emissions would be lower during other construction phases such as paving and site restoration because these phases would require less construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with site preparation and grading would only occur for approximately one month, or 8.3 percent of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent less than 0.1 percent of the total exposure period for health risk calculation. Therefore, project construction activities would not Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 represent the type of long-term TAC emission sources typically subject to health risk assessments.

Furthermore, all construction equipment would be equipped with Tier 3 or Tier 4 engines, which would minimize DPM emissions. Construction activities would also be required to comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes, which would reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. In addition, compliance with the standard construction measures required by the SBCAPCD would reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Lastly, construction activities on school property would occur in June through September when school is not in session, and TAC emissions at any given sensitive receptor along the proposed pipeline alignment would occur for only a limited portion of the overall construction timeframe because project construction would progress across the pipeline alignment, further limiting the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptors to TAC emissions from active construction.

As such, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Project construction could generate odors associated with heavy-duty equipment operation, earth- moving and roadway paving activities. Such odors would be temporary in nature and limited to the duration of construction in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, these odors would dissipate rapidly with distance from in-use construction equipment. Project operation would involve conveyance of potable water via an underground pipeline and storage in aboveground tanks and would not result in the generation of odors. Therefore, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

20 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. 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 the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. 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? □ □ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

22 This biological analysis is based on the results of a desktop and database review of the project region and a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the project site. The following analysis is based primarily on the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) in 2023, which is included as Appendix B. The BRA evaluated biological resources within the biological study area (BSA), which encompasses the project site as well as a 50- foot buffer. The BSA is used in the analysis to inform existing baseline conditions and ecological context and to assist in informing the potential for the project site to support special status species.

Existing Conditions
The project site is located within the Santa Maria Valley in northern Santa Barbara County. The topography of the project site is generally flat with on-site elevations at approximately 150 to 180 feet above mean sea level. The predominant land use surrounding the project site is agriculture.

Anthropogenic manipulated and maintained habitat types in the vicinity of the project site include row crop agriculture; ruderal areas associated with agricultural fields and support facilities such as materials storage yards, outbuildings, and machinery lots; developed areas; barren ground; irrigation ponds; industrial; irrigated pasture; and fallow agricultural fields that are vegetated by ruderal plant species and/or non-native grassland.

Four drainage ditches, which are man-made hydrologic features, occur within and immediately adjacent to the BSA and are located as follows:
 Along the east side of Bonita School Road
 Along the north side of SR 166
 Along the south side of SR 166
 Along the east side of Black Road
Drainage ditches in the region typically provide drainage for agricultural fields and flood control purposes. The ditches are a major collector of runoff from roadways as well as agricultural and agro- industrial areas in the region. Water flows west along SR 166 and drains into a series of ditches that flow southwesterly until they reach Guadalupe Dunes Natural Reserve where the water ultimately flows to the Santa Maria River. Very little vegetation occurs in the ditches, and the vegetation present is comprised of annual non-native species.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on the database and literature review, 32 special status wildlife species are known to or have the potential to occur in the regional vicinity of the project site (Appendix B). Of those, one special status animal species - California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF; Federally threatened and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] Species of Special Concern [SSC]) - was determined to have moderate potential to occur within the project site. During the site reconnaissance surveys, no areas of standing water were of sufficient depth to support CRLF breeding. In addition, based on the design of the ditches within the project site, it is unlikely CRLF can utilize them for breeding due to flows, shallow water depth, and lack of cover. Therefore, the Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 project site does not contain suitable breeding habitat for CRLF. However, the ditches within the BSA (but outside the project footprint) may provide dispersal areas if water is present.

The ditches within the BSA are a part of the drainage ditch system that parallels SR 166 from Santa Maria west to the Santa Maria River. Multiple CRLF occurrences are documented within these ditch systems. Three CRLF occurrences have been recorded within one mile of the project site, all of which are located within or immediately adjacent to the ditch systems along SR 166. One occurrence was documented in an agricultural pond on private property on the north side of SR 166, just east of Bonita School Road and adjacent to and north of the project site. The other two occurrences were documented in the ditches on the south side of SR 166, approximately 0.5 mile and 0.8 mile east of the intersection of Black Road and SR 166, respectively. All three occurrences were of adult CRLF, and breeding was not documented. Because of the known use of these ditches by CRLF, the species could occur incidentally in upland portions of the BSA if conditions are conducive to CRLF leaving the ditches (e.g., sufficient moisture from a rain event). However, due to the high amounts of existing human activity and the active highway, movement into upland areas is unlikely.

No impacts to suitable breeding habitat for CRLF would occur during implementation of the project because the project would avoid the ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road, and project activities would occur in previously-developed areas and disturbed road shoulders. In addition, impacts to individuals in upland areas at the Bonita Elementary School are unlikely because construction on the school property would occur during the dry season (between June and September) during daylight hours. However, construction of the pipeline along Bonita School Road, SR 166 and Black Road may occur outside of the dry season; therefore, individual CRLF may be encountered dispersing during conditions conducive to CRLF movement, such as during rain and shortly after rain events. The potential for direct impacts to dispersing CRLF is low considering project construction would be conducted during daylight hours when CRLF are less likely to move and would be more visible to construction workers and equipment operators. No indirect impacts to CRLF would occur because the amount of noise and activity from the project would not substantially increase the overall amount of activity around the ditches compared to existing agricultural operations and highway traffic. In addition, no nighttime construction would occur that would increase the amount of artificial light at night (Appendix B). Although no indirect impacts to CRLF are expected, direct impacts to CRLF would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would be required to reduce impacts to CRLF to a less-than- significant level.

Nesting Birds
Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. No bird nests were detected during the biological resources reconnaissance survey. Trees within the BSA providing suitable nesting habitat for bird species occur at Bonita Elementary School adjacent to the proposed staging area and at a residence on the east side of Black Road at the southern extent of the BSA in the form of landscape trees. In addition, wood utility poles located on both sides of SR 166 and along the eastern shoulder of Black Road may provide suitable nesting locations for bird species such as crows, ravens, and red-tailed hawks.

Project implementation would not result in direct impacts to nesting birds because no tree removal or trimming would occur and ground nesting species are not expected to be present. Indirect impacts to common bird species may occur if these species are nesting within the trees, structures, or power poles in the project site as a result of construction noise that may cause behavioral Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

24 changes that can result in failure of an established nest. This may be particularly notable at the portion of the project site at Bonita Elementary School if a nest is established when school is out of session and the amount of ambient activity is lower than during the school year (Appendix B).

Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be required to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.

Special Status Plant Species
Based on the database and literature review, 41 special status plant species are known to or have the potential to occur within the regional vicinity of the project site. Of these, one special status plant species has a low potential to occur within the project site - La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis; Federally Endangered and State Candidate Threatened) based on the presence of marginally suitable habitat. Specifically, the ditch systems provide potentially suitable areas for La Graciosa thistle to establish because they provide suitable mesic soils. The California Natural Diversity Database notes occurrences of this species within the SR 166 man-made ditch systems west of the intersection of SR 166 and SR 1 approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site.

The high amount of disturbance from maintenance and other anthropogenic activities within these ditch systems is likely a limiting factor for establishment of this species. No thistle plants were observed in the ditches within the project site during the reconnaissance survey, which was conducted during the species' blooming period. Therefore, based on the marginal suitability of the habitat within the project site as well as no observations during the reconnaissance survey, it is unlikely the species occurs in the project site. Furthermore, the project would avoid these ditches, thereby avoiding potentially suitable habitat for La Graciosa thistle (Appendix B). As such, the project would not directly or indirectly impact special plant species. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training
Prior to commencement of project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall provide a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the biology of the CRLF and its habitats; the specific measures that are being implemented to avoid this species; the guidelines that must be followed by all construction personnel to avoid take of this species; and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. The qualified biologist shall appoint a designated person (e.g., the crew foreman) who will be responsible for ensuring all crewmembers comply with the guidelines. The training shall be conducted for all new personnel before they can participate in construction activities.

BIO-2 Pre-construction Surveys
A qualified biologist familiar with CRLF shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site within 48 hours prior to the start of construction. If CRLF are encountered during the survey or at any time during project construction, activities shall cease and the USFWS shall be notified to determine how to proceed. No work shall continue until authorized by the USFWS.

BIO-3 Construction Site Best Management Practices
The following construction site best management practices shall be implemented during construction activities:

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25  Work shall be conducted during dry weather conditions (days with less than 0.1 inch of predicted rainfall) and shall not occur within 48 hours after a rain event of 0.1 inch or more.  All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. A spill prevention plan shall be established in the event of a leak or spill.  The number of access routes, numbers and sizes of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal of project. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated.
 All areas outside of the project perimeter fence shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas where no construction activities shall occur.
 Water shall not be impounded in a manner that may attract CRLF.  No pets or firearms shall be permitted on site.
 All food-related trash shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the project at least twice per week during the construction period to avoid attracting predators.  Open excavations shall be covered at the end of each day and inspected for CRLF prior to backfilling.

BIO-4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Nesting Birds Project-related activities shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 to August 31) to the extent practicable. If construction must occur within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer (300 feet for raptors), where accessible. If project construction is phased or construction activities stop for more than one week, a subsequent pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to each phase of construction, if occurring during the bird breeding season.

The pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and shall factor in sufficient time to perform the survey adequately and completely. A report of the nesting bird survey results, if applicable, shall be submitted to the SMBSD for review and approval within two weeks of survey completion.

If nests are found, their locations shall be flagged. An appropriate avoidance buffer ranging in size from 25 to 50 feet for passerines, and up to 300 feet for raptors, depending upon the species and the proposed work activity, shall be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other suitable flagging. Active nests shall be monitored at a minimum of once per week until it has been determined the nest is no longer being used by either the young or adults. No ground disturbance shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms the breeding/nesting is complete and all the young have fledged. If project activities must occur within the buffer, they shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified biologist. If no nesting birds are observed during pre-construction survey, no further action is necessary.

Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would require implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training, pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures for CRLF and nesting birds, and construction site best management practices to minimize the potential for encountering CRLF during construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO- 1 through BIO-4 would reduce impacts to special status species to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

26 b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats occur in the project site, and the project site is not located within federally designated critical habitat (Appendix B). Therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities, riparian habitats, or federally designated critical habitat would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
All activities associated with the project would occur outside of the ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road, thereby avoiding potentially jurisdictional features. Given the limited amount of ground disturbance, the project is not anticipated to contribute to significant sediment erosion or surface water quality impacts during construction activities. Therefore, impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The project site is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area for wildlife movement, and no wildlife nursery sites are located within the project site. The project site also occurs in a heavily- developed area with an elementary school and SR 166 within the project site as well as surrounding agricultural uses. Implementation of the project would not disturb or remove native vegetation communities. In addition, no aboveground components of the project would create new barriers to movement (Appendix B). Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the local or regional movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. No would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because the project site does not contain biological resources subject to any such local policies or ordinances (Appendix B). Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because the project site is not subject to any such plans (Appendix B). Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

28 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
This section provides an analysis of the project’s impacts on cultural resources, including historical and archaeological resources as well as human remains. A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix C. CEQA requires a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).

A resource shall be considered historically significant if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a-b]). PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as 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:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

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

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center located at California State University, Fullerton was completed on May 18, 2022.

The search was performed to identify previously recorded cultural resources as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it.

Rincon also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places, the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory, as well as its predecessor the California State Historic Property Data File. Results of these searches indicated no known historical resources are located within or near the project site. The CCIC records search results identified four historic-era built environment resources and one historic-era trash refuse within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. There are no historic resources recorded within the project site (Appendix C).

The pedestrian survey identified one property within the project site, the Bonita Elementary School campus, which includes historic-period development (i.e., development 45 years of age or older) - the Kindergarten Building. All other present buildings post-date the historic period. The Kindergarten Building is one-story in height, sits on a concrete base, has an irregular footprint, and integrates elements of the Spanish Revival Style. Indicative of its progressive development, roof forms are varied and include gabled and truncated hipped roof forms, sheathed in barrel clay tiles.

The Bonita Elementary School campus, including the Kindergarten Building, was recorded, evaluated, and recommended ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources because it 1) is not associated with events important to the history of the city, region, state, or nation; 2) does not possess an association with any individual significant to the community, state, or nation; 3) does not embody a particular architectural style, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value; and 4) does not have potential to yield important information pertaining to the prehistory or history of the region, state, or nation (Appendix C). It is therefore not considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA, and the project does not have the potential to impact historical resources. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The CCIC records search conducted for the project did not identify any known archaeological resources within the project site or vicinity. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was returned with positive results, which means the NAHC identified a potentially sensitive tribal cultural resource within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle in which the project site is located. USGS quadrangles cover approximately 49 to 70 square miles, and a positive SLF result does not necessarily indicate the presence of a known archaeological resource on the project site.

The field survey of the portion of the project site along SR 166 and Black Road identified heavily- traveled paved roads lined with active agricultural fields that are highly disturbed by underground and aboveground utilities, including electrical poles, manholes, pipelines, and irrigation ditches.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 Modern debris and trash, including clear and amber glass bottle fragments, plastic bottle caps, paper and plastic food wrappers, cardboard fragments, and metal fragments, were observed throughout this portion of the project site. Spare quantities of modern trash, including paper and plastic wrappers, plastic bottles, and caps, were also observed throughout the portion of the project site within the Bonita Elementary School campus. No archaeological resources were identified within the project site during the pedestrian field survey. Nevertheless, potential impacts to archaeological resources could occur in the vent archaeological resources are unexpectedly discovered during project construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would be required to reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
CR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The SMBSD shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the CCIC pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). Impacts would be less than significant.

Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure CR-1 would minimize the potential for impacts related to unexpected discoveries of archaeological resources to occur through the implementation of appropriate procedures for evaluation and treatment should any discoveries be made during construction.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

32 c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No human remains are known to be present within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are unexpectedly found, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

No human remains are known to be present within the project site (Appendix C). However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately by SMBSD. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. With adherence to existing regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Energy

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ □ ■
As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 49th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2022). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. The project would not result in a net increase in electricity usage in the City’s service area as compared to existing conditions and would not include natural gas connections. Therefore, electricity and natural gas consumption are not discussed further in this analysis.

Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some industrial processes, with California being one of the top petroleum-producing states in the nation (California Energy Commission [CEC]2021). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 13.8 billion gallons sold in 2021 (CEC 2022a). Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 1.8 billion gallons sold in 2019 (CEC 2022b).

Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the project’s energy consumption are discussed in detail in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively.
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction Energy Demand
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, and construction worker Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

34 travel to and from the project site. Total consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel during project construction was estimated using the assumptions and factors from CalEEMod used to estimate construction air emissions for Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Appendix A). Table 2 presents estimated energy consumption during project construction. As shown therein, construction equipment and haul trips would consume approximately 16,414 gallons of diesel fuel, and construction worker trips would consume approximately 654 gallons of gasoline.

Table 2 Project Construction Energy Usage
Source Fuel Consumption (gallons)
Construction Equipment/Haul Trips 16,414
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 654
See Appendix D for energy consumption calculations.

Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit off-road diesel vehicles and diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles, respectively, from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, and haul trucks would be subject to the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, both of which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. These regulations would result in the efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. Furthermore, in the interest of cost- efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and no impact would occur.

Operational Energy Demand
As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not require new operations and maintenance activities beyond existing conditions upon completion of construction activities.

Therefore, no new operational energy consumption would occur, and project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
SMBSD has not adopted any renewable energy or energy efficiency plans with which the project could comply. In addition, no state plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would apply to the project. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? □ □ ■ □

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ ■
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ □ □ ■
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

36 a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The project site is not located on a mapped active fault or within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The closest fault is the Santa Maria fault, located approximately 3.4 miles east of the project site (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 2023; DOC 2023c).

While the project may be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake, it would not be subject to unusual levels of ground shaking as compared to the rest of the region. Although the project site is located in a seismically active area, the proposed project involves installation of an underground pipeline and water storage components and would not involve any habitable structures. Design and construction of the proposed project would conform to the current seismic design provisions of the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations Title 24) to minimize this risk, to the extent feasible. A large seismic event, such as a fault rupture, seismic shaking, or ground failure, could result in breakage of the proposed pipeline and/or tanks, failure of joints, and/or underground leakage from the pipeline and tanks. In the event an earthquake compromises the pipeline or tanks during operation, the SMBSD and/or the City would temporarily shut-off water conveyance processes and conduct emergency repairs as soon as practicable.

Compliance with such requirements would reduce seismic ground shaking impacts to the maximum extent practicable with current engineering practices. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, involving liquefaction? Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength due to a rapid increase of soil pore water pressures caused by cyclic loading from a seismic event. This means liquefied soil acts more like a fluid than a solid when shaken during an earthquake. The project site is located not in a liquefaction zone (DOC 2023a). Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, involving liquefaction. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site is located in a relatively flat area that is not within or near an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone (DOC 2023b). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving landslides.

No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil may occur when soils are disturbed but not secured or restored, such that wind or rain events may mobilize disturbed soils, resulting in their transport off the project site. The project site is relatively flat. Construction of the proposed pipeline would occur within the existing disturbed roadways and road shoulders, which would require grading and trenching. Water system improvements within the Bonita Elementary School campus would occur on previously- developed and paved areas.

Because the project disturbance area would be less than one acre in size and would therefore not be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, as amended). Given the limited amount of ground disturbance, the project is not anticipated to contribute to significant erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff during construction activities. Project operation would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil because no further soil disturbance would be required once construction is complete. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength due to a rapid increase of soil pore water pressures caused by cyclic loading from a seismic event. This means a liquefied soil acts more like a fluid than a solid when shaken during an earthquake. The project site is not located in a liquefaction zone (DOC 2023a). In addition, the project site is located in a low problem rating area for liquefaction according to the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2015a). In addition, the project involves construction of water infrastructure and would not involve placement of habitable structures within a liquefaction-prone area, thereby minimizing the potential to result in loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure due to liquefaction. The project also does not involve the extraction of groundwater or injection of water into the groundwater basin that could contribute to subsidence or liquefaction. As a result, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, California, Northern Santa Barbara Area, three soil map units are mapped within the project area: Sorrento Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Sorrento Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Sorrento Loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, all of which have relatively low clay content (United States Department of Agriculture 2023). In addition, the project site is located in an area classified as low potential for expansive soils according to the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2015b). Due to the low clay content of on-site soils, the potential for expansive soils to occur is low. In addition, the project does not include construction of habitable structures Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

38 and would be unmanned during operation. As a result, the project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a result of expansive soils. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed project involves installation of water system improvements to interconnect Bonita Elementary School to the City’s water system. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. Based on these factors, it is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources.

Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of a paleontological locality search and a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the project site. According to the SVP (2010) classification system, geologic units can be assigned a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Using this system, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to each geologic unit mapped within the project site following the literature review. This classification is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for the project to impact significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units.

The project site is located in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, one of the eleven geomorphic provinces of California (California Geological Survey 2002) The Transverse Ranges extend approximately 275 miles west-east from Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County, east to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the Anacapa-Santa Monica-Hollywood-Raymond- Cucamonga fault zone (Yerkes and Campbell 2005). The Transverse Ranges are composed of Proterozoic to Mesozoic intrusive crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks overlain by Cenozoic marine and terrestrial sedimentary deposits and volcanic rock (Norris and Webb 1976). The project Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 site is near the western end of the Transverse Ranges within the Santa Maria Valley, approximately

8.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 1.8 miles south of the Santa Maria River. The project site is mapped within the Guadulupe and Santa Maria USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.

The geology of the region surrounding the project site was mapped by Sweetkind et al. (2021), who identified a single geologic unit, Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits, underlying the project site. Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated, silty sand to sandy gravel (Sweetkind et al. 2021). Holocene-aged geologic units are generally considered too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources (SVP 2010). Therefore, Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits have low paleontological sensitivity.

Rincon also requested a paleontological records search from the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, which recovered no known fossil localities within the project site (Hoffman 2023). The nearest known fossil localities occur in Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments and occur at least six miles from the project site.

Excavations for the proposed project are anticipated to reach up to six feet below the surface and remove up to approximately 4,500 cubic yards of sediment. Although the geologic unit underlying the project site (i.e., Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits) has a low paleontological sensitivity, it may be underlain by older alluvial sediments at an undetermined depth below the surface. Given the fossil-producing history of Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments in Santa Barbara County (Hoffman 2023; Jefferson 2010), Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments have high paleontological sensitivity. Knott and Eley (2006) reported radiocarbon dates from borehole samples taken near the mouth of the Santa Maria River, approximately 5.5 miles west of the project site, which indicate in general, sediments 48 to 92 feet below the surface are approximately 5,000 years old but that evidence of sediment reworking (i.e., older material within younger sediments) was also common.

The project site is further from the mouth of the Santa Maria River than these samples, meaning the sedimentation rate in this area is likely lower, but sediment reworking is likely much less common as well. Given these findings, it is unlikely that 5,000-year-old or older sediments exist within six feet of the surface at the project site. Therefore, the presence of scientifically important paleontological resources at the project site is highly unlikely, and no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

40 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ □ ■
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of GHG emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence that takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and from human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of a specific GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).

The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely these anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Emissions resulting from human Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

42 activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Natural Resource Agency 2019).

Significance Thresholds
The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

SMBSD has not adopted thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions impacts under CEQA. However, the project site is located in unincorporated Santa Barbara County, and the County has adopted numerical significance thresholds for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions in its Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2021). As a first step, the County recommends comparing project emissions against its screening threshold of 300 MT of CO2e per year for non- industrial stationary source projects and plans. If GHG emissions for a project are less than the numeric screening threshold, the project would have a less-than-significant impact, and no further analysis would be required.

Methodology
GHG emissions associated with project construction were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1, with the assumptions described under Section 3, Air Quality. Construction emissions typically occur for a limited portion of a project’s lifetime; therefore, consistent with the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2021), GHG emissions from construction are amortized over the project’s estimated lifetime. The proposed project is anticipated to have a lifespan of 50 years or more. Accordingly, GHG emissions from construction are amortized over a period of 50 years.
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction of the project would generate GHG emissions. Because the project would not result in an increase in routine operations and maintenance activities, this analysis considers the impact of GHG emissions from construction only. Project construction activities would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the operation of construction equipment as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport materials. As shown in Table 3, construction associated with the project would generate approximately 176 MT of CO2e. Amortized over the project’s 50-year lifespan, project construction would generate approximately 4 MT of CO2e per year, which would not exceed the County’s screening threshold of 300 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Table 3 Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2025 176
2026 <1
Total 176
Amortized over 50 years 4 per year
County Screening Threshold 300 per year
Threshold Exceeded? No
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: Table 2.2 “Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated” emissions of CalEEMod worksheets (Appendix A)

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in Santa Barbara County, including the County’s 2015 Energy and Climate Action Plan, the County’s draft 2030 Climate Action Plan, and the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan. As stated in the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2021), “the County considered projects or plans that have emissions below interim thresholds to be consistent with County GHG emission reduction plans. The interim thresholds are part of the County’s GHG emissions reduction strategy and were informed by the County’s 2030 target. The interim thresholds provide a pathway for projects and plans to show compliance with County goals… The County’s interim GHG emission efficiency threshold is considerably lower than the State’s 2030 per capita target. Therefore, analysts can apply the County’s interim threshold with confidence that it aids the State in achieving its target, as well” (County of Santa Barbara 2023b).

As discussed under threshold (a), project construction would generate approximately 4 MT of CO2e per year, which would not exceed the County’s screening threshold of 300 MT of CO2e per year. As such, based on County guidance, the project would not conflict with the County’s 2015 Energy and Climate Action Plan, the County’s draft 2030 Climate Action Plan, or the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

44 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ ■ □ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ ■ □ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ ■ □ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ ■ □ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

46 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels and fluids. These materials would be contained within vessels specifically engineered for safe storage and would not be transported, stored, or used in quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the public or construction workers themselves. In addition, any use of potentially hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling of hazardous materials, which would minimize the potential for the project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, lead-based materials exposure is regulated by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) regulations. In particular, during removal of existing lead service lines from Building K, the District’s contractor would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials such that exposure levels do not exceed CalOSHA standards.

As a result of lead from vehicle exhaust emissions and historical and present-day agricultural use, elevated levels of aerially deposited lead, pesticides and/or arsenic may be encountered in areas of exposed soil along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road. Ground-disturbing activities generating fugitive dust would have the potential to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment if not handled properly, which could create a significant hazard to the public and/or the environment. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level.

Operation of the project would not include the use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 Limited Soils Assessment
Prior to the start of construction, SMBSD shall retain a qualified consultant (i.e., Professional Geologist [PG] or Professional Engineer [PE]) to conduct a limited soils assessment that includes soil sampling and analysis for aerially-deposited lead, pesticides, and arsenic within the unpaved portions of the project site along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road proposed for ground disturbance. The PG or PE shall prepare a subsurface investigation report, which will be submitted to SMBSD for review and approval. As part of the subsurface investigation, analytical results shall be screened against the most recent San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for direct exposure of construction workers and hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations Title 22, Section 66261.24). The subsurface investigation report shall include recommendations to address identified hazards and indicate when to apply those recommended actions in relation to project construction activities. If contaminants are detected at the project site, SMBSD shall implement the recommendations specified in the subsurface investigation report, and appropriate steps shall be undertaken by SMBSD to protect site workers during project construction, pursuant to Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 HAZ-2 Site Management Plan
If the subsurface investigation conducted under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 identifies contaminants are present within the construction limits at chemical concentrations exceeding ESLs for direct exposure of construction workers and/or hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil, SMBSD shall retain a qualified consultant (i.e., PG or PE) to prepare a Site Management Plan (SMP) prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road. The SMP shall address:
 On-site handling and management of impacted soils if such soils or impacted wastes are encountered, and
 Specific actions to reduce hazards to construction workers and off-site receptors during construction.

The SMP shall establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site.

These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of Best Management Practices
 Proper transportation and disposal procedures of impacted materials in accordance with applicable regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 22  Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of project site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection and outlines proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

SMBSD shall review and approve the SMP prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road. SMBSD shall require its construction contractor(s) to implement the SMP during all ground-disturbing activities along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road.

HAZ-3 Impacted Soil Disposal
If the subsurface investigation conducted under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 identifies contaminants are present within the construction limits at chemical concentrations exceeding ESLs for direct exposure of construction workers and/or hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil, SMBSD shall retain a qualified consultant (i.e., PG or PE) to properly delineate and dispose of the contaminated soil. The qualified consultant (i.e., PG or PE) shall utilize the project site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to off-site transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified consultant (i.e., PG or PE) shall provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils (as necessary). Proper excavation and off-site disposal or recycling of impacted soils may require additional delineation of impacts and additional analytical testing pursuant to landfill or recycling facility requirements.

SMBSD shall review and approve the disposal recommendations for regulated waste prior to transport of waste soils off site.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

48 Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would require a limited soils assessment for aerially- deposited lead, pesticides, and arsenic along with subsequent development and implementation of a site management plan and appropriate disposal of impacted soils should ESLs or hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil be exceeded. These measures would minimize the potential for the routine transport and disposal of hazardous materials to impact the public and/or the environment during construction activities. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would reduce impacts from the routine transport and disposal of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The presence of hazardous materials during project construction activities, including but not limited to ground-disturbing activities such as trenching, could result in an accidental upset or release of hazardous materials if they are not properly stored and secured. Hazardous materials used during project construction would be disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the regulations of the federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administrations. Nonetheless, upset or accident conditions could result in the unanticipated spill or release of hazardous materials such as vehicle and equipment fuels during project construction, potentially introducing a hazard to the public and/or the environment, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 would be required to provide an additional level of safety during project construction, thereby reducing the potential impact to the public and environment due to release of hazardous materials during upset or accident conditions to a less-than-significant level.

As discussed under threshold (a), operation and maintenance of the project would involve the conveyance of potable water and would not require the routine use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. No impacts related to the release of hazardous materials due to reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions during project operation would occur.

Mitigation Measure
HAZ-4 Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Control Plan The construction contractor(s) shall submit a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Control Plan (HMMSCP), including a project-specific contingency plan for hazardous materials and waste operations to SMBSD for review and approval. The HMMSCP shall establish policies and procedures consistent with applicable codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the California Building and Fire Codes, as well as regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Labor, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The HMMSCP shall articulate hazardous materials handling practices to prevent the accidental spill or release of hazardous materials during project construction.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 would require preparation and implementation of a HMMSCP with appropriate procedures to implement in the event of an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials during project construction, which would reduce impacts from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? A portion of the project site is located within Bonita Elementary School. Construction of the proposed project would comply with existing federal and state requirements for the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The facilities and infrastructure proposed for demolition are not expected to contain lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials. In addition, the project would be required to comply with existing federal and state regulations governing the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. Furthermore, project construction on the Bonita Elementary School campus would take place June through September when school is not in session, which would further reduce potential impacts. However, construction activities along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road generating fugitive dust would have the potential to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment if soils are contaminated with aerially deposited lead, pesticides, and/or arsenic. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ- 1 through HAZ-3 would be required to minimize the potential for the handling of hazardous materials, substances, and wastes within 0.25 mile of Bonita Elementary School to result In significant adverse impacts.2 Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 would also be required to provide an additional level of safety during project construction, thereby reducing the potential impacts to schools from hazardous emissions, hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, project construction would not result in significant adverse impacts due to the emissions of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or require the routine use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation. Therefore, project operation would not adversely affect schools within 0.25 mile of the project site due to the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. No impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

2 The use of the ESLs for direct exposure of construction workers to inform the recommendations of the limited soils assessment , preparation of the site management plan, and disposal of impacted soils under Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would also be sufficiently protective of students at Bonita Elementary School given that their potential for exposure would be less than th at of construction workers.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

50 d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The following databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked for known hazardous materials contamination within and adjacent to the project site:
 EnviroStor Database, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)  GeoTracker Database, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)  “Active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from SWRCB (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] 2023a)
 Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (CalEPA 2023b) According to the database search, there is one school investigation site within the portion of the project on the Bonita Elementary School campus and one known active hazardous material site within 5,000 feet of the project site (DTSC 2023a; SWRCB 2023a). The “Bonita Land North Site” school investigation site record is associated with execution of a 2001 oversight agreement with DTSC and preparation of a workplan to conduct a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment for a formerly proposed expansion of the school campus to determine if any hazardous materials concerns related to potential lead-based paint soil contamination in the drip line of the main school building and potential pesticide and related metal contamination in the athletic field were present.

Based on site records, the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment was not completed. The proposed project would not result in modifications to the drip line of the main school building and would not require disturbance of the school’s athletic field (SWRCB 2023b). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the presence of this school investigation site.

The Surrat Transport Spill is a Cleanup Program site located approximately 2,500 feet to the west of the project site and is listed as open as of March 10, 2003. This site involved a diesel spill onto an area of surface soils that was not expected to have affected groundwater (SWRCB 2023c). The project would not disturb the Surrat Transport Spill Site and thus would not risk disturbing contaminated sediments. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to this cleanup site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is approximately 3.3 miles north of the Santa Maria Airport. The project site is not located within the noise level contours for the airport (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2023). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working at the project site due to proximity to an airport. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is within the planning area of the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2017). The proposed project involves installation of an underground pipeline and, once operational, would not modify or block current emergency access routes or site ingress and egress. The hydropneumatic tank and other improvements included in the project would be located on Bonita Elementary School’s property, outside of the roadway, and would not modify or block current emergency access routes or site ingress and egress. While construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase traffic to and from the project site, the project site is surrounded by major roadways, such as U.S. 101, which have sufficient capacity to provide access to and from the project site (see Section 17, Transportation). Project construction may require a temporary single-lane closure along SR 166 and Black Road, which could slow traffic through the local area and thereby affect implementation of emergency response and evacuation plans, especially in the event that lane closures occur at the same time as other nearby projects affecting the transportation network, such as the Bonita School Road Bridge Replacement Project. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

HAZ-5 Traffic Control Plan
SMBSD shall require the project contractor(s) to prepare and implement a traffic control plan that specifies how traffic will be safely and efficiently redirected during lane closures. All work shall comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, which conforms to the standards and guidance of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Traffic control measures for lane closures shall be included, and priority access shall be given to emergency vehicles. The traffic control plan shall also include requirements to notify local emergency response providers at least one week prior to the start of work when lane closures are required. The traffic control plan shall also include regional coordination with other construction activities that impact the surrounding SR 166, Black Road, and surrounding streets. All construction activities shall be closely coordinated with other construction projects that are occurring, including the Bonita School Road Bridge Replacement Project, to ensure that traffic along SR 166, Black Road, and surrounding streets remain at an acceptable level of operation during construction.

Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 would require the project contractor(s) to safely redirect traffic, utilize traffic control measures, and give emergency response providers advance notification and priority access such that the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be minimized. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As discussed in detail in Section 20, Wildfire, the project site is not within or near a State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2023a; CAL FIRE 2023b). The project site is surrounded by existing irrigated agricultural fields and agro-industrial development Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

52 and is not located near any undeveloped wildland areas. In addition, the project would not include habitable structures. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ ■ □ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ □ ■
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ □ ■
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ □ ■
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ ■
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ ■ □ □
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

54 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction
As stormwater flows over a construction site, it can pick up sediment, debris, and chemicals, and transport them to receiving water bodies. Temporary site preparation and trenching activities associated with the project may result in soil erosion. Construction activities could also affect water quality in the event of an accidental fuel or hazardous materials leak or spill. Receiving water bodies in the vicinity of the project site include unnamed agricultural ditches, which run parallel to the project alignment in an east-west direction along the south side of the SR 166 and in a north-south direction along the east side of Black Road. As previously discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, construction activities are not anticipated to contribute to erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff during construction activities. Therefore, substantial surface water quality impacts associated with sediment erosion during project construction would not occur.

Water produced by flushing of the proposed pipeline and potential hydropneumatic tank would be placed in the on-site storage tank and re-used for non-potable irrigation and fire suppression purposes. The District would comply with the applicable requirements of Order R3-2019-0089 (General Waiver for Specific Types of Discharges), issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Order R3-2019-0089 provides a general waiver of waste discharge requirements for specific types of discharges, including “water supply discharges from pipelines, storage tanks, pump tests, and well development.” Specific standards to which the District would be required to adhere are outlined in Section A4 in Attachment A to Order R3-2019-0089. These standards include implementing appropriate management practices to dissipate energy, prevent erosion, and preclude discharge to surface waters or conveyances that are subject to federal Clean Water Act requirements as well as assuring chlorine and bromine concentrations in the water would not impact groundwater quality. With adherence to these regulatory requirements, the discharge of water produced by pipeline and tank flushing during construction would not result in substantial degradation of surface water or groundwater quality.

There is potential for accidental leaks and spills of hazardous materials at the surface, which could result in potentially significant impacts to water quality if hazardous materials enter the unnamed agricultural ditches. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4, as described in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would reduce the potential for accidental leaks and spills of hazardous materials by requiring preparation and implementation of an HMMSCP. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-4, project construction would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, and the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Operation
The proposed project consists of an underground water pipeline, aboveground water storage, and other potable water system appurtenances and improvements that would not have the potential to release contaminants that would adversely affect water quality during operation. As such, project operation would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. No impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project site overlies the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a very low priority groundwater basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (California Department of Water Resources 2023).

The proposed project consists of installation of an underground pipeline, aboveground water storage tank, and other minor water system improvements on the Bonita Elementary School campus and within public roadway ROWs. The project site would be restored to pre-project conditions after the completion of construction activities. The project does not include the addition of new impervious surfaces, and project components would not substantially alter the ability for groundwater to percolate through the subsurface. In addition, as discussed in Section 17, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would not facilitate increased groundwater pumping because water conveyed through the proposed pipeline would be supplied from existing water sources.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? The proposed project consists of installation of an underground pipeline, aboveground water storage tank, and other minor water system improvements on the Bonita Elementary School campus and within public roadway ROWs. The project does not propose alterations to the course of a stream or river. As described above under threshold (b), the project would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces. As a result, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts would occur.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

56 NO IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is not located in a flood hazard zone (Federal Emergency Management Act 2021). The project site is also not located near any large bodies of water subject to seiche. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately six miles to the east of the project site; therefore, the project site is not located in a tsunami zone. As a result, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
SGMA requires local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). As described above under threshold (b), the project site is located in the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin which is designated as a very low priority groundwater basin. As a result, a GSP has not been prepared for this basin, and the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a GSP.

The project is subject to the requirements of Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) (Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 2019).

As described in Section 7, Geology and Soils, the project would involve minimal ground disturbance and would not contribute significantly to erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff during construction activities. Accordingly, the project would not contribute to increased sedimentation or pollution of waterways. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would minimize potential surface water quality impacts associated with sediment erosion during project construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ-4, as described in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would reduce the potential for accidental leaks and spills of hazardous materials by requiring preparation and implementation of an HMMSCP. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-4, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project consists of a water system consolidation between Bonita Elementary School with the City. The project involves the connection of the City’s water system to Bonita Elementary School via the installation of approximately 8,100 linear feet of underground pipeline and the completion of various water system improvements within the Bonita Elementary School campus. As a result, the proposed project does not include components that would physically divide a community. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project would be located in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The project site is located in a predominately agricultural area and involves the connection of the City’s water system to Bonita Elementary School. The proposed pipeline alignment is located in the public ROW of an existing roadway and does not have a General Plan land use designation or zoning. The proposed water system improvements on the Bonita Elementary School campus are located on a property zoned AG-II-40 with a General Plan designation of Educational Facility. Pursuant to California Government Code 53091, the building and zoning ordinances of a county or city do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, storage, or transmission of water by a local agency. Therefore, the project is only evaluated for consistency with the County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan. The project, as proposed, does not conflict with any applicable local land use and zoning policies.

In addition, as indicated in Section 4, Biological Resources, no biological resources protected by local policies and ordinances are located on the project site. Furthermore, the project would result in minimal changes to existing conditions upon completion of construction activities given that the proposed pipeline would be installed underground and installation of the hydropneumatic tank and water system improvements would occur within the existing Bonita Elementary School campus, and overall operation and maintenance activities of the school’s water system would be less frequent Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

58 than the existing treatment system. As a result, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site and surrounding area do not contain mineral resources that are of value locally, to the region, or to residents, and the project site is not identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (County of Santa Barbara 2010). In addition, the proposed project does not involve mining or oil extraction activities. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

60 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ ■ □ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Overview of Noise and Vibration
Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Caltrans 2013).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

62 increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans 2013).

Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in the noise level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011).

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. The noise descriptor used for this study is the equivalent noise level (Leq). Leq is one of the most frequently used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level.

The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings or structures and vibration energy may propagate through the buildings or structures. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration-sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

High levels of groundborne vibration may cause damage to nearby building or structures; at lower levels, groundborne vibration may cause minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural damage) such as cracks. These vibration levels are nearly exclusively associated with high impact activities such as blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or excavation. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has determined vibration levels with potential to damage nearby buildings and structures; these levels are identified in Table 4.

Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 Table 4 Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage
Type of Situation Limiting Velocity (in/sec PPV)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5 Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: Caltrans 2020
Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. The vibration annoyance potential criteria recommended for use by Caltrans, which are based on the general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels, are described in Table 5.

Table 5 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response
Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources1 Severe 2.0 0.4
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity 1 Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2020
Project Noise Setting
The primary existing noise sources in the vicinity of the project site include vehicular traffic on Black Road and SR 166, in addition to agro-industrial development immediately north and south of SR 166 and west and east of Black Road. Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. According to the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, noise-sensitive land uses are considered to include (County of Santa Barbara 2021):

1. Residential, including single- and multi-family dwellings, mobile home parks, dormitories, and similar uses.

2. Transient lodging, including hotels, motels, and similar uses.

3. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent hospitals, and other facilities for long-term medical care.

4. Public or primate educational facilities, libraries, churches, and places of public assembly.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptors include Bonita Elementary School, which is partially within the project site, a single-family residence at 410 Black Road located approximately 60 feet west of the proposed pipeline, and a single-family residence at 2475 West Main Street, located approximately 260 feet north of the proposed pipeline.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

64 To characterize ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, three short term (15-minute) noise level measurements were conducted on June 5, 2023. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 3. Short-term noise measurement (ST)-1 was conducted along the southern boundary of Bonita Elementary School, adjacent to SR 166, to capture ambient noise levels attributable to the school and SR 166. ST-2 and ST-3 were conducted northeast of the intersection of SR 166 and Ray Road to capture ambient noise levels at one of the residential uses in the area. Table 6 summarizes the results of the short-term and long-term noise measurements.

Table 6 Short-Term Noise Level Measurement Results
Measurement
Location Measurement Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST 1 Southern boundary of
Bonita Elementary
School, adjacent to SR
1661
9:32 – 9:47 a.m. Approximately 45 feet to
SR 166 centerline
65 42 78
ST 2 Northeast of the
intersection at SR 166
and Ray Road, adjacent
to residential uses along
SR 166
10:37 – 10:52a.m. Approximately 125 feet
to SR 166 centerline
62 42 71
ST 3 Northeast of the
intersection at SR 166
and Ray Road, adjacent
to residential uses along
SR 166
10:58 – 11:13a.m. Approximately 90 feet to
SR 166 Centerline
67 44 99
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmin = minimum noise level, Lmax = maximum noise level 1 School was in session when the noise level measurement was conducted at Bonita Elementary School.

Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix E.

Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 Figure 3 Noise Measurement Locations

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

66 a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction
Project construction activities would generate temporary noise in the vicinity of the project site, exposing sensitive receptors to increased noise levels. Construction noise would be generated by heavy-duty diesel construction equipment used for demolition/pavement cutting, site preparation, grading, tank and pipeline installation, paving, and site restoration activities. Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix and associated noise characteristics, depending on the equipment used during that phase. Construction noise would be short-term and temporary at any given location and construction activities would move along the project alignment over the course of the ten-month construction schedule.

For purposes of this analysis, the County’s threshold of 65 dBA Leq at sensitive receptors within 1,600 feet of grading and construction activity, including residential development and schools, is used to assess potential project construction noise impacts (County of Santa Barbara 2021).

Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise-sensitive receptors near the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.

Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located as close as 50 feet from Bonita Elementary School, 60 feet from the residence at 410 Black Road, and 260 feet from the residence at 2475 West Main Street but would typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction equipment movement and the linear nature of the project. For example, during an average construction day near sensitive receptors, equipment may operate between 50 feet to 400 feet from the receptors. Therefore, it was assumed equipment would operate at an average distance of 100 feet from Bonita Elementary School, 110 feet from the residence at 410 Black Road, and 310 feet from the residence at 2475 West Main Street.

Project construction activities on the Bonita Elementary School campus would generate noise during construction of the tank and replacement of lead service lines in Building K. However, construction on school property would primarily occur between June and September when school is not in session. Therefore, noise levels from on-site construction activities were not quantified because students would not be present.

Table 7 identifies the expected noise levels at the closest sensitive receptors from an average distance from the pipeline alignment based on the conservatively assumed combined use of all construction equipment during each phase of construction.

Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 Table 7 Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors Estimated Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Construction Stage
Bonita
Elementary School1
Residence at
410 Black Road2
Residence at
2475 West Main Street3
Demolition/Pavement
Cutting 75 74 65
Site Preparation 76 76 67
Grading/Trenching 73 73 64
Tank Installation n/a4 n/a5 n/a5
Infrastructure Installation 74 74 65
Paving 77 77 68
Site Restoration 70 69 60
Significance Threshold 65 65 65
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes
dBA = A-weighted sound-pressure level; Leq = equivalent noise level; n/a = not applicable 1 Noise levels estimated at an average distance of 100 feet. 2 Noise levels estimated at an average distance of 110 feet. 3 Noise levels estimated at an average distance of 310 feet. 4 Noise levels were not estimated because tank installation would primarily occur between June and September when school is not in session.
5 Noise levels were not estimated because these activities would occur more than 1,600 feet from this sensitive receptor.

Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model. See Appendix E for modeling outputs.

As shown in Table 7, construction noise levels could be as high as 77 dBA Leq at Bonita Elementary School, 77 dBA Leq at the residence at 410 Black Road, and 68 dBA Leq at the residence at 2475 West Main Street. Therefore, project-generated construction noise would exceed the significance threshold of 65 dBA Leq at the closest sensitive receptors. Impacts would be potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Operation
The project would not include any new sources of operational noise. As such, project operation would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of locally-adopted standards, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
SMBSD shall require its construction contractor ensure construction noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive receptors during construction activities. At a minimum, construction noise reduction measures shall include the following:
 Installation of at least 8-foot-high temporary sound barriers/blankets to break the line of sight between construction equipment and nearby residences when construction is performed within 80 feet of the residential property. The barriers shall be at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

68 no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. Alternately, if sound blankets are preferred, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
 To the extent consistent with applicable safety regulations, trucks operating with reverse motions alarms shall be outfitted with SAE J994 Class D or equivalent alarms (ambient-adjusting, or “smart alarms” that automatically adjust the alarm to 5 dBA above the ambient near the operating equipment). Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be switched off and replaced with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.  A construction notification sign shall be posted at the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, that person shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the school district.

SMBSD shall include these measures on the construction plans prior to beginning of construction activities. Sound barriers and construction notification signs shall be installed on the project site prior to initiation of ground-disturbance activities within 80 feet of sensitive receptors and shall be maintained throughout the duration of construction activities near sensitive receptors.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require installation of a temporary noise barrier and other noise reduction measures during construction activities. The estimated noise reduction from a temporary noise barrier that would block the line-of-sight between the equipment exhaust stacks and nearby sensitive receivers would be at least 15 dBA. With this reduction, noise levels at the closest sensitive receptors would not exceed 65 dBA Leq. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction
Project construction may require operation of vibratory equipment such as loaded trucks and rollers within 50 feet of structures on the Bonita Elementary School campus, 60 feet of the residence at 410 Black Road to the west of the pipeline alignment, and 260 feet of the residence at 2475 West Main Street to the north of pipeline alignment. As shown in Table 8, construction vibration levels would not exceed 0.20 in/sec PPV at Bonita Elementary School or the nearest residences, the threshold at which damage can occur to residential buildings.3 In addition, construction vibration levels at these sensitive receptors would not exceed 0.25 in/sec PPV, which is the threshold for human annoyance based on the level at which transient vibration sources are distinctly perceptible.

Because the use of construction equipment would not exceed the threshold for structural damage

3 The threshold for residential buildings was conservatively applied to structures at Bonita Elementary School because certain structures are not of modern construction (e.g., Building K).

Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 or human annoyance, project construction would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 8 Vibration Levels at Nearest Receptors
Equipment
Estimated Vibration
Level at Bonita
Elementary School
(in/sec PPV)1
Estimated Vibration
Level at Residence
at 410 Black Road
(in/sec PPV)2
Estimated Vibration
Level at Residence
at 2475 West Main
Street (in/sec PPV)3
Roller 0.074 0.056 0.006
Loaded Truck 0.027 0.020 0.002
Threshold For Structural Damage4 0.20 0.20 0.20
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Threshold For Human Annoyance5 0.25 0.25 0.25
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity 1 Vibration levels estimated at an average distance of 50 feet. 2 Vibration levels estimated at an average distance of 60 feet. 3 Vibration levels estimated at an average distance of 260 feet. 4 See Table 4 for maximum vibration levels for preventing damage. The threshold for residential buildings was conservatively applied to structures at Bonita Elementary School because certain structures are not of modern construction (e.g., Building K). 5 See Table 5 for vibration annoyance potential criteria.

See Appendix E for vibration modeling spreadsheet.

Operation
The project consists of water system improvements and does not include components or activities with the potential to generate substantial vibration during operation, such as manufacturing or heavy equipment. Therefore, project operation would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest airport to the project site is the Santa Maria Airport, located approximately 3.3 miles to the north. The project site is not located within Santa Maria Airport’s noise level contours (Santa Barbara County Airport Land Use Commission 2023). Given the distance of the project site from the airport, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airport operations. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

70 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project would involve installation of water system improvements to connect Bonita Elementary School to the City’s water system. The project does not include any housing development that would directly induce population growth. Because construction of the project would be temporary in nature, it is anticipated that construction workers would live locally and would not relocate to the area. In addition, no new City or school employees would be required to operate the project, and the project would not facilitate expansion of school enrollment capacity that could result in additional employment opportunities. Furthermore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or people. Therefore, no impacts to population and housing would occur.

NO IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

72 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

74 a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project does not include development of structures or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly result in population growth or result in an expansion of school enrollment capacity. As such, the proposed project would not increase demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, no impacts to public services would occur.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project does not include development of structures or infrastructure that would directly or indirectly increase the local or regional population. As such, the proposed project would not increase the usage of or demand for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project also does not include recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical deterioration of parks or facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

No impacts related to recreation would occur.

NO IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

76 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ ■ □ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ ■ □ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ ■ □ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Regional and local plans and policies addressing the circulation system include the County’s Comprehensive Plan Circulation Element, the SBCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; and the SBCAG Congestion Management Program (County of Santa Barbara 2014; SBCAG 2013, 2016).

Access to the project site during construction would be provided by SR 166 and Black Road, which are both two-lane roads. There are bike lanes along the segment of SR 166 within the project site but no transit stops or sidewalks. Also, no transit stops, sidewalks, or bicycle lanes are located along the segment of Black Road within the project site. Construction traffic would be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction schedule. Construction activities may require temporary single-lane closures along portions of SR 166 and Black Road during pipeline installation. As required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-5, traffic control measures would be implemented during this closure, including flaggers at both ends, to minimize conflicts with the circulation system. After construction is complete, no changes to existing transportation patterns would occur because the pipeline would be located underground, the components on the Bonita Elementary School campus would not affect traffic patterns, and no new operation and maintenance activities would be required for the project.

The minimal level of traffic generated during project construction would not have the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

78 b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for evaluating transportation impacts.

Specifically, the guidelines state vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3), a lead agency may include a qualitative analysis of operational and construction traffic if existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular project being considered. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and other factors. SMBSD has not adopted VMT thresholds. The County has adopted VMT thresholds for land use development projects in the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2021), but these do not include thresholds for construction-phase VMT impacts.

A VMT calculation is typically conducted on a daily or annual basis, for long-range planning purposes. As discussed under threshold (a) above, traffic on local roadways would temporarily increase during project construction due to worker trips and the necessary transport of construction vehicles, equipment, and soil material to and from the project site. Increases in VMT from construction would be short-term, minimal, and temporary. In addition, overall operation and maintenance activities under the proposed project would be less frequent than those conducted for the existing treatment system and would therefore result in a net reduction in VMT. Therefore, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project does not involve any changes to roadways and would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. During project construction, construction staging, and worker parking would occur at the Bonita Elementary School campus and adjacent to SR 166 and Black Road. Construction activities may require temporary one-lane closures along these roadways, and traffic control measures would be implemented during this closure, including flaggers at both ends, to minimize the creation of traffic hazards. Nevertheless, due to the high volume of traffic on SR 166, particularly related to the surrounding agricultural land uses, project construction could substantially increase hazards due to an incompatible use. Therefore, impacts related to traffic hazards during construction would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 would be required to reduce impacts related to traffic hazards to a less- than-significant level.

Upon the completion of construction, the proposed pipeline would be located underground, and other water system improvements would be located within the Bonita Elementary School campus.

Thus, project operation would not substantially increase traffic hazards. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Construction of the project may require temporary single-lane closures along portions of SR 166 and Black Road, which would have the potential to impede emergency response in the project area.

Therefore, the project would potentially result in inadequate emergency access during construction activities, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ- 5 (outlined in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) would minimize interference with emergency access during project construction activities through implementation of traffic control measures and advance notification of emergency response providers prior to construction activities.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-5, impacts related to emergency access during project construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Operation of the project would not introduce new vehicle trips. Aboveground features of the project would be located on the Bonita Elementary School campus in similar locations as the campus’ existing water system and would not impede emergency access. Therefore, project operation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and no impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

80 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ □ ■
AB 52 of 2015 expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 states, “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts altering the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Sections 21074(a)(1)(A-B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and are:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

82 these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.

Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those having requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

On August 23, 2023, SMBSD distributed AB 52 consultation letters for the proposed project, including project information, map, and contact information, to Native American Tribes. The Native American contacts provided with an AB 52 consultation letters consisted of:
 Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians
 Chumash Council of Bakersfield
 Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
 Northern Chumash Tribal Council
 San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council
 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and formal consultation. SMBSD received one response from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians who stated no further consultation is needed. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? SMBSD circulated sent AB 52 consultation letters to Native American tribes on August 23, 2023, and the 30-day response period concluded on September 25, 2023. No tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources were identified within the project site. In addition, no tribal cultural resources were identified within or near the project site that have been determined by SMBSD (the lead agency) to be significant. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or that is a resource determined by SMBSD (the lead agency), in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project itself consists of the installation of water system improvements connecting the City’s water system to Bonita Elementary School, including installation of a pipeline, hydropneumatic tank, and minor piping modifications as well as replacement of lead service lines in the school’s Building K. Water conveyed through the pipeline would be supplied from the City’s existing water sources.

The environmental impacts of this infrastructure have been evaluated throughout this document, and no additional environmental impacts would occur. The project would not result in an increase in Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

84 wastewater generation or stormwater runoff because school enrollment would not be increased and no new impervious surfaces would be introduced. In addition, the project would not involve expansion or relocation of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The project consists of the connection of the City’s water system to Bonita Elementary School. The purpose of the project is to provide Bonita Elementary School with a source of potable water from the City’s water supply.

The City provides water services to residents within Santa Maria. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s water portfolio consists primarily of local groundwater and imported water from the State Water Project. As shown below in Table 9, the City’s water supply is expected to reliably meet the projected demands through 2045 with a surplus in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years ranging from 7,686 acre-feet per year (AFY) to 21,532 AFY (City of Santa Maria 2021). Bonita Elementary School is anticipated to require approximately 4.1 AFY per year,4 which would fall within the forecast surplus of the City’s water supplies in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, the project would reduce local groundwater pumping because the school would no longer utilize its on-site groundwater well to supply its potable water demands. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.

4 Calculated based on the 2022-2023 student population of 540 students and a water demand factor of 2,424 gallons/day/student provided in the CalEEMod User Guide for elementary school land uses (California Department of Education 2023; California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2022).

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 Table 9 City of Santa Maria Normal Year/Single Dry Year/Multiple Dry Year Average Water Supply and Demand
Totals 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year (acre-feet)
Supply Totals 36,558 36,403 36,250 36,095 35,941
Demand Totals 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716
Difference 21,532 19,156 18,381 17,605 17,225
Single Dry Year (acre-feet)
Supply Totals 26,419 26,571 26,724 26,876 27,029
Demand Totals 15,026 17,247 17,869 18,490 18,716
Difference 11,393 9,324 8,855 8,386 8,313
Multiple Dry Years – 5 Year Average (acre-feet)1
Supply Totals 28,254 28,074 27,894 27,714 27,535
Demand Totals 17,167 18,877 19,307 19,736 19,849
Difference 11,087 9,197 8,587 7,978 7,686
sf = square feet; AFY = acre-feet/year
Source: City of Santa Maria 2021 (Tables 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5) 1 The numbers presented in the Multiple Dry Years line incorporate the five-year average for the projected supply and demand during multiple-dry years, calculated using the set of numbers provided in Table 7-5 of the 2020 UWMP.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The project includes the connection of the City’s water system to Bonita Elementary School. The project would not result in the generation of additional wastewater because no expansion of school enrollment would occur. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Construction of the project would result in a temporary increase in solid waste because approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site. The soil would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. All on-site existing infrastructure would be repurposed, so demolition activities and resultant waste material would be minor. The soil and waste would be disposed of at a nearby landfill, such as the Santa Maria Regional Landfill. This landfill has a remaining capacity of 1,477,580 cubic yards as of 2023 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2023). Due to the temporary nature of construction and minimal amount of construction waste anticipated to require disposal, the project would not generate quantities of solid waste that would account for a substantial percentage of the Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

86 remaining total daily regional permitted capacity available at the Santa Maria Regional Landfill. In addition, the existing lead service lines removed from Building K would be disposed of at a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. Following construction activities, project operation would not generate long-term waste. Therefore, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

88 d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
According to CAL FIRE, the project site is not located in an SRA or in or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2023a and 2023b). The nearest VHFHSZ is approximately 5.5 miles west of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not be located in or near an SRA or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. No impacts related to wildfire would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ □ ■ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ ■ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition, as discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

90 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections 1 through 20, with respect to all environmental issues, the proposed project would not result in significant and unmitigable impacts to the environment. All anticipated impacts associated with project construction and operation would be either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This is largely due to the fact project construction activities would be temporary and project operation would result in minimal changes to the environmental baseline condition.

Cumulatively considerable impacts could occur if the construction of other projects occurs at the same time as the proposed project and in the same vicinity, such that the effects of similar impacts of multiple projects combine to expose adjacent sensitive receptors to greater levels of impact than would occur under the proposed project. For example, if the construction of other projects in the area occurs at the same time as construction of the proposed project, potential impacts associated with noise and traffic to residents in the project area may be more substantial. One planned project - the Bonita School Road Bridge Replacement Project - would occur during the same time as the proposed project, approximately 1.4 miles north of the project site along Bonita School Road.5 There are no other planned or pending projects within the immediate vicinity of the project site that could combine with the project to result in cumulative construction-related impacts (County of Santa Barbara 2023c).

Project impacts are primarily temporary, localized effects that would occur during project construction. Therefore, the potential for the project to contribute to cumulative impacts would be limited to the temporary periods of project activities and the following issue areas:
 Air Quality. The Basin is designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS and nonattainment for the CAAQS for PM10 (County of Santa Barbara 2021). Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts currently exist for these pollutants. As discussed in the Section 3, Air Quality, project construction activities would not generate emissions of these air pollutants in excess of SBCAPCD thresholds, which are intended to assess whether a project’s contribution to existing cumulative air quality impacts is considerable. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts during construction would not be cumulatively considerable.  Noise. Overlapping construction activities associated with the Bonita School Road Bridge Replacement Project in conjunction with proposed project activities could result in cumulative noise impacts related to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels at Bonita Elementary School. (Residences near the project site are located sufficiently far from the Bonita School Road Bridge Replacement Project such that cumulative noise impacts would not occur at these locations.) However, as discussed in Section 13, Noise, the proposed project would not result in temporary noise levels in excess of the construction noise threshold with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. In addition, project construction activities near Bonita Elementary School during the school year would be temporary and short-term due to the linear nature of

5 Based on recent construction bid documents, the SR 166 and Black Road Traffic Signal Project is expected to start construction in October of 2023 and is anticipated to last for the duration of 100 working days (Construction Journal 2023). Because construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in January of 2025, construction of the two projects is unlikely to overlap. Therefore, the SR 166 and Black Road Traffic Signal Project is not included in this cumulative impacts analysis.

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 pipeline construction activities. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
 Transportation/Traffic Hazards/Emergency Access. Overlapping construction activities on Bonita School Road could result in cumulative impacts to transportation, traffic hazards, and emergency access. However, Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 requires the project contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan that includes coordination with this project and any other ongoing construction projects nearby to maintain adequate traffic flows and emergency access.

Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to transportation, traffic hazards, and emergency access during construction would not be cumulatively considerable.

The project would result in an overall reduction in the frequency of operation and maintenance activities associated with the Bonita Elementary School’s water system and would not increase water supply availability. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to direct or indirect population growth, such as impacts to public services, recreation, and population and housing. Impacts related to geology and soils, hazardous materials, and land use and planning are inherently restricted to the project site and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with existing and future development in Santa Barbara County. In addition, GHG impacts are cumulative by nature, and as discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would conflict with the County’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the existing significant cumulative air quality impacts related to the Basin’s nonattainment status for ozone and PM10 or the existing significant cumulative climate change impact. Furthermore, project impacts to resources such as aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be minimal and would not have the potential to constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts that may occur due to existing and future development in the region. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with such issues as air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed under Section 3, Air Quality, Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 13, Noise, the proposed project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse effects related to air quality, hazardous materials, and noise with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4 and NOI-1. Therefore, impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

92 This page intentionally left blank.

References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 References
Bibliography
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April 20, 2023. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act- ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines (accessed June 2023).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2022. CalEEMod User Guide version 2022.1 – Appendix G. April 2022. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide (accessed August 2023).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 05/Land%20Use%20Handbook_0.pdf (accessed June 2023).
______. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023. “Overview Diesel Exhaust & Health” [webpage]. N.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed June 2023).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed April 2023). ______. 2022b. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=18f7488c0a9 d4d299f5e9c33b312f312 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023a. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad_0/explore?locatio n=34.951624%2C-120.434530%2C10.00 (accessed April 2023). ______. 2023b. Data Viewer. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/index.html (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023c. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed July 2023).

California Department of Education. 2023. 2022-23 Enrollment by Grade Santa Maria-Bonita Report (42-69120).
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=4269120&agglevel=distr ict&year=2022-23 (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2023. “Santa Maria Regional Landfill.” https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Details/3284. (accessed August 2023)
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).2023a. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597 ab693d008 (accessed August 2023).

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

94 ______. 2023b. Santa Barbara County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ltskv0df/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_santabarbara_2.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2023a. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=2715+W+Main+St%2C+Santa +Maria%2C+CA+93458 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023b. BONITA LAND NORTH SITE (42010004).
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=42010004 (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- a11y.pdf (accessed May 2023).
______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed April 2023).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01). September. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed May 2023).

California Department of Water Resources. 2023. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed April 2023).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. “California’s Petroleum Market.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed May 2023).
______. 2022a. “California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed May 2023).
______. 2022b. “California Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed May 2023).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023a. Site Cleanup Cortese List. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed August 2023). ______. 2023b. SITES IDENTIFIED WITH WASTE CONSTITUENTS ABOVE HAZARDOUS WASTE LEVELS OUTSIDE THE WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT. https://calepa.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf (accessed August 2023).

California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf (accessed July 2023).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

Statewide Summary Report.

References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023a. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=2715+W+Main+ St%2C+Santa+Maria%2C+CA+93458 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023b. SURRAT TRANSPORT SPILL (T10000006284).
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=2715+W+Main+ St%2C+Santa+Maria%2C+CA+93458 (accessed April 2023).

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan /docs/2019_basin_plan_r3_complete_webaccess.pdf (accessed June 2023).

Construction Journal. 2023. Construction of Highway 166/Black Road Traffic Signal Improvement Project (Pm 4.6 to Pm 5.1).
https://www.constructionjournal.com/projects/details/e941687a353641e9ba890758bb962 8d0.html (accessed August 2023).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=2715%20W%20Main%20St%2C%20San ta%20Maria%2C%20CA%2093458 (accessed April 2023).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook (accessed May 2023).
______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. (FHWA-HEP-10- 025). December. (accessed August 2022).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed May 2023).

Hoffman, J. 2023. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Earth Science Collections: Search Results of Paleontological Specimens from Localities Near the Bonita School Water System Project (21-11997), dated July 3, 2023.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L.

Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed August 2023)
Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.

Knott, J.R. and D.S. Eley. 2006. Early to middle Holocene coastal dune and estuarine deposition, Santa Maria Valley, California. Physical Geography, Volume 27, pp. 127-136.

Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

96 National Park Service. 1983. 36 CFR Part 61-The Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards. Accessed July 2023. https://www.doi.gov/pam/asset- management/historic-preservation/pqs.(accessed August 2023).

Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1976. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.

Santa Barbara, County of. 2009. Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan Open Space Element. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/tjpi5vq90gul6pmsww66q8nwpiqq2kqg (accessed April 2023).
______. 2010. Conservation Element.
https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/t6t55tvyoczghf6gx2kypz7wkao0464z (accessed August 2023).
______. 2014. Circulation Element.
https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/z9h6t9g0y1fnsqc3bb27xw4r344y5lxo (accessed August 2023).
______. 2015a. Santa Maria Orcutt Liquefaction Map.
https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/tyb0ajqtn1uhyjlwtnnzrn54s1orvfmj/folder/6484704 4306 (accessed August 2023).
______. 2015b. Santa Maria Orcutt Expansive Soils Map.
https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/tyb0ajqtn1uhyjlwtnnzrn54s1orvfmj/folder/6484704 4306 (accessed August 2023).
______. 2017. 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/621b6b3f-5c9e-4231-9755-ea921484ce17 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2021. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. January. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/vtxutffe2n52jme97lgmv66os7pp3lm5 (accessed May 2023).
______. 2022. Bonita School Road Bridge Replacement Project. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/0785254e-5049-450b-a41e-26ada6147cfe (accessed August 2023).
______. 2023a. Santa Barbara County Land Use and Zoning Map. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fa3545a29dac49aeacc8166 9b956e3e5&extent=-120.9142,34.093,-118.9408,35.4355 (accessed May 2023). ______. 2023b. Draft County of Santa Barbara 2030 Climate Action Plan. https://sbcountycap.konveio.com/draft-2030-climate-action-plan (accessed June 2023). ______. 2023c. Planned Projects. https://www.countyofsb.org/2724/Planned-Projects (accessed August 2023).

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2022a. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents Limited Update. January 2022. https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ScopeContentJanuary2022- LimitedUpdates.pdf (accessed June 2023).
______. 2022b. 2022 Ozone Plan. December 2022. https://www.ourair.org/wp- content/uploads/2022-Ozone-Plan.pdf (accessed June 2023).

References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 2013. 2040 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/final2040rtpscs-chapters.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2016. Congestion Management Program.
http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/2016_congestion_management_progra m_doc_final.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2023. Santa Maria Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/5/4/24540302/smx_alucp_v2_final.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Santa Maria, City of. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F960473 4122%2F2020%20UWMP%20-%20Santa%20Maria%20-%20Report%20Text%20- %20Final.pdf. (accessed August 2023)
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Sweetkind, D.S., V.E. Langenheim, K. McDougall-Reid, C.C. Sorlein, S.C. Demas, M.E. Tennyson, and S.Y. Johnson. 2021. Geologic and geophysical maps of the Santa Maria and part of the Point Conception 30’x60’ quadrangles, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey.

Scientific Investigations Map SIM-3472, scale 1:100,000.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2023. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed April 2023).

United States Energy Information Administration. 2022. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. March 17, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed August 2023).

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. U.S. Quaternary Faults. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0 aadf88412fcf (accessed April 2023).

Yerkes, R.F. and R.H. Campbell. 2005. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, southern California. [map.] United States Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2005-1019, scale 1:100,000.

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to SMBSD. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Jennifer Haddow, PhD, Principal Environmental Scientist Annaliese Torres, Senior Environmental Planner
Virginia Dussell, Environmental Planner
Katherine Fikan, Environmental Planner
Megan Knight, Environmental Planner
Santa Maria Bonita School District
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

98 Bill Vosti, Program Manager – Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Noise Aaron Rojas Jr, Air Quality and GHG Specialist
Shannon Carmack, Principal Architectural Historian
Jennifer DiCenzo, Paleontological Program Manager
Andrew McGrath, Ph.D., Paleontologist
Annette Tran, MESM, Senior GIS Analyst
Abigail Robles, GIS Analyst
Bryan Valladares, GIS Analyst
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist

Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
1 / 30
Bonita School Water System Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
2 / 30

3.13. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated

3.15. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
3 / 30

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

8. User Changes to Default Data
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
4 / 30

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Bonita School Water System
Construction Start Date 3/3/2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.90
Precipitation (days) 10.0
Location 2715 W Main St, Santa Maria, CA 93458, USA
County Santa Barbara
City Unincorporated
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3338
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.13

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Construction 1.53 Mile 0.74 0.00 — — — —
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
5 / 30

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.28 1.06 28.8 31.0 0.09 1.05 1.00 2.04 0.92 0.27 1.20 — 8,955 8,955 0.43 0.62 7.45 9,159 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.28 1.06 28.9 31.0 0.09 1.05 1.00 2.04 0.92 0.27 1.20 — 8,954 8,954 0.43 0.62 0.19 9,151 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.20 0.18 4.30 5.27 0.01 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.18 0.02 0.21 — 1,046 1,046 0.05 0.04 0.25 1,060 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.04 0.03 0.78 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 173 173 0.01 0.01 0.04 176

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
6 / 30
2025 1.28 1.06 28.8 31.0 0.09 1.05 1.00 2.04 0.92 0.27 1.20 — 8,955 8,955 0.43 0.62 7.45 9,159 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.28 1.06 28.9 31.0 0.09 1.05 1.00 2.04 0.92 0.27 1.20 — 8,954 8,954 0.43 0.62 0.19 9,151 2026 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.7 96.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 97.2 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.20 0.18 4.30 5.27 0.01 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.18 0.02 0.21 — 1,046 1,046 0.05 0.04 0.25 1,060 2026 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.04 0.03 0.78 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 173 173 0.01 0.01 0.04 176 2026 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.05 1.12 0.99 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 — 142 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
7 / 30
———————0.000.00—0.000.00——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.93 8.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.96 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.48 1.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.48 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
8 / 30
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
— — — — < 0.005 — — — — — — — 81.6 81.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
— — — — < 0.005 — — — — — — — 5.94 5.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.96 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
9 / 30
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
— — — — < 0.005 — — — — — — — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.99 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.12 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
10 / 30
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
— — — — < 0.005 — — — — — — — 81.6 81.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
— — — — < 0.005 — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
— — — — < 0.005 — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
11 / 30
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
12 / 30
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.46 0.46 11.6 13.8 0.02 0.49 — 0.49 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,537 2,537 0.10 0.02 — 2,546 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.46 0.46 11.6 13.8 0.02 0.49 — 0.49 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,537 2,537 0.10 0.02 — 2,546 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.03 0.73 0.87 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 160 160 0.01 < 0.005 — 160 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.13 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.5 26.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
13 / 30
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 48.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 18.6 Hauling 0.29 0.07 5.02 1.74 0.04 0.06 0.89 0.95 0.04 0.25 0.29 — 3,602 3,602 0.21 0.57 6.94 3,785 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 46.2 46.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 46.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.5 Hauling 0.28 0.07 5.16 1.76 0.04 0.06 0.89 0.95 0.04 0.25 0.29 — 3,603 3,603 0.21 0.57 0.18 3,779 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.92 2.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.97 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.12 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.17 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.33 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 227 227 0.01 0.04 0.19 238 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.49 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.6 37.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 39.5

3.9. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
14 / 30
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.46 0.46 12.0 14.9 0.02 0.49 — 0.49 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,686 2,686 0.11 0.02 — 2,695 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.46 0.46 12.0 14.9 0.02 0.49 — 0.49 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,686 2,686 0.11 0.02 — 2,695 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.03 0.76 0.94 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 169 169 0.01 < 0.005 — 170 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
15 / 30
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.14 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 48.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 18.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 46.2 46.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 46.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.92 2.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.97 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.12 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.17 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.49 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
16 / 30

3.11. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.21 5.20 6.96 0.01 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 991 991 0.04 0.01 — 995 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.07 1.87 2.50 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 356 356 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.34 0.46 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 58.9 58.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.1 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
17 / 30
———————0.000.00—0.000.00——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 48.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.75 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
18 / 30
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.17 4.07 4.30 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 604 604 0.02 < 0.005 — 606 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.17 0.17 4.07 4.30 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 604 604 0.02 < 0.005 — 606 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.32 0.34 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.95 7.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.97 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
19 / 30
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 48.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 46.2 46.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 46.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.68 3.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Linear, Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
20 / 30
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.10 3.19 4.31 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 614 614 0.02 < 0.005 — 616 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.20 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 38.7 38.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.41 6.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.43 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 30.8 30.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
21 / 30
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.94 1.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.98 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
22 / 30

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
23 / 30
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demo / Pavement Cutting Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
3/3/2025 3/28/2025 6.00 23.0 Demo/Pavement Cutting
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
24 / 30
Site Restoration Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
12/1/2025 1/2/2026 6.00 29.0 Site Restoration
Site Prep Linear, Grading &
Excavation
3/31/2025 4/25/2025 6.00 23.0 Site Prep
Grading Linear, Grading &
Excavation
3/31/2025 4/25/2025 6.00 23.0 Grading
Pipeline Installation Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
4/28/2025 9/26/2025 6.00 131 Pipeline Installation
Tank Installation Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
9/29/2025 10/31/2025 6.00 29.0 Tank Installation
Paving Linear, Paving 11/3/2025 11/28/2025 6.00 23.0 Paving

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demo / Pavement
Cutting
Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Site Restoration Pumps Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Site Prep Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Site Prep Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Site Prep Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Pipeline Installation Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Pipeline Installation Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Pipeline Installation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Tank Installation Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Tank Installation Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
25 / 30
Tank Installation Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demo / Pavement Cutting — — — —
Demo / Pavement Cutting Worker 2.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demo / Pavement Cutting Vendor 0.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Demo / Pavement Cutting Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demo / Pavement Cutting Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Prep — — — —
Site Prep Worker 7.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Prep Vendor 1.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Site Prep Hauling 48.9 20.0 HHDT
Site Prep Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pipeline Installation — — — —
Pipeline Installation Worker 7.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pipeline Installation Vendor 0.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Pipeline Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pipeline Installation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Tank Installation — — — —
Tank Installation Worker 7.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Tank Installation Vendor 0.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Tank Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
26 / 30
Tank Installation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Restoration — — — —
Site Restoration Worker 2.50 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Restoration Vendor 0.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 5.00 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

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

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
27 / 30

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demo / Pavement Cutting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Site Restoration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Site Prep 4,500 4,500 0.74 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Pipeline Installation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Tank Installation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Construction 0.74 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
28 / 30

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.70 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
29 / 30
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

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

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bonita School Water System Custom Report, 6/15/2023
30 / 30
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Modified to match applicant provided construction schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Modified per applicant provided construction equipment. All equipment would be equipped with Tier 3 or Tier 4 engines. Conservatively assumed all equipment would have Tier 3 engines.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Based on applicant provided import/export information Construction: Trips and VMT Adding in 0 vendor trips

Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment

Bonita Elementary School Drinking
Water Improvements Project
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201
West Sacramento, California 95691
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
January 2024

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists |Planners |Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

Bonita Elementary School Drinking
Water Improvements Project
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201
West Sacramento, California 95691
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
January 2024

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists |Planners |Engineers
rinconconsultants.com
Table of Contents

Biological Resources Assessment i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Regulatory Summary ........................................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species .................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes ...................................................................................... 4

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance .................................................. 5 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Biological Study Area .......................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Field Reconnaissance Survey .............................................................................................. 8

2.4 Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 8 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................10

3.1 Physical Characteristics .....................................................................................................10

3.1.1 Topography and Geography .............................................................................10

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages ................................................................................10

3.1.3 Soils ...................................................................................................................10

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover ....................................................................................12

3.2.1 Agriculture ........................................................................................................12

3.2.2 Ruderal/Developed ...........................................................................................12

3.3 General Wildlife ................................................................................................................13 4 Regulated Biological Resources ....................................................................................................14

4.1 Special Status Species .......................................................................................................14

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species ..............................................................................14

4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife Species..........................................................................15

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .........................................................15

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................15

4.4 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................16

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................16

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans ...............................................................................................17 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................18

5.1 Special-Status Species .......................................................................................................18

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .........................................................20

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................20

5.4 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................21 Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

ii

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................21

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans ...............................................................................................21 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................22 7 References ....................................................................................................................................23 8 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................24 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Biological Study Area .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Land Cover and Ditches within the Biological Study Area ................................................11 Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Framework
Appendix B Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Appendix C Floral and Faunal Compendium
Appendix D Site Photographs

Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 1
1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment for the Bonita Elementary School Water System Project (herein referred to as “project”), which includes the connection of the City of Santa Maria’s (City) water system to the Bonita Elementary School’s water system via approximately 8,100 linear feet of a two-inch diameter service line extending from the planned terminus of the City’s water system near the northeast corner of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to Bonita Elementary School. This report presents information on existing conditions, regulated biological resources, potential jurisdictional waters, and other locally protected resources. The assessment of biological resources herein includes the results of a background literature review and reconnaissance-level field survey conducted by Rincon and provides an assessment of potential impacts to regulated biological resources that could result from project activities in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Project Location
The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County approximately 2.9 miles west of Santa Maria, California (Figure 1). The project site includes an approximately 8,100- linear-foot pipeline alignment that would commence at the terminus of a planned water main in Black Road located at the northeast corner of the City’s WWTP, proceed north along Black Road, proceed west along State Route (SR) 166 (also known as West Main Street), proceed north on Bonita School Road, and terminate at its connection to Bonita Elementary School at 2715 West Main Street, Santa Maria (Assessor Parcel Number 113-050-007). The project site also includes portions of Bonita Elementary School that would be modified as part of the proposed project. The project site is located within the Guadalupe and Santa Maria, California United States Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. The Public Land Survey System depicts the project site within Township 10N, Range 35W, Section 12 and Township 10N, Range 34W, Sections 7, 8, and 17, San Bernardino Meridian.

1.2 Project Description
Background
Bonita Elementary School’s water system currently consists of a 430-foot-deep well, two treatment vessels, a chlorination system, a pump, three expansion tanks, a 10,000-gallon steel tank, electrical/controls panel, two 500-gallon propane tanks, and a backup propane generator. The treatment process generates brine waste, which is stored on-site. The Bonita Elementary School water system is currently operated from a single groundwater well and has no redundant source of supply. Bonita Elementary School has encountered elevated sulfate and hexavalent chromium levels, which are common in groundwater in this area. Notices of violation have been issued by the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health for exceedances of state maximum contaminant levels in the water supply for Bonita Elementary School. The water supply for Bonita Elementary School currently exceeds the maximum containment level (MCL) for nitrate and the recommended and upper secondary MCLs for total dissolved solids. In addition, the Kindergarten Building (Building K) is known to contain lead pipes, and lead concentrations in the Building K currently exceed the lead MCL. As a result, Bonita Elementary School is seeking to obtain Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

2 Figure 1 Regional Location Map

Bakersfield 58L
San Luis Obispo
Los Padres
National
Forest
Lompoc
£3- Santa Barbara
Oxnard
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 3
(DWSRF) grant funding through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance to fund the construction of a long-term, affordable solution to mitigate further water quality violations.

Project Description
The proposed project consists of connecting the City’s water system to the Bonita Elementary School Water System via approximately 8,100 linear feet of a two-inch diameter service line from the planned terminus of the City’s water system near the northeast corner of the City’s WWTP to Bonita Elementary School. The City is currently in the design phase of extending City water service to the WWTP separately from the proposed project. To meet peak demand, fire flow requirements, and irrigation demand, the project would also include repurposing the existing on-site 10,000-gallon storage tank and wells and potentially adding a hydropneumatic tank (up to approximately 1,000 gallons in capacity) with appurtenances such as an air compressor and additional above-grade piping and isolation valves.
1 Minor piping modifications to the existing system would be required to disconnect the proposed potable, domestic supply from the existing system. In addition, the project would involve replacing lead service lines in the school’s Building K. Other improvements would include installation of blowoffs along the proposed pipeline and other appurtenances on Bonita Elementary School’s property.

Construction
Construction of the project, including mobilization, would begin January 2025 and would occur over the course of approximately one year. The pipeline would be installed primarily via horizontal directional drilling (HDD), pursuant to California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) requirements. The HDD pits would be placed approximately 500 feet apart from each other and/or be placed at a horizontal end or deflection in the pipe. All pits would be located within the pavement limits or adjacent to the shoulder of SR 166 and Black Road. Open trench construction techniques may also be utilized for minor portions of the pipeline on Bonita School Road and Black Road. The maximum depth of excavation for pipeline installation would be approximately six feet.

Construction of the pipeline would occur within the existing disturbed roadways and road shoulders, and no construction activities would occur within or below the stormwater and agricultural ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road. All existing on-site infrastructure would be repurposed, so demolition activities would be minor. Construction equipment staging would occur in the southwest corner of Bonita Elementary School’s property.

Construction workers would park along Bonita School Road on the eastern boundary of the school property. No tree trimming or vegetation removal would be required.

Operation and Maintenance
Inspection and maintenance of the proposed pipeline would occur periodically. The existing fire storage tank as well as the proposed hydropneumatic system would also be recoated as needed to prevent corrosion. In addition, water quality would be monitored, and flushing of the pipeline would occur as necessary. Overall, operation and maintenance activities would be less frequent than the existing treatment system. The project would not require transportation or storage of hazardous

1 At this time, it is uncertain whether the hydropneumatic tank will be included in the proposed project and if so, what the exact capacity may be. Therefore, this report conservatively evaluates inclusion of this project element with its maximum estimated capacity of 1,000 gallons.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

4 materials on-site. No modifications to existing light sources at the Bonita Elementary School property would occur.

1.3 Regulatory Summary
Regulated biological resources studied and analyzed herein include special status plant and wildlife species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, regionally protected resources (e.g., from county-wide Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs] and Natural Community Conservation Plans [NCCPs]), and locally protected resources, such as protected trees. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the County of Santa Barbara).

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special status species include:
▪ Species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); including proposed and candidate species
▪ Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ Species designated as Fully Protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and Species of Special Concern (SSC) or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ▪ Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) – State Rare (SR)
▪ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B.

CRPR List 1B and 2 species are typically regarded as rare, threatened, or endangered under CEQA by CEQA lead agencies and were considered as such in this document. CRPR List 3 and List 4 plant species are typically not considered as special status species for the purpose of analysis under CEQA except where they are designated as rare or otherwise protected by local governments because CRPR List 3 species lack the necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks (or exclude them) and CRPR List 4 species have limited distribution globally but are fairly common within their range
▪ Species designated as locally important by the local agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, or HCPs/NCCPs

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes (see Appendix A for additional detail):
▪ CEQA
▪ FESA
▪ CESA
▪ CFGC
▪ Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 5
▪ The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
▪ Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist, were used to evaluate potential environmental effects. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or USFWS. c) 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.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

6 2 Methodology

2.1 Biological Study Area
The biological study area (BSA) is used in this analysis to inform existing baseline conditions and ecological context and to assist in informing the potential for the project site to support special status species. Considering the narrow scope of the proposed project, the BSA for the project encompasses the project features as well as a 50-foot buffer (Figure 2).

2.2 Literature Review
Rincon conducted a literature review to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources on and adjacent to the BSA. The literature review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth), regional and site‐specific topographic maps, and climatic data.

Queries of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; UFWS 2023a), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023a), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2023) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding state and federally listed species, and other special status species, considered to have potential to occur within the Guadalupe and Santa Maria, California USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangles and the surrounding seven quadrangles (Nipomo, Huasna Peak, Point Sal, Twitchell Dam, Casmelia, Orcutt, and Sisquoc). The results of database-queries and lists of special status species were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness. The final list of special status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was evaluated based on documented occurrences within the nine-quadrangle search area and biologists’ expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. The evaluation results and justification were compiled into a table (Appendix B).

The following resources were reviewed for additional information on existing conditions relating to biological resources within the BSA:
▪ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2023)
▪ USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2023b)
▪ CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2023b) ▪ CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (2023c) ▪ CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2023d)
The vegetation community characterizations for this analysis were based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2) (Sawyer et al. 2009).

The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010).

Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 7
Figure 2 Biological Study Area

I Biological Study Area
]J Project Boundary
I Staging Area
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2023. 21-11997 BIO Fig 2 Bio Study Area
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

8 2.3 Field Reconnaissance Survey
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted to document the existing site conditions and to evaluate the potential for presence of regulated biological resources, including special status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities, and potentially jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the BSA. The field reconnaissance survey was conducted by Rincon Senior Biologist Michael Tom on June 28, 2023. Mr. Tom surveyed the BSA on foot where publicly accessible and where entry was permissible. Portions of the BSA occurring on private property were surveyed using binoculars.

During the survey, an inventory of plant and animal species observed was compiled (Appendix C) and special status species, if observed during the survey, were mapped. Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). All plant species encountered were noted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. The vegetation classification system used for this analysis is based on MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009) with modifications as needed to accurately describe the existing habitats observed on site.

Wildlife identification and nomenclature followed standard reference texts including Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2016), Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and Mammals of North America (Bowers et al. 2004). The habitat requirements for each regionally occurring special status species were assessed and compared to the type and quality of the habitats observed within the BSA during the field survey. Several special status species were eliminated from consideration for potential to occur on site due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of suitable soils/substrate, and/or known regional distribution.

2.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact evaluations are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as listed in Section 1.3.3, Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance. Impacts are defined as project-related activities that destroy, damage, alter, or otherwise affect biological resources. This may include injury or mortality to plant or wildlife species, effects on an animal’s behavior (such as through harassment or frightening off an animal by construction noise), as well as the loss, modification, or disturbance of natural resources or habitats. Impacts are defined as either direct or indirect and either permanent or temporary:
▪ Direct Impacts. Direct impacts are generally those that occur during project implementation and at the same time and location as the cause of the impact. Direct impacts can include injury, death, and/or harassment of special status wildlife species, if present in the work areas or vicinity. Direct impacts can also include the destruction of vegetation communities necessary for special status species breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Direct impacts to plants can include crushing of plants, bulbs, or seeds where present in the impact areas. ▪ Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur later in time and/or potentially at locations of some distance from the source of the impact. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect impact. Specific examples include soil compaction that, following completion of the project, prevents wildlife from digging burrows or allows weedy plant species to thrive. Other examples include dust that drifts outside of project Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 9
disturbance areas and covers special status plants, thereby decreasing their photosynthetic capacity, and unintentional introduction of invasive species (particularly weedy plant species that outcompete special status plant species) that over time negatively affect the local ecology. ▪ Permanent Impacts. Permanent impacts are those that result in the long-term or irreversible loss of biological resources. For example, construction of a new project that would result in a large, developed, and fenced property where sensitive vegetation communities previously existed would be a permanent impact.
▪ Temporary Impacts. Temporary impacts to biological resources are those that are reversible over time, with or without implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Examples include the generation of fugitive dust and noise during project implementation, trimming or crushing vegetation that will regrow following project completion, and removed vegetation that will be actively restored. Temporary impacts typically last during project implementation and shortly thereafter; however, the affected biological resources are anticipated to return to baseline after project completion.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

10 3 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the results of the literature review and reconnaissance-level field survey.

Discussions regarding the general environmental setting, vegetation communities present, plants and animals observed, potential special status species issues, and other potential constraints regarding the biological resources on site are presented below. Representative photographs of the BSA are provided in Appendix D. A complete list of all plant and animal species observed on site during the field survey is presented as Appendix C.

3.1 Physical Characteristics

3.1.1 Topography and Geography
The BSA is located within the Santa Maria Valley in northern Santa Barbara County. The topography of the BSA is generally flat with on-site elevations at approximately 150 to 180 feet above mean sea level. The predominant land use surrounding the BSA is agriculture. Anthropogenic manipulated and maintained habitat types in the vicinity of the project site include row crop agriculture; ruderal areas associated with agricultural fields and support facilities such as materials storage yards, outbuildings, and machinery lots; developed areas; barren ground; irrigation ponds; industrial; irrigated pasture; and fallow agricultural fields that are vegetated by ruderal plant species and/or non-native grassland.

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages
The BSA is located within the Carralitos Canyon watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 180600080503).

Four drainage ditches, which are man-made hydrologic features, occur within and immediately adjacent to the BSA and are located as follows (Figure 3):
▪ Along the east side of Bonita School Road
▪ Along the north side of SR 166
▪ Along the south side of SR 166
▪ Along the east side of Black Road
Drainage ditches in the region typically provide drainage for agricultural fields and flood control purposes. The ditches are a major collector of runoff from roadways as well as agricultural and agro- industrial areas in the region. Water flows west along SR 166 and drains into a series of ditches that flow southwesterly until they reach Guadalupe Dunes Natural Reserve where the water ultimately flows to the Santa Maria River. Very little vegetation occurs in the ditches and the vegetation present is comprised of annual non-native species.

3.1.3 Soils
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, California, Northern Santa Barbara Area, three soil map units are mapped within the BSA: Sorrento Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Sorrento Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Sorrento Loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2023).

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 11
Figure 3 Land Cover and Ditches within the Biological Study Area

Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2023. 21-11997 BIO Fie 3 Land Cover
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

12 ▪ Sorrento Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes are well drained soils with high water capacity (about 8.2 inches). The parent materials of this soil map unit are alluviums. The Sorrento and similar soils comprise approximately 85 percent of this soil unit. The remaining composition is comprised of a combination of minor components such as Sorrento loam, Mocho, and Metz soils. This soil unit does not meet the national hydric criteria. ▪ Sorrento Loam, 0 to 2 percent slope soils are well drained soils with high water capacity (about

9.2 inches). The parent materials of this soil map unit are alluviums. The Sorrento and similar soils comprise approximately 85 percent of this soil unit. The remaining composition is comprised of a combination of minor components such as Sorrento clay loam, Mocho, and Salinas soils. This soil unit does not meet the national hydric criteria. ▪ Sorrento loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes are well drained soils with high water capacity (about 9.6 inches). The parent materials of this soil map unit are alluviums derived from sedimentary rock.

The Sorrento and similar soils comprise approximately 85 percent of the soil unit. The remaining composition is comprised of a combination of minor components such as Sorrento clay loam, Mocho, and Sorrento, moderately/severely eroded soils. This soil unit does not meet the national hydric criteria.

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover
No natural vegetation communities occur within the BSA. The BSA is comprised of two land cover types, agriculture and ruderal/developed. Figure 3 illustrates the extent of the land cover types observed, and each are discussed in greater detail below. Representative photographs of the project site are included as Appendix D, and a complete list of plant species observed during the field surveys is presented in Appendix C.

3.2.1 Agriculture
Given that this land cover is not naturally-occurring, it is not described in the Sawyer et al. (2009) classification system. Agriculture is an anthropogenic, frequently-disturbed land cover and includes irrigated row crops that are usually monotypic. This land cover type occurs within and adjacent to the BSA specifically outside of the County and Caltrans right-of-way boundaries along SR 166, Black Road, and Bonita School Road. During the June 28, 2023 site visit, agricultural fields were in various stages of production from freshly tilled to planted fields of annual crops. Most of the ground cover consisted of bare soil.

3.2.2 Ruderal/Developed
Given that this land cover is not naturally occurring, it is also not described in the Sawyer et al. (2009) classification system. Developed areas within the BSA include paved roads, agro-industrial facilities on the north side of SR 166, and Bonita Elementary School. Developed areas also contain landscaped areas with ornamental planted trees and shrubs. Ruderal land cover occurs in areas that are regularly disturbed by human activities and is commonly associated with road shoulders, fallow fields, abandoned lots, and developed areas. Vegetation can vary depending on the degree of disturbance or development. In less developed areas, ruderal species, including non-native herbaceous species, are dominant. Cover by plant species is generally low due to disturbance, and there is a high percentage of bare soil. Within the BSA, ruderal areas consist of compacted road shoulders along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road. Common plant species that occur within this land cover in the BSA include common purslane (Portulaca oleracea), shortpod mustard Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 13
(Hirschfeldia incana), mallow (Malva spp.), and horseweed (Conyza sp.) as well as non-native grasses such as slender wild oat (Avena barbata), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and common wild oat (Avena fatua), which are the dominant species.

3.3 General Wildlife
The quality of habitat for wildlife within the BSA is limited because the majority of the BSA occurs in the right-of-way of paved roadways and a school and is surrounded by development and agriculture. A list of wildlife observed during surveys is presented in Appendix C. Generally, the native wildlife species expected to occur are those that are adapted to or can tolerate anthropogenic disturbances and/or anthropogenic environments.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

14 4 Regulated Biological Resources
This section discusses special status species and regulated biological resources observed on the project site and evaluates the potential for the project site to support additional regulated biological resources. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based on known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB and other sources, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, previous reports for the project site, and the results of a survey of the project site. The potential for each special status species to occur in the BSA was evaluated according to the following criteria:
▪ No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and species would have been identifiable on the site if present (e.g., oak trees). Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species. ▪ Low Potential. Few of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.
▪ Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. ▪ High Potential. All the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
▪ Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last five years).

4.1 Special Status Species

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species
Based on the database and literature review, 41 special status plant species are known to or have the potential to occur within the regional vicinity of the BSA (Appendix B). Of these, one special status plant species has a low potential to occur within the BSA - La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis; Federally Endangered and State Candidate Threatened) based on the presence of marginally suitable habitat. Specifically, the ditch systems provide potentially suitable areas for La Graciosa thistle to establish as they provide suitable mesic soils. The CNDDB notes occurrences of this species within the SR 166 man-made ditch systems west of the intersection of SR 166 and SR 1 approximately 3.8 miles west of the BSA. The high amount of disturbance from maintenance and other anthropogenic activities within these ditch systems is likely a limiting factor for establishment of this species. No thistle plants were observed in the ditches within the BSA during the reconnaissance survey, which was conducted during the species' blooming period.

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 15
Therefore, based on the marginal suitability of the habitat within the BSA as well as no observations during the reconnaissance survey, it is unlikely the species occurs in the BSA.

4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on the database and literature review, 32 special status wildlife species are known to or have the potential to occur in the regional vicinity of the BSA (Appendix B). Of those, one special status animal species - California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; Federally threatened and CDFW SSC) - was determined to have moderate potential to occur within the BSA. During the site reconnaissance surveys, no areas of standing water were of sufficient depth to support CRLF breeding. In addition, based on the design of the ditches within the BSA, it is unlikely CRLF can utilize them for breeding due to flows, shallow water depth, and lack of cover. Therefore, the BSA does not contain suitable breeding habitat for CRLF. However, the on-site ditches can provide dispersal areas if water is present. The ditches within the BSA are a part of the drainage ditch system that parallels SR 166 from Santa Maria west to the Santa Maria River. Multiple CRLF occurrences are documented within these ditch systems. Three CRLF occurrences have been recorded within one mile of the BSA, all of which are located within or immediately adjacent to the ditch systems along SR 166 (CDFW 2023a).

One occurrence was documented in an agricultural pond on private property on the north side of SR 166, just east of Bonita School Road and adjacent to and north of the BSA. The other two occurrences were documented in the ditches on the south side of SR 166, approximately 0.5 mile and 0.8 mile east of the intersection of Black Road and SR 166, respectively. All three occurrences were of adult CRLF, and breeding was not documented. Because of the known use of these ditches by CRLF, the species could occur incidentally in upland portions of the BSA if conditions are conducive to CRLF leaving the ditches (e.g., sufficient moisture from a rain event). However, due to the high amounts of existing human activity and the active highway, movement into upland areas is unlikely.

Nesting birds are protected by the MBTA and CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. No bird nests were detected during the survey. Trees within the BSA providing suitable nesting habitat for bird species occur at Bonita Elementary School adjacent to the proposed staging area and landscape trees at a residence on the east side of Black Road at the southern extent of the BSA. In addition, wood utility poles located on both sides of SR 166 and along the eastern shoulder of Black Road may provide suitable nesting locations for bird species such as crows, ravens, and red-tailed hawks.

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
The BSA consists of agricultural and ruderal/developed land cover types. No sensitive natural communities occur within the BSA. The BSA also does not occur within federally designated critical habitat (USFWS 2023b).

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
As noted in Section 3.1.2, Watersheds and Drainages, four ditches occur within the BSA, all of which are likely hydrologically connected to the Santa Maria River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean, a Traditional Navigable Water. These areas are potentially under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW, considering the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the State Route 166/Black Road Intersection Improvement Project (Caltrans 2018), which overlaps with the BSA, determined the Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

16 ditches along SR 166 and Black Road are jurisdictional features based on a formal delineation. A formal delineation would need to be conducted to ascertain the extent of jurisdictional waters within the BSA but was not conducted as part of the current effort because they are not within the proposed footprint of project impacts.

4.4 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the link merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, although dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending on the species using a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large- and small-scale. Regionally, the BSA is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area (ECA) as mapped in the report California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (Spencer et al. 2010). ECAs represent principal connections between Natural Landscape Blocks and constitute regions in which land conservation and management actions should be prioritized to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. ECAs are mapped based on coarse ecological condition indicators rather than the needs of species and thus serve the majority of species in each region.

The BSA is also located in a largely developed area with regular human activities, specifically a school, vehicular traffic on SR 166, and surrounding agriculture. Therefore, the BSA does not likely contribute significantly as an important corridor for regional movement compared to regionally undeveloped habitats.

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
No local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources pertain to the biological resources present within the BSA. All trees present on the site are landscape trees within 50 feet of an existing structure, which do not meet the definition of protected trees under the County of Santa Barbara’s Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration ordinance (Santa Barbara County Code Chapter 35, Article IX). Therefore, no resources protected by local policies or ordinances are present.

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 17

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The BSA is not located in an area subject to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

18 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

5.1 Special-Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

As described in Section 4.1.1, Special Status Plant Species, one special status plant species - La Graciosa thistle - has a low potential to occur within the BSA, specifically within the ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road. However, the project would avoid these ditches, thereby avoiding potentially suitable habitat for La Graciosa thistle. As such, the project would not directly or indirectly impact any special-status plant species. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is recommended.

As described in Section 4.1.2, Special Status Wildlife Species, CRLF has a moderate potential to occur within the BSA. No impacts to suitable breeding habitat for CRLF would occur during implementation of the project because the project would avoid the ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road, and project activities would occur in previously-developed areas and disturbed road shoulders. In addition, impacts to individuals in upland areas at the school are unlikely because construction on the school property would occur during the dry season (between June and September) during daylight hours. However, construction of the proposed pipeline along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road may occur outside of the dry season; therefore, individual CRLF may be encountered dispersing during conditions conducive to CRLF movement, such as during rain and shortly after rain events. The potential for direct impacts to dispersing CRLF is low considering project construction would be conducted during daylight hours when CRLF are less likely to move and would be more visible to construction workers and equipment operators. No indirect impacts to CRLF would occur because the amount of noise and activity from the project would not substantially increase the overall amount of activity around the ditches compared to existing agricultural operations and highway traffic. In addition, no nighttime construction would occur that would increase the amount of artificial light at night. Although no indirect impacts to CRLF are expected, direct impacts would be potentially significant, and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 is recommended.

Project implementation is not expected to result in direct impacts to nesting birds because no tree removal or trimming would occur, and ground nesting species are not expected to be present.

Indirect impacts to common bird species may occur if these species are nesting within the trees, structures, or power poles in the BSA as a result of construction noise that may cause behavioral changes that can result in failure of an established nest. This may be particularly notable at the elementary school if a nest is established when school is out of session and the amount of ambient activity is lower than during the school year. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant, and implementation of avoidance and minimization measure BIO-4 is recommended.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 19
Recommended Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The following measures are recommended to reduce impacts to special status species to less-than- significant levels.

BIO-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training
Prior to commencement of project construction activities, a qualified biologist should provide a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training should include a description of the biology of the CRLF and its habitats; the specific measures that are being implemented to avoid this species; the guidelines that must be followed by all construction personnel to avoid take of this species; and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. The qualified biologist should appoint a designated person (e.g., the crew foreman) who will be responsible for ensuring all crew members comply with the guidelines. The training should be conducted for all new personnel before they can participate in construction activities.

BIO-2 Pre-construction Surveys
A qualified biologist familiar with CRLF should conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site within 48 hours prior to the start of construction. If CRLF are encountered during the survey or at any time during project construction, activities should cease and the USFWS should be notified to determine how to proceed. No work should continue until authorized by the USFWS.

BIO-3 Construction Site Best Management Practices
The following construction site best management practices should be implemented during construction activities:
▪ Work should be conducted during dry weather conditions (days with less than 0.1 inch of predicted rainfall) and should not occur within 48 hours after a rain event of 0.1 inch or more. ▪ All vehicles and equipment should be in good working condition and free of leaks. A spill prevention plan should be established in the event of a leak or spill. ▪ The number of access routes, numbers and sizes of staging areas, and the total area of the activity should be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal of project. Routes and boundaries should be clearly demarcated.
▪ All areas outside of the project perimeter fence should be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas where no construction activities should occur. ▪ Water should not be impounded in a manner that may attract CRLF. ▪ No pets or firearms should be permitted on-site.
▪ All food-related trash should be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the project at least twice per week during the construction period to avoid attracting predators. ▪ Open excavations should be covered at the end of each day and inspected for CRLF prior to backfilling.

BIO-4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Nesting Birds Project-related activities should occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 to August 31) to the extent practicable. If construction must occur within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird

20 Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer (300 feet for raptors), where accessible. If project construction is phased or construction activities stop for more than one week, a subsequent pre-construction nesting bird survey should be conducted prior to each phase of construction, if occurring during the bird breeding season.

The pre-construction nesting bird survey should be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and should factor in sufficient time to perform the survey adequately and completely. A report of the nesting bird survey results, if applicable, should be submitted to the Santa Maria Bonita School District for review and approval within two weeks of survey completion.

If nests are found, their locations should be flagged. An appropriate avoidance buffer ranging in size from 25 to 50 feet for passerines, and up to 300 feet for raptors, depending upon the species and the proposed work activity, should be determined and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing or other suitable flagging. Active nests should be monitored at a minimum of once per week until it has been determined the nest is no longer being used by either the young or adults. No project activities (including parking and staging) should occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms the breeding/nesting is complete and all the young have fledged. If project activities must occur within the buffer, they should be conducted at the discretion of the qualified biologist. If no nesting birds are observed during the pre-construction survey, no further action is necessary.

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.

As described in Section 4.2, Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat, no sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats occur in the BSA, and the BSA is not located within federally designated critical habitat. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities, riparian habitats, or federally designated critical habitat would occur, and no mitigation is recommended.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) 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.

All activities associated with the project would occur outside of the ditches along Bonita School Road, SR 166, and Black Road, thereby avoiding potentially jurisdictional features. Given the limited amount of ground disturbance, the project is not anticipated to contribute to significant sediment erosion or surface water quality impacts during construction activities. Therefore, impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be less than significant, and no mitigation is recommended.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 21

5.4 Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

The project is not located within an ECA (Spencer et al. 2010), and no wildlife nursery sites are located within the BSA. The project site also occurs in a heavily-developed area with SR 166 within the project site and surrounding agricultural uses. Implementation of the project would not disturb or remove native vegetation communities. In addition, no aboveground components of the project would create new barriers to movement. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the local or regional movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. No impacts to wildlife movement or nursery sites would occur, and no mitigation is recommended.

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources because no biological resources subject to such local policies or ordinances are present within the BSA, as described in Section 4.5, Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is recommended.

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because the project site is not subject to any such plans, as described in Section 4.6, Habitat Conservation Plans. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is recommended.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

22 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This Biological Resources Assessment has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limited also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile wildlife species could occupy the site on a transient basis or re-establish populations in the future. Our field studies were based on current industry practices, which change over time and may not be applicable in the future.

No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, review of CNDDB RareFind5, and specified historical and literature sources. Standard data sources relied upon during the completion of this report, such as the CNDDB, may vary with regard to accuracy and completeness. In particular, the CNDDB is compiled from research and observations reported to CDFW that may or may not have been the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Although Rincon believes the data sources are reasonably reliable, Rincon cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the data sources it has used. Additionally, pursuant to our contract, the data sources reviewed included only those that are practically reviewable without the need for extraordinary research and analysis.

References

Biological Resources Assessment 23
7 References
Baldwin, B.G. (Ed.), D.H. Goldman (Ed.), D. J. Keil (Ed.), R. Patterson (Ed.), T. J. Rosatti (Ed.), D. H.

Wilken (Ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Bowers, N., R. Bowers, & K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V.
_____. 2023b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
_____. 2023c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database.
_____. 2023d. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. July 2009.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the State Route 166/Black Road Intersection Improvement Project.

California Native Plant Society. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

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

Sibley. 2016. Sibley Birds West: Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Knopf; second edition.

Spencer, W. D., et al. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Houghton-Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts.

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Area: Santa Barbara County, California. Soil Survey Data. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) _____. 2023a. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
_____. 2023b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

24 8 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author and Field Reconnaissance Survey
▪ Michael Tom, Senior Biologist
Technical Review
▪ Alex Hunt, Director
Graphics
▪ Erik Holtz, GIS Analyst

Appendix A
Regulatory Setting

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-1
Regulatory Setting
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. A number of federal and state statutes provide a regulatory structure that guides the protection of biological resources. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of biological resources within the project site include the following:
▪ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; wetlands and other waters of the United States) ▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; federally listed species and migratory birds) ▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS; marine wildlife and anadromous fishes) ▪ Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State) ▪ California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state- listed species; nesting birds, marine resources)
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites." Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 CFR Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have undertaken several efforts to modernize their regulations defining “waters of the United States” (e.g., the 2015 Clean Water Rule, 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and the most recent effort promulgated by the USACE and USEPA on January 18, 2023 (88 FR 3004- 3144)), but these efforts have been frustrated by legal challenges which have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect although it is currently being interpreted consistent with the recent Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency Supreme Court decision as described below.

The USACE and USEPA have announced their intent to issue revised regulations defining “waters of the United States” by September 1, 2023. Waters of the U.S.

In summary, USACE and USEPA regulations define “waters of the United States” as follows:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

A-2

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section;

6. The territorial sea; and

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in items 1-6 above.

Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the USEPA.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA are not waters of the United States.

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters is defined by the "ordinary high-water mark" (OHWM) unless adjacent wetlands are present. The OHWM is a line on the shore or edge of a channel established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed upon the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of vegetation, or the presence of debris (33 CFR 328.3(e)). As such, waters are recognized in the field by the presence of a defined watercourse with appropriate physical and topographic features. If wetlands occur within, or adjacent to, waters of the United States, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the outer edge of the wetlands (33 CFR 328.4 (c)). The upstream limit of jurisdiction in the absence of adjacent wetlands is the point beyond which the OHWM is no longer perceptible (33 CFR 328.4; see also 51 FR 41217).

Wetlands
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3(c)(1)). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The following is a discussion of each of these parameters.

Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-3
percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2018), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
▪ Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands ▪ Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands ▪ Facultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
▪ Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands ▪ Obligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) fall within these categories. Any species not appearing on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s list is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5% vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are saturated or inundated for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Field indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding, inundation, saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, bright mottles (concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), gleying (indicates reducing conditions by a blue-grey color), or accumulation of organic material.

Additional supporting information includes documentation of soil as hydric or reference to wet conditions in the local soils survey, both of which must be verified in the field.

Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is inundation or soil saturation with a frequency and duration long enough to cause the development of hydric soils and plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.

If direct observation of wetland hydrology is not possible (as in seasonal wetlands), or records of wetland hydrology are not available (such as stream gauges), assessment of wetland hydrology is frequently supported by field indicators, such as water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns in wetlands.

Applicable Case Law and Agency Guidance
The USACE’s regulations defining “waters of the United States” have been subject to legal interpretation, and two influential Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the definition to exclude certain classes of waters that bear an insufficient connection to navigable waters. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the United States Supreme Court stated that the USACE’s CWA jurisdiction does not extend to ponds that “are not adjacent to open water.” In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that the “Migratory Bird Rule,” which served as the basis for the USACE’s asserted jurisdiction, was not supported by the CWA. The Migratory Bird Rule extended CWA jurisdiction to intrastate waters "which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties or which are or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which cross state lines…” The Court was concerned that application of the Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

A-4
Migratory Bird Rule resulted in "reading the term 'navigable waters' out of the statute. Highlighting the language of the CWA to determine the statute's jurisdictional reach, the Court stated, “the term ‘navigable’ has at least the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the CWA: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made.” This decision stands for the proposition that non-navigable isolated, intrastate waters are not waters of the United States and thus are not jurisdictional under the CWA.

In 2006, the United States Supreme Court decided Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (collectively “Rapanos”), which were consolidated cases determining the extent of CWA jurisdiction over waters that carry only an infrequent surface flow. The court issued no majority opinion in Rapanos. Instead, the justices authored five separate opinions including the “plurality” opinion, authored by Justice Scalia (joined by three other justices), and a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy. To guide implementation of the decision, the USACE and USEPA issued a joint guidance memorandum (“Rapanos Guidance Memorandum”) in 2008 stating that “regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied.”
According to the plurality opinion in Rapanos, “the waters of the United States include only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” and do not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.” In addition, while all wetlands that meet the USACE definition are considered adjacent wetlands, only those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection because they directly abut the tributary (e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature) are considered jurisdictional under the plurality standard.

Under Justice Kennedy’s opinion, “the USACE’s jurisdiction over wetlands depends upon the existence of a significant nexus between the wetlands in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense. Wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase ‘navigable waters,’ if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’ When, in contrast, wetlands’ effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term ‘navigable waters.’” Justice Kennedy identified "pollutant trapping, flood control, and runoff storage" as some of the critical functions wetlands can perform relative to other waters. He concluded that, given wetlands’ ecological role, ”mere adjacency” to a non-navigable tributary was insufficient to establish CWA jurisdiction, and that “a more specific inquiry, based on the significant nexus standard, is therefore necessary.”
Interpreting these decisions, and according to the Rapanos Guidance Memorandum, the USACE and USEPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
▪ Traditional navigable waters;
▪ Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters;
▪ Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and,
▪ Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-5
The USACE and USEPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
▪ Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; ▪ Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and, ▪ Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

Where a significant nexus analysis is required, the USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
▪ A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; and,
▪ Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.

The USACE and USEPA generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
▪ Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and,
▪ Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the petition from the Sacketts, a family in Idaho that was subject to a compliance order from the USEPA for backfilling their lot near Priest Lake, which the USEPA claimed contained federally-regulated wetlands. The wetlands in question were adjacent to a ditch that fed a creek that ultimately drained into Priest Lake, a navigable water body. The USEPA asserted the Sacketts had violated the law by filling the wetlands on their property without a permit. The Court’s decision addressed controversy over whether, and under what conditions, the CWA governs navigable waters’ tributaries or adjacent wetlands. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett provides definitive guidance to the agencies in determining the limits of their Clean Water Act authority. Prioritizing a need for clarity and regulatory certainty, the Court set forth an interpretation of Clean Water Act jurisdiction that can be applied without the need for lengthy case-by-case evaluations. This interpretation will have the effect of reducing the Clean Water Act’s geographic reach.

The Court decided:
▪ “Adjacent wetlands” are WOTUS only if there is a continuous surface connection between the wetland and a navigable or relatively permanent water body, such that it is difficult to determine the boundary between the wetland and the water body. The opinion notes that “temporary interruptions to surface connection may sometimes occur because of phenomena like low tides or dry spells.”
▪ The Significant Nexus Standard, introduced by the Court in prior decisions, is not mentioned in the Clean Water Act and should not be used. Additionally, the standard includes ecological factors whose use in determining jurisdiction is not supported by the statute. ▪ Although jurisdiction over tributaries was not addressed by the Court, current agency guidance relies upon the Significant Nexus Standard to establish jurisdiction over tributaries that flow infrequently. In disallowing the use of that standard, the decision suggests that non-relatively Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

A-6
permanent tributaries will be non-jurisdictional going forward, stating, “…the [Clean Water Act’s] use of ‘waters’ encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.”
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States, and applies to all structures and work. It further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction. It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters, and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide state certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. In California, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) is issued by the RWQCBs and by the SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to the RWQCB and informs the USACE (or the applicable agency from which a license or permit was requested) that an application has been submitted. The USACE will then determine a “reasonable period of time” for the RWQCB to act on the application; this is typically 60 days for routine projects and longer for complex projects but may not exceed one year.

When the period has elapsed, if the RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, the USACE may determine that Certification has been waived and issue the requested permit. If a Section 401 Certification is issued it may include binding conditions, imposed either through the Certification itself or through the requested federal license or permit.

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-7
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter- Cologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
▪ The quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected ▪ All activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason
▪ The State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and the SWRCB, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act requires any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The RWQCB may then authorize the discharge, subject to conditions, by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). While this requirement was historically applied primarily to outfalls and similar point source discharges, the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, effective May 2020, make it clear that the agency will apply the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements to discharges of dredge and fill material as well. The Procedures state that they are to be used in issuing CWA Section 401 Certifications and WDRs, and largely mirror the existing review requirements for CWA Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Certifications, incorporating most elements of the USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.

Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

A-8
Wetland Waters of the State
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
(ii) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS implements several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered wildlife species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the ESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project.

The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the ESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-9
1976 and Canada in 1995. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

The list of migratory bird species protected by the law, in regulations at 50 CFR Part 10.13, is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties. A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.

2. Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.

3. New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

In 2004, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act limited the scope of the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all nonnative, human- introduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the USFWS, from "taking" bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." "Disturb" means “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

A-10
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California and administers several State laws protecting fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is defined as “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (Fish and Game Code sec. 86).

This definition does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification, except where such harm is the proximate cause of death of a listed species. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA’s protections extend to candidate species during the period (typically one year) while the California Fish and Game Commission decides whether the species warrants CESA listing.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Fully Protected Species Laws
The CDFW enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibit take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided. The exception is situations where a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is in place that authorizes take of the fully protected species.

Avian Protection Laws
California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Protection of Lakes and Streambeds
California Fish and Game Code section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any person to "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-11
channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake" without first notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of that activity. Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain from CDFW a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receiving a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory program under Section 1602, and the agency has not promulgated regulations directing how jurisdictional streambeds may be identified, or how their limits should be delineated. However, four relevant sources of information offer insight as to the appropriate limits of CDFW jurisdiction as discussed below.
▪ The plain language of Section 1602 of CFGC establishes the following general concepts:
 References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 References “natural flow”
 References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
▪ Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 Have a source and a terminus
 Have banks and a channel
 Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
 Include the area between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including intervening sand bars  Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  Include lands below the OHWM
▪ CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 CCR 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 CCR 722(c)(21)), which indicate that a stream:
 Flows at least periodically or intermittently
 Flows through a bed or channel having banks
 Supports fish or aquatic life
 Can be dry for a period of time
 Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

A-12
▪ Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG 1994) and Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants (Brady and Vyverberg 2013), which suggest the following:
 A stream may flow perennially or episodically
 A stream is defined by the course in which water currently flows, or has flowed during the historic hydrologic course regime (approximately the last 200 years)  Width of a stream course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators  A stream may have one or more channels (single thread vs. compound form)  Features such as braided channels, low-flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, islands, and stream-associated vegetation, are interconnected parts of the watercourse
 Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic wildlife including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in different ways depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk The tenets listed above, among others, are applied to establish the boundaries of streambeds in various environments. Importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

Appendix B
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-1
Special Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Agrostis hooveri
Hoover's bent grass
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
closed-cone coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland. Sandy (usually). Elevations: 20-2000ft.
(6-610m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Aphanisma blitoides
aphanisma
None/None
G3G4/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub. Gravelly (sometimes), sandy
(sometimes). Elevations: 5-1000ft. (1-305m.)
Blooms Feb-Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Arctostaphylos pilosula
Santa Margarita manzanita
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, closed-
cone coniferous forest. Sandstone (sometimes).

Elevations: 245-3610ft. (75-1100m.) Blooms Dec-
May.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Arctostaphylos purissima
La Purisima manzanita
None/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, coastal
scrub. Sandstone outcrops, sandy soil. Elevations:
195-1280ft. (60-390m.) Blooms Nov-May.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Arctostaphylos refugioensis
Refugio manzanita
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral. On
sandstone. Elevations: 900-2690ft. (274-820m.)
Blooms (May)Dec-Mar.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Arctostaphylos rudis
sand mesa manzanita
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, coastal
scrub. Sandy. Elevations: 80-1055ft. (25-322m.)
Blooms Nov-Feb.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Arenaria paludicola
marsh sandwort
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial stoloniferous herb. Marshes and
swamps. Openings, sandy. Elevations: 10-560ft. (3-
170m.) Blooms May-Aug.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Astragalus didymocarpus
var. milesianus
Miles' milk-vetch
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal scrub. Clay soils. Elevations:
65-295ft. (20-90m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Castilleja densiflora var.
obispoensis
San Luis Obispo owl's-clover
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland. Serpentinite
(sometimes). Elevations: 35-1410ft. (10-430m.)
Blooms Mar-May.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Ceanothus impressus var.
impressus
Santa Barbara ceanothus
None/None
G3T3/S3
1B.2
Perennial shrub. Chaparral. Sandy. Elevations: 130-
1540ft. (40-470m.) Blooms Feb-Apr.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Ceanothus impressus var.
nipomensis
Nipomo Mesa ceanothus
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial shrub. Chaparral. Sandy. Elevations: 100-
805ft. (30-245m.) Blooms Feb-Apr.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Chenopodium littoreum
coastal goosefoot
None/None
G1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal dunes. Generally on sandy
soils, and on dunes. Elevations: 35-100ft. (10-
30m.) Blooms Apr-Aug.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Cicuta maculata var.
bolanderi
Bolander's water-hemlock
None/None
G5T4T5/S2?
2B.1
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In fresh or
brackish water. Elevations: 0-655ft. (0-200m.)
Blooms Jul-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Cirsium occidentale var.
compactum
compact cobwebby thistle
None/None
G3G4T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub. On dunes and on clay in
chaparral; also in grassland. Elevations: 15-490ft.
(5-150m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Cirsium rhothophilum
surf thistle
None/ST
G1/S1
1B.2
Perennial herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes.

Open areas in central dune scrub; usually in
coastal dunes. Elevations: 10-195ft. (3-60m.)
Blooms Apr-Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Cirsium scariosum var.
loncholepis
La Graciosa thistle
FE/ST
G5T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Cismontane woodland, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps, valley
and foothill grassland. Mesic, sandy. Elevations:
15-720ft. (4-220m.) Blooms May-Aug.

Low Marginally suitable habitat present within the BSA, specifically the ditches. Species was not observed
during the June 28, 2023 reconnaissance survey. A
CNDDB occurrence is located within the same ditch
system approximately 3.8 miles west on SR 166.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-3
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Cladium californicum
California saw-grass
None/None
G4/S2
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and
swamps, meadows and seeps. Freshwater or
alkaline moist habitats. Elevations: 195-5250ft.
(60-1600m.) Blooms Jun-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Clarkia speciosa ssp.
immaculata
Pismo clarkia
FE/SR
G4T1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Sandy. Elevations: 80-
605ft. (25-185m.) Blooms May-Jul.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Cordylanthus rigidus ssp.
littoralis
seaside bird's-beak
None/SE
G5T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, closed-cone coniferous
forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Disturbed
areas (often), sandy. Elevations: 0-1690ft. (0-
515m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Deinandra increscens ssp.
villosa
Gaviota tarplant
FE/SE
G3T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland. Known from coastal
terrace near Gaviota; sandy blowouts amid sandy
loam soil; grassland/coast scrub ecotone.

Elevations: 65-1410ft. (20-430m.) Blooms May-
Oct.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Delphinium parryi ssp.
blochmaniae
dune larkspur
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, coastal dunes. On rocky
areas and dunes. Elevations: 0-655ft. (0-200m.)
Blooms Apr-Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Dithyrea maritima
beach spectaclepod
None/ST
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Coastal dunes,
coastal scrub. Sea shores, on sand dunes, and
sandy places near the shore. Elevations: 10-165ft.
(3-50m.) Blooms Mar-May.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.
blochmaniae
Blochman's dudleya
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, coastal bluff scrub,
coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Open,
rocky slopes; often in shallow clays over
serpentine or in rocky areas with little soil.

Elevations: 15-1475ft. (5-450m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Erigeron blochmaniae
Blochman's leafy daisy
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Coastal dunes,
coastal scrub. Sand dunes and hills. Elevations: 10-
150ft. (3-45m.) Blooms Jun-Aug.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Eriodictyon capitatum
Lompoc yerba santa
FE/SR
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub. Sandy soils
on terraces. Elevations: 130-2955ft. (40-900m.)
Blooms May-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia
None/None
G4T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Sandy or gravelly sites. Elevations:
230-2660ft. (70-810m.) Blooms Feb-Jul(Sep).

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
None/None
G4T1?/S1?
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous
forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Old dunes,
coastal sandhills; openings. Sandy or gravelly soils.

Elevations: 35-655ft. (10-200m.) Blooms Apr-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Layia carnosa
beach layia
FT/SE
G2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. On
sparsely vegetated, semi-stabilized dunes, usually
behind foredunes. Elevations: 0-195ft. (0-60m.)
Blooms Mar-Jul.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Layia erubescens
blushing layia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Prefers loose, fine
sand of stabilized dunes and sandhills. 10-245m.

Blooms (Feb)Mar-May(Jun).

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Layia heterotricha
pale-yellow layia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline or clay soils; open areas.

Elevations: 985-5595ft. (300-1705m.) Blooms Mar-
Jun.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Lupinus ludovicianus
San Luis Obispo County
lupine
None/None
G1/S1
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Open areas in sandy soil, Santa Margarita
formation. Elevations: 165-1725ft. (50-525m.)
Blooms Apr-Jul.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Lupinus nipomensis
Nipomo Mesa lupine
FE/SE
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal dunes. Dry sandy flats,
restricted to back dunes, associated with central
dune scrub habitat - a rare community type.

Elevations: 35-165ft. (10-50m.) Blooms Dec-May.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Malacothamnus gracilis
slender bush-mallow
None/None
G1Q/S1
1B.1
Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral. Dry, rocky
slopes. Elevations: 625-1885ft. (190-575m.)
Blooms May-Oct.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Monardella sinuata ssp.
sinuata
southern curly-leaved
monardella
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Sandy soils.

Elevations: 0-985ft. (0-300m.) Blooms Apr-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Monardella undulata ssp.
crispa
crisp monardella
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Coastal dunes,
coastal scrub. Often on the borders of open, sand
areas, usually adjacent to typical backdune scrub
vegetation. Elevations: 35-395ft. (10-120m.)
Blooms Apr-Aug(Dec).

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Monardella undulata ssp.
undulata
San Luis Obispo monardella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Coastal dunes,
coastal scrub. Stabilized sand of the immediate
coast. Elevations: 35-655ft. (10-200m.) Blooms
May-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Muhlenbergia utilis
aparejo grass
None/None
G4/S2S3
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, marshes and
swamps, meadows and seeps. Alkaline
(sometimes), Serpentinite (sometimes).Elevations:
80-7630ft. (25-2325m.) Blooms Mar-Oct.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel's water cress
FE/ST
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and
swamps. Freshwater and brackish marshes at the
margins of lakes and along streams, in or just
above the water level. Elevations: 15-1085ft. (5-
330m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Nemacaulis denudata var.
denudata
coast woolly-heads
None/None
G3G4T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal dunes. Elevations: 0-330ft.
(0-100m.) Blooms Apr-Sep.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-6
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Scrophularia atrata
black-flowered figwort
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous
forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, riparian scrub.

Sand, diatomaceous shales, and soils derived from
other parent material; around swales and in sand
dunes. Elevations: 35-1640ft. (10-500m.) Blooms
Mar-Jul.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Symphyotrichum defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, marshes and swamps, meadows
and seeps, valley and foothill grassland. Vernally
mesic grassland or near ditches, streams and
springs; disturbed areas. Elevations: 5-6695ft. (2-
2040m.) Blooms Jul-Nov.

None No suitable habitat types occur within the BSA. The BSA consists of agriculture and ruderal/developed
land cover types. The species is not expected to
occur.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a nine-quad search radius of site.

FESA = Federal Endangered Species Act
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank
CNPS = California Native Plant Society
Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered
FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SR = State Rare
SD = State Delisted
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
WL = CDFW Watch List
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank)
1A = Presumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = Need more information (Review List)
4 = Limited Distribution (Watch List)
CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat) Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-8
Special Status Wildlife Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/None
G3/S3
None
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central
Valley, Central Coast mountains, and South
Coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools.

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

None No vernal pools present. The BSA consists of
agriculture and ruderal/developed land cover
types. The species is not expected to occur.

Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering
population
FC/None
G4T1T2Q/S2
None
Winter roost sites extend along the coast from
northern Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico. Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress),
with nectar and water sources nearby.

None No suitable habitat present. The BSA consists of
agriculture and ruderal/developed land cover
types. Trees within the BSA do not provide
adequate shelter for roosting. The species is not
expected to occur.

Fish
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
FE/None
G3/S3
None
Brackish water habitats along the California
coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego
County to the mouth of the Smith River. Found
in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches,
they need fairly still but not stagnant water
and high oxygen levels.

None No suitable aquatic habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
unarmored threespine stickleback
FE/SE
G5T1/S1
FP
Weedy pools, backwaters, and among
emergent vegetation at the stream edge in
small Southern California streams. Cool (<24
C), clear water with abundant vegetation.

None No suitable aquatic habitat present. Species is
not expected to occur.

Gila orcuttii
arroyo chub
None/None
G2/S2
SSC
Native to streams from Malibu Creek to San
Luis Rey River basin. Introduced into streams
in Santa Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave
and San Diego river basins. Slow water stream
sections with mud or sand bottoms. Feeds
heavily on aquatic vegetation and associated
invertebrates.

None No suitable aquatic habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-9
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10
steelhead - southern California DPS
FE/SCE
G5T1Q/S1
None
Federal listing refers to populations from
Santa Maria River south to southern extent of
range (San Mateo Creek in San Diego County).

Southern steelhead likely have greater
physiological tolerances to warmer water and
more variable conditions.

None No suitable aquatic habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9
steelhead - south-central California
coast distinct population segment
FT/None
G5T2Q/S2
None
Federal listing refers to runs in coastal basins
from the Pajaro River south to, but not
including, the
Santa Maria River.

None No suitable aquatic habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense pop. 2
California tiger salamander - Santa
Barbara County distinct population
segment
FE/ST
G2G3T2/S2
WL
Lives in vacant or mammal-occupied burrows
throughout most of the year; in grassland,
savanna, or open woodland habitats. Need
underground refuges, especially ground
squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other
seasonal water sources for breeding.

None The BSA is located outside of the geographic
range of the species in Santa Barbara County and
is not located in a metapopulation area (USFWS
2016).

Anaxyrus californicus
arroyo toad
FE/None
G2G3/S2
SSC
Semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent
streams, including valley-foothill and desert
riparian, desert wash, etc. Rivers with sandy
banks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores;
loose, gravelly areas of streams in drier parts
of range.

None No suitable habitat present. Species is not
expected to occur.

Rana boylii pop. 6
foothill yellow-legged frog - south
coast distinct population segment
FPE/SE
G3T1/S1
None
Southern Coast Ranges from Monterey Bay
south through San Gabriel Mountains; west of
the Salinas River in Monterey Co, south
through Transverse Ranges, and east through
San Gabriel Mountains. Historically may have
ranged to Baja California. Partly shaded
shallow streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at
least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-
laying and at least 15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis.

None No suitable habitat present. Species is not
expected to occur.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-10
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent
sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20
weeks of permanent water for larval
development. Must have access to estivation
habitat.

Moderate Marginally suitable habitat present within the BSA, namely the ditches (expected to be used as
dispersal habitat only), but no observations were
made during reconnaissance field survey. CRLF
are known to use the ditch systems in the BSA
based on CNDDB occurrences outside of the BSA
within the same ditches. Due to the highly-
disturbed condition of upland areas and almost
constant human activity, the species would only
be encountered incidentally in upland areas, if at
all.

Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
None/None
G2G3/S3S4
SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can
be found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.

Low Marginally suitable habitat present within the
BSA, namely the ditches. Species is not expected
to occur in upland areas due to highly compacted
soils.

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
None/None
G3/S2S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They
prefer soils with a high moisture content.

Low Marginally suitable habitat present in upland
portions of the BSA; however, soil compaction
would be a limiting factor for occurrence of the
species. Species has a low likelihood of occurring.

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft
elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable
(sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland
habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

None No suitable habitat present. Species is not
expected to occur.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
None/None
G4/S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most
common in lowlands along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for
burial, and abundant supply of ants and other
insects.

None No suitable habitat present. Species is not
expected to occur.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-11
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake
None/None
G4/S3S4
SSC
Coastal California from vicinity of Salinas to
northwest Baja California. From sea to about
7,000 ft elevation. Highly aquatic, found in or
near permanent fresh water. Often along
streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.

None No suitable habitat present. Species is not
expected to occur.

Birds
Accipiter striatus
sharp-shinned hawk
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Ponderosa pine, black oak, riparian deciduous,
mixed conifer, and Jeffrey pine habitats.

Prefers riparian areas. North-facing slopes
with plucking perches are critical
requirements. Nests usually within 275 ft of
water.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None/ST
G1G2/S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with
insect prey within a few km of the colony.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is
not expected to occur.

Aimophila ruficeps canescens
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
None/None
G5T3/S4
WL
Resident in Southern California coastal sage
scrub and sparse mixed chaparral. Frequents
relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with
grass and forb patches.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-
growing vegetation. Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground squirrel.

Low No suitable nesting habitat present within the
BSA, and no California ground squirrel burrows
observed during the reconnaissance survey. The
species may occur transiently and has a low
potential to occur.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None/ST
G5/S4
None
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.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
FT/None
G3T3/S3
SSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of
large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or
friable soils for nesting.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-12
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
None/None
G5T4Q/S4
WL
Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County
to San Diego County. Also main part of San
Joaquin Valley and east to foothills. Short-
grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali
flats.

Low No suitable nesting habitat present. Species may
occur transiently or forage on site. Species is not
likely to occur.

Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
FD/SD
G4T4/S3S4
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.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
None/ST
G3T1/S2
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.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler
None/None
G5/S3
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.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
FE/SE
G4T2T3Q/S2
FP
Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay
south to northern Baja California. Colonial
breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat
substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills,
or paved areas.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
FE/SE
G5T2/S3
None
Summer resident of Southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests placed along
margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into
pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-13
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats including
deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands,
and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts
in crevices of rock outcrops, caves, mine
tunnels, buildings, bridges, and hollows of live
and dead trees which must protect bats from
high temperatures. Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting sites.

None No suitable habitat present. Species is not
expected to occur.

Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in a wide variety
of habitats. Most common in mesic sites,
typically coniferous or deciduous forests.

Roosts in the open, hanging from walls &amp;
ceilings in caves, lava tubes, bridges, and
buildings. This species is extremely sensitive to
human disturbance.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Lasiurus frantzii
western red bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40 ft above
ground, from sea level up through mixed
conifer forests. Prefers habitat edges and
mosaics with trees that are protected from
above and open below with open areas for
foraging.

None No suitable nesting habitat present. Species is not expected to occur.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5/S3
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.

Low Marginally suitable habitat present; however, due
to the amount of existing human activity, the
species would be expected to only occur
transiently as it moves through the region.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

B-14
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
Global Rank/State Rank
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential to
Occur in the
BSA
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Regional Vicinity refers to within a nine-quad search radius of site.

FESA = Federal Endangered Species Act
CESA = California Endangered Species Act
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered
FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
FD = Federal Delisted
FC = Federal Candidate
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SD = State Delisted
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected
WL = CDFW Watch List
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
GH or SH Possibly Extirpated – missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank

Appendix C
Floral and Faunal Compendium

Floral and Faunal Compendium

Biological Resources Assessment C-1
Plant Species Observed Within the Biological Study Area on June 28, 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Amaranthus blitoides lambs quarter None Introduced
Conyza sp. horseweed None Introduced
Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard None Introduced
Malva sp. Mallow None Introduced
Avena barbarta slender wild oat None Introduced
Avena fatua common wild oat None Introduced
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass None Introduced
Portulaca oleracea common purslane None Introduced
Wildlife Species Observed Within the Biological Study Area on June 28, 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Status Native or Introduced Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk None Native
Cathartes aura turkey vulture None Native
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow None Native

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

C-2

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix D
Site Photographs

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment D-1

Photograph 1. Photograph of the ditches on the east side of Bonita School Road, facing south. June 28, 2023.

Photograph 2. Photograph of the existing ditch along the south side of State Route 166, facing southeast.

June 28, 2023.
: >
. mm
.. . t ta?
tiHfill
- j&V
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project

D-2

Photograph 3. Photograph of road and road shoulder of Bonita School Road and the Bonita Elementary School, facing south. June 28, 2023.

Photograph 4. Photograph of landscape trees that are part of Bonita Elemantary School in the vicinty of the project site. Facing north. June 28, 2023.

Appendix C
Cultural Resources Assessment

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
805-319-4092

w w w. r in co n co nsu ltan ts. co m
January 10, 2024
Rincon Project No. 21-11997
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201
West Sacramento, California 95691
Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project, Santa Maria, California 93458
MKN & Associates, Inc. retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources assessment in support of the Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project (project) located in unincorporated Santa Barbara County, California. This letter report documents the results of the tasks performed by Rincon , including the following: a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), background and archival research, a pedestrian field survey , and historical resources evaluation of the Bonita Elementary School campus . The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With the Santa Maria-Bonita School District as the lead agency. All work was performed in accordance with CEQA regulations.

Project Site and Description
The project site includes an approximately 8,100-linear-foot pipeline alignment that would extend from the terminus of a planned water main in Black Road located at the northeast corner of the City of Santa Maria’s (City) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) , proceed north along Black Road, proceed west along State Route (SR) 166 (also known as West Main Street), proceed north on Bonita School Road, and connect to the property encompassing Bonita Elementary School (Assessor Parcel Number 113-050-007) at 2715 West Main Street (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The proposed project consists of connecting the City’s water system to the Bonita Elementary School Water System via approximately 8,100 linear feet of a two-inch diameter service line from the planned terminus of the City’s water system near the northeast corner of the City’s WWTP to Bonita Elementary School. The City is currently in the design phase of extending City water service to the WWTP separately from the proposed project. To meet peak demand, fire flow requirements, and irrigation demand, the project would also include repurposing the existing on-site 10,000-gallon storage tank and wells and potentially adding a hydropneumatic tank (up to approximately 1,000 gallons in capacity) with appurtenances such as an air compressor and additional above -grade piping and isolation valves .1 Minor piping modifications to the existing system would be required to disconnect the proposed potable domestic supply from the existing system. In addition, the project would involve replacing lead service lines in the school’s Kindergarten Building (Building K). Other improvements would include installation of blowoffs along the proposed pipeline and other appurtenances on Bonita Elementary School campus.

1 At this time, it is uncertain whether the hydropneumatic tank will be included in the proposed project and if so, what the exact capacity may be. Therefore, this report conservatively evaluates inclusion of this project element with its maximum estimated capacity of 1,000 gallons.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 2 Figure 1 Regional Location Map

s Los Padres",
*> Nati onaI Forest
ArroyoGrover
Beach Grande
Oceano Dunes
State Vehicular
Recreation Area
P ac i fi c O ce an
k Willow Rd
Nipomo
*
/*4
*
%*r w Donovan Rd
W Alvin Ave JW Main St2 B
=2i& t Stowed Rdi/t
Santa MariaLi-\
V*Tavia Rd%vla Rd
\ Canyon Rd2%1 4
* a
s*E Foster Rd o c
l/
'
Orcutt
**
»
‘
ce Ranch Rd
f Clark Ave |
&Vandenberg Air
Force Base
v\

2.5 5 Miles0
\I1
Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors (D 2023.

Fig 1R< lalLoc
w
Coalinga
AvenalN
VV Project Location
A 99
Delano
Bakersfield 58
San Luis Obispo
Los Padres
National
Forest
Lompoc
Santa Barbara
Oxnard
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 3 Figure 2 Project Location Map

CRFig 2 Project Site TopoThe topographic representation depicted in this map may not portray all of thefeatures currently found in the vicinity today and/or features depicted in this map may have changed since the original topographic map was assembled.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 4 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
On May 19, 2023, Rincon received CHRIS records search results (Records Search File No.: 2 3-112) from the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) for the project site vicinity (Attachment 1). The CCIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records and reports for Santa Barbara County. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5 -mile radius surrounding the project site. Rincon also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory, as well as its predecessor, the California State Historic Property Data File. Additionally, Rincon reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

Previously Conducted Studies
The CCIC records search identified five previously-conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and an additional seven previously-conducted cultural resource studies outside the project site but within a 0.5-mile radius (Attachment 1). Table 1 summarizes these 12 studies, with additional detail on t he five previously-conducted cultural resource studies within the project site provided following the table.

Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within a 0.5-mile Radius of Project Site Report Number Author Year Title
Relationship
to Project Site
SL-02035a, b,
c
ERCE 1991 San Luis Obispo Water Lines and Facilities
Project, Cultural Resources Report
Within
SR-00378 Spanne, Larry 1977 Archaeological Component for City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Environmental Impact Report
Within
SR-00845 Snethkamp, P.,
Michals, L., and J.

Costello
1989 Draft: Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey for
the proposed California Coastal Aqueduct
between Devils Den, Kern County and Mission
Hills, Santa Barbara County (Volume I)
Within
SR-01286 Sheets, R. and J.L.

Rudolph
1991 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed
Santa Maria Valley Water Treatment Plant
Within
SR-04842 Billat, Lorna 2012 New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet, Santa Maria Water Treatment Facility, 601 S Black
Road, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County
Outside
SR-05180 Ramirez, R. and H.

Haas
2015 Historic Property Survey Report/Archaeological
Survey Report for the State Route 166 and
Black Road Intersection Improvements Project,
Santa Maria
Within
SR-01876 Farris, G., Hines, P.,
Rhoades, M., Rivers,
B. and R. Gibson
1995 Coastal Branch, Phase II State Water Project
Cultural Resources Survey, Reaches 5B and 6,
San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties,
California
Outside
Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 5 Report Number Author Year Title
Relationship
to Project Site
SR-02740 Lebow, C., et al, 2001 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations for Reaches 5B and 6, Coastal Branch Aqueduct,
Phase II
Outside
SR-02900 Holson, J. 2002 Clayton Cell Tower, 70-02613.00, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County
Outside
SR-04572 Wlodarski, Robert J. 2010 A Phase 1 Archaeological Study: For the Area 9 Specific Plan, an 890 acre Project Site located
in the city of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara
County, California
Outside
SR-05057 Haas, H., Hunt, K., and
R. Ramirez
2013 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey for the Atlas
Copco Mafi-Trench Project
Outside
SR-05141 Leter, Rachael J. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Study for Unit II Channel Drainage Capacity Improvements
Project, Santa Barbara County, California
Outside
Source: Central Coastal Information Center 2023
SL-02035
In 1991, Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. (ERCE) conducted a study entitled “Cultural Resources Report: San Luis Obispo Water Lines and Facility Project” for the proposed pipeline segments and facility sites of the State Water Project, Coastal Branch, Phase II, Local Distribution Lines and Facilities Project in San Luis Obispo County, California. The project encompassed approximately 43 miles of pipeline s egments, a water treatment plant, and two hydroelectric plants located at seven different community locations in San Luis Obispo C ounty. Although the report primarily focused on San Luis Obispo County, a portion of the State Water Project pipeline that was evaluated is located in Santa Barbara County within the current project site. The report consisted of a record search and archival review, an intensive field survey, and recommendations. Within that project’s right-of-way, the report identified 32 cultural resources, none of which were found within the current project site or within a 0.5 -mile radius. The report recommended that if realignment is not feasible, a mitigation plan should be developed, potentially including data recovery, to alleviate the impacts of pipeline construction on the identified resources (ERCE 1991).

SR-00378
In 1977, L. Spanne conducted a study entitled “Archaeological Component: City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities Environment Impact Report ” for the Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Facilities located south of the intersection of Main Street and Black Road.

Although the exact purpose of the study was not identified, it included a search of available archaeological site records at the CCIC as well as an intensive field survey. The results of these efforts indicated there are no archaeological resources within the current project area along Black Road.

Consequently, the study recommended the execution of archaeological investigations prior to initiating any new construction activities in the vicinity of that project area (Spanne 1977).

SR-00845
In 1989, P. Snethkamp, L. Michals, and J. Costella of Painted Cave Archaeological Associates conducted a study entitled “Final Report: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed California Coastal Aqueduct between Devils Den, Kern County and Mission Hills, Santa Barbara County. ” The Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 6 proposed project involved the realignment of approximately 46 miles of the aqueduct along the San Luis Obispo/Santa Maria/Lompoc Coastal Plain, terminating three miles north of Lompoc. A cultural resources assessment for the entire aqueduct had already been conducted by Larson and Coombs in 1988. The original survey within the current project site vicinity did not identify any cultural resources, and no cultural resources were encountered during the realignment survey. The study recommended that if cultural resources were encountered during the project implementation, a Section 106 assessment pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act and/or a CEQA Appendix K assessment would be necessary (Snethkamp et al. 1989).

SR-01286
In 1991, R. Sheets and J.L. Rudolph of Science Applications International Corporation conducted a study entitled “Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Santa Maria Valley Water Treatment Plant.” That project proposed construction of a municipal water treatment plant in the Santa Maria Valley on approximately 25 acres of undeveloped non -agricultural lands near the route of the Mission Hills Extension pipeline of the Coastal Branch Phase II of the California Aqueduct of the State Water Project.

The proposed facilities included a new Santa Maria Valley Water Treatment Plant and pipelines. The study included a record search of the CCIC aerial photographs housed at the Map and Imagery Library at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), previous studies conducted for other projects in the area, Native American consultations, and a Phase I cultural resources survey. The results of these efforts did not locate any prehistoric, historic, or historic architectural remains and determined the proposed construction of the water treatment plant would not affect cultural resources. The study recommended that if ground disturbing construction activities uncover ed any cultural remains, all activities in the area of the discovery should halt and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the significance of the discovery (Sheets and Rudolph 1991).

SR-05180
In 2015, R. Ramirez and H. Haas of Rincon Consultants, Inc. conducted a study titled “Archaeological Survey Report for the State Route 166 and Black Road Intersection Improvement Project, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County, California.” The purpose of that project was to enhance traffic operations and improve safety at the intersection . That study consisted of several activities, including a search of cultural resource records housed at the CCIC as well as a search of the NAHC SLF. Additionally, Native American consultations were conducted, and an archaeological survey of the APE was performed. The results of the CCIC records search, Native American consultations, and archaeological survey revealed no previously recorded or newly identified archaeological resources were located within the APE.

Consequently, the study concluded the APE is not sensitive for the presence of archaeological deposits. However, the study acknowledged the potential for subsurface deposits remained in areas with limited visibility (Ramirez and Haas 2015).

Previously Recorded Resources
The CCIC records search results identified four historic-era built environment resources and one historic trash refuse within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. There are no cultural (prehistoric or historic) resources recorded within the project site. Table 2 summarizes the resources located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. None of these historic-era resources would be impacted or altered by the proposed project (Attachment 2).

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 7 Table 2 Previously Recorded Resources within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Project Site Primary
Number Trinomial Resource Type Description
Recorder(s)
and Year(s) Eligibility Status
Relationship
to Project
Site
P-42-
002712H

CA-SBA-
002712H
Historic Oil Field Santa Maria
Refining Oil Field
L. Steidl and B.

Steidl (1994)
7N1: (Formerly NR
SC4). Needs to be
reevaluated, may
become eligible for
National Register of
Historic Places with
restoration or when
meets other
specific conditions.

Outside
P-42-
002716H

CA-SBA-
002716H
Historic Trash
Refuse
Adams Barn
Dump
P. Hines
(1995)
Not Evaluated Outside
P-42-
002717H

CA-SBA-
002717
Historic
Structure
Adams Barn P. Hines and G.

Farris (1994)
Not Evaluated Outside
P-42-
002726H

CA-SBA-
002726
Historic Railroad
Crossing
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad Crossing
E. Barter and L.

Ramirez
(1994)
Not Evaluated Outside
P-42-003617 CA-SBA-
003617H
Historic Earthen
Berms, Tree
Stumps, and
Trash Scatter
2 Earthen Berms,
30 Eucalyptus
Tree Stumps, and
Trash Scatter
L. Leach-Palm
and S. Mikesell
(1999)
Not Evaluated Outside
Source: Central Coastal Information Center 2023
Sacred Lands File Search
Rincon contacted the NAHC on May 18, 2023, to request an SLF search of the project site. As part of this request, Rincon asked the NAHC to provide a contact list of Native American groups and/or individuals culturally affiliated with the area who may have knowledge of tribal heritage resources at the project site and/or in the vicinity. The NAHC emailed a response on June 19, 2023, stating the SLF search results were positive and indicating a tribe has reported a sacred site within a one to three mile vicinity of the current project site (Attachment 3).

Assembly Bill 52 Administrative Assistance
On August 11, 2023, the Santa Maria-Bonita School District received the AB 52 Tribal Notification List from the NAHC, The Santa Maria-Bonita School District, with administrative assistance from Rincon , prepared notification letters and commenced tribal notifications pursuant to AB 52. As of this date, no requests for consultation under AB 52 have been received.

Pedestrian Survey
Methods
Rincon Cultural Resources Specialist, Catherine Johnson, PhD, conducted a pedestrian archaeological survey of the project site on June 9, 2023. The pedestrian survey used transect intervals spaced 15 meters north and south of the centerline along SR 166 and transect intervals spaced 15 meters east and west of the centerline along Black Road to include staging/laydown areas and portions of Bonita Elementary School. Exposed ground surfaces were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool- making debris, stone milling tools), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), s oil discoloration that might Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 8 indicate the presence of a cultural midden, historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations). Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were also visually inspected.

Survey accuracy was maintained using a handheld Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) unit.

Additionally, Ms. Johnson conducted a built environment field survey of the project site under the direction of Architectural Historian Rachel Perzel , MA . Ms. Johnson visually inspected all built environment features within the project site, including buildings, structures, and landscape elements.

Pursuant to the California Office of Historic Preservation ’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (1995), properties over 45 years of age were recorded and evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and local designation on California Department of Parks 523 series forms. During the field survey, the overall condition and integrity of built features on the project site as well as site characteristics and conditions were assessed and documented using notes and digital photographs.

Notes and photographs, which were later reviewed by Ms. Perzel, are maintained at Rincon ’s Santa Barbara office.

Results
The field survey of the proposed project alignment along SR 166 and Black Road identified heavily - traveled paved roads lined with active agricultural fields that are highly disturbed by underground and aboveground utilities, including electrical poles, manholes, pipelines, and irrigation ditches. Ground visibility along the shoulders and areas adjacent to SR 166 and Black Road was very good, ranging from 80 to 90 percent. The soil consisted of hard-packed sandy loam sediment covered by imported gravel. Vegetation consisted of ruderal plants, various weeds, and seasonal grasses. Modern debris and trash, including clear and amber glass bottle fragments, plastic bottle caps, paper and plastic food wrappers, cardboard fragments, and metal fragments, were observed throughout this portion of the project site (Attachment 4: Photograph 1 through Photograph 5).

Spare quantities of modern trash, including paper and plastic wrappers, plastic bottles, and caps, were also observed throughout the portion of the project site within the Bonita Elementary School campus.

The school’s vegetation consisted of modern landscaping, including manicured grass lawns, shrubs, and trees (Attachment 4: Photograph 6 through Photograph 10).

No archaeological resources were identified within the project site during the pedestrian field survey.

Built Environment Resources
The following section summarizes the results of all background research and fieldwork as they pertain to built environment resources that may qualify as historical resources. Th is study resulted in the identification of one historic-period building within the project site, the Kindergarten Building, located on the southeast corner of the Bonita Elementary School campus. Due to the presence of a historic period building on the campus, the campus was evaluated for listing in the NRHP and CRHR.

Corresponding California Department of Parks 523 series forms were prepared (Attachment 5) and summarized below.

Physical Description
The Bonita Elementary School campus (subject property) is comprised of seven permanent buildings in addition to a number of temporary structures neatly organized on a roughly rectangular property on the northwestern corner of Bonita School Road and SR 166 in unincorporated Santa Barbara County (Photograph 6). All of the campus buildings are concentrated on the southern half of the property in proximity to SR 166 and are organized around a central quad consisting of greenspace and pathways Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 9 in addition to two shade structures. The campus additionally includes a rectangular-shaped field and a blacktop -covered area , which occupy much of its northern half . T wo paved parking lots and a maintenance area are located along the eastern property line. Aside from the aforementioned field and quad, landscaping is minimal throughout the campus and consists of scattered trees.

The campus includes on e historic-period building, the Kindergarten Building ( Photograph 7 and Photograph 8), which is situated adjacent to the SR 166 and Bonita School Road intersection. All other present buildings post-date the historic period. The Kindergarten Building is one-story in height, sits on a concrete base, has an irregular footprint, and integrates elements of the Spanish Revival Style.

Indicative of its progressive development , roof forms are varied and include gabled and truncated hipped roof forms, sheathed in barrel clay tiles. The building is clad in smooth stucco and features solid metal doors; window type varies throughout . A covered walkway e xtends from its south ern elevation, and a play area featuring blacktop and playground equipment is located just w est of the building.

Along with the Kindergarten Building, the campus includes six permanent buildings and one temporary building organized around the previously-noted quad (Photograph 9). These buildings, all of which were added to the campus following 1994, house essential campus functions such as the administration building, cafeteria, and several classroom buildings. They all feature a simple, utilitarian design aesthetic and do not embody a particular architectural style . All buildings are one-story and feature rectilinear footprints. Siding throughout these buildings is wood panel or stucco , and roof forms are gabled or flat, many with red metal cladding. Between the two parking lots along the campus’s eastern property line is a maintenance area that consists of an additional permanent building, which features a barn-like design aesthetic, in addition to a water tank and various equipment, such as generators, enclosed in a chain link fence (Photograph 10). There are also five temporary mobile classroom buildings sited in the southwest portion of the campus, west of the quad area.

All of the campus buildings and facilities appear in good condition.

Developmental History
The research conducted for this study indicates Bonita Elementary School (then referred to as Bonita School) was originally a one-room schoolhouse, teaching multiple grades in one structure and serving a limited student body. Archival research was unable to determine when the original schoolhouse was built. However, a review of newspaper articles indicates it was established by 1897 (Santa Maria Times 1897). The school retained a small student body for several decades early in its history. The original schoolhouse, a small rectangular building, was located roughly in the current location of the Kindergarten Building (UCSB 2023). Two additional buildings sited along SR 166 were added to the campus between 1957 and 1961 (UCSB 2023). The campus retained this configuration until the mid- 1970s, when the original schoolhouse and one of the buildings added to the campus in the late 1950s were replaced with the current Kindergarten Building and an associated paved parking lot. Although the entirety of the current Kindergarten Building appears present in the 1975 aerial imagery, its roof form indicates it may have been constructed in two phases. Between 1975 and 1981, the building added in the late 1950s building was also demolished.

Following the historic period, buildings were routinely constructed and demolished on campus to accommodate the needs of its attending population, and all extant buildings with the exception of the Kindergarten Building were constructed after 1994. The campus was modernized in 2004 , and the Kindergarten Building appears to feature contemporary stucco siding, roofing materials, windows, and doors. Most recently , following 2000, five temporary mobile classroom buildings were sited in the southwest portion of the campus.

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 10 Historical Resources Evaluation
As detailed below, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under any significance criteria.

The Bonita School was initially developed prior to the turn of the 20 th century as a one -room schoolhouse to serve the surrounding rural population. The original one -room schoolhouse was demolished and replaced with the current Kindergarten Building circa 1975. As the student body slowly expanded throughout the 20th century, the school campus was further developed with an initial expansion between 1957 and 1967 and another more recently, between 1994 and 2000. In addition to the Kindergarten Building, the current campus consists of six permanent buildings which date to the post -historic period along with a number of temporary buildings and structures . The research conducted for this assessment did not indicate the Bonita Elementary School campus or any individual building within it played an important role in the developmental history of unincorporated Santa Barbara County, the city of Santa Maria , or the surrounding region. Although the current campus occupies the site of the area’s original one -room schoolhouse, none of the present buildings date to this early period of construction , and none of the current buildings appear to possess a significant association with the development of the surrounding region. As a result of the information summarized above, the subject property is not associated with events important to the history of the city, region, state, or nation. It is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1.

Research conducted for this assessment does not suggest the subject property possesses an association with any individual significant to the community, state , or nation. It is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria B/2.

The Kindergarten Building features limited elements of the Spanish Revival Style, primarily its stucco cladding and barrel tile roofing material . However, the building is limited in its expression of the Spanish Revival Style and has also been recently modernized. The building therefore does not embody the Spanish Revival or any other particular architectural style, and it does not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value. Additionally, the rest of the buildings on campus embody a utilitarian design aesthetic and do not embody a particular architectural style, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value. Therefore, the campus is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3.

A review of available evidence and the CCIC records search results did not indicate the subject property may yield important information pertaining to the prehistory or history of the region, state, or nation.

Therefore, it is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criteria D/4.

Aerial Imagery and Topographic Map Review
Aerial Imagery Review
Historical aerial photographs from 1957 to 1967 depict Bonita Elementary School on SR 166 and depict SR 166 as a major east-west highway. Black Road is shown as a two-track paved road, and the City’s WWTP is situated adjacent to Black Road on the west, outside the project site. The entire project site is shown surrounded by agricultural fields on the north, south, east, and west. Historical topographical maps from 1994 to 2020 show the expansion of both Bonita Elementary School and the City’s WWTP complex, along with the construction of new commercial facilities located adjacent to SR 166 to the north. Agricultural fields still surround the project site on all four sides (NETR Online 1994-2023).

Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 11 Topographic Map Review
Historical topographic maps from 1947 to 1959 depict Bonita Elementary School and SR 166 as a major east-west highway (State Route 166). Black Road is depicted as a paved two-track road running in a north-south direction, and the WWTP is shown as a small facility located adjacent to and west of Black Road. Agricultural fields surround the pro ject site on all four sides (NETR Online 1959-2023).

Topographic maps from 1960-2021 depict Bonita Elementary School, SR 166, and Black Road with little to no change. However, they show a rapid western expansion of the WWTP complex (NETR Online 1960-2023).

Findings and Recommendations
This study identified one property within the project site, the Bonita Elementary School campus, that includes historic -period development - the Kindergarten Building. The campus was recorded, evaluated, and recommended ineligible for historical resources eligibility. It is therefore not considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA and the project does not have the potential to impact historical resources. Rincon therefore recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources pursuant to CEQA.

This study determined there are no archaeological (prehistoric or historic) resources located within the project site, and there is one historic-era trash refuse (P-42-002716H) within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. This assessment did not identify archaeological (prehistoric or historic) resources existing within the project site. Given the negative results of the background research, the negative results of previous studies within the project site, and the lack of known archaeological resources existing within the project site, there is a low potential to encounter intact surface and/or subsurface archaeological deposits during project implementation.

Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to archaeological resources with the implementation of the following best management practice t o address the potential for an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during project construction and a finding of no impact to human remains with regulatory compliance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 in the unlikely event that human remains are unexpectedly encountered.

Best Management Practice
Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and signif icant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 12 information that justifies the resource’s significance. The Santa Maria -Bonita School District shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the CCIC pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Regulatory Compliance
Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
No human remains are known to be present within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are unexpectedly found, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.

Should you have any questions concerning this assessment, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (213) 267-8096 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Ken Victorino
Senior Principal Investigator
Rachel Perzel, MA
Architectural Historian
Chris Purtell, MA, RPA
Senior Archaeologist/Project Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1 CCIC Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies Attachment 2 CCIC Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Attachment 3 NAHC Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Contact List Attachment 4 Photographs
Attachment 5 California Department of Parks 523 Series Forms Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 13 References
Billat, L.
2012 New Tower (NT) Submission Packet: FCC Form 620. Prepared for the Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation (Sacramento, California); prepared by Earth Touch, Inc., (Layton Utah). On file at the Central Coast Information Center at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Environmental and Energy Services Company (ERCE)
1991 Cultural Resources Study: San Luis Obispo Water Lines and Facilities Project. Prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo.

National Park Service
1983 36 CFR Part 61-The Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards. Accessed July 2023. https://www.doi.gov/pam/asset- management/historic-preservation/pqs.

NETR Online
Var. “Historic Aerials.” Various historic aerials and topographic maps of the project area.

Accessed July 2023, https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Accessed July 2023, https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf.

Ramirez, R. and Haas, H.
2015 Archaeological Survey Report for the State Route 166 and Black Road Intersection Improvements Project, Santa Marina, Santa Barbara County, California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation 5 (San Luis Obispo, California) and Psomas Engineering (Roseville, California); prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Ventura, California). On file at the Central Coast Information Center at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Santa Maria Times
1897 “Holiday Goods.” December 11, 1897, page 3. Accessed July 2023, https://www.newspapers.com/image/628906537/?terms=%22bonita%20school%22& match=1.

Sheets, R.S. and Rudolph, J.L.
1991 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Santa Maria Valley Water Treatment Plant.

Prepared for; Santa Barabara Water Purveyors Agency 110 East Cook Street Santa Maria, California 93454; prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barabara, California. On file at the Central Coast Information Center at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Snethkamp, P., Michals, L., and Costella, J.
1989 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed California Coastal Aqueduct between Devils Den, Kern County and Missions Hills, Santa Barbara County. Prepared for the State of California Department of Water Resources (DRW Contract No. B-56928), Rural Communities Assistance Corporation
Bonita Elementary School Drinking Water Improvements Project 14 Sacramento, California; prepared by Painted Cave Archaeological Associates, Santa Barabara, California. On file at the Central Coast Information Center at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Spanne, Laurance W.
1977 Archaeological Component for the City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Facilities Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Santa Maria; prepared by Laurance W. Spanne. On file at the Central Coast Information Center at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

University of California, Santa Barbara
2023 “Frame Finder.” Historic aerial database. Accessed July 2023, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

Attachment 1
CCIC Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies
Central Coast Information Center
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History
2559 Puesta del Sol
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
PHONE (805) 682-4711 ext. 181
FAX (805) 682-3170
EMAIL [email protected]
5/19/2023 Records Search # 23-112
Chris Purtell
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 N. Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003
Re: 21-11997 Bonita School Water System Project
The Central Coast Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Santa Maria and Guadalupe USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a one half mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of reports and resources are provided in the following format: ☐ custom GIS maps  shapefiles ☐ hand-drawn maps ☐ none Resources within project area: None.

Resources within ½ mile radius: Five; see enclosed list.

Reports within project area: Eight; see enclosed list.

Reports within ½ mile radius: Four; SR-01876, SR-04572, SR-05057, SR-05141.

Resource Database Printout (list):  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list):  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Historic Properties Directory: ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested  nothing listed The following sources of information are available at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28065. Some of these resources used to be available through the CHRIS but because they are now online, they can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through the sources listed below.

California
Historical
\ Resource
Information
' SystemSan Luis Obispo\
|& Santa Barbara
Counties
\
California State Lands Commission Shipwreck Database Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory U.S. Geological Survey Historic Topographic Maps Rancho Plat Maps National Park Service National Register of Historic
Places Nominations
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Soil Survey Maps
US Bureau of Land Management General Land Office
Records
California Historical Landmarks Listing
(by county)
Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (1988)
Historical Soil Survey Maps

Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search.

Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the CHRIS.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Albert, M.A.

Assistant Coordinator

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs SL-02035 1991 San Luis Obispo Water Lines and Facilities Project, Cultural Resources Report
ERCEERCE 40-000122, 40-000164, 40-000165,
40-000168, 40-000172, 40-000181,
40-000584, 40-000596, 40-000758,
40-000879, 40-001240, 40-001372,
40-001375, 40-001376, 40-001377,
40-001378, 40-001379, 40-001380,
40-001381, 40-001382, 40-001383,
40-001384, 40-001385, 40-001386,
40-001387
SL-02035b 1991 Draft Environmental Impact Report State
Water Project Coastal Branch (Phase II)
Local Distribution Lines and Facilities

ERCEERCE
SL-02035C 1991 maps ERCEN/A
SR-00378 1977 Archaeological Component for City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Environmental Impact Report.

UCSBSpanne, Larry 42-000574, 42-000575, 42-001209
SR-00845 1989 Draft: Phase 1 cultural resources survey for the proposed California Coastal Aqueduct
between Devils Den, Kern County and
Mission Hills, Santa Barbara County (Volume
I)
Painted Cave
Archaeological Associates
Snethkamp, P., Michals,
L., and Costello, J.
42-001019, 42-001052, 42-001088,
42-001174, 42-001923, 42-001926,
42-002360, 42-002361, 42-002362,
42-002363, 42-002364, 42-038256,
42-039169
SR-01286 1991 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Santa Maria Valley Water Treatment Plant
Science Applications
International Corporation
Sheets, R. and Rudolph,
J.

SR-01876 1995 Coastal Branch, Phase II State Water Project Cultural Resources Survey, Reaches 5B and
6, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
Counties, California
Farris, G., Hines, P.,
Rhoades, M., Rivers, B.,
and Gibson, R.
42-002688, 42-002697, 42-002711,
42-002712, 42-002713, 42-002714,
42-002715, 42-002716, 42-002717,
42-002726
SR-02740 2001 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations for Reaches 5B and 6, Coastal Branch
Aqueduct, Phase II
Applied Earthworks, Inc.
(AE)
Lebow, C., et al, and
Applied Earthworks
40-000806, 40-001764, 40-001765,
40-001767, 40-001770, 40-002714,
40-002767
SR-02900 2002 Clayton Cell Tower, 70-02613.00, Sand
Maria, Santa Barbara County
Holson, J.

SR-04572 2010 A Phase 1 Archaeological Study: For the
Area 9 Specific Plan, an 890 acre Project Site
located in the city of Santa Maria, Santa
Barbara County, Calfironia
HEARTRobert J Wlodarski
SR-04842 2012 New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet, Santa Maria Water Treatment Facility, 601 S Black
Road, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County
EarthTouch, Inc.Billat, Lorna