HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 10/23/2024BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OCTOBER 23, 2024
East Valley Water District was formed in 1954 and provides water and wastewater services to
108,000 residents within the cities of San Bernardino and Highland, and portions of San
Bernardino County.
EVWD operates under the direction of a 5member elected Board.
GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
James Morales, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Ronald L. Coats
ViceChairman
Brian W. Tompkins
Chief Financial Officer
Chris Carrillo
Governing Board Member
Jeff Noelte
Director of Engineering & Operations
David E. Smith
Governing Board Member
Kerrie Bryan
Director of Administrative Services
Phillip R. Goodrich
Governing Board Member
Patrick Milroy
Operations Manager
Manuel Moreno
Water Reclamation Manager
William Ringland
Public Affairs/Conservation Manager
Justine Hendricksen
District Clerk
Board of Directors Regular Meeting
October 23, 2024 5:30 PM
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
www.eastvalley.org
PLEASE NOTE:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection in the District’s office located at 31111
Greenspot Rd., Highland, during normal business hours. Also, such documents are available
on the District’s website at eastvalley.org and are subject to staff’s ability to post the
documents before the meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disabilityrelated
modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order
to participate in the above agendized public meeting should be directed to the District Clerk
at (909) 8854900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker
Card and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the State
of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking
action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically be
referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a
future meeting.
1.AGENDA
This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.
Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not
appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a
determination that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on
the item came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the
agenda.
a.Approval of Agenda
2.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board of
Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless
members of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items
to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.
a.Approve the September 25, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
b.Approve the October 9, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
c.Approve September 2024 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for
the period include check numbers 263902 through 264094, bank drafts, and
ACH payments in the amount of $4,252,671.34 and $543,707.05 for payroll
d.Investment Report for Quarter Ended September 30, 2024
3.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a.Educational Partnerships and Summer Internship Update
4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
a.Consider Approval of Water Efficiency Support Services Agreements
b.Consider Approval of Construction Contract with NorCal Pump & Well
Drilling, Inc. and Adoption of Resolution 2024.15 Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for Well
No. 129
c.Consider Adoption of Strategic Plan
d.Consider Voting Designee for the Association of California Water Agencies
5.REPORTS
a.Board of Directors’ Reports
b.General Manager/CEO Report
Water Supply Update
c.Legal Counsel Report
d.Board of Directors’ Comments
ADJOURN
BOARD OF DIRECTORSOCTOBER 23, 2024East Valley Water District was formed in 1954 and provides water and wastewater services to108,000 residents within the cities of San Bernardino and Highland, and portions of SanBernardino County.EVWD operates under the direction of a 5member elected Board.GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTJames Morales, Jr.Chairman of the Board Michael MooreGeneral Manager/CEORonald L. CoatsViceChairman Brian W. TompkinsChief Financial OfficerChris CarrilloGoverning Board Member Jeff NoelteDirector of Engineering & OperationsDavid E. SmithGoverning Board Member Kerrie BryanDirector of Administrative ServicesPhillip R. GoodrichGoverning Board Member Patrick Milroy Operations ManagerManuel MorenoWater Reclamation ManagerWilliam Ringland
Public Affairs/Conservation Manager
Justine Hendricksen
District Clerk
Board of Directors Regular Meeting
October 23, 2024 5:30 PM
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
www.eastvalley.org
PLEASE NOTE:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection in the District’s office located at 31111
Greenspot Rd., Highland, during normal business hours. Also, such documents are available
on the District’s website at eastvalley.org and are subject to staff’s ability to post the
documents before the meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disabilityrelated
modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order
to participate in the above agendized public meeting should be directed to the District Clerk
at (909) 8854900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker
Card and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the State
of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking
action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically be
referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a
future meeting.
1.AGENDA
This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.
Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not
appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a
determination that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on
the item came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the
agenda.
a.Approval of Agenda
2.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board of
Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless
members of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items
to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.
a.Approve the September 25, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
b.Approve the October 9, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
c.Approve September 2024 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for
the period include check numbers 263902 through 264094, bank drafts, and
ACH payments in the amount of $4,252,671.34 and $543,707.05 for payroll
d.Investment Report for Quarter Ended September 30, 2024
3.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a.Educational Partnerships and Summer Internship Update
4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
a.Consider Approval of Water Efficiency Support Services Agreements
b.Consider Approval of Construction Contract with NorCal Pump & Well
Drilling, Inc. and Adoption of Resolution 2024.15 Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for Well
No. 129
c.Consider Adoption of Strategic Plan
d.Consider Voting Designee for the Association of California Water Agencies
5.REPORTS
a.Board of Directors’ Reports
b.General Manager/CEO Report
Water Supply Update
c.Legal Counsel Report
d.Board of Directors’ Comments
ADJOURN
BOARD OF DIRECTORSOCTOBER 23, 2024East Valley Water District was formed in 1954 and provides water and wastewater services to108,000 residents within the cities of San Bernardino and Highland, and portions of SanBernardino County.EVWD operates under the direction of a 5member elected Board.GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTJames Morales, Jr.Chairman of the Board Michael MooreGeneral Manager/CEORonald L. CoatsViceChairman Brian W. TompkinsChief Financial OfficerChris CarrilloGoverning Board Member Jeff NoelteDirector of Engineering & OperationsDavid E. SmithGoverning Board Member Kerrie BryanDirector of Administrative ServicesPhillip R. GoodrichGoverning Board Member Patrick Milroy Operations ManagerManuel MorenoWater Reclamation ManagerWilliam RinglandPublic Affairs/Conservation ManagerJustine HendricksenDistrict ClerkBoard of Directors Regular MeetingOctober 23, 2024 5:30 PM31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346www.eastvalley.orgPLEASE NOTE:Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of theagenda packet are available for public inspection in the District’s office located at 31111Greenspot Rd., Highland, during normal business hours. Also, such documents are availableon the District’s website at eastvalley.org and are subject to staff’s ability to post thedocuments before the meeting.Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disabilityrelatedmodification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in orderto participate in the above agendized public meeting should be directed to the District Clerkat (909) 8854900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker
Card and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the State
of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking
action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically be
referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a
future meeting.
1.AGENDA
This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.
Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not
appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a
determination that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on
the item came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the
agenda.
a.Approval of Agenda
2.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board of
Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless
members of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items
to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.
a.Approve the September 25, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
b.Approve the October 9, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
c.Approve September 2024 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for
the period include check numbers 263902 through 264094, bank drafts, and
ACH payments in the amount of $4,252,671.34 and $543,707.05 for payroll
d.Investment Report for Quarter Ended September 30, 2024
3.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a.Educational Partnerships and Summer Internship Update
4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
a.Consider Approval of Water Efficiency Support Services Agreements
b.Consider Approval of Construction Contract with NorCal Pump & Well
Drilling, Inc. and Adoption of Resolution 2024.15 Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for Well
No. 129
c.Consider Adoption of Strategic Plan
d.Consider Voting Designee for the Association of California Water Agencies
5.REPORTS
a.Board of Directors’ Reports
b.General Manager/CEO Report
Water Supply Update
c.Legal Counsel Report
d.Board of Directors’ Comments
ADJOURN
BOARD OF DIRECTORSOCTOBER 23, 2024East Valley Water District was formed in 1954 and provides water and wastewater services to108,000 residents within the cities of San Bernardino and Highland, and portions of SanBernardino County.EVWD operates under the direction of a 5member elected Board.GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENTJames Morales, Jr.Chairman of the Board Michael MooreGeneral Manager/CEORonald L. CoatsViceChairman Brian W. TompkinsChief Financial OfficerChris CarrilloGoverning Board Member Jeff NoelteDirector of Engineering & OperationsDavid E. SmithGoverning Board Member Kerrie BryanDirector of Administrative ServicesPhillip R. GoodrichGoverning Board Member Patrick Milroy Operations ManagerManuel MorenoWater Reclamation ManagerWilliam RinglandPublic Affairs/Conservation ManagerJustine HendricksenDistrict ClerkBoard of Directors Regular MeetingOctober 23, 2024 5:30 PM31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346www.eastvalley.orgPLEASE NOTE:Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of theagenda packet are available for public inspection in the District’s office located at 31111Greenspot Rd., Highland, during normal business hours. Also, such documents are availableon the District’s website at eastvalley.org and are subject to staff’s ability to post thedocuments before the meeting.Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disabilityrelatedmodification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in orderto participate in the above agendized public meeting should be directed to the District Clerkat (909) 8854900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filedwith the District Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesdaymeeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board ofDirectors.CALL TO ORDERPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERSPUBLIC COMMENTSAny person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a SpeakerCard and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker islimited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the Stateof California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or takingaction on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically bereferred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at afuture meeting.1.AGENDAThis agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item notappearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes adetermination that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action onthe item came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of theagenda.a.Approval of Agenda2.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDARAll matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board ofDirectors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be nodiscussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unlessmembers of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific itemsto be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar.a.Approve the September 25, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutesb.Approve the October 9, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutesc.Approve September 2024 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements forthe period include check numbers 263902 through 264094, bank drafts, andACH payments in the amount of $4,252,671.34 and $543,707.05 for payroll
d.Investment Report for Quarter Ended September 30, 2024
3.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a.Educational Partnerships and Summer Internship Update
4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
a.Consider Approval of Water Efficiency Support Services Agreements
b.Consider Approval of Construction Contract with NorCal Pump & Well
Drilling, Inc. and Adoption of Resolution 2024.15 Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for Well
No. 129
c.Consider Adoption of Strategic Plan
d.Consider Voting Designee for the Association of California Water Agencies
5.REPORTS
a.Board of Directors’ Reports
b.General Manager/CEO Report
Water Supply Update
c.Legal Counsel Report
d.Board of Directors’ Comments
ADJOURN
Agenda Item
#2a
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2a
Consent Item
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Approve the September 25, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors approve the September 25, 2024 regular Board meeting
minutes as submitted.
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
II - Maintain a Commitment to Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability
B. Utilize Effective Communication Methods
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by Administration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
Justine Hendricksen
District Clerk
ATTACHMENTS
Draft September 25, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
Regular Board Meeting
Meeting Date: September 25, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
ABSENT
Director Smith
STAFF
Michael Moore, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Jeff
Noelte, Director of Engineering and Operations; Kerrie Bryan, Director of Administrative
Services; Manny Moreno, Water Reclamation Manager; Patrick Milroy, Operations
Manager; William Ringland, Public Affairs/Conservation Manager; Jason Wolf, Senior
Engineer; Christianne Koide, Business Services Coordinator; Eileen Taffolla-Bateman,
Human Resources Coordinator
LEGAL COUNSEL
Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUESTS
Members of the public
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 4:01
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
Draft pending approval
1
8
2
4
1.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
a.Approval of Agenda
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Coats, seconded by Director Goodrich, that the
Board approve the September 25, 2024, agenda as submitted.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
Noes: None
Absent: Smith
2.RECESS INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Board entered into Closed Session at 4:02 p.m. as provided in the Ralph M. Brown
Act Government Code Sections 54957 and 54956.9(d)(1) to discuss the items listed on
the agenda.
RECONVENE THE MEETING
The Board reconvened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Director Goodrich led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
ABSENT
Director Smith
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
With respect to Item #2.a. legal counsel stated that no reportable action was taken.
With respect to Item #2.b. legal counsel stated that no reportable action was taken.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:31
p.m.
Senior Engineer Jason Wolf expressed his appreciation for the District’s Education
Assistance Program, which has helped him grow professionally.
1
8
2
4
There being no further written or verbal comments, the public participation section was
closed at 5:33.
3.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a.Approve the August 14, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
b.Approve the August 28, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
c.Approve Directors’ Fees and Expenses for August 2024
d.Approve August 2024 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for
the period include check numbers 263757 through 263901, bank drafts,
and ACH payments in the amount of $3,196,531.93 and $776,402.13 for
payroll
e.Accept and File Investment Transaction Report for Month Ended August
31, 2024
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Coats, seconded by Director Goodrich, that the
Board approve the Consent Calendar items as submitted.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
Noes: None
Absent: Smith
Abstain: None
4.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Groundwater Levels Update
The Operations Manager provided detailed information regarding water measurements
for 12 of the District’s active wells, 20 of the District’s inactive wells, well measurement
procedures, and shared static water levels at plants 143 and 146A. He also provided
the annual change in the groundwater levels in the San Bernardino Basin.
Betsy Miller, General Manager of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
provided information regarding the efforts it takes to keep water levels from dropping in
the basin. She also provided background history of the San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District and future recharging efforts to optimize facilities for the
community to have a clean and safe water supply.
For information only.
b. Update on Sterling Natural Resource Center Flowrates
The Director of Engineering and Operations provided information regarding the
treatment processes of the Sterling Natural Resource Center, and the evaluated
treatment flowrates of the various components of the treatment plant. He stated that
the treatment plant consistently produces approximately 6.3 million gallons of recycled
1
8
2
4
water per day, which meets the water quality requirements for groundwater recharge.
He also provided a thorough explanation of the filter screen cleaning processes and
membrane fouling.
For information only.
5.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
a. Consider Approval of Resolution 2024.13 – Authorizing the General
Manager/CEO to Execute Notice of Completion for Granular Activated Carbon
Improvements at Plant 134
Staff provided information regarding Plant 134 Granular Activated Carbon Process
Improvement Project and the notice of project completion.
A motion was made by Director Goodrich, seconded by Director Carrillo, that the Board
of Directors adopt Resolution 2024.13 as submitted.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
Noes: None
Absent: Smith
Abstain: None
b. Review General Manager/CEO Achievement of Goals and Objectives and
Determination of Performance Award
Legal Counsel stated that pursuant to the General Manager/CEO’s employment
contract, he is entitled to an annual review of his performance by the Board of Directors
to determine if his Goals and Objectives have been met for the preceding year, and to
determine the overall performance of his work. He stated that in closed session matters
were discussed and considered by the Board. Pursuant to section 3.d. of his
employment agreement, the Board is charged with determining if the General
Manager/CEO is entitled to his performance award of up to 10% of his base annual
salary.
The Board praised the General Manager/CEO for his performance and leadership during
the past year.
A motion was made by Director Goodrich, seconded by Vice Chairman Coats, that the
Board approve the General Manager/CEO’s pay for performance award in the amount of
10% of his base salary, totaling $30,950.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
Noes: None
Absent: Smith
Abstain: None
1
8
2
4
c. Consider Approval of General Manager/CEO’s FY 2024-25 Goals and
Objectives
The Chairman of the Board stated that as part of the General Manager/CEO’s annual
performance evaluation, the Board of Directors develop goals and objectives to provide
direction and measure degrees of organizational success. The General Manager/CEO’s
FY 2024-25 Goals and Objectives have been developed to reflect the priorities in the
Agency's Goals and Objectives and the District’s Five-Year Plan. He read each of the
proposed FY 2024-25 goals and objectives to the Board.
Director Goodrich stated that the General Manager/CEO’s goals are important resources
that look at the needs of the District and expectations of the General Manager/CEO to
achieve each goal and objective throughout the year.
Director Carrillo stated that he has confidence in the General Manager/CEO on the
completion of these well-developed goals and objectives. He is looking forward to
working with the General Manager/CEO in the next year.
Director Coats stated that the General Manager/CEO’s goals are as inspiring as the
previous year.
Vice Chairman Morales stated that the goals are ambitious and reachable yet continues
to allow the General Manager/CEO to strive to be better.
A motion was made by Director Goodrich, seconded by Vice Chairman Coats, that the
Board approve the FY 2024-25 General Manager/CEO’s Goals and Objectives as
submitted.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales
Noes: None
Absent: Smith
Abstain: None
6.REPORTS
a.Board of Directors’ Reports
Director Carrillo reported on the following: September 10 he attended the City of
Highland City Council meeting where he provided information regarding the District’s
response to the Line Fire and noted that there was no interruption of water service
during the event; September 11-12 he attended the California Special Districts
Association annual conference; September 13 he met with the Director of Engineering
and Operations for a tour of the SNRC to receive a demonstration of the Co-Gen
engines; September 16 he met with the General Manager/CEO to discuss district
business; September 18 he attended the City of San Bernardino City Council meeting
via Zoom; September 23 he attended the District’s Engineering & Operations Committee
1
8
2
4
meeting and September 24 he attended the Highland Chamber of Commerce monthly
meeting where the guest speaker was Mark Gibbs, Director of Aviation at San
Bernardino International Airport.
Director Goodrich reported on the following: September 9-12 he attended the California
Special Districts Association annual conference; September 13 he met with the Director
of Engineering and Operations for a tour of the SNRC to receive a demonstration of the
Co-Gen engines; September 23 he attended the District’s Engineering & Operations
Committee meeting and September 24 he attended the Highland Chamber of
Commerce monthly meeting where the guest speaker was Mark Gibbs, Director of
Aviation at San Bernardino International Airport.
Vice Chairman Coats reported the following: August 29 he attended the City of Highland
State of the City meeting which was held at the Sterling Natural Resource Center;
August 30 he met with the Director of Engineering and Operations for a tour of the
SNRC to receive a demonstration of the Co-Gen engines; September 9 he attended the
Association of San Bernardino County Special Districts monthly meeting; September 9-
12 he attended the California Specia Districts Association annual conference; and
September 17 he attended the SBVMWD Board meeting where they awarded the
District a check for saving 1,420.22 acre feet of water. September 18, he met with the
General Manager/CEO to discuss district business; September 19 he met with Chairman
Morales and the General Manager/CEO to review the agenda and discuss district
business; September 24 he attended the City of San Bernardino Water Department
meeting where they awarded several contracts for various construction projects
affecting issues within their service area and September 24 he attended the Highland
Chamber of Commerce monthly meeting where the guest speaker was Mark Gibbs,
Director of Aviation at San Bernardino International Airport.
Chairman Morales reported on the following: September 5 he attended the San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) Board meeting; September 10 he
attended the California Special Districts Association annual conference; September 10
the Association of California Water Agencies Region 9 program planning meeting to
discuss the December conference and local educational programs; September 17 he
attended the SBVMWD Board meeting where they awarded grant money for water
conservation; September 19 he met with Chairman Morales and the General
Manager/CEO to review the agenda and discuss district business; September 23 he
attended a planning preparation meeting for the Water Evolution Symposium taking
place on October 15 and September 24 he attended the Highland Chamber of
Commerce monthly meeting where the guest speaker was Mark Gibbs, Director of
Aviation at San Bernardino International Airport.
For information only.
1
8
2
4
b. General Manager/CEO Report
The General Manager/CEO reported on the following:
•The District is Conservation Workshop – October 5, 2024
•Cancelled October 8, 2024, Finance and HR Committee Meeting
•Sites Reservoir Update
•Received Demand Incentive Rebate - $254,219
•Beattie Middle School Water Bottle Donation
•SDLF Certificate
•Line Fire/Mudslide
•EVWD Softball
For information only.
c. Legal Counsel Report
No report at this time.
d. Board of Directors’ Comments
Vice Chairman Coats thanked the employees of East Valley Water District for their
monumental efforts during the Line Fire. The entire workforce was either on-site or on-
call 24/7 during this disaster, and through their efforts, there were no water availability
issues or wastewater treatment issues. This is a testament to their commitment to our
ratepayers. A big "Thank You" to everyone. All your efforts did not go unnoticed and
are very much appreciated.
Chairman Morales commented on the pride of ownership exhibited by East Valley Water
District Employees at the State of the City meeting hosted at the Sterling Natural
Resource Center; he thanked Janett Robledo for receiving the grant award on behalf of
the District for conservation efforts from San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District;
he congratulated William Ringland on representing the District on the new sanitation
communications committee; he stated that he is looking forward to the new pension
policy and is eager to develop best practices and he commended the employees for
1
8
2
4
setting a great example of collaboration with the City of Highland during the recent
mudslides to clear roads in a timely manner.
For information only.
ADJOURN
Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
James Morales, Jr., Board President
Michael Moore, Board Secretary
Agenda Item
#2b
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2b
Consent Item
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Approve the October 9, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors approve the October 9, 2024 regular Board meeting
minutes as submitted.
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
II - Maintain a Commitment To Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability
B. Utilize Effective Communication Methods
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by Administration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
Justine Hendricksen
District Clerk
ATTACHMENTS
Draft October 9, 2024 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
Regular Board Meeting
Meeting Date: October 9, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith
ABSENT
None
STAFF
Michael Moore, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Jeff
Noelte, Director of Engineering and Operations; Kerrie Bryan, Director of Administrative
Services; Manny Moreno, Water Reclamation Manager; Patrick Milroy, Operations
Manager; William Ringland, Public Affairs/Conservation Manager; Nathan Carlson,
Senior Engineer; Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla Antrim, Administrative
Specialist
LEGAL COUNSEL
Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUESTS
Members of the public
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 4:31
p.m.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
Draft pending approval
1
7
3
9
1.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
a.Approval of Agenda
A motion was made by Director Smith seconded by Director Carrillo, that the Board
approve the October 9, 2024 agenda as submitted.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith
Noes: None
Absent: None
2.RECESS INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Board entered into Closed Session at 4:02 p.m. as provided in the Ralph M. Brown
Act Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(1) and 54956.8 to discuss the items listed
on the agenda.
RECONVENE THE MEETING
The Board reconvened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Director Carrillo led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith
ABSENT
Director None
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
With respect to Item #2.a. legal counsel stated that no reportable action was taken.
With respect to Item #2.b. legal counsel stated that no reportable action was taken.
PRESENTATIONS AND CEREMONIAL ITEMS
•Providing Exceptional Customer Service
The General Manager/CEO stated that service to the community, ratepayers, and
stakeholders is the primary objective of the District’s customer service team, and this
evening, they are being recognized for all they do to assist customers.
1
7
3
9
Aida Nunez, Customer Service Supervisor, introduced the customer service team and
recognized them for all they do.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:40
p.m.
Dr. Hillary Jenkins addressed the board to introduce herself as a newly appointed board
member of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. She provided
background information on her education and experiences and stated that she looks
forward to working with the East Valley Water District Board.
There being no further written or verbal comments, the public participation section was
closed at 5:43.
3.APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a.Approve Directors’ Fees and Expenses for September 2024
b.Approve Board Meeting Cancellations
A motion was made by Director Carrillo, seconded by Vice Chairman Coats, that the
Board approve the Consent Calendar items as submitted.
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
a. Consider Approval of Construction Contract and Construction Phase
Engineering Services for Plant 101 Rehabilitation Project and Filing of Notice
of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act
The Senior Engineer provided information regarding the Plant 101 Rehabilitation
Project. He discussed the purpose of the project and its key components. He discussed
the bid process and stated that it was followed in accordance with District policy. He
stated that staff recommends the District enter into a contract with Well-Tec and
approve an amendment to the contract with Krieger & Stewart for engineering and
inspection support. He noted that slide 6 of the presentation had been updated to
reflect the correct contract amount with Well-Tec and Krieger & Stewart.
A motion was made by Director Goodrich, seconded by Director Carrillo, that the Board
of Directors authorize the General Manager/CEO to do the following:
1. Execute a construction agreement with Well-Tec for an amount not to exceed
$939,716.58, plus a 10% contingency.
1
7
3
9
2. Approve Task Order Amendment No. 5 with Krieger & Stewart, Inc. for
engineering and inspection support during construction, for an amount not to
exceed $120,800.
3. File a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to document the project’s Categorical
Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The motion carried by the following:
Ayes: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
5.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Strategic Plan
The General Manager/CEO discussed the development of the District’s Strategic Plan
and reviewed key elements of it with the Board. He reviewed the Vision and Mission
statements, Core Values, and District Pillars and Goals and asked that the Board provide
input. The General Manager/CEO discussed the reasonings behind changes made to the
Plan, and the Board provided input. The General Manager/CEO stated that staff will
incorporate the Board’s comments into the Strategic Plan and bring it back to the Board
for approval at the next meeting.
For information only.
6.REPORTS
a.Board of Directors’ Reports
Director Smith reported on the following: October 5 he attended the Run for Highland
event and the Highland Senior Center grand reopening event; October 8 he attended
the Highland City Council meeting; and October 9 he attended the San Bernardino
Valley Water Conservation District Board meeting with nothing to report.
Director Goodrich reported on the following: October 5 he attended the reopening of
the Highland Senior Center event; and October 8 he attended the Highland City Council
meeting.
Director Carrillo reported on the following: October 5 he attended the Highland Senior
Center reopening event; and October 8 he met with the General Manager/CEO to
discuss District business.
1
7
3
9
Vice Chairman Coats reported the following: September 28 he attended the American
Society of Civil Engineers Los Angeles Section Awards event where the District received
an award for the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC) project; October 1 the
Operations Manager provided him a facility tour of the District’s multiple plants; October
2 and 3 he attended the California Special Districts Association’s Professional
Development and Membership Services Committee meeting; and October 4 he met with
the General Manager/CEO and Chairman to review the agenda and to discuss District
business.
Chairman Morales reported on the following: October 1 he attended the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District Board (Valley District) meeting where they discussed
legislative principles; October 1 he met with the General Manager/CEO and staff to
review the presentation he will provide at an upcoming symposium on the District’s
experience with public outreach and community support for the SNRC project; October
2 he attended Valley District’s Special Board meeting where they discussed their draft
Director's Handbook; October 3 he attended Valley District’s Board meeting where they
discussed reimbursements with West Valley Water District and Cactus Basins where
they are working to improve water quality; and October 4 he met with the Vice
Chairman and General Manager/CEO to review the agenda and to discuss District
business.
For information only.
b. General Manager/CEO Report
The General Manager/CEO reported on the following:
•The District is coordinating with the City of Highland to replace the median on
Greenspot Road, just west of Boulder Avenue, as part of the Regional Recycled
Water Project.
•Approximately a year ago, the District authorized SLWA Insurance Services to
contact District customers with an offer to purchase insurance coverage for their
household water and/or sewer lines (not on the District’s side). Mailers for this
offer went out this week. This is not a District program, and the District does not
receive revenue from the sales/purchases. This is a benefit for customers on the
customer side of the meter, and there is no pressure to purchase the insurance.
•The Legislative & Public Outreach Committee will be meeting on October 10 at
10:00 a.m.
•October 14 - In observance of Columbus Day, District offices and customer
service lines will be closed. Customers may pay their bill online, by phone, or at
any 7-Eleven store.
•Water revenue is approximately $375k above projections for the first quarter.
1
7
3
9
•The District hosted a Conservation Workshop on Saturday at the Sterling Natural
Resource Center; approximately 45 people attended. The workshop assisted
customers in identifying and addressing common outdoor leaks.
•Last Saturday the District received an award from the American Society of Civil
Engineers for the Sterling Natural Resource Center project.
For information only.
c. Legal Counsel Report
No report at this time.
d. Board of Directors’ Comments
Director Carrillo thanked everyone for attending today’s meeting.
Vice Chairman Coats thanked the public and staff for attending today’s meeting.
Chairman Morales acknowledged Water Professionals Week and thanked all the water
professionals in the room. He also shared a positive experience he had over the
weekend with a District employee.
For information only.
ADJOURN
Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
James Morales, Jr., Board President
Michael Moore, Board Secretary
Agenda Item
#2c
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2c
Consent Item
1
2
2
0
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Approve September 2024 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements
for the period include check numbers 263902 through 264094, bank drafts, and ACH
payments in the amount of $4,252,671.34 and $543,707.05 for payroll
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors approve the District's expense disbursements for the period
September 1, 2024 through September 30, 2024 in the amount of $4,796,378.39.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
The payment register for supplies, materials, services, and payroll for September 2024
is attached for review and approval. This process provides the Board of Directors and
the public with an opportunity to review the expenses of the District. Accounts Payable
are processed weekly, while payroll is processed bi-weekly. District Policy 7.1 provides
the requirements for purchases and contracts and all supporting documents are
maintained by the Purchasing Agent.
Accounts payable disbursements for the period include check numbers 263902 through
264094, bank drafts, and ACH Payments in the amount of $4,252,671.34 and
$543,707.05, for payroll. Significant expenses greater than or equal to $50,000 are
further explained below:
Agenda Item
#2c
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2c
Consent Item
1
2
2
0
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
II - Maintain a Commitment To Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability
A. Practice Transparent and Accountable Fiscal Management
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
This item is funded in the current fiscal year budget.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
Brian Tompkins
Chief Financial Officer
ATTACHMENTS
September 2024 Payment Register
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/05/2024 263902 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 538.92
09/05/2024 263903 Arrowhead Fence Inc.39,500.00
09/05/2024 263904 AUTOZONE PARTS 37.69
09/05/2024 263905 BURRTEC WASTE/ 5455 Industrial pkwy 764.01
09/05/2024 263906 BURRTEC WASTE/ E. 111 MILL ST 311.76
09/05/2024 263907 Chase Truck Mobile Service 325.00
09/05/2024 263908 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 2,380.42
09/05/2024 263909 CITY OF HIGHLAND 984.00
09/05/2024 263910 Costin Public Outreach Group, Inc 3,195.00
09/05/2024 263911 D&H WATER SYSTEMS 897.57
09/05/2024 263912 DIRECTV 296.23
09/05/2024 263913 EEC ENVIRONMENTAL 15,196.01
09/05/2024 263914 EVERSOFT, INC 308.58
09/05/2024 263915 FedEx 241.58
09/05/2024 263916 K & L HARDWARE 8.61
09/05/2024 263917 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 11,034.58
09/05/2024 263918 LA VERNE POWER EQUIPMENT, INC.96.50
09/05/2024 263919 Marvin's Mobile Truck Wash 765.00
09/05/2024 263920 O'REILLYS AUTO PARTS 504.23
09/05/2024 263921 RYAN HERCO FLOW SOLUTIONS 1,434.09
09/05/2024 263922 SCEM Urgent Care Centers 425.00
09/05/2024 263923 Solitude Lake Management LLC 1,299.00
09/05/2024 263924 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 312,071.75
09/05/2024 263925 STEP SAVER, INC 2,951.00
09/05/2024 263926 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 789.81
09/05/2024 263927 WEB ADVANCED CORPORATION 24,156.25
09/05/2024 263928 YO FIRE 2,296.15
09/11/2024 263929 ALTERNATIVE HOSE INC 273.77
09/11/2024 263930 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 538.92
09/11/2024 263931 BURRTEC WASTE/ 5455 Industrial pkwy 266.50
09/11/2024 263932 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 41,154.11
09/11/2024 263933 ENGINEERING RESOURCES 71,198.14
09/11/2024 263934 EXPERIAN 355.84
09/11/2024 263935 HATFIELD BUICK 974.79
09/11/2024 263936 Health and Human Resource Center Inc.121.50
09/11/2024 263937 Hoag Executive Health 11,600.00
09/11/2024 263938 HOSE-MAN, INC.1,811.83
09/11/2024 263939 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 118.50
09/11/2024 263940 Marvin's Mobile Truck Wash 705.00
09/11/2024 263941 PETE'S ROAD SERVICE INC 2,298.20
09/11/2024 263942 Pro-West & Assoc., Inc 9,604.17
09/11/2024 263943 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY & SCOTT, LLP 7,300.00
09/11/2024 263944 RYAN HERCO FLOW SOLUTIONS 1,700.62
09/11/2024 263945 WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO., INC 8,766.77
09/11/2024 263946 MAIRA JUAREZ 18.66
09/11/2024 263947 PAUL NAVLAN 53.17
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 1 of 7
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/11/2024 263948 THANH VU 150.00
09/11/2024 263949 SKY LIVING INVESTMENTS LLC 65.83
09/11/2024 263950 D.R. HORTON 70.10
09/11/2024 263951 GB CAPITAL GROUP 50.81
09/11/2024 263952 FULLMER CONSTRUCTION 5,157.91
09/11/2024 263953 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 87.27
09/11/2024 263954 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 105.52
09/11/2024 263955 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 46.06
09/11/2024 263956 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 97.44
09/11/2024 263957 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 85.19
09/11/2024 263958 SANDRA F BROWN 130.44
09/11/2024 263959 JOSEPH NO 79.94
09/11/2024 263960 SPIRIT X INVESTMENT LLC.18.90
09/11/2024 263961 TGM VENTURE 134.15
09/11/2024 263962 DAVID REED 120.54
09/11/2024 263963 ADRIANNE ROGERS 102.90
09/11/2024 263964 ALBERTA WHITE-GOMEZ 275.00
09/11/2024 263965 ANNA MAHONEY 21.95
09/11/2024 263966 CYNTHIA ROSS 156.98
09/11/2024 263967 CYNTHIA SANCHEZ 113.95
09/11/2024 263968 DEBORAH POWER 275.00
09/11/2024 263969 EMELIA MENDEZ 200.00
09/11/2024 263970 GARY MARET 150.00
09/11/2024 263971 JOE PACHECO 275.00
09/11/2024 263972 KANDI ALEXANDER 226.85
09/11/2024 263973 LAUREN ROUT 200.00
09/11/2024 263974 RAY VALENZUELA 74.91
09/11/2024 263975 REBECCA VERNON 29.39
09/11/2024 263976 ROBERT AIKIN 275.00
09/19/2024 263977 AT&T 47.49
09/19/2024 263978 AUTOZONE PARTS 37.69
09/19/2024 263979 BURRTEC WASTE/ 5455 Industrial pkwy 6,212.13
09/19/2024 263980 BURRTEC WASTE/ E. 111 MILL ST 4,458.91
09/19/2024 263981 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 5,468.72
09/19/2024 263982 CITY OF HIGHLAND 250.00
09/19/2024 263983 CITY OF HIGHLAND 350.00
09/19/2024 263984 Costin Public Outreach Group, Inc 772.50
09/19/2024 263985 Dell Technologies Inc.44,162.83
09/19/2024 263986 DIRECTV 55.79
09/19/2024 263987 EUCLID MANAGERS, INSURANCE SERVICES INC.288.00
09/19/2024 263988 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 1,532.60
09/19/2024 263989 HIGHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL ON AGING 1,440.00
09/19/2024 263990 INLAND DESERT SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS, INC 908.60
09/19/2024 263991 James Litho 2,391.80
09/19/2024 263992 JCL Traffic Services 2,723.49
09/19/2024 263993 Juan D. Basols 89.18
09/19/2024 263994 K & L HARDWARE 30.15
09/19/2024 263995 KONICA MINOLTA 530.21
09/19/2024 263996 NOVOGRADAC & COMPANY LLP 12,000.00
09/19/2024 263997 O'REILLYS AUTO PARTS 1,033.63
09/19/2024 263998 PETTY CASH 1,128.00
09/19/2024 263999 Porsche Denise Hudson 592.00
09/19/2024 264000 SANDRA RIVERA 39.25
09/19/2024 264001 SO CAL GAS 16.27
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 2 of 7
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/19/2024 264002 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 45,215.91
09/19/2024 264003 SPECTRUM 12,603.11
09/19/2024 264004 Super Birthday Inc.4,888.31
09/19/2024 264005 Texas Life Insurance Company 514.71
09/19/2024 264006 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 2,573.59
09/19/2024 264008 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC 31,877.17
09/19/2024 264009 WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO., INC 135,811.84
09/19/2024 264010 YO FIRE 21,623.28
09/19/2024 264011 ACS SUPPORT 26.00
09/19/2024 264012 San Bernardino City Unified School District 150.00
09/19/2024 264013 Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc 315.00
09/19/2024 264014 San Bernardino City Unified School District 150.00
09/19/2024 264015 SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 150.00
09/19/2024 264016 ROBERT MENOR 650.00
09/19/2024 264017 CITY OF HIGHLAND 150.00
09/19/2024 264018 Arts Connection 150.00
09/19/2024 264019 THE ANCHOR BIBLE CHURCH OF REDLANDS 105.00
09/19/2024 264020 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 150.00
09/19/2024 264021 LUIS M ROBLES 112.42
09/19/2024 264022 99 CENTS ONLY STORE 58.49
09/19/2024 264023 WNC MILL CREEK COMMUNITY PARTNERS 4,491.27
09/19/2024 264024 ANIS RAHMAN 106.56
09/19/2024 264025 LOREEN JAURIGUE 2.78
09/26/2024 264026 ALBERTA WHITE-GOMEZ 100.00
09/26/2024 264027 BRYAN LONDOT 100.00
09/26/2024 264028 DANI BANCHIK 200.00
09/26/2024 264029 DAVID SATTERWHITE 150.00
09/26/2024 264030 DEYANIRA REQUENES 100.00
09/26/2024 264031 DOLORES MORENO 100.00
09/26/2024 264032 EDGAR REYES 200.00
09/26/2024 264033 EMILY ISHIKAWA 100.00
09/26/2024 264034 JESUS SAUCEDA 199.00
09/26/2024 264035 JOSE RAMIREZ 99.00
09/26/2024 264036 JUSTIN MCWHORTER 150.00
09/26/2024 264037 KERRY LEFAVER 200.00
09/26/2024 264038 LORI DRISCOLL 150.00
09/26/2024 264039 LYDIA ROSALES 100.00
09/26/2024 264040 MARTI TORRES 100.00
09/26/2024 264041 MATEO SERRANO 382.20
09/26/2024 264042 NELLY ZAKI 150.00
09/26/2024 264043 NICOLAE GHEORGHIU 100.00
09/26/2024 264044 PHILIP PULEO III 90.00
09/26/2024 264045 REYNALDO PARAS 84.60
09/26/2024 264046 THANH LE 275.00
09/26/2024 264047 THOMAS RAMOS 89.99
09/26/2024 264048 VERNON JR DORSEY 119.98
09/26/2024 264049 WILLIAM K GILES 275.00
09/26/2024 264050 YUKO SHIMIZU 89.98
09/26/2024 264051 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 3,282.49
09/26/2024 264052 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY (FSA)1,455.39
09/26/2024 264053 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 888.48
09/26/2024 264054 AT&T 2,779.87
09/26/2024 264055 BODY METRX- MARLY PAULUS 3,519.00
09/26/2024 264056 C Wells Pipeline Materials, Inc 5,459.25
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 3 of 7
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/26/2024 264057 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 22,357.96
09/26/2024 264058 Connerstone BBQ 2,235.39
09/26/2024 264059 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 158.10
09/26/2024 264071 ACS SUPPORT 26.00
09/26/2024 264072 DIRECTV 112.99
09/26/2024 264073 EYE MED VISION CARE 1,554.84
09/26/2024 264074 METLIFE SMALL BUSINESS CENTER (Dental)12,676.36
09/26/2024 264075 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO 70.14
09/26/2024 264076 SO CAL GAS 2,216.50
09/26/2024 264077 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 310,717.85
09/26/2024 264078 SWRCB-DWOCP 55.00
09/26/2024 264079 US Landscape Inc 5,600.00
09/26/2024 264080 WEB ADVANCED CORPORATION 41,700.00
09/26/2024 264081 WIRENET COMMUNICATIONS INC 35,000.00
09/26/2024 264082 YO FIRE 34,129.81
09/26/2024 264083 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 74.29
09/26/2024 264084 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 150.00
09/26/2024 264085 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 49.20
09/26/2024 264086 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 68.62
09/26/2024 264087 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 79.70
09/26/2024 264088 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 39.56
09/26/2024 264089 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 39.56
09/26/2024 264090 BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS LLC 35.38
09/26/2024 264091 EMMA RODARTE 29.04
09/26/2024 264092 DCBX ENTERPRISE INC 109.82
09/30/2024 264094 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,500.00
BANK DRAFTS
09/03/2024 DFT0005342 GLOBAL PAYMENTS 25,241.80
09/03/2024 DFT0005368 MERCHANT BANKCD 991.62
09/10/2024 DFT0005343 FORTE, ACH DIRECT INC, ACH FEES 5,135.15
09/12/2024 DFT0005344 PayNearMe, Inc.264.67
09/13/2024 DFT0005347 CA SDI Tax 4,241.09
09/13/2024 DFT0005348 Federal Payroll Tax 47,874.32
09/13/2024 DFT0005350 Medicare 11,523.53
09/13/2024 DFT0005351 Social Security 186.00
09/13/2024 DFT0005352 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 908.77
09/13/2024 DFT0005353 State Payroll Tax 18,804.26
09/20/2024 DFT0005345 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 62,440.56
09/20/2024 DFT0005346 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 25,884.31
09/20/2024 DFT0005354 CA SDI Tax 69.91
09/20/2024 DFT0005355 Federal Payroll Tax 749.75
09/20/2024 DFT0005356 Medicare 156.36
09/20/2024 DFT0005357 State Payroll Tax 315.69
09/24/2024 DFT0005369 CBB 2,908.91
09/27/2024 DFT0005358 CA SDI Tax 4,620.06
09/27/2024 DFT0005359 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 25,658.65
09/27/2024 DFT0005360 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 62,851.29
09/27/2024 DFT0005361 Federal Payroll Tax 55,306.47
09/27/2024 DFT0005362 Medicare 12,839.42
09/27/2024 DFT0005363 Social Security 1,475.66
09/27/2024 DFT0005364 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 908.77
09/27/2024 DFT0005365 State Payroll Tax 22,048.30
09/30/2024 DFT0005366 U.S. BANK OPERATIONS CENTER 1,761,150.75
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 4 of 7
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/30/2024 DFT0005367 PayNearMe, Inc.338.30
ACH PAYMENTS
09/05/2024 10014641 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES 4,800.00
09/05/2024 10014642 ALLISON MECHANICAL, INC 18,777.00
09/05/2024 10014643 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 3,636.03
09/05/2024 10014644 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 7,666.64
09/05/2024 10014645 BURGESS MOVING & STORAGE 552.45
09/05/2024 10014646 CALIFORNIA TOOL & WELDING SUPPLY 46.28
09/05/2024 10014647 CLEARFLY COMMUNATIONS 88.72
09/05/2024 10014648 COMPUTERIZED EMBROIDERY COMPANY, INC 2,180.96
09/05/2024 10014649 CORE & MAIN LP 2,998.65
09/05/2024 10014650 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, RECORDER- CLERK 332.00
09/05/2024 10014651 EAGLE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY INC 39,281.00
09/05/2024 10014652 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.55,268.99
09/05/2024 10014653 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 411.55
09/05/2024 10014654 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 101.03
09/05/2024 10014655 GRAINGER 627.81
09/05/2024 10014656 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC 1,010.14
09/05/2024 10014657 JOSE MILLAN 10,160.00
09/05/2024 10014658 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 27,627.80
09/05/2024 10014659 PATTON'S SALES CORP 362.67
09/05/2024 10014660 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC.778.06
09/05/2024 10014661 Safety Compliance Company 200.00
09/05/2024 10014662 SCN, SECURITY COMMUNICATION NETWORK, INC 330.00
09/05/2024 10014663 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 221.25
09/05/2024 10014664 STUBBIES PROMOTIONS INC 1,621.01
09/05/2024 10014665 SWIFTCOMPLY US OPCO, INC 12,363.00
09/05/2024 10014666 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 472.50
09/05/2024 10014667 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 2,085.64
09/05/2024 10014668 Yahweh Pools 250.00
09/11/2024 10014669 ADVANCED TELEMETRY SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.6,700.00
09/11/2024 10014670 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 4,606.95
09/11/2024 10014671 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC 403.81
09/11/2024 10014672 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 1,000.51
09/11/2024 10014673 GRAINGER 205.57
09/11/2024 10014674 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC 1,498.21
09/11/2024 10014675 INFOSEND, INC 351.34
09/11/2024 10014676 JC LAW FIRM 13,300.00
09/11/2024 10014677 KRIEGER & STEWART, INCORPORATED 971.04
09/11/2024 10014678 MIKE J. ROQUET CONSTRUCTION INC 15,491.99
09/11/2024 10014679 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 775.99
09/11/2024 10014680 MOBILE OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES, INC 425.00
09/11/2024 10014681 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.12,308.42
09/11/2024 10014682 RUDY GUERRERO 5,000.00
09/11/2024 10014683 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 1,562.15
09/11/2024 10014684 THE NYHART COMPANY 4,550.00
09/11/2024 10014685 TSR PERFORMANCE 1,076.55
09/11/2024 10014686 VERIZON WIRELESS 8,103.46
09/19/2024 10014687 124 Productions 1,412.50
09/19/2024 10014688 ADCOMP SYSTEMS, INC 419.29
09/19/2024 10014689 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES 588.00
09/19/2024 10014690 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2,678.60
09/19/2024 10014691 AMERICAN RENTALS, INC 16.97
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 5 of 7
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/19/2024 10014692 ANTHESIS 11,637.19
09/19/2024 10014693 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 16,264.89
09/19/2024 10014694 CLARK PEST CONTROL 190.00
09/19/2024 10014695 CORE & MAIN LP 167.36
09/19/2024 10014696 ENERSPECT MEDICAL SOLUTIONS 8,336.13
09/19/2024 10014697 Ezequiel Mateo 150.00
09/19/2024 10014698 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.12,424.44
09/19/2024 10014699 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 443.34
09/19/2024 10014700 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 1,299.93
09/19/2024 10014701 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 1,395.31
09/19/2024 10014702 GRAINGER 491.31
09/19/2024 10014703 J COMM, INC.9,403.15
09/19/2024 10014704 JOSE MILLAN 320.00
09/19/2024 10014705 MARLINK INC 468.75
09/19/2024 10014706 Marvin's Mobile Truck Wash 740.00
09/19/2024 10014707 MCMASTER-CARR 254.80
09/19/2024 10014708 MICHAEL BAFFA 105.00
09/19/2024 10014709 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 3,864.66
09/19/2024 10014710 QUINN COMPANY 932.51
09/19/2024 10014711 RAYMOND ROYBAL 1,950.00
09/19/2024 10014712 RESOLUTE 10,000.00
09/19/2024 10014713 SG CREATIVE, LLC 5,865.00
09/19/2024 10014714 STERICYCLE, INC DBA SHRED-IT 438.92
09/19/2024 10014715 STEVE A. FILARSKY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 262.50
09/19/2024 10014716 STUBBIES PROMOTIONS INC 1,944.26
09/19/2024 10014717 THE GRANT FARM (MOMENTUM)1,493.00
09/19/2024 10014718 USA BLUE BOOK, HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINT, LTD 1,610.11
09/19/2024 10014719 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 4,534.52
09/19/2024 10014720 WHITE CAP LP 518.72
09/19/2024 10014721 CAROL CALES 568.35
09/19/2024 10014722 DAVID HERNANDEZ 600.74
09/19/2024 10014723 ED KING 850.00
09/19/2024 10014724 ELISEO OCHOA 575.09
09/19/2024 10014725 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 288.52
09/19/2024 10014726 JOHN MURA 727.21
09/19/2024 10014727 MARTHA T DURAN 850.00
09/19/2024 10014728 REBECCA KASTEN 669.44
09/19/2024 10014729 RICHARD BECERRA 727.21
09/26/2024 10014730 ACI PAYMENTS INC.46.35
09/26/2024 10014731 ADVANCED TELEMETRY SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.10,650.00
09/26/2024 10014732 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2,402.85
09/26/2024 10014733 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 6,634.99
09/26/2024 10014734 CALIFORNIA TOOL & WELDING SUPPLY 83.94
09/26/2024 10014735 CLINICAL LAB OF S B 12,744.75
09/26/2024 10014736 CORE & MAIN LP 1,254.31
09/26/2024 10014737 ECOTECH SERVICES, INC 8,068.00
09/26/2024 10014738 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.296.21
09/26/2024 10014739 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 941.12
09/26/2024 10014740 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 1,312.71
09/26/2024 10014741 GRAINGER 1,195.38
09/26/2024 10014742 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY & TOTAL CLEAN 3,528.81
09/26/2024 10014743 HACH COMPANY 4,729.24
09/26/2024 10014744 INFOSEND, INC 48,145.79
09/26/2024 10014745 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES, INC.100.91
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 6 of 7
PAYMENT
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
09/26/2024 10014746 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO.2,534.98
09/26/2024 10014747 MIKE J. ROQUET CONSTRUCTION INC 4,891.07
09/26/2024 10014748 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 232.51
09/26/2024 10014749 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC.584.89
09/26/2024 10014750 QUADIENT, INC 349.59
09/26/2024 10014751 RICARDO UGUES 150.00
09/26/2024 10014752 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.7,632.75
09/26/2024 10014753 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 1,015.65
09/26/2024 10014754 Synagro - WWT, Inc 145,034.84
09/26/2024 10014755 VALERO FLEET, WEX BANK 18,305.76
09/26/2024 10014756 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 2,093.40
TOTAL 4,252,671.34$
PAYMENT REGISTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 7 of 7
Agenda Item
#2d
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2d
Consent Item
1
2
2
1
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Investment Report for Quarter Ended September 30, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors accept and file the attached Investment Report for the
quarter ended September 30, 2024.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
California Government Code §53646(b) requires the Treasurer or CFO of a local agency
to submit a quarterly report on the agency’s investments to the legislative body of the
agency within 30 days of the end of each quarter.
The attached Investment Report shows all the District’s cash and investments,
restricted and unrestricted, as of September 30, 2024. Attachment A presents the
investment securities purchased and retired during the quarter July to September 2024.
Increases and decreases in highly liquid funds, such as LAIF, are explained in the
narrative below.
Unrestricted Investments
LAIF
The balance held in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) at the beginning of the
quarter was $19,345,392. Interest earned during the previous quarter of $218,271 was
posted to the account in July, and there was one withdrawal and transfer to the
District’s checking account in August of $2,500,000 to help cover significant payments
that are due at the beginning of the fiscal year, such as insurance. The balance in LAIF
at the end of September was $17,063,664.
LAIF earnings for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, were $203,598, calculated at
an apportionment rate of 4.71%; up from 4.55% which had been in effect for the
previous quarter. The earnings were posted to the District’s account on October 15,
2024.
US Bank Fixed Income Account (previously CBB Wealth Management)
The total (book) value of the assets held with CBB increased from $16,213,332 to
$16,325,411 during the quarter ended September 30, 2024. The balance in this account
is held both in a money market account, $736,255, and in a $15,589,156 portfolio of
Treasury and federal agency securities shown on Attachment A.
Agenda Item
#2d
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2d
Consent Item
1
2
2
1
There were no transfers into or out of the US Bank account during the quarter. Net
interest payments received on securities in the District’s portfolio were $105,000 and
funds held in money market accounts earned dividends of $9,348.
Investment manager fees paid during the quarter were $3,000, and amortization on
premiums / accretion of discounts taken at the time of purchase of certain securities,
increased the value of the portfolio by $731.
The following schedule summarizes the activity for Unrestricted Investments during the
Quarter ended September 30, 2024:
A ccount Beg Bal
Depo sit s/
(Wit hdrawals)Earnings Fees
Disc / Prem
A mo rt izat io n Ending Balance
LA IF 19 ,345,39 2$ (2 ,500,00 0)$ 218,2 72$-$ -$ 1 7,06 3,6 64$
US Bank Fixe d Inc 16 ,213,33 2 -114,3 48 (3,000)731 1 6,32 5,4 11
Restricted Investments
Accounts opened with US Bank are used to receive District deposits, from which the
Trustee (US Bank) pays District bondholders.
Semi-annual bond payment dates are April 1st and October 1st. Accordingly, the District
deposited funds with the trustee on September 30, 2024, for bondholders to be paid on
October 1, 2024. There were no other transactions that affected the account balances,
except for nominal interest earnings on the balances in the accounts.
Summary Schedule of US Bank Trustee Accounts
The following schedule summarizes activity in the US Bank Trust accounts for the
Quarter ended September 30, 2024:
2020A
A cco unt s Beg Bal
Dist rict
Depo sit s Earnings Transfers
Wit hdrawals/
Payment s
Ending
Balance
Payme nt Fd -$ 1 ,32 5 ,425$ -$ -$ -$ 1,3 2 5 ,42 5$
Int e re st A c ct 13,1 7 4 -1 5 8 --1 3 ,33 2
Principal A c ct ------
2020B
A cco unt s Beg Bal
Dist rict
Depo sit s Earnings Transfers
Wit hdrawals/
Payment s
Ending
Balance
Payme nt Fd -$ 43 6 ,726$ -$ -$ -$ 4 3 6 ,72 6$
Int e re st A c ct ------
Principal A c ct ------
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
II - Maintain a Commitment To Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability
A. Practice Transparent and Accountable Fiscal Management
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.
Agenda Item
#2d
October 23, 20243
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #2d
Consent Item
1
2
2
1
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
Brian Tompkins
Chief Financial Officer
ATTACHMENTS
1. Investment Report for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2024
2. Attachment A - CBB Investment Activity Report for Quarter Ended September 30,
2024
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Investment Activity
Month Ended September 30, 2024
Activity (Book Value)
Purch
Date
Units /
Face Value
Maturity
Date
Amort Cost
Adjustment
Adjusted Cost
7/1/2024
Matured /
Called
Adjusted Cost 9/30/2024 Market
ValueIssuerCUSIPYield7/1/2024 Purchases Total Water Sewer
10/18/21
03/31/21
12/08/23
12/26/23
12/27/23
04/22/24
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
91282CAZ4
91282CBT7
91282CJL6
91282CJS1
91282CJP7
91282CJC6
880591ER9
91282CFG1
91282CGX3
91282CKH3
91282CJE2
91282CKJ9
91282CLL3
3134HAGV9
3130AJUN7
3130B2KW4
3134GWMY9
3130B2UW3
3130APAZ8
3130ALUF9
3130ALPB4
3130ALU93
3130AP6M2
3130AWLY4
3130AYBS4
3130AYB39
3130AKC95
3130APJ55
3130APLB9
3130AYZV1
3130APUY9
3130AQ2H5
3130B0SH3
3130B0SU4
3130B0SP5
3130B0UQ0
3130B0YF0
3130B13F2
3133ENEM8
3133EPT21
3130AY5A0
3130AY5Z5
3130AY7M2
3135GAQM6
3134H1YX5
3134H1E41
0.375%
0.750%
4.875%
4.250%
4.375%
4.625%
2.875%
3.250%
3.875%
4.500%
5.000%
4.500%
3.375%
4.000%
0.550%
4.375%
0.625%
4.000%
1.030%
1.000%
0.800%
0.750%
1.020%
5.125%
5.000%
5.400%
0.550%
1.250%
0.850%
5.060%
1.000%
1.050%
5.080%
5.150%
5.250%
5.000%
5.250%
4.910%
1.430%
4.625%
5.140%
5.000%
5.000%
5.150%
5.050%
5.300%
500,000 11/30/25
03/31/26
05/31/24
12/31/25
12/15/26
10/15/26
09/15/24
08/31/24
04/30/25
03/31/26
10/31/25
04/15/27
09/15/27
08/27/27
07/30/24
08/27/27
08/19/25
06/10/27
09/30/26
03/30/26
05/30/25
06/30/25
09/30/26
06/13/25
06/26/25
12/22/25
10/29/25
10/26/26
10/28/24
02/13/26
02/28/25
11/25/24
04/09/26
01/09/26
01/08/27
04/15/27
04/22/26
11/27/26
11/23/26
01/27/25
12/18/25
12/18/26
12/18/26
03/26/27
03/26/26
10/08/27
497,239.11
498,216.40
500,951.45
499,748.19
605,488.07
198,988.09
300,322.44
299,960.04
299,087.92
498,305.98
399,829.47
794,743.76
-
487.98 497,727.09
498,413.98
500,773.10
499,761.48
604,928.52
199,102.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
299,360.02
498,568.54
399,859.05
795,221.78
6.74
497,727.09
498,413.98
500,773.10
499,761.48
604,928.52
199,102.00
-
497,727.09
498,413.98
500,773.10
499,761.48
604,928.52
199,102.00
-
480,255.00
478,185.00
505,470.00
502,265.00
609,516.00
203,766.00
-
500,000
500,000
500,000
600,000
200,000
-
197.58
(178.35)
13.29
(559.55)
113.91
(322.44)
39.96
272.10
262.56
29.58
478.02
6.74
01 & 05/20 Tenn Valley Authority 300,000.00
300,000.0008/19/20
05/19/23
04/05/24
04/10/24
US Treasury N/B
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
US Treasury Note
----
300,000
500,000
400,000
800,000
500,000
500,000
-
400,000
100,000
500,000
200,000
300,000
300,000
200,000
400,000
400,000
-
299,360.02
498,568.54
399,859.05
795,221.78
498,584.87
496,482.97
-
399,960.00
100,000.00
500,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
401,804.22
-
299,360.02 299,244.00
505,275.00
404,408.00
817,408.00
497,460.00
498,035.00
-
400,764.00
96,842.00
499,640.00
189,314.00
287,424.00
292,920.00
194,636.00
378,556.00
402,668.00
-
498,568.54
399,859.05
795,221.78
498,584.87
496,482.97
-
399,960.00
100,000.00
500,000.00
4/10 & 4/11 US Treasury Note
09/23/24
07/30/20
07/30/20
08/30/24
08/05/20
09/24/24
09/23/21
03/25/21
03/25/21
03/29/21
09/17/21
12/27/23
12/26/23
12/27/23
10/15/21
10/15/21
10/28/21
02/14/24
11/10/21
11/29/21
04/05/24
04/09/24
04/09/24
04/10/24
04/16/24
04/22/24
11/17/21
12/27/23
12/12/23
12/14/23
12/18/23
03/26/24
04/11/24
04/15/24
US Treasury Note
FHLMC MTN
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
FHLMC MTN
498,578.13
496,400.00-82.97
1.53
-
82.97
250,000.00
-
100,000.00
-
249,998.47
-
100,000.00
-
250,000.00
399,960.00
500,000.00Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
FNMA
200,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
402,461.69
500,000.00
500,000.00
199,280.47
299,998.33
100,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
99,997.51
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
450,381.89
200,000.00
399,819.56
300,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
500,000.00
448,667.30
500,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
401,804.22
500,000.00
500,000.00
199,415.41
299,998.33
100,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
99,998.65
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
450,355.40
200,000.00
399,855.89
300,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
500,000.00
448,984.23
500,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
401,804.22
-
(657.47)
134.94
500,000.00
500,000.00----
200,000
300,000
100,000
200,000
200,000
100,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
300,000
450,000
200,000
400,000
300,000
500,000
300,000
500,000
450,000
500,000
199,415.41
299,998.33
100,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
99,998.65
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
450,355.40
200,000.00
399,855.89
300,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
500,000.00
448,984.23
500,000.00
199,415.41
299,998.33
192,752.00
284,982.00
99,715.00
200,046.00
197,110.00
99,448.00
501,170.00
500,410.00
501,480.00
503,995.00
301,656.00
461,290.50
190,248.00
399,688.00
300,315.00
500,695.00
300,390.00
501,545.00
450,792.00
501,645.00
100,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
99,998.651.14
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
300,000.00
450,355.40
200,000.00
(26.49)
36.33 399,855.89
300,000.00
300,000.00
500,000.00
500,000.00
448,984.23
500,000.00
FHLMC MTN
FHLMC MTN
316.93
731.2615,600,000.00 15,543,486.14 15,544,217.40 1,894,938.13 1,850,000.00 15,589,155.53 13,391,318.71 2,197,836.82 15,533,423.50
Attachment A
Agenda Item
#3a
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #3a
Informational Item
1
8
3
4
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Educational Partnerships and Summer Internship Update
RECOMMENDATION
This agenda item is for informational purposes only, no action required.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
The East Valley Water District (District) developed a career Pathway Program in 2019 to
improve workforce development in the water/wastewater industry. Partnering with our
local schools can provide a much-needed source of talent to the industry. The Pathway
Program developed a partnership with the San Bernardino City Unified School District
(SBCUSD) and a non-profit organization (Tomorrow’s Talent) that specializes in
workforce development in schools. Over the past five years, The Pathway Program has
developed an environment of active learning and knowledge sharing, as well as
strengthen partnerships throughout our community. As a leader in the water and
wastewater industry, the District strives to find the best talent to enter the workforce.
The Pathway Program was re-evaluated in 2022 with the help of SBCUSD and
Tomorrow’s Talent. A revised Pathway Program was presented to the District’s Board
of Directors on March 22, 2023, that provided needed improvements to the program.
The revised program was initiated in the 2023/24 school year. Feedback from the
program partners and students showed the revised program successfully achieved its’
goals.
Two schools participated in the Pathway Program in the 2023/24 school year. The two
schools that partnered with the District were Indian Springs and San Gorgonio High
Schools. Both schools had current programs that correlated with careers in our industry.
San Gorgonio had students from their Construction Trades, Auto Shop, and Engineering
Pathways participate, and Indian Springs had their Machining Pathway students
participate.
The students in the Pathway Program were very engaged in various aspects of water
and wastewater careers. Throughout the year students participated in experiences with
our staff through field trips, school-site equipment demonstrations, classroom speakers,
and career readiness activities such as resume preparation and mock interviews.
Agenda Item
#3a
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #3a
Informational Item
1
8
3
4
All these experiences enlightened the students to see the various career opportunities
available to them in their community and helped those that were interested in the
Summer Internship prepare for their interview.
The District solicitated a paid summer internship program to students that participated
in the Pathway Program. Over 30 students applied for internships. District staff and the
teachers reviewed all applications, and the interview pool was narrowed down to 16
students. The students were interviewed, and the top 5 candidates were selected.
The summer internship program allowed students to see a wide range of career
opportunities in the water/wastewater industry, many of which do not require a college
degree. Three students were assigned to the Operations rotational internship, where
they had hands-on work experience throughout all departments in Operations. One
student was assigned to a Fleet Mechanic internship, and one was assigned to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The internship concluded with the interns giving a presentation to the Leadership Team
on their experience.
In addition to the Pathway and Internship Programs, staff has engaged in several other
educational partnerships throughout the past year including:
California State University San Bernardino’s Cyber Security Program
California State University San Bernardino’s Watershed Fellowship Program
Entrepreneur High School’s Externship Program and other student experiences
Arroyo Valley High School’s Mentor Night Program
District staff will continue to place a strong focus on outreach and providing students
with experiences to learn about the water and wastewater industry. The District has
started working with Indian Springs and San Gorgonio High Schools on the 2024/25
school year Pathway program.
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
I - Implement Effective Solutions Through Visionary Leadership
C. Strengthen Regional, State and National Partnerships
III - Deliver Public Service With Purpose While Embracing Continuous Growth
D. Embrace an Environment of Active Learning and Knowledge Sharing Through
State-of-the-Art Data Management
Agenda Item
#3a
October 23, 20243
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #3a
Informational Item
1
8
3
4
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by the Human Resources Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
Kerrie Bryan
Director of Administrative Services
ATTACHMENTS
EVWD Educational Update Presentation
Tomorrow’s Talent Presentation
Kerrie Bryan, Director of Administrative Services
October 23, 2024
EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS &
SUMMER INTERNSHIP UPDATE
2
•Targeted local schools with related pathways
•Indian Springs & San Gorgonio High School
•Removed dual-enrollment requirement
•Heavier focus on juniors and seniors
•Equipment demos held on school campus
•Moved to a summer internship model
SUCCESSFUL RESTRUCTURING OF THE WATER
AND WASTERWATER EDUCATIONAL PATHWAY
3
•Fieldtrips to Headquarters and the
Sterling Natural Resource Center
•Hands-on equipment demos
•Classroom speakers
•Mentoring
•Career readiness training
•Resume, cover letter, and
employment applications
•Interview prep
•Summer internship
PATHWAY EXPERIENCES
FOR STUDENTS
4
FUTURE PATHWAY EXPANSION
•Indian Springs High School
•New Principal – looking
forward to new
experiences
•Lunch with a professional
•Exposure to
administrative and
customer service careers
•Increase number of
internship spots available
5
SUMMER INTERNSHIP 2024
•Open to Pathway students from
Indian Springs High School and San
Gorgonio High School
•35 students applied; 16 interviewed
•Top 5 selected for internship
•Up to 80 paid internship hours over
four weeks
•June 3rd –26th at the Sterling Natural
Resource Center
•Hands-on work experiences and
career readiness skills
6
•New-hire orientation then separated
into assignments
•Operations Rotational Internship
•Wastewater Treatment Plant
Internship
•Fleet Mechanic Internship
•Water Conservation
•Project Wet
•Presentation Preparation
•PowerPoint training
•Presentation practice
INTERNSHIP ASSIGNMENTS
7
•Presentation to the District’s Leadership
Team
•Self-introduction
•What was learned
•Favorite aspect of the internship
•Take -a-ways for future
•Students provided engaging
presentations
•Internship ended with a luncheon
celebration, certificate of completion,
and intern “thank you” gift
•Requests from students to continue as
volunteers during the summer break
INTERNSHIP COMPLETION
8
•CSUSB Cyber Security Program
•Current IT/Cyber Intern promoted to Part-Time IT Technician
•CSUSB Watershed Fellows
•Entrepreneur High School
•Attended and presented at career expos, classroom speakers, etc.
•Student externship Spring 2024
•Arroyo Valley High School Mentor Nights
•Various career fairs, career days, and other activities at local schools
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
9
•Continue Pathway partnerships with Indian Springs and San Gorgonio High Schools
•Offer District HQ and SNRC field trips/tours to students
•Onsite Equipment Demonstrations
•Classroom speakers
•Water industry related class projects
•Job shadowing and mentoring
•Career readiness training
Prepare for the 2025 Summer Internship Program!
NEXT STEPS FOR 2024/25 SCHOOL YEAR
QUESTIONS
Agenda Item
#4a
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4a
Discussion Item
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Water Efficiency Support Services Agreements
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager/CEO to enter into an
agreement with WaterWise Consulting Inc. and GreenMedia Creations Inc. for a
contract not-to-exceed $625,000 each.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
The recent adoption of the “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” regulation by
the State Water Resources Control Board in July 2024, mandates East Valley Water
District (District) to implement water conservation measures that will secure long-term
water use efficiency. To assist with implementation of the water conservation measures
and to provide water efficiency resources to the community, an open and competitive
Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to identify qualified contractors who would
support the District’s efforts in meeting the prescribed water saving targets.
Thirty-four vendors were notified of this opportunity to work with the District with five
organizations downloading the bid package. A total of three proposals were received
and reviewed by an evaluation committee in response to the RFP. The evaluation panel
selected WaterWise Consulting, Inc. and GreenMedia Creations, Inc. Both contractors
demonstrated their ability to meet the District’s needs and have the necessary
qualifications to assist with implementation of programs such as the irrigation retrofit
program, water home surveys, and community workshops.
On October 10, 2024, the Legislative and Public Outreach Committee recommended this
item be brought to the Board of Directors for consideration. With approval from the
Board, the District seeks to enter into a $125,000 one-year base contract with four one-
year optional extensions with WaterWise Consulting, Inc. and GreenMedia Creations,
Inc. Each extension will allow $125,000 for a total not-to-exceed contract value of
$625,000. Consultants will be contracted on a purchase order basis for specific projects
and tasks identified by District’s needs as outlined in the proposal’s scope.
Approval of contract agreements provides the District ability to continue implementation
of conservation programs, promoting water efficiency, and meeting state required water
use efficiency objectives.
Agenda Item
#4a
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4a
Discussion Item
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
I - Implement Effective Solutions Through Visionary Leadership
A. Identify Opportunities to Optimize Natural Resources
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by Public Affairs and Administration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Work under the contracts
will be issued by task order and is included in the annual budget.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
William Ringland
Public Affairs/Conservation Manager
ATTACHMENTS
GreenMedia Creations Inc. Draft Contract
WaterWise Consulting Inc. Draft Contract
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
AGREEMENT FOR WATER EFFICIENCY SUPPORT
SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT 2024.13 is made this 23 day of October 2024, by and between the EAST
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District organized and operating pursuant to California
Water Code Section 30000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the “DISTRICT”), and WaterWise
Consulting, Inc., a contractor (hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires to contract with CONTRACTOR to provide services for
water efficiency support (hereinafter referred to as “Project”); and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is willing to contract with the DISTRICT to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR holds itself as duly licensed, qualified, and capable of performing
said services; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement establishes the terms and conditions for the DISTRICT to retain
CONTRACTOR to provide the services described herein for the Project.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the faithful performance of the terms and conditions
set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
ENGAGEMENT OF CONTRACTOR
AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
1.1 ENGAGEMENT: The DISTRICT hereby engages CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR hereby
accepts the engagement, to perform certain services described in Section 2.1 of this Agreement for
the term set forth in Section 5.1 of this Agreement.
1.2 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED: Authorization for CONTRACTOR to proceed with all or a
portion of the work described in Section 2.1 of this Agreement will be granted in writing by the
DISTRICT as soon as both parties sign the Agreement and all applicable insurance and other security
documents required pursuant to Section 6.3 of this Agreement are received and approved by the
2
DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall not proceed with said work until so authorized by the DISTRICT and
shall commence work immediately upon receipt of the Notice to Proceed.
1.3 NO EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP: CONTRACTOR shall perform the services provided for herein
as an independent CONTRACTOR, and not as an employee of the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR is not to be
considered an agent or employee of the DISTRICT for any purpose and shall not be entitled to
participate in any pension plans, insurance coverage, bonus, stock, or similar benefits that the
DISTRICT provides for its employees. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify the DISTRICT for any tax,
retirement contribution, social security, overtime payment, or workers’ compensation payment,
which the DISTRICT may be required to make on behalf of CONTRACTOR or any employee of
CONTRACTOR for work performed under this Agreement.
ARTICLE II
SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR
2.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES: The scope of services to be performed by the CONTRACTOR
under this Agreement are described in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference (“Proposal”), and shall, where not specifically addressed,
include all related services ordinarily provided by the CONTRACTOR under same or similar
circumstances and/or otherwise necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.3 of this
Agreement. In case of conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of the
Scope of Work, this Agreement shall govern.
2.2 HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS: The DISTRICT is a public entity in the State of
California and is subject to the provisions of the Government Code and the Labor Code of the State.
It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of law applicable to public contracts are a part of this
Agreement to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with by CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code relating to
working hours and the employment of apprentices on public works projects. CONTRACTOR shall, as
a penalty to the DISTRICT, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this
Agreement by CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor, for each calendar day during which such worker
is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one
calendar week, unless such worker received compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours
at not less than 1½ times the basic rate of pay.
3
ARTICLE III
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT AND OF CONTRACTOR
3.1 DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT: The DISTRICT, without cost to CONTRACTOR, will provide all
pertinent information necessary for CONTRACTOR’S performance of its obligations under this
Agreement that is reasonably available to the DISTRICT unless otherwise specified in the Proposal,
in which case the CONTRACTOR is to acquire such information. The DISTRICT does not guarantee or
ensure the accuracy of any reports, information, and/or data so provided. To the extent that any
reports, information, and/or other data so provided was supplied to the DISTRICT by persons who
are not employees of the DISTRICT, any liability resulting from inaccuracies and/or omissions
contained in said information shall be limited to liability on behalf of the party who prepared the
information for the DISTRICT.
3.2 REPRESENTATIVE OF DISTRICT: The DISTRICT will designate William Ringland,
Conservation/Public Affairs Manager as the person to act as the DISTRICT's representative with
respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person will have complete authority
to transmit instructions, receive information, and interpret and define the DISTRICT's policies and
decisions pertinent to the work. In the event the DISTRICT wishes to make a change in the DISTRICT's
representative, the DISTRICT shall notify the CONTRACTOR of the change in writing.
3.3 DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR shall perform the Project work in such a manner
as to fully comply with all applicable professional standards of care, including professional quality,
technical accuracy, timely completion, and other services furnished and/or work undertaken by
CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall cause all work and deliverables
to conform to all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
3.4 APPROVAL OF WORK: The DISTRICT's approval of work or materials furnished hereunder
shall not in any way relieve CONTRACTOR of responsibility for the technical adequacy of its work.
Neither the DISTRICT's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any of the services shall
be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action
arising out of the performance of this Agreement. Where approval by the DISTRICT is indicated in
this Agreement, it is understood to be conceptual approval only and does not relieve the
CONTRACTOR of responsibility for complying with all laws, codes, industry standards, and liability
for damages caused by negligent acts, errors, omissions, noncompliance with industry standards, or
the willful misconduct of the CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors. CONTRACTOR’S obligation to
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the DISTRICT, and its directors, officers, employees and agents
as set forth in Section 6.9 of this Agreement also applies to the actions or omissions of the
CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors as set forth above in this paragraph.
4
3.5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall not, without
the prior written consent of District, engage in any employment or professional activities which are
contrary or inimical to the interests of the District and the implementation of the Project which is
the subject of this agreement.
ARTICLE IV
PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR
4.1 PAYMENT: The DISTRICT will pay CONTRACTOR for work performed under this
Agreement, which work can be verified by the DISTRICT, on the basis of the following: CONTRACTOR
shall exercise its good faith best efforts to facilitate a full and clear definition of the scope of all
assigned work so that the amount set forth in Section 4.3 of this Agreement will cover all tasks
necessary to complete the work. The amount set forth in Section 4.3 of this Agreement is the
maximum compensation to which CONTRACTOR may be entitled for the performance of services to
complete the work for the Project, unless the Scope of Work or time to complete the work is changed
by the DISTRICT in writing in advance of the work to be performed there under. Adjustments in the
total payment amount shall only be allowed pursuant to Section 6.4 of this Agreement. In no event
shall CONTRACTOR be entitled to compensation greater than the amount set forth in Section 4.3 of
this Agreement where changes in the Scope of Work or the time for performance are necessitated by
the negligence of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor performing work on the Project.
4.2 PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR: Payment will be made by the DISTRICT within thirty (30)
calendar days after receipt of an invoice from CONTRACTOR, provided that all invoices are complete,
and product and services are determined to be of sufficient quality by the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR
shall invoice DISTRICT for services performed under this Agreement. In the event that a payment
dispute arises between the parties, CONTRACTOR shall provide to the DISTRICT full and complete
access to CONTRACTOR'S labor cost records and other direct cost data, and copies thereof if
requested by the DISTRICT.
4.3 ESTIMATED CHARGES: The total charges for all work under this Agreement are 125,000
for each year with a total not-to-exceed of $625,000. The total estimated charges
stated herein constitute the total amount agreed to herein.
4.4 BILLING: CONSULTANT shall submit invoice stating services performed and the amount
due for services rendered.
5
ARTICLE V
COMPLETION SCHEDULE
5.1 TASK SCHEDULE: The work is anticipated to be completed as requested by the
DISTRICT, when reasonable. This agreement shall be valid for one year with four one-year
extensions.
5.2 TIME OF ESSENCE: CONTRACTOR shall perform all services required by this Agreement
in a prompt, timely, and professional manner in accordance with the above schedule. Time is of
the essence in this Agreement.
ARTICLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS: CONTRACTOR shall at all times
observe all applicable provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations including, but not
limited to, those related to Equal Opportunity Employment.
6.2 SUBCONTRACTORS AND OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS: No subcontract shall be awarded by
CONTRACTOR if not identified as a subcontractor in its Proposal unless prior written approval is
obtained from the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment to subcontractors used
by them to perform the services under this Agreement. If CONTRACTOR subcontracts any of the work
to be performed, CONTRACTOR shall be as fully responsible to the DISTRICT for the performance of
the work, including errors and omissions of CONTRACTOR’S subcontractors and of the persons
employed by the subcontractor, as CONTRACTOR is for the acts and omissions of persons directly
employed by the CONTRACTOR. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any contractual
relationship between any subcontractor of CONTRACTOR and the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall bind
every subcontractor and every subcontractor of a subcontractor to the terms of this Agreement that
are applicable to CONTRACTOR’S work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in
question and approved in writing by the DISTRICT.
6.3 INSURANCE: CONTRACTOR shall secure and maintain in full force and effect, until the
satisfactory completion and acceptance of the Project by DISTRICT, such insurance as will protect it
and the DISTRICT in such a manner and in such amounts as set forth below. The premiums for said
insurance coverage shall be paid by the CONTRACTOR. The failure to comply with these insurance
6
requirements may constitute a material breach of this Agreement, at the sole discretion of the
DISTRICT.
(a) Certificates of Insurance: Prior to commencing services under this Agreement, and in
any event no later than ten (10) calendar days after execution of this Agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall furnish DISTRICT with Certificates of Insurance and endorsements
verifying the insurance coverage required by this Agreement is in full force and effect.
The DISTRICT reserves the right to require complete and accurate copies of all insurance
policies required under this Agreement.
(b) Required Provisions: The insurance policies required by this Agreement shall include
the following provisions or have them incorporated by endorsement(s):
(1) Primary Coverage: The insurance policies provided by CONTRACTOR shall be
primary insurance and any self-insured retention and/or insurance carried by or
available to the DISTRICT or its employees shall be excess and non-contributory
coverage so that any self-insured retention and/or insurance carried by or
available to the DISTRICT shall not contribute to any loss or expense under
CONTRACTOR’S insurance.
(2) Additional Insured: The policies of insurance provided by CONTRACTOR, except
Workers' Compensation and Professional Liability, shall include as additional
insureds: the DISTRICT, its directors, officers, employees, and agents when
acting in their capacity with the District as such in conjunction with the
performance of this Agreement. Such policies shall contain a "severability of
interests" provision, also known as "Cross liability" or "separation of insured".
(3) Cancellation: Each certificate of insurance and insurance policy shall provide
that the policy may not be non-renewed, canceled (for reasons other than non-
7
payment of premium) or materially changed without advance written to the
DISTRICT, as required by state law.
(4) Waiver of Subrogation: The insurance policies provided by CONTRACTOR shall
contain a waiver of subrogation against DISTRICT, its directors, officers,
employees and agents for any claims arising out of the services performed under
this Agreement by CONTRACTOR.
(5) Claim Reporting: CONTRACTOR shall not fail to comply with the claim reporting
provisions or cause any breach of a policy condition or warranty of the insurance
policies required by this Agreement that would affect the coverage afforded
under the policies to the DISTRICT.
(6) Deductible/Retention: If the insurance policies provided by CONTRACTOR
contain deductibles or self-insured retentions, any such deductible or self-
insured retention shall not be applicable with respect to the coverage provided
to DISTRICT under such policies. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for any
such deductible or self-insured retention and the DISTRICT, in its sole discretion,
may require CONTRACTOR to secure the payment of any such deductible or self-
insured retention by a surety bond or an irrevocable and unconditional letter of
credit.
(7) CONTRACTOR’S Subcontractors: CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as
additional insureds under the insurance policies required by this Agreement to
the same extent as the DISTRICT or shall furnish separate certificates of
insurance and policy endorsements for each subcontractor verifying that the
insurance for each subcontractor complies with the same insurance requirements
applicable to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement.
(c) Insurance Company Requirements: CONTRACTOR shall provide insurance coverage
through insurers that have at least an "A" Financial Strength Rating and a "VII" Financial
Size Category in accordance with the current ratings by the A. M. Best Company, Inc.
as published in Best's Key Rating Guide or on said company’s web site. In addition, any
and all insurers must be admitted and authorized to conduct business in the State of
California and be a participant in the California Insurance Guaranty Association, as
evidenced by a listing in the appropriate publication of the California Department of
8
Insurance.
(d) Policy Requirements: The insurance required under this Agreement shall meet or
exceed the minimum requirements as set forth below:
(1) Workers' Compensation: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Workers' Compensation
insurance as required by law in the State of California to cover CONTRACTOR’S
obligations as imposed by federal and state law having jurisdiction over
CONTRACTOR’S employees and Employers' Liability insurance, including disease
coverage, of not less than $1,000,000.
(2) General Liability: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Comprehensive General Liability
insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence
or claim and $1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall include, but not be limited
to, coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, products,
completed operations and blanket contractual to cover, but not be limited to,
the liability assumed under the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. In
the event the Comprehensive General Liability insurance policy is written on a
"claims made" basis, coverage shall extend for two years after the satisfactory
completion and acceptance of the Project by DISTRICT.
(3) Automobile Liability: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Commercial Automobile
Liability insurance with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property
damage of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence for any owned, hired, or
non-owned vehicles.
(4) Property Coverage – Valuable Papers: Property coverage on an all-risk,
replacement cost form with Valuable Papers insurance sufficient to assure the
restoration of any documents, memoranda, reports, plans or other similar data,
whether in hard copy or electronic form, relating to the services provided by
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement with an limit of $25,000.
6.4 CHANGES IN SCOPE OR TIME: If the DISTRICT request a change in the proposal or time
of completion by either adding to or deleting from the original proposal or time of completion, an
equitable adjustment shall be made and this Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly.
CONTRACTOR must assert any claim for adjustment under this clause in writing within thirty-(30)
calendar days from the date of receipt from CONTRACTOR of the notification of change unless the
DISTRICT grants a further period of time before the date of final payment under this agreement.
9
6.5 NOTICES: All notices to either party by the other shall be made in writing and delivered
or mailed to such party at their respective addresses as follows, or to other such address as either
party may designate, and said notices shall be deemed to have been made when delivered or, if
mailed, five (5) days after mailing.
To DISTRICT: East Valley Water District
25318 5th st
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Attn: William Ringland,
Conservation/Public Affairs Manager
To CONTRACTOR: WaterWise Consulting, Inc.
1751 s. Grand Ave.
Glendora, CA 91740
Attn: Ajay Dhawan
President
6.6 CONTRACTOR'S ASSIGNED PERSONNEL: CONTRACTOR designates Ajay Dhawan to have
immediate responsibility for the performance of the work and for all matters relating to performance
under this Agreement. Substitution of any assigned personnel shall require the prior written approval
of the DISTRICT. If the DISTRICT determines that a proposed substitution is not acceptable, then, at
the request of the DISTRICT, CONTRACTOR shall substitute with a person acceptable to the DISTRICT.
6.7 TERMINATION:
(a) If the engagement of CONTRACTOR is not extended by the mutual written consent of
the DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR, then this Agreement shall expire as provided in Section
5.1 of this Agreement.
(b) Notwithstanding the above, the DISTRICT may terminate this Agreement or abandon any
portion of the Project by giving ten (10) days written notice
thereof to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR may terminate its obligation to
provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days
written notice only in the event of substantial failure by the DISTRICT to
perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of
10
the CONTRACTOR.
(c) In the event of termination of this Agreement or abandonment of any portion of the
Project, the DISTRICT shall be immediately given title to all original drawings and other
documents developed for the Project, and the sole right and remedy of CONTRACTOR
shall be to receive payment for all amounts due and not previously paid to CONTRACTOR
for services completed or in progress in accordance with the Agreement prior to such
date of termination. If termination occurs prior to completion of any task for which
payment has not been made, the fee for services performed during such task shall be
based on an amount mutually agreed to by the DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR. Such
payments available to the CONTRACTOR under this paragraph shall not include costs
related to lost profit associated with the expected completion of the work or other such
payments relating to the benefit of this Agreement.
6.8 ATTORNEYS’ FEES: In the event that either the DISTRICT or CONTRACTOR brings an
action or proceeding for damages for an alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, to
interpret this Agreement or determine the rights of and duties of either party in relation thereto,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as part of such action or proceeding all litigation,
arbitration, mediation and collection expenses, including witness fees, court costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees. Such fees shall be determined by the Court in such litigation or in a separate action
brought for that purpose. Mediation will be attempted if both parties mutually agree before, during,
or after any such action or proceeding has begun.
6.9 INDEMNITY:
(a) CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, including its directors,
officers, employees and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, liabilities, losses, damages,
costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, awards, fines, settlements, judgments or losses of
whatever nature, character, and description, with respect to or arising out of the
work to be performed under this Agreement, including without limitation, any and all
such claims, demands, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, awards, fines, settlements, judgments or
losses of whatever nature, character, and description, arising by reason of death or
bodily injury to one or more persons, including the employees of CONTRACTOR; injury
11
to property of any kind, including loss of use; or economic damages of any kind,
caused by, or arising out of breach of this Agreement, patent or copyright
infringement, any alleged or actual act or omission, regardless of whether such act or
omission is active or passive, by CONTRACTOR, any of CONTRACTOR’S subcontractors
or DISTRICT, including their respective directors, officers, employees, agents and
assigns, excepting only such matters arising from the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the DISTRICT.
(b) It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the defense, indemnity and hold
harmless obligation of CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be as broad and
inclusive as may be allowed under California Civil Code §§ 2778 through 2784.5, or
other similar state or federal law.
6.10 SAFETY: CONTRACTOR shall perform the work in full compliance with applicable State
and Federal safety requirements including, but not limited to, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration requirements.
(a) CONTRACTOR shall take all precautions necessary for the safety of, and prevention of
damage to, property on or adjacent to the Project site, and for the safety of, and
prevention of injury to, persons, including DISTRICT’s employees, CONTRACTOR’S
employees, and third persons. All work shall be performed entirely at CONTRACTOR'S
risk. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the insurance requirements set forth in Section
6.3 of this Agreement.
(b) CONTRACTOR shall also furnish the DISTRICT with a copy of any injury prevention
program established for the CONTRACTOR’S employees pursuant to Labor Code Section
6401.7, including any necessary documentation regarding implementation of the
program. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that its employees have been trained in the
program, and procedures are in place to train employees whenever new substances,
processes, procedures, or equipment are introduced. CONTRACTOR shall demonstrate
compliance with Labor Code Section 6401.7 by maintaining a copy of its Injury and
Illness Prevention Plan at the Project site and making it available to the DISTRICT.
EXAMINATION OF RECORDS: All original drawings, specifications, reports, calculations, 6.11
and other documents or electronic data developed by CONTRACTOR for the Project shall be furnished
12
to and become the property of the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR agrees that the DISTRICT will have access
to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of any and
all of the transactions relating to this Agreement.
6.12 ASSIGNMENT: Neither party shall sign or transfer its interest in this
Agreement without written consent of the other party. All terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Agreement shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto,
and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
6.13 GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be construed as if it was jointly
prepared by both parties hereto, and any uncertainty or ambiguity contained herein
shall not be interpreted against the party drafting same. This Agreement shall be
enforced and governed by the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought
to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a
state court situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, or in a federal
court with in rem jurisdiction over the Project.
6.14 HEADINGS: Article and Section headings in this Agreement are for
convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the
terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement.
6.15 PARTIAL INVALIDITY: If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this
Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and
effect, and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby.
6.16 EFFECT OF DISTRICT’S WAIVER: Any failure by the DISTRICT to enforce
any provision of this Agreement, or any waiver thereof by the DISTRICT, shall not
constitute a waiver of its right to enforce subsequent violations of the same or any
other terms or conditions herein.
6.17 AUTHORITY: The individuals executing this Agreement represent and
warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to sign this Agreement on behalf
of and to so bind their respective legal entities.
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CONTRACTOR DISTRICT
By:
By:
Ajay Dhawan Michael Moore
President General Manager/CEO
WaterWise Consulting, Inc. East Valley Water District
Exhibit A
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
AGREEMENT FOR WATER EFFICIENCY SUPPORT
SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT 2024.14 is made this 23 day of October 2024, by and between the EAST
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District organized and operating pursuant to California
Water Code Section 30000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the “DISTRICT”), and GreenMedia
Creations, Inc. a contractor (hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires to contract with CONTRACTOR to provide services for
water efficiency support (hereinafter referred to as “Project”); and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is willing to contract with the DISTRICT to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR holds itself as duly licensed, qualified, and capable of performing
said services; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement establishes the terms and conditions for the DISTRICT to retain
CONTRACTOR to provide the services described herein for the Project.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the faithful performance of the terms and conditions
set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
ENGAGEMENT OF CONTRACTOR
AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
1.1 ENGAGEMENT: The DISTRICT hereby engages CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR hereby
accepts the engagement, to perform certain services described in Section 2.1 of this Agreement for
the term set forth in Section 5.1 of this Agreement.
1.2 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED: Authorization for CONTRACTOR to proceed with all or a
portion of the work described in Section 2.1 of this Agreement will be granted in writing by the
DISTRICT as soon as both parties sign the Agreement and all applicable insurance and other security
documents required pursuant to Section 6.3 of this Agreement are received and approved by the
2
DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall not proceed with said work until so authorized by the DISTRICT and
shall commence work immediately upon receipt of the Notice to Proceed.
1.3 NO EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP: CONTRACTOR shall perform the services provided for herein
as an independent CONTRACTOR, and not as an employee of the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR is not to be
considered an agent or employee of the DISTRICT for any purpose and shall not be entitled to
participate in any pension plans, insurance coverage, bonus, stock, or similar benefits that the
DISTRICT provides for its employees. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify the DISTRICT for any tax,
retirement contribution, social security, overtime payment, or workers’ compensation payment,
which the DISTRICT may be required to make on behalf of CONTRACTOR or any employee of
CONTRACTOR for work performed under this Agreement.
ARTICLE II
SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR
2.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES: The scope of services to be performed by the CONTRACTOR
under this Agreement are described in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference (“Proposal”), and shall, where not specifically addressed,
include all related services ordinarily provided by the CONTRACTOR under same or similar
circumstances and/or otherwise necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.3 of this
Agreement. In case of conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of the
Scope of Work, this Agreement shall govern.
2.2 HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS: The DISTRICT is a public entity in the State of
California and is subject to the provisions of the Government Code and the Labor Code of the State.
It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of law applicable to public contracts are a part of this
Agreement to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with by CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code relating to
working hours and the employment of apprentices on public works projects. CONTRACTOR shall, as
a penalty to the DISTRICT, forfeit $25.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this
Agreement by CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor, for each calendar day during which such worker
is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one
calendar week, unless such worker received compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours
at not less than 1½ times the basic rate of pay.
3
ARTICLE III
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT AND OF CONTRACTOR
3.1 DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT: The DISTRICT, without cost to CONTRACTOR, will provide all
pertinent information necessary for CONTRACTOR’S performance of its obligations under this
Agreement that is reasonably available to the DISTRICT unless otherwise specified in the Proposal,
in which case the CONTRACTOR is to acquire such information. The DISTRICT does not guarantee or
ensure the accuracy of any reports, information, and/or data so provided. To the extent that any
reports, information, and/or other data so provided was supplied to the DISTRICT by persons who
are not employees of the DISTRICT, any liability resulting from inaccuracies and/or omissions
contained in said information shall be limited to liability on behalf of the party who prepared the
information for the DISTRICT.
3.2 REPRESENTATIVE OF DISTRICT: The DISTRICT will designate William Ringland,
Conservation/Public Affairs Manager as the person to act as the DISTRICT's representative with
respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person will have complete authority
to transmit instructions, receive information, and interpret and define the DISTRICT's policies and
decisions pertinent to the work. In the event the DISTRICT wishes to make a change in the DISTRICT's
representative, the DISTRICT shall notify the CONTRACTOR of the change in writing.
3.3 DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR shall perform the Project work in such a manner
as to fully comply with all applicable professional standards of care, including professional quality,
technical accuracy, timely completion, and other services furnished and/or work undertaken by
CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall cause all work and deliverables
to conform to all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
3.4 APPROVAL OF WORK: The DISTRICT's approval of work or materials furnished hereunder
shall not in any way relieve CONTRACTOR of responsibility for the technical adequacy of its work.
Neither the DISTRICT's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for any of the services shall
be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action
arising out of the performance of this Agreement. Where approval by the DISTRICT is indicated in
this Agreement, it is understood to be conceptual approval only and does not relieve the
CONTRACTOR of responsibility for complying with all laws, codes, industry standards, and liability
for damages caused by negligent acts, errors, omissions, noncompliance with industry standards, or
the willful misconduct of the CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors. CONTRACTOR’S obligation to
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the DISTRICT, and its directors, officers, employees and agents
as set forth in Section 6.9 of this Agreement also applies to the actions or omissions of the
CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors as set forth above in this paragraph.
4
3.5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall not, without
the prior written consent of District, engage in any employment or professional activities which are
contrary or inimical to the interests of the District and the implementation of the Project which is
the subject of this agreement.
ARTICLE IV
PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR
4.1 PAYMENT: The DISTRICT will pay CONTRACTOR for work performed under this
Agreement, which work can be verified by the DISTRICT, on the basis of the following: CONTRACTOR
shall exercise its good faith best efforts to facilitate a full and clear definition of the scope of all
assigned work so that the amount set forth in Section 4.3 of this Agreement will cover all tasks
necessary to complete the work. The amount set forth in Section 4.3 of this Agreement is the
maximum compensation to which CONTRACTOR may be entitled for the performance of services to
complete the work for the Project, unless the Scope of Work or time to complete the work is changed
by the DISTRICT in writing in advance of the work to be performed there under. Adjustments in the
total payment amount shall only be allowed pursuant to Section 6.4 of this Agreement. In no event
shall CONTRACTOR be entitled to compensation greater than the amount set forth in Section 4.3 of
this Agreement where changes in the Scope of Work or the time for performance are necessitated by
the negligence of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor performing work on the Project.
4.2 PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR: Payment will be made by the DISTRICT within thirty (30)
calendar days after receipt of an invoice from CONTRACTOR, provided that all invoices are complete,
and product and services are determined to be of sufficient quality by the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR
shall invoice DISTRICT for services performed under this Agreement. In the event that a payment
dispute arises between the parties, CONTRACTOR shall provide to the DISTRICT full and complete
access to CONTRACTOR'S labor cost records and other direct cost data, and copies thereof if
requested by the DISTRICT.
4.3 ESTIMATED CHARGES: The total charges for all work under this Agreement are
$125,000 for each year with a total not-to-exceed of $625,000. The total estimated
charges stated herein constitute the total amount agreed to herein.
4.4 BILLING: CONSULTANT shall submit invoice stating services performed and the amount
due for services rendered.
5
ARTICLE V
COMPLETION SCHEDULE
5.1 TASK SCHEDULE: The work is anticipated to be completed as requested by the
DISTRICT, when reasonable. This agreement shall be valid for one year with four one-year
extensions.
5.2 TIME OF ESSENCE: CONTRACTOR shall perform all services required by this Agreement
in a prompt, timely, and professional manner in accordance with the above schedule. Time is of
the essence in this Agreement.
ARTICLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS: CONTRACTOR shall at all times
observe all applicable provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations including, but not
limited to, those related to Equal Opportunity Employment.
6.2 SUBCONTRACTORS AND OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS: No subcontract shall be awarded by
CONTRACTOR if not identified as a subcontractor in its Proposal unless prior written approval is
obtained from the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment to subcontractors used
by them to perform the services under this Agreement. If CONTRACTOR subcontracts any of the work
to be performed, CONTRACTOR shall be as fully responsible to the DISTRICT for the performance of
the work, including errors and omissions of CONTRACTOR’S subcontractors and of the persons
employed by the subcontractor, as CONTRACTOR is for the acts and omissions of persons directly
employed by the CONTRACTOR. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any contractual
relationship between any subcontractor of CONTRACTOR and the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR shall bind
every subcontractor and every subcontractor of a subcontractor to the terms of this Agreement that
are applicable to CONTRACTOR’S work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in
question and approved in writing by the DISTRICT.
6.3 INSURANCE: CONTRACTOR shall secure and maintain in full force and effect, until the
satisfactory completion and acceptance of the Project by DISTRICT, such insurance as will protect it
and the DISTRICT in such a manner and in such amounts as set forth below. The premiums for said
insurance coverage shall be paid by the CONTRACTOR. The failure to comply with these insurance
6
requirements may constitute a material breach of this Agreement, at the sole discretion of the
DISTRICT.
(a) Certificates of Insurance: Prior to commencing services under this Agreement, and in
any event no later than ten (10) calendar days after execution of this Agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall furnish DISTRICT with Certificates of Insurance and endorsements
verifying the insurance coverage required by this Agreement is in full force and effect.
The DISTRICT reserves the right to require complete and accurate copies of all insurance
policies required under this Agreement.
(b) Required Provisions: The insurance policies required by this Agreement shall include
the following provisions or have them incorporated by endorsement(s):
(1) Primary Coverage: The insurance policies provided by CONTRACTOR shall be
primary insurance and any self-insured retention and/or insurance carried by or
available to the DISTRICT or its employees shall be excess and non-contributory
coverage so that any self-insured retention and/or insurance carried by or
available to the DISTRICT shall not contribute to any loss or expense under
CONTRACTOR’S insurance.
(2) Additional Insured: The policies of insurance provided by CONTRACTOR, except
Workers' Compensation and Professional Liability, shall include as additional
insureds: the DISTRICT, its directors, officers, employees, and agents when
acting in their capacity with the District as such in conjunction with the
performance of this Agreement. Such policies shall contain a "severability of
interests" provision, also known as "Cross liability" or "separation of insured".
(3) Cancellation: Each certificate of insurance and insurance policy shall provide
that the policy may not be non-renewed, canceled (for reasons other than non-
7
payment of premium) or materially changed without advance written to the
DISTRICT, as required by state law.
(4) Waiver of Subrogation: The insurance policies provided by CONTRACTOR shall
contain a waiver of subrogation against DISTRICT, its directors, officers,
employees and agents for any claims arising out of the services performed under
this Agreement by CONTRACTOR.
(5) Claim Reporting: CONTRACTOR shall not fail to comply with the claim reporting
provisions or cause any breach of a policy condition or warranty of the insurance
policies required by this Agreement that would affect the coverage afforded
under the policies to the DISTRICT.
(6) Deductible/Retention: If the insurance policies provided by CONTRACTOR
contain deductibles or self-insured retentions, any such deductible or self-
insured retention shall not be applicable with respect to the coverage provided
to DISTRICT under such policies. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for any
such deductible or self-insured retention and the DISTRICT, in its sole discretion,
may require CONTRACTOR to secure the payment of any such deductible or self-
insured retention by a surety bond or an irrevocable and unconditional letter of
credit.
(7) CONTRACTOR’S Subcontractors: CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as
additional insureds under the insurance policies required by this Agreement to
the same extent as the DISTRICT or shall furnish separate certificates of
insurance and policy endorsements for each subcontractor verifying that the
insurance for each subcontractor complies with the same insurance requirements
applicable to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement.
(c) Insurance Company Requirements: CONTRACTOR shall provide insurance coverage
through insurers that have at least an "A" Financial Strength Rating and a "VII" Financial
Size Category in accordance with the current ratings by the A. M. Best Company, Inc.
as published in Best's Key Rating Guide or on said company’s web site. In addition, any
and all insurers must be admitted and authorized to conduct business in the State of
California and be a participant in the California Insurance Guaranty Association, as
evidenced by a listing in the appropriate publication of the California Department of
8
Insurance.
(d) Policy Requirements: The insurance required under this Agreement shall meet or
exceed the minimum requirements as set forth below:
(1) Workers' Compensation: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Workers' Compensation
insurance as required by law in the State of California to cover CONTRACTOR’S
obligations as imposed by federal and state law having jurisdiction over
CONTRACTOR’S employees and Employers' Liability insurance, including disease
coverage, of not less than $1,000,000.
(2) General Liability: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Comprehensive General Liability
insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence
or claim and $1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall include, but not be limited
to, coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, products,
completed operations and blanket contractual to cover, but not be limited to,
the liability assumed under the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. In
the event the Comprehensive General Liability insurance policy is written on a
"claims made" basis, coverage shall extend for two years after the satisfactory
completion and acceptance of the Project by DISTRICT.
(3) Automobile Liability: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Commercial Automobile
Liability insurance with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property
damage of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence for any owned, hired, or
non-owned vehicles.
(4) Property Coverage – Valuable Papers: Property coverage on an all-risk,
replacement cost form with Valuable Papers insurance sufficient to assure the
restoration of any documents, memoranda, reports, plans or other similar data,
whether in hard copy or electronic form, relating to the services provided by
CONTRACTOR under this Agreement with an limit of $25,000.
6.4 CHANGES IN SCOPE OR TIME: If the DISTRICT request a change in the proposal or time
of completion by either adding to or deleting from the original proposal or time of completion, an
equitable adjustment shall be made and this Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly.
CONTRACTOR must assert any claim for adjustment under this clause in writing within thirty-(30)
calendar days from the date of receipt from CONTRACTOR of the notification of change unless the
DISTRICT grants a further period of time before the date of final payment under this agreement.
9
6.5 NOTICES: All notices to either party by the other shall be made in writing and delivered
or mailed to such party at their respective addresses as follows, or to other such address as either
party may designate, and said notices shall be deemed to have been made when delivered or, if
mailed, five (5) days after mailing.
To DISTRICT: East Valley Water District
25318 5th st
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Attn: William Ringland,
Conservation/Public Affairs Manager
To CONTRACTOR: GreenMedia Creations, Inc.
115 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200
Glendora, CA 91471
Attn: Silvia Gutierrez
President
6.6 CONTRACTOR'S ASSIGNED PERSONNEL: CONTRACTOR designates Ajay Dhawan to have
immediate responsibility for the performance of the work and for all matters relating to performance
under this Agreement. Substitution of any assigned personnel shall require the prior written approval
of the DISTRICT. If the DISTRICT determines that a proposed substitution is not acceptable, then, at
the request of the DISTRICT, CONTRACTOR shall substitute with a person acceptable to the DISTRICT.
6.7 TERMINATION:
(a) If the engagement of CONTRACTOR is not extended by the mutual written consent of
the DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR, then this Agreement shall expire as provided in Section
5.1 of this Agreement.
(b) Notwithstanding the above, the DISTRICT may terminate this Agreement or abandon any
portion of the Project by giving ten (10) days written notice
thereof to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR may terminate its obligation to
provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days
written notice only in the event of substantial failure by the DISTRICT to
perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of
10
the CONTRACTOR.
(c) In the event of termination of this Agreement or abandonment of any portion of the
Project, the DISTRICT shall be immediately given title to all original drawings and other
documents developed for the Project, and the sole right and remedy of CONTRACTOR
shall be to receive payment for all amounts due and not previously paid to CONTRACTOR
for services completed or in progress in accordance with the Agreement prior to such
date of termination. If termination occurs prior to completion of any task for which
payment has not been made, the fee for services performed during such task shall be
based on an amount mutually agreed to by the DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR. Such
payments available to the CONTRACTOR under this paragraph shall not include costs
related to lost profit associated with the expected completion of the work or other such
payments relating to the benefit of this Agreement.
6.8 ATTORNEYS’ FEES: In the event that either the DISTRICT or CONTRACTOR brings an
action or proceeding for damages for an alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, to
interpret this Agreement or determine the rights of and duties of either party in relation thereto,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as part of such action or proceeding all litigation,
arbitration, mediation and collection expenses, including witness fees, court costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees. Such fees shall be determined by the Court in such litigation or in a separate action
brought for that purpose. Mediation will be attempted if both parties mutually agree before, during,
or after any such action or proceeding has begun.
6.9 INDEMNITY:
(a) CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT, including its directors,
officers, employees and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, liabilities, losses, damages,
costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, awards, fines, settlements, judgments or losses of
whatever nature, character, and description, with respect to or arising out of the
work to be performed under this Agreement, including without limitation, any and all
such claims, demands, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, awards, fines, settlements, judgments or
losses of whatever nature, character, and description, arising by reason of death or
bodily injury to one or more persons, including the employees of CONTRACTOR; injury
11
to property of any kind, including loss of use; or economic damages of any kind,
caused by, or arising out of breach of this Agreement, patent or copyright
infringement, any alleged or actual act or omission, regardless of whether such act or
omission is active or passive, by CONTRACTOR, any of CONTRACTOR’S subcontractors
or DISTRICT, including their respective directors, officers, employees, agents and
assigns, excepting only such matters arising from the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the DISTRICT.
(b) It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the defense, indemnity and hold
harmless obligation of CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be as broad and
inclusive as may be allowed under California Civil Code §§ 2778 through 2784.5, or
other similar state or federal law.
6.10 SAFETY: CONTRACTOR shall perform the work in full compliance with applicable State
and Federal safety requirements including, but not limited to, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration requirements.
(a) CONTRACTOR shall take all precautions necessary for the safety of, and prevention of
damage to, property on or adjacent to the Project site, and for the safety of, and
prevention of injury to, persons, including DISTRICT’s employees, CONTRACTOR’S
employees, and third persons. All work shall be performed entirely at CONTRACTOR'S
risk. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the insurance requirements set forth in Section
6.3 of this Agreement.
(b) CONTRACTOR shall also furnish the DISTRICT with a copy of any injury prevention
program established for the CONTRACTOR’S employees pursuant to Labor Code Section
6401.7, including any necessary documentation regarding implementation of the
program. CONTRACTOR hereby certifies that its employees have been trained in the
program, and procedures are in place to train employees whenever new substances,
processes, procedures, or equipment are introduced. CONTRACTOR shall demonstrate
compliance with Labor Code Section 6401.7 by maintaining a copy of its Injury and
Illness Prevention Plan at the Project site and making it available to the DISTRICT.
EXAMINATION OF RECORDS: All original drawings, specifications, reports, calculations, 6.11
and other documents or electronic data developed by CONTRACTOR for the Project shall be furnished
12
to and become the property of the DISTRICT. CONTRACTOR agrees that the DISTRICT will have access
to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of any and
all of the transactions relating to this Agreement.
6.12 ASSIGNMENT: Neither party shall sign or transfer its interest in this
Agreement without written consent of the other party. All terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Agreement shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto,
and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
6.13 GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be construed as if it was jointly
prepared by both parties hereto, and any uncertainty or ambiguity contained herein
shall not be interpreted against the party drafting same. This Agreement shall be
enforced and governed by the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought
to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a
state court situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, or in a federal
court with in rem jurisdiction over the Project.
6.14 HEADINGS: Article and Section headings in this Agreement are for
convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the
terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement.
6.15 PARTIAL INVALIDITY: If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this
Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and
effect, and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby.
6.16 EFFECT OF DISTRICT’S WAIVER: Any failure by the DISTRICT to enforce
any provision of this Agreement, or any waiver thereof by the DISTRICT, shall not
constitute a waiver of its right to enforce subsequent violations of the same or any
other terms or conditions herein.
6.17 AUTHORITY: The individuals executing this Agreement represent and
warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to sign this Agreement on behalf
of and to so bind their respective legal entities.
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
CONTRACTOR DISTRICT
By:
By:
Silvia Gutierrez Michael Moore
President General Manager/CEO
GreenMedia Creations, Inc. East Valley Water District
Exhibit A
Agenda Item
#4b
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4b
Discussion Item
1
2
1
8
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Construction Contract with Nor-Cal Pump & Well
Drilling, Inc. and Adoption of Resolution 2024.15 - Adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for Well No. 129
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors:
1. Authorize the General Manager/CEO to execute a construction agreement with Nor-
Cal Pump & Well Drilling, Inc for a not-to-exceed amount of $989,576, plus a 10%
contingency.
2. Adopt Resolution 2024.15 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Well No. 129 Project.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
Groundwater wells produce approximately 80% of the District’s water supply.
Additional groundwater wells are needed for two reasons, the first being the
decommissioning of three wells due to the Weaver Basin recycled water recharge, and
the second to satisfy a Priority 1 mitigation action from the District’s Drought
Contingency Plan (DCP).
In support of DCP Project 101, a conceptual feasibility was evaluated at two sites: the
existing Plant No. 129 site and one additional location within the District’s service area.
The conceptual feasibility analysis indicated that both sites evaluated are suitable for a
new production well. Plant No. 129 was selected as a potential well site because it was
District-owned and could be connected to the existing potable water system on-site
with lower construction, time, and cost than the alternative site.
The Well No. 129 project will be split into two phases. Phase 1 is the design and
construction of the below-ground components of the well. The construction contract
being brought before the Board of Directors with this item is for Phase 1 work. Phase 2
will proceed after the well has been tested and engineering design components are
known, and a bid package will be developed for construction of the above-ground
components.
The District’s consultant, Water Systems Consulting (WSC), prepared the Phase 1
Agenda Item
#4b
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4b
Discussion Item
1
2
1
8
construction bid package for the drilling, construction, and testing a new ground water
well at the District’s Plant No. 129. A competitive bidding process was used to solicit
bids in accordance with District Policy 7.1. A Notice Inviting Bids (NIB) was posted on
the District’s online bid portal on August 14, 2024 and closed on September 27, 2024.
Fourteen (14) prospective bidders downloaded the NIB, and five (5) bidders provided
bids. Construction bids were reviewed for conformance with the NIB and the lowest
responsive bidder was Nor-Cal Pump & Well Drilling, Inc. Below is a list of bids
received.
Contractor Total Bid
Nor-Cal Pump & Well Drilling, Inc $989,576.00
WildHeron Drilling $1,414,987.00
South West Pump & Drilling, Inc $1,431,053.00
Layne $1,818,442.96
Bakersfield Well & Pump Company $2,495,445.00
The bid price is less than the Engineer’s Estimate of probable Cost of $1,510,000,
appears to be reasonable, and is within the available funding.
CEQA
In March of 2024, the District commissioned an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) to be prepared for the Well No. 129 Project by the District’s
consultant Tom Dodson & Associates. The purpose of the study is to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if this project will have a
significant effect on the environment. Before submitting the IS/MND to the State
Clearing House for agency review, the District sent notice to San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
– Kizh Nation and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians as required per Assembly Bill 52
(AB52). AB 52 provides the Tribes an opportunity to consult on the environmental
process prior to beginning the review process. This notice was sent on May 1, 2024 and
the 30-day period concluded on May 31, 2024. One comment was received during this
period, requesting a final copy of the IS/MND. District staff will provide the IS/MND
once complete.
On August 26, the Draft IS/MND was filed with the State Clearing House for distribution
to local agencies for review. Notice was also filed with San Bernardino County and
posted on the District website. The 30-day public review period ended on September
25, 2024. The District received two comments during the public review
period. Responses to received comments are included in the Final IS/MND.
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Agenda Item
#4b
October 23, 20243
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4b
Discussion Item
1
2
1
8
IV - Promote Planning, Maintenance and Preservation of District Resources
A. Develop Projects and Programs to Ensure Safe and Reliable Services
C. Dedicate Efforts Toward System Maintenance and Modernization
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by the Engineering Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed contract awards in the amount of $989,576, plus a 10% construction
contingency of $98,957 is included in the current year budget.
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
Nathan Carlson
Senior Engineer
ATTACHMENTS
Well No. 129 Project Presentation
Agreement No. 2024.16 Nor-Cal Pump & Well Drilling
Resolution 2024.15
Final Initial Study – Well No. 129 Project
October 23, 2024
Well No. 129 Project
2
•Groundwater wells produce approximately 75%-80% of the District’s water supply
•New groundwater wells needed
•Loss of 3 wells due to the Weaver Basin recycled water recharge (15% of groundwater supply)
•Drought Contingency Plan (DCP)
•Purpose: plan for and protect against drought
•Vulnerability Assessment
•Determines most critical drought related vulnerabilities that impact water supply
•Mitigation Actions
•Projects – Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
•Opportunities – High-Level Concepts
•Ongoing Actions
•Implemented to address potential risks and impacts from drought and to increase system resiliency
•Constructing new groundwater wells are Priority 1 Mitigation Actions
•Well No. 129 – First of three planned wells
•Conceptual Feasibility
•Assess potential for fatal flaws at the proposed well site prior to proceeding with project
•Found that Plant No. 129 site was suitable
BACKGROUND
3
•New groundwater production well located on existing Plant No. 129 site
•Two phases
•Phase 1 – design and construction of below-ground components
•Phase 2 – design and construction of above-ground components
•Engineering consultant created a construction bid package for Phase 1
•Notice Inviting Bids (NIB) was posted in August on PlanetBids
•14 prospective bidders
•6 bidders attended Pre-Bid meeting
•5 bids received
•Construction bids were reviewed for conformance with the NIB and the lowest
responsive bidder is being recommended for award
•California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
•Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and filed in August
PROPOSED PROJECT
4
PROPOSED PROJECT
5
Staff recommends the Board of Directors to:
•Authorize the General Manager/CEO to execute a construction agreement with Nor-
Cal Pump & Well Drilling, Inc for a not-to-exceed amount of $989,576, plus a 10%
contingency
•Approve Resolution 2024.15 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Well No. 129 Project
RECOMMENDATIONS
QUESTIONS
AGREEMENT NO. 2024.16
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS
This AGREEMENT made and entered into this 10th day of October, 2024, by and between the
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”) and
Nor-Cal Pump & Well Drilling, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”).
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES, COVENANTS, AND CONDITIONS
HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I: GENERAL
For and in consideration of the payments and agreement hereinafter mentioned to be
made and performed by said Owner, said Contractor agrees with said Owner to perform and
complete in a workmanlike manner all Work required as described in the Proposal attached as
Exhibit “A” which is by reference incorporated herein. In accordance with the Proposal therefore,
to furnish at Contractor’s own expense all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and
services necessary therefor, except such materials, equipment, and services as may be stipulated
in said Proposal to be furnished by said Owner, and to satisfactorily perform everything required
by the Agreement and the said Proposal, for the sum of $989,576.00.
ARTICLE II: PAYMENT
For furnishing all said labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services, furnishing all plant,
temporary structures, tools, and equipment, and satisfactorily performing everything required by
this Agreement and Proposal; also for all loss and damages arising out of the nature of the Work
aforesaid, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties which may arise
during the performance of the Work until its acceptance by said Owner, and for all risks of every
description connected with the Work; also for all expenses resulting from the suspension or
discontinuance of Work, except as in the said Specifications, if any, are expressly stipulated to be
borne by said Owner and for completing the Work in accordance with the requirements of said
Specifications and Proposal, said Owner will pay, and said Contractor shall receive, in full
compensation therefor, the price mentioned above.
2
ARTICLE III: MONTHLY ESTIMATES
The Contractor shall furnish to the Owner, including an itemized statement in a form
satisfactory to the Owner, an estimate of the cumulative amount and value of work performed
by the Contractor up to that date. Except as may otherwise be provided in the Special Provisions,
if any said amount will include 80 percent of the value of all acceptable materials and equipment
delivered to the site of the work. Said value will be based on certified copies of paid invoices
delivered by the Contractor to the Owner. To this figure will be added all amounts due or paid
the Contractor for performance of extra work in accordance with change orders.
From the total computed above, a deduction of 10 percent will be made provided the
Contract price is $2,000,000 or less. When the Contract price exceeds $2,000,000 the following
deduction will be made: 10 percent of the first $2,000,000 and 5 percent thereafter. Further
deductions will be made for: (1) amounts due to the Owner for equipment and materials furnished
or services rendered; (2) amounts due the Owner under the terms of the Contract. From the
balance thus determined will be deducted the amount of all previous payments and the remainder
shall constitute the monthly payment due the Contractor.
Pursuant to the provisions of Public Contract Code Sections 10263 and 22300, the
Contractor is permitted to substitute securities for any moneys withheld to ensure performance
of this Contract. At the request and expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the
amount withheld shall be deposited with the State Treasurer or a state or federally chartered
bank in California as the escrow agent, who shall then pay the moneys to the Contractor. Upon
satisfactory completion of the Contract, the securities shall be returned to the Contractor.
Alternatively, the Contractor may request, and the Owner shall make payment of
retentions earned directly to the escrow agent. The Contractor may direct the investment of the
payments into securities and the Contractor shall receive the interest earned on the investments
upon the same terms provided for in this Section for securities deposited by the Contractor. Upon
satisfactory completion of the Contract, the Contractor shall receive from the escrow agent all
securities, interest and payments received by the escrow agent from the Owner pursuant to the
terms of this Section.
Securities eligible for investment under this Section shall include those listed in Section
16430 of the Government Code, bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit, interest bearing
demand deposit accounts, standby letters of credit, or any other security mutually agreed to by
the Contractor and the Owner. Securities selected must also comply with the Owner’s current
investment policy.
The Owner’s estimate of the monthly payment due the Contractor will not be required to
be made by strict measurement and an approximation will suffice. The monthly payments may
be withheld or reduced if, in the Owner’s opinion, the Contractor is not diligently or efficiently
endeavoring to comply with the intent of the Contract or if the Contractor fails to pay labor and
material bills as they become due.
3
No monthly payment shall be construed as an acceptance of the Work or of any portion
of the Work, nor shall the making of such payment preclude the Owner from demanding and
recovering from the Contractor such damages as it may sustain by reason of the Contractor’s
failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract.
In the event the Contract is terminated, any funds due the Contractor and retained by the
Owner shall become property of the Owner to the extent necessary to repay to the Owner any
excess in the Contract price above the cost of the work completed at the time of the termination.
After issuance of notice to discontinue work, no further payment will be made to the Contractor
for the work covered by the notice until completion of the Work and final settlement has been
made.
ARTICLE IV: CONSIDERATION
The Owner hereby retains said Contractor to perform the work according to the terms of
this Agreement for the above-mentioned price and agrees to pay the same at the time, in the
manner, and upon the conditions stipulated in the said Proposal; and the said parties for
themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to
the full performance of the covenants herein contained.
ARTICLE V: INDEMNIFICATION
The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, protect, and hold the Owner and its agents,
officers, elected officials, directors, and employees harmless from and against any and all
liabilities, claims, costs, expenses, losses, damages, and fees established, asserted, or incurred
which arise out of, relate to, or result from, the Work, the Contract, this Agreement, and any and
all documents prepared and/or services performed in connection therewith, as well as the failure,
neglect, or refusal of the Contractor and/or its subcontractors, subconsultants, agents, officers,
or employees to perform the Work and/or any other obligations of the Contractor under the
Contract, this Agreement, and/or the documents prepared in connection therewith. This
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, the costs, expenses, and damages incurred
by the Owner to defend any such claims, stop notices, or lawsuits, to which the Owner is made
a party.
Where approval by the Owner is indicated, it is understood to be conceptual approval only
and does not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for complying with all rules, regulations, laws,
codes, industry standards, and liability for damages caused by the negligent acts, errors,
omissions, noncompliance with industry standards, or the willful misconduct of the Contractor or
its subcontractors. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Owner and its
elected officials, directors, officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims,
costs, suits, and damages, including attorney’s fees, arising from the willful misconduct or
negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Contractor and/or its subcontractors.
ARTICLE VI: WAGES
The general prevailing rates of per diem wages and general prevailing rate for holiday and
overtime work in the locality in which the Work is to be performed have been determined by the
Owner. Said general prevailing rates of per diem wages are hereby incorporated and made a part
4
hereof. The Contractor agrees that he, or any subcontractor under him, will pay not less than the
foregoing specified prevailing rates of wages to all workmen employed in the execution of the
Contract.
Any Contractor who is awarded a public works project and intends to use a craft or
classification not shown on the general prevailing wage determinations may be required to pay
the wage rate of that craft or classification most closely related to it as shown in the general
determinations effective at the time of this Agreement.
ARTICLE VII: HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS
The Owner is a public entity in the State of California and is subject to the provisions of
the Government Code and the Labor Code of the State. It is stipulated and agreed that all
provisions of law applicable to public contracts are a part of this Contract to the same extent as
though set forth herein and will be complied with by the Contractor.
ARTICLE VIII: STANDARD OF CARE
Contractor’s services under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar
conditions. The Contractor shall observe and cause all Work and deliverables to conform to all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Contractor shall perform services in a prompt and timely manner in accordance with this
Agreement. Work as a result of this agreement shall be completed within 240 days from the date
of this agreement. An approved written request may extend the number of working days for this
Agreement. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
ARTICLE IX: BONDS
In addition to all other requirements imposed by law or by the Contract or this Agreement,
all surety companies executing bonds for the Work hereunder shall possess a certificate of
authority from the California Insurance Commissioner authorizing them to write surety insurance
as defined in Section 105 of the California Insurance Code and said surety must also appear on
the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570 as amended).
ARTICLE X: COMPONENTS OF AGREEMENT
The Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Bid Forms, Technical Conditions,
Specifications, Drawings, Proposal, Certificate of Insurance and all other documents required by,
issued and/or made available by the Owner with respect to the Work and the foregoing are hereby
incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XI: INUREMENT
Contractor shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement, or any rights under or
interest in this Agreement, without the written consent of the Owner. If Contractor subcontracts
any of the Work to be performed, Contractor shall be as fully responsible to the Owner for the
performance of the Work, including errors and omissions of Contractor's subcontractors and of
6
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2024.15
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION 2024.15
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
WHEREAS, East Valley Water District (“District”) is a county water district organized
and operating pursuant to California Water Code Section 30000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the District is the lead agency, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.), for the proposed Well No. 129 Project; and
WHEREAS, the District's Well No. 129 Project consists of the drilling and equipping of
a new groundwater production well within the District’s Plant No 129 site; and
WHEREAS, District staff determined that the Well No. 129 Project is considered a
“project” subject to the requirements of CEQA and prepared an Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, which concluded that the Well No. 129 Project
will not have a significant impact on the environment after mitigation, District staff determined
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) should be prepared for the Well No. 129 Project;
and
WHEREAS, an MND (State Clearinghouse Number 2024080915) was prepared for the
Well No. 129 Project pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the District made the Draft Initial Study (“IS”)/MND
available to the public and all interested, responsible, and trustee agencies for review and comment
for at least 30 days by filing a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt an MND with the State
Clearinghouse and filing an NOI with San Bernardino County Clerk, posting the NOI and the Draft
IS/MND on the District’s website at www.eastvalley.org, and making hard copies of the IS/MND
available at the District’s office; and
WHEREAS, the comment period began on August 26, 2024, and ended on September 25,
2024; and
WHEREAS, the District received comments from two interested agencies, and included
responses to comments in the Final IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the District’s Board of Directors (“Board”) has reviewed the Final IS/MND,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and all of the relevant information
contained in the administrative record for the Well No. 129 Project; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of East Valley
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2024.15
Page 2 of 3
Water District on the basis of substantial evidence and based upon the whole record, as follows:
1. The above recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
2. As the decision-making body for the District, which is the lead agency under
CEQA, the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final IS/MND,
the MMRP, and administrative record, together with all oral and written comments received during
the public review process. The Board finds that the Final IS/MND and MMRP prepared for the
Well No. 129 Project contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts
associated with the Well No. 129 Project. The documents have been completed in compliance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3. The Board hereby adopts the Final IS/MND for the Well No. 129 Project
pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080, subdivision (c) (2).
4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Board hereby approves
and adopts the MMRP prepared for the Well No. 129 Project and attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit “A”.
5. The Board hereby approves the Well No. 129 Project as described in the Final
IS/MND.
6. A copy of the Final IS/MND, MMRP, and all other documents and materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at: 31111
Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346. The Custodian of records is the District’s Engineering
Department.
7. The Board directs and authorizes staff to file a Notice of Determination with the
County of San Bernardino.
ADOPTED this 23rd day of October 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
James Morales, Jr.
Board President
East Valley Water District
Resolution 2024.15
Page 3 of 3
October 23, 2024
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of Resolution 2024.15
adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting held
October 23, 2024.
_______________________________
Michael Moore
Board Secretary
ATTEST: _______________________________
Michael Moore
Board Secretary
FINAL
INITIAL STUDY
FOR THE
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
Prepared for:
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
(909) 888-8986
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
(909) 882-3612
October 2024
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Response to Comments
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page ii
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
!!"#"!$%!&## $%%!'()*+%
",-.-/0#)1123445##6!#789#:;<=>#%,/#732/,21-/8>#')#?:@<A
6BC4-D,.#)1123445 :EF<#&G#)228HB3,1#)I3/J3>#%,/#732/,21-/8>#')#?:@<F
*3.5#K?<?L#MM:N;AE:#! +O,-.5#P1,QP1,3/IGD8O ! R3S5#P1,3/I-28/O3/P,.GD8O
!"!#$%&'(!
"#$%&'(!)*!+,+-
.(%/0 123$456!7%89%6:;2/34$%6
<%0!=(>!?2$@26!A2(49%6
BC&D0 A%/E4'$3%6!%F!$@'!=3$3G2$'8!?'G2$3H'!7'#42(2$3%6!F%(!$@'!I29$!J244'5!K2$'(!739$(3#$!K'44!?%>!)+L!
M(%D'#$ NBA;O!+,+-,P,L)QR
I29$!J244'5!K2$'(!739$(3#$!NIJK7!%(!739$(3#$R!('#'3H'8!2!$%$24!%F!$S%!S(3$$'6 #%//'6$9!%6!$@'!E(%E%9'8!
=3$3G2$'8!?'G2$3H'!7'#42(2$3%6!F%(!$@' I29$!J244'5!K2$'(!739$(3#$!K'44!?%>!)+L!M(%D'#$ NBA;O!+,+-,P,L)QR>!
AITU!('VC3('9!2!=3$3G2$'8!?'G2$3H'!7'#42(2$3%6!$%!#%6939$!%F!$@'!W63$324!B$C85X!#%E3'9!%F!$@'!#%//'6$9X!265!
('9E%69'9! $%! #%//'6$9! 29! #%/E34'8! %6! $@'! F%44%S36G! E2G'9X! 268! 265! %$@'(! E(%D'#$:('42$'8! /2$'(324!
E('E2('8!$%!288('99!399C'9!'H24C2$'8!36!$@'!W63$324!B$C85Y=3$3G2$'8!?'G2$3H'!7'#42(2$3%6!NWBY=?7R>!
.%(!$@39!E(%D'#$*!$@'!%(3G3624!W63$324!B$C85!S344!&'!C$343Z'8!29!%6'!#%/E%6'6$!%F!$@'!.3624!=3$3G2$'8!?'G2$3H'!
7'#42(2$3%6!N=?7R!E2#[2G'>!!<@'!2$$2#@'8!('9E%69'9!$%!#%//'6$9*!#%/&36'8!S3$@!$@'!W63$324!B$C85!268!
$@'!=3$3G2$3%6!=%63$%(36G!268!\'E%($36G!M(%G(2/*!#%69$3$C$'!$@'!.3624!=?7!E2#[2G'!$@2$!S344!&'!C9'8!&5!
$@' 739$(3#$ $%!#%6938'(!$@'!'6H3(%6/'6$24!'FF'#$9!%F!3/E4'/'6$36G!$@'!E(%E%9'8!E(%D'#$>
<@'!F%44%S36G!E2($3'9!9C&/3$$'8!#%//'6$9>!<@'!#%//'6$9!36!$@39!4'$$'(!2('!288('99'8!36!$@'!2$$2#@'8!
\'9E%69'9!$%!A%//'6$90
)>
+>
B%C$@!A%29$ U3(!TC243$5!=262G'/'6$!739$(3#$
=%(%6G%!]268!%F!=3993%6!W683269
]'#2C9'!/3$3G2$3%6!/'29C('9!2('!('VC3('8!F%(!$@39!E(%D'#$!$%!('8C#'!E%$'6$32445!93G63F3#26$!3/E2#$9!$%!2!4'99!
$@26!93G63F3#26$!4'H'4*!$@'!=3$3G2$3%6!=%63$%(36G!268!\'E%($36G!M(%G(2/!N==\MR!2$$2#@'8!$%!$@39!E2#[2G'!
39!('VC3('8!$%!&'!28%E$'8!29!E2($!%F!$@39!.3624!=?7!E2#[2G'>!<@'!==\M!@29!&''6!36#%(E%(2$'8!&5!('F'('6#'!
$%!$@39!E2#[2G'!F%(!2EE(%H24!268!3/E4'/'6$2$3%6>!<@'!739$(3#$ #%6938'(2$3%6!%F!$@'!E(%E%9'8!E(%D'#$!268!
28%E$3%6!%F!$@'!=3$3G2$'8!?'G2$3H'!7'#42(2$3%6!S344!%##C(!2$!2!@'2(36G!%6!"#$%&'(!+^*!+,+->!!
7%!6%$!@'93$2$'!$%!G3H'!/'!2!#244!3F!5%C!@2H'!265!VC'9$3%69!('G2(836G!$@'!#%6$'6$9!%F!$@39!E2#[2G'>
123$456!7%89%6:;2/34$%6
U$$2#@/'6$9
Comment Letter #1
SENT VIA E-MAIL:
ncarlson@eastvalley.org
Nathan Carlson
September 24, 2024
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI/MND)
for the Proposed East Valley Water District Well No. 129 Project (Proposed Project)
(SCH No.: 2024080915)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciate the
opportunity to review the above-mentioned document. The East Valley Water District is the
1-1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide
context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and
prepared the following comments, which are organized by topic of concern.
South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Information in the NOI/MND
Based on the information provided in the MND, the Proposed Project consists of installing a new
well, including the new wellhead, a 4’ diameter reinforced concrete pipe, chlorine, and
orthophosphate dosing systems, a 55’ x 20’ concrete masonry unit (CMU) block building with a
seam standing metal roof enclosing the wellhead, discharge header, PTW header, electrical1-2 equipment, and chemical facilities.1 The Proposed Project is located northwest of the intersection
of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street, Highland.2 Based on the aerial photograph, Staff
found that the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residences) is less than 50 feet west of the Proposed
Project’s boundary. The construction would begin in September 2024 and be completed in August
2025.3
South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments on the NOI/MND
South Coast AQMD Rules, Permits, and Responsible Agency
If the implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary and portable
sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, etc., air permits from
South Coast AQMD will be required, and the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a
Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD
is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sections15086, the Lead Agency is
required to consult with South Coast AQMD. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets
forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy
of the CEQA document for use as part of evaluating the applications for air permits. For these
1-3
1 NOI/MND. Page 2.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. Page 22.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
LETTER #1
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
1-1
1-2
The comment introduces SCAQMD’s review of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The comment is noted and will be made available to EVWD decision-makers as part of the Final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration package prior to a decision on the proposed Project.
The comment summarizes the Project. Sensitive Receptors are shown on Figure III-3, which was
extracted from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memo prepared by Urban Crossroads, found
as part of the Figures in the Initial Study, which echo the commenter’s statement that the nearest
sensitive receptor is less than 50 feet from the Project boundary. Further, the District offers a
further correction that construction will begin after October 2024, and is anticipated to conclude
about 12 months thereafter.
1-3 The comment notes that air permits from SCAQMD may be required to implement the Project, and
that these permits should be outlined in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
comment notes that in the event that air quality permits are required, SCAQMD would be a
responsible agency under CEQA. In the event that this is the case, the District would be required
to consult with SCAQMD. The comment also details the role of SCAQMD as a responsible agency
and notes that if a Project analysis is inadequate SCAQMD may require further actions as outlined
in CEQA Guideline Section 15096(e), which could delay the Project implementation. At this time,
EVWD does not anticipate the need for use of new stationary or portable equipment requiring
SCAQMD permits. However, as the design progresses, if a need for additional permits is identified,
the District will coordinate with SCAQMD to secure the required permits, and furthermore, would
ensure that the CEQA determination (current or future) addresses the impacts of and covers the
need for this equipment.
Nathan Carlson September 24, 2024
reasons, the Final MND should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable
equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a
Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project.
1-3
cont’d
The Final MND should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation
emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information will also be relied upon
as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South
Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what
types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please
visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.
1-4
Conclusion
The Lead Agency is recommended to revise the CEQA analysis to address the aforementioned
comments and provide the necessary evidence to sufficiently support the conclusions reached. If
the requested information and analysis are not included in the final CEQA document, either the
Final MND or other type of CEQA document, the Lead Agency should provide reasons for not
doing so. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(b) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND
for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process and notify
each public agency when any public hearings are scheduled. Please provide South Coast AQMD
with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND.
When responding to issues raised in the comments, detailed reasons supported by substantial
evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must
be provided. In addition, if the Lead Agency decides to adopt the Final MND, please provide South
Coast AQMD with a notice of any scheduled public hearing(s).
1-5
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work
with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter.
Please contact Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, at dnguyen1@aqmd.gov should you have
any questions.
1-6
Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA-IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SW:DN
SBC240822-01
Control Number
2
1-4
1-5
The comment notes that the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration should include
construction and operation emissions for any new stationary or portable sources as part of the
analysis. The District notes this comment, and as previously stated under Response to Comment
1-3, EVWD does not anticipate the need for use of new stationary or portable equipment requiring
SCAQMD permits, and therefore, the analysis and emissions calculations presented in the Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will remain unchanged as part of the Final document.
The contact information provided in this comment will be retained in the Project file.
The comment notes that the revisions suggested in the preceding comments should be
incorporated into the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment requests
that, if the revisions suggested in the preceding comments should be incorporated into the Final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are not made, SCAQMD should be provided with the
District’s rational for not doing making said revisions. As documented throughout these responses
to comments, EVWD does not anticipate the need for use of new stationary or portable equipment
requiring SCAQMD permits, and therefore, no change to the analysis presented in the Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary, as the emissions presented therein reflect
forecast emissions utilizing CalEEMod2022.1.1.
The comment also requests written response to the comments made in their comment letter.
1-6 The comment concludes the SCAQMD’s comments and provides contact information for future
correspondence with SCAQMD. The contact information provided in this comment will be retained
in the Project file.
TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Comment Letter #2
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
ncarlson@eastvalley.org
Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
September 24, 2024
Re:East Valley Water District Well 129 Project, San Bernardino County, CA
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Tribe/MBMI) Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) has
reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that East Valley Water District (District) has made
available for the Well 129 Project (Project).2-1
2-2
The District proposes to install a new well, Well No. 129 is proposed to be located within a less than one
acre portion of an approximately 2.37-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 121-038-110.
A Cultural Resource Study (Study;2024) was prepared by Mojave Consulting on behalf of Tom Dodson and
Associates. The Study documents identification efforts and determined:
•
•
7 resources have been recorded within ! mile of the Project Area
the pedestrian survey was negative for archaeological resources and confirmed level of disturbance
from previous development
•there was little to no potential for any intact or substantial buried cultural resources to remain at the
project site
Projects within this area are sensitive for cultural resources regardless of the presence or absence of
2-3 remaining surface artifacts and features. Tribal cultural resources are non-renewable resources and
therefore of high importance to the Morongo Tribe.
Though the ISMND indicates that the District initiated consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (California
Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1), MBMI THPO does not have record of this consultation request and
would have responded to consult under AB-52. MBMI has reviewed the Mitigation Measures proposed by
2-4 the District to protect cultural and tribal cultural resources. MBMI supports the Mitigation Measures
proposed by Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN)
and requests be included in notification in the event of the discovery of cultural resources as stated in MM
CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4 TCR-1 and TCR-2.
Tribe has no further comments upon the Project. As the lead agency, the District is responsible for ensuring
that the Mitigation Measures agreed upon are carried out by the Project Proponent. MBMI looks forward to
continuing to work with the District until the above Project is completed. Please notify Tribe when the Project
2-5 is scheduled to begin.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Bernadette Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer (THPO): ABrierty@morongo-nsn.gov, THPO@morongo-nsn.gov or (951) 663-2842.
12700 Pumarra Road – Banning, CA 92220 – (951) 755-5259 – Fax (951) 572-6004 – THPO@morongo-nsn.gov
Bernadette Ann Brierty
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
CC: Morongo THPO
Page | 2
12700 Pumarra Road – Banning, CA 92220 – (951) 755-5259 –Fax (951) 572-6004 – THPO@morongo-nsn.gov
RESPONSE TO COMMENT
LETTER #2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2-1
2-2
2-3
The comment provides an introduction to MBMI and provides a short description of the Project.
The comment is noted and will be made available to EVWD decision-makers as part of the Final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration package prior to a decision on the proposed Project.
The comment summarizes the Cultural Resources Study that was prepared for the Project. The
comment is noted and will be made available to EVWD decision-makers as part of the Final Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration package prior to a decision on the proposed Project.
The comment notes that tribal cultural resources are on-renewable resources of high importance
to MBMI. The comment is noted and will be made available to EVWD decision-makers as part of
the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration package prior to a decision on the proposed
Project.
2-4 The comment notes that MBMI did not receive AB 52 notification from EVWD on this Project. EVWD
sent out AB 52 notification to the Tribe on May 1, 2024 via USPS (AB 52 letter attached). EVWD
offers an additional Attachment to these Responses to Comments that shows that the AB 52
notification letter was delivered on May 2, 2024 to MBMI by USPS, and as such the letter was
provided to the Tribe and no response was received during the initial 30 day response window.
The comment also conveys support for mitigation measures (MMs) CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4 TCR-1
and TCR-2. The comment is noted and will be made available to EVWD decision-makers as part of
the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration package prior to a decision on the proposed
Project.
2-5 MBMI notes that the Tribe has no further comments and reiterates that the District is responsible
for ensuring compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, to which the District
agrees and will adhere. The contact information provided in this comment will be retained in the
Project file.
Response to Comments Attachments
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
May 1, 2024
Raymond Huaute
Cultural Resources Specialist
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA 92220
Subject: Notice of Opportunity to Consult – East Valley Water District Well No. 129 Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Huaute,
East Valley Water District (EVWD or District) would like to notify you of a project, known as the
Well No. 129 Project, located within the City of Highland, within EVWD’s service area, which is
considered to be located in the geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with Native
American Tribes (see full project description and attached figures below).
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became law January 1, 2015, requires that public agencies
formally consult with California Native American Tribes that request such consultation in writing.
As part of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process, the consultation seeks to
identify potential impacts to a new category of resource called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs).
The designation of a TCR takes into account tribal cultural values in addition to scientific and
archaeological values when determining potential impacts and mitigation. An impact to a TCR
may result in a significant impact under CEQA.
Following these regulations, the Tribe has 30 days to respond to EVWD if the Tribe wishes to
open the consultation process with the District. The Tribe has the right to respond with a “no
effect” statement. If consultation is requested, all procedures outlined in AB 52 will be followed
to establish appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend.
Below you will find the project location, a description of the proposed project, project index
numbers, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1.
Project Title:Well No. 129 Project
Project Location:EVWD’s service area is located in southern California within southwestern
San Bernardino County. The District’s service area is shown on Figure 1.
The project will occur within the eastern part of the District’s service area.
The potential well site is located northwest of the intersection of Calle
Del Rio St. and Vista Clara St., just south of Oak Creek in the City of
Highland (refer to the regional and site aerial maps provided as Figures
2 and 3). The project is located within the USGS Topo 7.5-minute map
for Redlands, CA, and is located in Section 1, Township 1 South and
Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian. The approximate GPS
coordinates of the project site are 34.112523°, -117.139739°.
Project Description: EVWD, as the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA, is proposing to develop
Well No. 129, which would aid the District in meeting current and future demand, and provide
backup for an existing aging well (Well No. 142) in the District’s service area. Well No. 129 is
proposed to be located within a less than one acre portion of an approximately 2.37-acre parcel
within the City of Highland (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 1210-381-10) a site north/northwest
of the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street, south of Oak Creek in the City
of Highland (refer to the site plan provided as Figure 4). The District owns APN 1210-381-10,
which presently contains two 3-million gallon (MG) steel water storage reservoirs. The site is
referred to as EVWD Plant No. 129. The site would include the following features: the new well
(wellhead); an 8” diameter pipeline connecting to the District’s booster pump station onsite; a 4’
diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that extends 2’ above grade and 16” RCP drain line;
chlorine and orthophosphate dosing systems; a 55’ x 20’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) block
building with a standing seam metal roof enclosing the wellhead, discharge header, pump-to-
waste header, electrical equipment, and chemical facilities. It is assumed that minor grading will
be required to construct the structure.
Lead Agency Point of Contact:
Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
Phone: (909) 888-8986
Email: ncarlson@eastvalley.org
In order to arrange a consultation with the District, please send your written or email response
within 30 days of receipt of this letter, to the Lead Agency Point of Contact listed above. If we
do not receive a response within 30 days, we will assume that you have no tribal cultural resources
concerns for this project and we will proceed with the CEQA process. Any dealing with your
government and EVWD will be kept in strictest confidence.
Very Respectfully,
Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
2
WSC-103 USPS-priority for AB52 (5/1/24)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Aesthetics
AES-1 Night lighting will be located and shielded so as to avoid creating a
nuisance to nearby residents. Light generated during activities taking
place at night shall not spill off the well site onto adjacent occupied
structures.
This requirement shall be incorporated into
the project design and shall be included in the this aesthetics measure shall be retained in
construction contract as a contract specifica-
tion and implemented by the contractor
during construction.
A copy of the construction contract including
the project file, and the District field
inspectors shall verify that the design/plan is
being implementing without adverse impact
on adjacent light sensitive uses. Field notes
from inspections shall be retained in the
project file.
Source Responsible Party
East Valley Water District
(EVWD)
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure
Biological Resources
Implementation Schedule Verification
Construction shall occur outside of the nesting District personnel shall document the dates ofBIO-1 Nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist no
more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground
disturbance activities. Preconstruction surveys shall focus on both direct
and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting
behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid
potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If
active nests are found during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys,
a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared and implemented by the
qualified avian biologist. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines
for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, ongoing monitoring,
establishment of avoidance and minimization measures, and reporting.
The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based on
the nesting species, individual/pair’s behavior, nesting stage, nest
location, its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration of the
disturbance activity. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, any grubbing or
vegetation removal should occur outside peak breeding season
(typically February 1 through September 1).
season or a copy of the field survey docu-
menting no nesting birds shall be completed
prior to initiating construction within the
nesting season.
construction. If construction is proposed to
occur within the nesting season, a copy of the
field survey documenting the absence of
nesting birds shall be retained in the project
file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 1
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of Any response to exposed resources shall The District shall be notified within 24-hours
of accidental exposure of any cultural
resources. A copy of initial findings shall be
provided to the District and retained in the
project file. A copy of the final report shall be
retained in the project file.
these facilities, ground disturbing activities in the immediate area of the occur during construction. Any reports
finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed
immediately by a qualified archaeologist. Responsibility for making this
determination shall be with the District. The archaeological professional
shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make
documenting management and findings for
accidentally exposed resources shall be
completed within one year of the discovery.
recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guide-
lines of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Cultural Resources
CUL-2 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project
activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot
buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other
portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue
during this assessment period.ꢀAdditionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be
contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact era
finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her
initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input
with regards to significance and treatment.
Any response to exposed resources shall
occur during construction. Any reports
documenting management and findings for
accidentally exposed resources shall be
completed within one year of the discovery.
A copy of the documentation of findings
where applicable shall be retained in the
project file. Verification of implementation
shall be based on field inspections by District
inspection personnel. Field notes
documenting verification shall be retained in
the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure
Cultural Resources
Implementation Schedule Verification
CUL-3 If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as
amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
Any response to exposed resources shall
occur during construction. Any reports
A copy of the documentation of findings
where applicable shall be retained in the
project file. Verification of implementation
shall be based on field inspections by District
inspection personnel. Field notes
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts documenting management and findings for
of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as accidentally exposed resources shall be
completed within one year of the discovery.
MMRP Table, Page 2
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the
remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
documenting verification shall be retained in
the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Cultural Resources
CUL-4 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any
activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity
(within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County
Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
This measure shall be implemented during
construction if human remains are exposed
during construction.
The District shall retain all records of the
discovery and management actions taken in
regard to human remains in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure
Geology and Soils
Implementation Schedule Verification
GEO-1 Prior to construction of the well enclosure, a design-level geotechnical
investigation, including collection of site specific subsurface data if
appropriate, shall be completed. The geotechnical evaluation shall
identify all potential seismic hazards including fault rupture, and
characterize the soil profiles, including liquefaction potential, expansive
soil potential, subsidence, and landslide potential. The geotechnical
investigation shall recommend site specific design criteria to mitigate
for seismic and non-seismic hazards, such as special foundations and
structural setbacks, and these recommendations shall be incorporated
into the design of the proposed project.
This measure shall be completed prior to
construction, and shall be incorporated into
the construction plans. The recommendations
shall be included in the construction contract
as a contract specification and implemented
by the contractor during construction.
A copy of the geotechnical report and
construction contract including this
geology/soils mitigation measure shall be
retained in the project file. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by District inspection personnel
that verify the geology/soils measure has
been implemented as required by this
measure. Field notes documenting verification
shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 3
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Geology and Soils
GEO-2 Excavated areas shall be backfilled and compacted such that erosion
does not occur. Paved areas disturbed by this project shall be repaved
This measure shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
A copy of the construction contract including
this geology/soils mitigation measure shall be
retained in the project file. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by District inspection personnel
that verify the geology/soils measure has
been implemented as required in the
in such a manner that roadways and other disturbed areas are returned cation and implemented by the contractor
to the pre-project conditions or better.during construction.
measure. Field notes documenting
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Geology and Soils
GEO-3 All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be
sprayed with water or soil binders twice a day or more frequently if
fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site within which the
pipelines are being installed.
This measure shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
cation and implemented by the contractor
during construction.
A copy of the construction contract including
this geology/soils mitigation measure shall be
retained in the project file. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by District inspection personnel
that verify the geology/soils measure has
been implemented as required in the
measure. Field notes documenting
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure
Geology and Soils
Implementation Schedule Verification
GEO-4 The District shall identify any additional BMPs to ensure that the
discharge of surface water does not cause erosion downstream of the
discharge point. This shall be accomplished by reducing the energy of
any site discharge through an artificial energy dissipater or equivalent
device. If any substantial erosion or sedimentation occurs, any erosion
or sedimentation damage shall be restored to pre-discharge conditions.
This measure shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
cation and implemented by the contractor
during construction.
A copy of the construction contract including
this geology/soils mitigation measure shall be
retained in the project file. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by District inspection personnel
that verify the geology/soils measure has
MMRP Table, Page 4
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
been implemented as required in the
measure. Field notes documenting
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Geology and Soils
GEO-4 Should any paleontological resources be encountered during
construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the
immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection
should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist.
Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the District’s
onsite inspector. The paleontological professional shall assess the find,
determine its significance, and determine appropriate mitigation
measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality
Act that shall be implemented to minimize any impacts to a
paleontological resource.
Any response to exposed resources shall
occur during construction. Any reports
documenting management and findings for
accidentally exposed resources shall be
completed within one year of the discovery.
The District shall be notified within 24-hours
of accidental exposure of any paleontological
resources. A copy of initial findings shall be
provided to the District and retained in the
project file. A copy of the final report shall be
retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction
activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and
local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant
released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of
at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.
This measure shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
cation and implemented by the contractor
during construction.
A copy of the construction contract including
this mitigation measure shall be retained in
the project file. Verification of implementa-
tion shall be based on field inspections by
District inspection personnel that verify that
this measure has been implemented as
required in the measure. Field notes
documenting verification shall be retained in
the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 5
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-2 Prior to construction, fire hazard reduction measures shall be
Implementation Schedule Verification
The provision of this measure shall be
included as part of the construction contract
A copy of the construction contract shall be
retained in the project file. Verification ofincorporated into a fire management/fuel modification plan for the
proposed facility, and shall be implemented during construction and
over the long-term for protection of the site. These measures shall
address all staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for
development that are planned to use spark-producing equipment.
These areas shall be cleared of dried vegetation or other material
that could ignite. Any construction equipment that includes a spark
arrestor shall be equipped with a spark arrestor in good working
order. During the construction of the project, all vehicles and crews
working at the project site shall have access to functional fire
extinguishers and related fire prevention equipment (such as
emergency sand bags, etc.) at all times. In addition, construction
crews shall have a spotter during welding activities to look out for
potentially dangerous situations, including accidental sparks. This
plan shall be reviewed by the District and CAL FIRE for review and
comment, where appropriate, and approved prior to construction and
implemented once approved. The fire management plan shall also
include sufficient defensible space or other measures at a facility site
located in a high or very high FHSZ to minimize fire damage to a
level acceptable to the District over the long term.
and shall be implemented during construction. implementation shall be based on field
inspections by EVWD inspection personnel
that verify the BMPs have been implemented
as required in this measure. Field notes
documenting verification shall be retained in
the project file.
Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Verification
Initial Study EVWD
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1 The District shall test the groundwater produced from the well prior This measure shall be implemented during
construction and shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
cation.
Documentation of the result of the
to discharge. Prior to or during discharge any contaminants shall be
blended below the pertinent MCL or treated prior to discharge,
including sediment or other material.
groundwater test shall be retained in the
Project file, as shall the construction contract.
Verification of implementation shall be based
on field inspections by District inspection
personnel that verify that the requirements in
this measure have been completed. Field
notes from inspections shall be retained in the
project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 6
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-2 The District shall require that the construction contractor to
Implementation Schedule Verification
The BMPs that shall be implemented by this
measure shall be implemented during
construction and shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
cation.
A copy of the construction contract and, if
required, the grading permit shall be retained
in the project file. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by the District. Field notes from
inspections shall be retained in the project
file.
implement specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will
prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and
with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite
into receiving waters. These practices shall include a Plan that
identifies the methods of containing, cleanup, transport and proper
disposal of hazardous chemicals or materials released during
construction activities that are compatible with applicable laws and
regulations. BMPs to be implemented by the District include the
following:
•
•
•
The use of silt fences or coir rolls;
The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins;
The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater
runoff;
•
•
The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the
site;
The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the
site to prevent the tracking of silt and other pollutants from the
site onto public roads;
•The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum
necessary to efficiently perform the construction activities
required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in
water courses or other areas subject to the flow of surface
water; and
•Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with
waterproof material during rain events to control erosion of soil
from the stockpiles.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-3 The District shall conduct a pump test of the new well and determine This measure shall be implemented during
construction and shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
cation. This measure shall also be
Documentation of the result of the pump test
shall be retained in the Project file, as should
the construction contract. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by District inspection personnel
that verify that the requirements in this
whether any other wells are located within the cone of depression
once the well reaches equilibrium. If any private wells are adversely
impacted by future groundwater extractions from the proposed well,
the District shall offset this impact through provision of water service; implemented during operation of the future
wells.
MMRP Table, Page 7
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
or adjusting the flow rates or hours of operation to mitigate adverse
impacts.
measure have been completed. Field notes
from inspections shall be retained in the
project file. Documentation of the provision of
any offsets required by this measure shall be
retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-4 The District and construction contractor shall select best management The BMPs that shall be implemented by this A copy of the construction contract and, if
required, the grading permit shall be retained
in the project file. Verification of
implementation shall be based on field
inspections by the District. Field notes from
inspections shall be retained in the project
file.
practices applicable to the project site and activities on the site to
achieve a reduction in pollutants to the maximum extent practicable,
both during and following development of the proposed municipal-
measure shall be implemented during
construction and shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specifi-
supply water well and associated pipeline, and to control urban runoff cation.
after the Project is constructed and the well (if approved for
operation post well testing) is in operation.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Noise
NOI-1 To comply with the City of Highland noise standards during daytime and This measure shall be implemented during A copy of the construction contract shall be
retained in the project file. District personnel
shall verify that construction activities comply
with this requirement. The verification shall
be retained in the project file.
nighttime hours, noise barriers with a minimum height of 15 feet shall
be erected along the southwestern boundary, a sound blanket barrier
on three sides (southwest, southeast, and northeast) of the drill rig
mast, a 15-foot-high barrier should be erected along the southwestern
boundary, a minimum 12-foot high barrier along the southwest
boundary, and a minimum height of 10-foot-high barrier should be
erected along the northeastern and northwestern boundary.
construction and included in the contract with
the construction contractor.
Additionally, the generator and compressor shall be placed near the
existing tanks and as far away from the properties to the southeast as
possible, and a 12-foot-high barrier should be erected on three sides
(northwest, southwest, and southeast) of the generator and
compressor. An effective barrier requires a weight of at least 2 pounds
per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts, perforations, or
MMRP Table, Page 8
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the source. Examples
of temporary barrier material includes 5/8 inch plywood, 5/8 inch
oriented-strand board, or sound blankets capable of providing a
minimum sound transmission loss (STC) of 27 or a Noise Reduction
Coefficient (NRC) of 0.85. Refer to Figure XIII-2.
Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study EVWD
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Noise
NOI-2 The well shall be drilled at a distance of 55’ or greater from the
nearest sensitive receptor, shown on Figure XIII-3. Loaded trucks
delivering materials to the site and hauling materials away shall be
operated at a distance at or greater than 35’ or greater from the
nearest sensitive receptor, shown on Figure XIII-3, for the duration
of construction.
This measure shall be implemented as a
design measure during construction, and shall retained in the project file. District personnel
be carried forth for the duration of well
construction. This design measure shall be
included in the contract with the construction
contractor.
A copy of the construction contract shall be
shall verify that construction activities of the
well comply with this requirement. The
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 9
FIGURE XIII-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Drill Rig Noise Abatement
FIGURE XIII-3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Sensitive Receptor Distance
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Transportation / Traffic
TRAN-2 EVWD shall require that all disturbances to public roadways be
repaired in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction (green book) or other applicable
County of San Bernardino or City of Fontana standard design
requirements.
This measure shall be implemented during
construction.
Verification of implementation shall be based
on field inspections by District inspection
personnel that verify adequate traffic
management resources are being used by the
contractor as required in this measure. Field
notes documenting verification shall be
retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources
Management Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in
MM CUL-2, of any pre-contact era cultural resources discovered
Any response to exposed resources shall
occur during construction. This measure shall project file. Verification of implementation
be included in the construction contract. If a
A copy of the Plan shall be retained in the
shall be based on field inspections by District
inspection personnel that verify the culturalduring project implementation and be provided information regarding cultural resources monitoring and treatment
the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to
significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as
defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources
Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist,
in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject
to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that
plan is ultimately required to be prepared, the resources monitoring and treatment plan is
plan shall be prepared during construction,
prior to any further ground disturbance in the
area that the resource is found. The monitor,
as specified in this measure, shall be present
during the remainder of construction following
being implemented by the contractor as
required in this measure. Field notes
documenting verification shall be retained in
the project file.
represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect any resource discovery.
to place a monitor on-site.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Verification
Initial Study
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of
the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing
reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for
dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult
with YSMN throughout the life of the project.
Reports documenting management and
findings for accidentally exposed resources
shall be completed within one year of the
discovery.
A copy of the Report shall be retained in the
project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 12
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification
Wildfire
WF-1 During site clearing within the project site when any electrical
construction equipment is in use, the construction crew shall have
fire prevention equipment (such as fire extinguishers, emergency
sand bags, etc.) to put out any accidental fires that could result from
the use of construction/maintenance equipment.
This measure shall be implemented during
construction and included in the contract with
the construction contractor.
EVWD personnel shall verify that construction
activities comply with this requirement. The
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party
EVWD
Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study
MMRP Table, Page 13
FINAL INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
INITIAL STUDY
FOR THE
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
Prepared for:
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
(909) 888-8986
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
(909) 882-3612
August 2024
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................. 6
Determination........................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................... 8
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
Aesthetics.................................................................................................................. 10
Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................................................................ 13
Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 15
Biological Resources................................................................................................... 29
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 34
Energy ...................................................................................................................... 38
Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................... 40
Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................... 45
Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................ 50
Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................... 54
Land Use and Planning............................................................................................... 49
Mineral Resources...................................................................................................... 60
Noise......................................................................................................................... 61
Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 68
Public Services........................................................................................................... 69
Recreation................................................................................................................. 72
XVII. Transportation........................................................................................................... 73
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 75
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................... 77
Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... 81
Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 84
Summary of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 86
References ............................................................................................................................... 90
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Air Quality / GHG
Appendix 2 – Biology
Appendix 3 – Cultural
Appendix 4 – Soils Maps
Appendix 5 – Noise
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page ii
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
EVWD Service Area
Regional Location Map
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Figure I-1
Figure II-1
Figure III-1
Scenic Routes and Highways
California Important Farmland Finder
Sensitive Receiver Locations
Figure VII-1
Figure VII-2
Figure VII-3
Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
Liquefaction & Landslides
Paleontological Sensitivity
Figure IX-1
Figure IX-2
Figure IX-3
Figure IX-4
GeoTracker 1
Airport Safety & Planning
Evacuation Routes
Fire Hazards
Figure X-1
Figure X-2
Flood Hazards
FEMA FIRM Panels
Figure XII-1 Mineral Resource Zones
Figure XIII-1
Figure XIII-2
Figure XIII-3
Construction Noise Source and Receiver Locations
Drill Rig Noise Abatement
Sensitive Receptor Distance
TABLES
Table 1 Existing Land Use and Land Use Zoning Districts........................................... 4
Maximal Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds ............................................... 18
Maximal Daily Local Emissions Thresholds .................................................... 19
Regional Construction Emissions Summary ................................................... 22
Total Project Regional Operational Emissions................................................ 23
Project Localized Construction Impacts......................................................... 26
Project Localized Operational Impacts .......................................................... 27
CO Model Results........................................................................................ 27
Table III-1
Table III-2
Table III-3
Table III-4
Table III-5
Table III-6
Table III-7
Table VIII-1 Total Project GHG Emissions........................................................................ 41
Table XIII-1
Table XIII-2
Table XIII-3
Table XIII-4
Table XIII-5
Table XIII-6
Operational Noise Standards........................................................................ 62
Construction Reference Noise Levels ............................................................ 63
Unabated Drilling Equipment Noise Level Summary....................................... 63
Abated Drilling Equipment Noise Level Summary........................................... 64
Vibration Levels Measured During Construction Activities............................... 66
Vibration Level Contours During Construction Activities ................................. 66
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page iii
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACROYNMS
°F Fahrenheit
AAQS
AB
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Assembly Bill
ACOE
AF
Army Corps of Engineers
acre feet
AF Acre Feet
AFY acre feet per year
AKA also known as
amsl
AMTP
APE
above mean sea level
Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan
Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Air Quality Management District
Air Quality Management Plan
Air Resources Board
AQMD
AQMP
ARB
BAAQMD
BACMs
bgs
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Best Available Control Measures
below ground surface
BMPs
BRA
Best Management Practices
Biological Resources Assessment
Burrowing Owl
construction and demolition
perchloroethylene
BUOW
C&D
C2Cl4
C H O acetaldehyde24
C4H6 1,3-butadiene
C6H6 benzene
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA
CAAQS
CAL FIRE
CalEEMod
CALGreen
CAPCOA
CARB
CBC
Clean Air Act Amendment
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Green Building Standards Code
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
California Air Resources Board
California Building Code
CCAR
CDFW
CE
CEQA
CH2O
California Climate Action Registry
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
State Candidate Endangered
California Environmental Quality Act
formaldehyde
CH4 methane
CHRIS
CNEL
California Historical Resources Information System
Community Noise Equivalent Level
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page iv
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
CNPS
CO
California Native Plant Society
Carbon Monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COA
COCs
Cr(VI)
CRECs
CRHR
CRMP
CWA
CY
Conditions of Approval
constituents of concern
hexavalent chromium
Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
California Register of Historical Resources
Cultural Resource Management Plan
Clean Water Act
cubic yard
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DDW
DOI
DPM
DTSC
DWR
EIR
Division of Drinking Water
Department of Interior
diesel particulate matter
Department of Toxic Substance Control
Department of Water Resources
Environmental Impact Report
Executive OrdersEO
EPA
ESA
EVWD
FE
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Site Assessment
East Valley Water District
Federally Endangered
FEMA
FGC
FHSZ
FT
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish & Game Code
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Federal Threatened
FTA Federal Transit Association
Global Climate Change
Greenhouse Gas
GCC
GHG
gpm
GSA
GSP
HFCs
hP
gallons per minute
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
Groundwater Sustainability Plans
hydrofluorocarbons
horse power
HSC
in/sec
km
Health and Safety Code
inches per second
kilometers
kWh
lbs./day
Leq
LRA
LRA
kilowatt hour
Pounds Per Day
equivalent continuous sound level
Local Responsibility Area
Local Responsibility Area
Lake or Streambed AlterationLSA
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page v
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
LUST
MBMI
MBTA
MCL
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
maximum contamination level
Most Likely DescendantMLD
MM Mitigation Measure
MND
MRZ
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mineral Resource Zone
MT Metric Ton
MTCO2e/yr
N2O
Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent per year
nitrous oxide
NAAQS
NAHC
NBP
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Native American Heritage Commission
Nesting Bird Plan
No.Number
NO2 or NOx
NOI
Nitrogen Dioxide
Notice of Intent
NPDES
NRCS
O3
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Resource Conservation Service
Ozone
Pb Lead
PCE
PEIR
Primary Constituent Elements
Program EIR
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM 10
PM 2.5
ppm
Fine Particulate Matter
Fine Particulate Matter
parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resource Code
R Refrigerants
RECs
RMS
Recognized Environmental Condition
root mean square
RMU Regional Mixed Use
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW
RTP/SCS
RTP/SCS
RWQCB
SBB
Rights-of-Way
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Bernardino Basin
SBBA
SBCFD
SCAB
SCAG
SCAQMD
San Bernardino Basin Area
San Bernardino County Fire Department
South Coast Air Basin
Southern California Association of Governments
South Coast Air Quality Management District
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page vi
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
SCCIC
SCE
South Central Coastal Information Center
Southern California Edison
SE State Endangered
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA
SGMP
SIP
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
State Implementation Plan
Sacred Lands FileSLF
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOI Secretary of Interior
SRA 34
SSC
SWPPP
SWRCB
TAC
SCAQMD Central San Bernardino Valley monitoring station
Species of Special Concern
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
State Water Resources Control Board
Toxic Air Contaminants
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
THPO
USACE
USDA
USEPA
USFWS
USGS
VdB
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
vibration-velocity decibel
VHFHSZ
VMT
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
vehicle miles traveled
vph vehicles per hour
WOTUS
WQMP
YSMN
Waters of the United States
Water Quality Management Plan
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page vii
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
INTRODUCTION
1.
2.
Project Title:East Valley Water District Well 129 Project
Lead Agency Name:
Address:
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
3.
4.
Contact Person:
Phone Number:
Nathan Carlson
(909) 888-8986
Project Location:The East Valley Water District (EVWD or District) service area is
located in southern California within southwestern San Bernardino
County. The District’s service area is shown on Figure 1. The project
will occur within the eastern part of the District’s service area. The
potential well site is located northwest of the intersection of Calle
Del Rio St. and Vista Clara St., just south of Oak Creek in the City
of Highland (refer to the regional and site aerial maps provided as
Figures 2 and 3). The project is located within the USGS Topo 7.5-
minute map for Redlands, CA, and is located in Section 1, Township
1 South and Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian. The
approximate GPS coordinates of the project site are 34.112523°,
-117.139739°.
5.Project Sponsor Name: East Valley Water District
Address:31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA 92346
6.
7.
8.
General Plan Designation:Low Density Residential
Zoning:R-1 10,000
Project Description:
Project Description
Introduction
East Valley Water District (EVWD or the District) was formed in 1954 for providing water service
to residents of its service area. EVWD's service area encompasses an area of approximately 30
square miles along the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains and includes the City of
Highland, some eastern parts of the City of San Bernardino, the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians, and some unincorporated parts of San Bernardino County. EVWD currently provides
water and wastewater services to a total population of approximately 104,000 residents within
its service area.
EVWD secures its water supply from a network of groundwater production wells and surface
water derived from the Santa Ana River and State Water Project. With groundwater production
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 1
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
rights of 14,217 acre feet per year (AFY), as a non-plaintiff party to the 1969 Western Judgement1,
EVWD has the flexibility to increase groundwater pumping to meet water supply demands.
Between 2013 and 2022, EVWD utilized 15-16 wells for its groundwater production with the
annual production ranging from 12,702 to 18,289 AFY during this period.
It is normal for the production capacity of a groundwater well to decline over time. More often,
this phenomenon is related to the physical plugging of the aquifer sediments, gravel pack
materials2, and the well screen openings. The lifespan of a well, operated for municipal drinking
water purposes ranges from about 50 to 100 years.3 Currently, eight of EVWD’s 15 active
production wells are aged ranging 51 to 94 years. Thus, to ensure its annual pumping rights and
water demands continue to be met, EVWD proposes to install the proposed Well No. 129.
Project Description
The District seeks to install a new well, which would aid the District in meeting current and future
demand. Well No. 129 is proposed to be located within a less than one acre portion of an
approximately 2.37-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 121-038-110) northwest of the
intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street, south of Oak Creek in the City of
Highland (refer to the site plan provided as Figure 3). The District owns APN 121-038-110, which
presently contains two 3-million gallon (MG) steel water storage reservoirs. The site is referred
to as EVWD Plant No. 129.
The site would include the following features: the new well (wellhead); an 8” diameter pipeline
connecting to the District’s booster pump station onsite; a 4’ diameter reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP) that extends 2’ above grade and 16” RCP drain line; chlorine and orthophosphate dosing
systems; a 55’ x 20’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) block building with a standing seam metal roof
enclosing the wellhead, discharge header, PTW header, electrical equipment, and chemical
facilities. It is assumed that minor grading will be required to construct the structure.
The District anticipates that the new well will be drilled utilizing the reverse circulation rotary
drilling method to about 550 feet below ground surface (bgs), based on the depth of the District’s
nearby well. The objective for the well is to generate 25 to 150 acre-feet of potable groundwater
on a monthly basis. The District anticipates that the water quality of the water extracted by the
new Well No. 129 would be similar to Well No. 142, which does experience elevated levels of
combined uranium and gross alpha particle activities. The new well will require installation of a
line shaft vertical pump and would connect to the exiting booster pump station onsite. This would
be sufficient to carry water from the proposed new well to customers.
Access to the proposed project site is provided from the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and
Vista Clara Street, at which the gated Plant No. 129 can be accessed (refer to Figure 3).
Stormwater is removed from the project site via sheet flow into an onsite catch basin which
conveys the water within a 24” RCP to an offsite San Bernardino County Flood Control District
facility.
Environmental Setting
1 Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County et al. vs. East San Bernardino County Water District et al.
Case No. 78426.
2 This only applies if the well was drilled by a rotary method.
3 This assumes that the well was drilled, constructed, and developed using modern industry standards and methods,
the well structure consists of steel materials, and routine maintenance was performed by the owner.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 2
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
The proposed project is located at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, within San
Bernardino County, with only one small residential subdivision separating the project site from
the San Bernardino Mountain foothills. The proposed project site is in the Upper Santa Anna River
Watershed. The project site currently contains EVWD’s Plant No. 129, which consists of two 3-
MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The site has been entirely developed
and is covered with asphalt excepting the areas on the northwestern, northern, and eastern site
boundaries, which contain trees and managed vegetation. The ground surface of the proposed
project site ranges in elevation from between about 1,531 to 1,562 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). The site slopes gently along the project’s eastern boundary, as the adjacent residences
are at a slightly higher elevation than the project site.
The project area lies in the geographically based ecological classification known as the Inland
Valleys – Level IV ecoregion, of the Southern California/Northern Baja Coast – Level III ecoregion.
The goal of regional ecological classifications is to reduce variability based on spatial covariance
in climate, geology, topography, climax vegetation, hydrology, and soils. The Inland Valleys
ecoregion is a heavily urbanized ecoregion that historically consisted of the alluvial fans and basin
floors immediately south of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.
Construction Scenario
Below outlines a more detailed sequence of events that will be implemented in support of the
proposed the development of the proposed well.
➢ The bucket auger drill rig will come onsite and drill and install a permanent steel conductor
casing and cement sanitary seal.
➢ The reverse circulation rotary drill rig will mobilize to the site and set up, including temporary
sound walls.
➢ Drill the pilot borehole and collect associated data, such as lithology, geophysical logs, and
isolated aquifer zone testing.
➢ Deliver the well construction materials.
➢ Ream the pilot borehole to target depth.
➢ Construct the well.
➢ Conduct initial well development by airlift and swab.
➢ Demobilize the drill rig and mobilize the test pump.
➢ Conduct final development by surging and pumping.
➢ Conduct pumping tests and water quality sampling.
➢ Temporarily cap the well and demobilize remaining drilling equipment.
➢ Award a contractor to install permanent pump and motor system.
➢ Construct well building, discharge appurtenances, electrical, etc.
➢ Connect well to the District’s potable water Distribution System.
It is anticipated that about five persons will be at the Well No. 129 site at any one time to support
drilling the well: three drillers, the hydrogeologist inspector, and a foreman. Trips to complete
the well will include a few days each to mobilize and demobilize sound walls, a drill rig, pipe
trailer, generator, mud tanks, mobile field office/storage unit, water storage tanks, and a well
development rig. Other short-term trips during the work will include deliveries of concrete, well
casing and materials to fill the annular space within the well borehole. Daily trips to complete the
well will include 1 roundtrip per day for the drillers, hydrogeologist, and foreman. Work shall be
performed on a 24-hour basis during some phases of the project, including drilling the pilot
borehole, conducting isolated aquifer zone testing, reaming the pilot borehole, constructing the
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 3
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
well, and performing a constant rate pumping test (surrounding housing to be notified in
advance). The durations of these activities are estimated to range from 1 day to 2 weeks. The
instantaneous yield of the new well is estimated to be up to 1,000 gpm. Assuming the
groundwater quality is potable (see the discussion under Hydrology and Water Quality), the new
well will be connected to the District’s distribution system.
The new well would connect to the District’s distribution system via a connection onsite. The new
well will be outfitted with a vertical turbine pump that will be located above ground and placed in
an enclosed structure designed to attenuate noise.
Ground disturbance emissions assume roughly 0.2 acre of land would be actively excavated on a
given day. It is anticipated that installation of connecting pipeline will require the use of a
backhoe, crane, compactor, roller/vibrator, pavement cutter, grinder, haul truck and two dump
trucks operating 6 hours per day; a water truck and excavator operating 4 hours per day and a
paving machine and compacter operating 2 hours per day. Installation of pipeline in undeveloped
locations would require the same equipment as developed area without the paving equipment
(cutter, grinder, paving machine). The contractor may occasionally use a portable generator and
welder for equipment repairs or incidental uses.
Operational Scenario
Operation of the new well would not require any shifts or employees as each District well is
monitored and controlled remotely. The new production well would require up to 1.1 million kWh
to operate per year (if full time). It is not anticipated that back-up generators will be installed,
though the District currently utilizes portable back-up generators when needed to ensure that
each well has continuous electricity. Chemicals used in the water production process will be
chlorine (sodium hypochlorite 12.5%) for disinfection and orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor
for existing copper lines within the District’s distribution system east of Boulder Avenue.
9.Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
The triangular parcel within which the project is proposed, as stated above under “Environmental
Setting,” is located in the City of Highland adjacent to a utility corridor.
Table 1
EXISTING LAND USE AND LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Location Existing Land Use
EVWD Plant No. 129
Land Use Zoning District
Low Density (LD) ResidentialProject
Site
North
South
East
Oak Creek (channel) and Single-family residential
Single-family residential
Low Density (LD) Residential
Low Density (LD) Residential
Low Density (LD) Residential
Park (PK)
Single-family residential
West Open Space Corridor and Oak Creek (channel)
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or partici-
pation agreement.)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 4
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
There are several other agencies with possible jurisdiction/responsibility over the proposed
project.
• First among these is the California State Water Resources Control Board Division of
Drinking Water (State Board). The State Board ultimately approves connection of a new
well to the District’s water distribution system after determining that the water quality is
acceptable to supply potable water to District’s customers. The existing District water
supply permit will be modified to include the new well.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and cultural affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so,
has consultation begun?
AB 52 Consultation was initiated on May 1, 2024 with the three tribes that requested consultation
with EVWD: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation,
and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. One tribe responded to the District’s AB 52 consultation
notification: the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN). YSMN responded that the proposed
project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe.
However, due to the nature and location of the proposed project, and given the Tribe’s Cultural
Resource Management (CRM) Department’s present state of knowledge, YSMN does not have
any concerns with the project’s implementation, but requested the implementation of standard
mitigation measures intended to protect tribal cultural resources.
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies,
and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential
adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the
environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also
be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public
Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources
Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 5
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Cultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Geology / Soils
Hydrology & Water Quality
Noise
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Recreation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 6
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)
3)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
4)
5)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions
for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 8
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
7)
8)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 9
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS: 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 publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning or other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well , which would aid the
District in meeting current and future demand in the District’s service area. The site would include
the following features: the new well (wellhead); connecting pipeline; chlorine and orthophosphate
dosing systems; a 55’ x 20’ CMU block building enclosing the wellhead, and associated
appurtenances. The well would be installed within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is
fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. As a result of
the fully modified state of the existing site, the site does not contain features that would be
considered scenic vistas.
A scenic vista impact can also occur when a scenic vista can be viewed from the project area or
immediate vicinity and a proposed development may interfere with the view to a scenic vista. The
dominant landscape within the project area is residential in nature, with residences located to the
north, east, and south of the project site, and a utility easement forming the diagonal northwestern
site boundary. The project footprint is located about 1,000 feet mile south of the foothills of the San
Bernardino Mountains, which add to the background viewsheds. The Highland General Plan EIR
identified the San Bernardino Mountains as the city’s most prominent visual feature. However, pristine
views of the San Gabriel Mountains in the vicinity of and internal to the project site do not exist as a
result of existing development.
The presence of construction equipment and related construction materials would be visible from
public vantage points, such as open space areas, sidewalks, and streets, but it would not adversely
affect any scenic views or vistas. Construction of the proposed well would not permanently affect
views or scenic vistas due to the small size and low profile of the construction site. Thus, impacts
would be less than significant. Once constructed, the proposed well would occupy a footprint
anticipated to be less than a 55’ x 20’. The well would be enclosed in a small CMU structure, which
is designed to minimize noise from the pumps required to operate a well. As such, it is anticipated
that the well would have a small footprint, and would be low profile. Given that the project would
not degrade views to nearby scenic vistas as a result of the fact that the well would be low profile
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 10
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
with a small footprint, and as a result of the fact that the well and associated appurtenances would
be installed within EVWD’s existing Plant No. 129, which contains similar water-related infrastructure
to that which is proposed as part of this project, the project would not substantially alter the views
in the project footprint in the long-term. Thus, implementation of the proposed Well No. 129 Project
is not expected to cause any substantial adverse effects on any important scenic vistas. No impacts
are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway. The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two
3-MG water storage reservoirs. The proposed project is located northwest of the intersection of Calle
Del Rio St. and Vista Clara St. According to the Scenic Routes & Highways Map provided as Figure
I-1, the proposed project is not located adjacent to a scenic highway. Thus, the proposed well
installation would not impact a scenic highway because none are located in close proximity to the
proposed project. No historic buildings are located within the project site would be disturbed as part
of the proposed project. No rock outcroppings exist within the District’s Plant No. 129 site, and
therefore none would be impacted by the proposed project. As stated under issue I(a), above, the
District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs,
and a booster pump station, within which no trees would be impacted as part of the project
construction. No other scenic resources have been identified on the site. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant potential to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c.No Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two
3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station, that is located in an urban/suburban
area. Construction activities would require the use of construction equipment and storage of materials
at the project site. Excavated areas, stockpiled soils and other materials generated during
construction would present negative visual elements to the existing landscape. However, these
effects would be nominal because the well would be installed in a developed area with sufficient
vacant area to temporarily store construction equipment and materials, and the effects would be
temporary for only the nominal duration of construction, and therefore not substantially affect the
existing visual character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, there are no regulations governing
scenic quality within the City of Highland Zoning Code that would apply to the development of the
proposed well, particularly in light of California Government Code Section 53091, which renders
infrastructure projects, such as that which is proposed under the Program, land use and zoning
independent. Impacts would be less than significant.
Once constructed, the proposed well would occupy a footprint anticipated to be about 55’ x 20’ within
the project site; therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed well would have a small footprint and
be low profile. As stated above, there are no regulations governing scenic quality within the City of
Highland Zoning Code that would apply to the development of the proposed ancillary facilities,
particularly in light of California Government Code Section 53091. As compliance with the zoning is
not required for water facilities such as the proposed well, no conflict with the sections of the zoning
code governing scenic quality would exist. Thus, no impacts under this issue are anticipated from
either construction or operation of the proposed well.
d.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. Lighting
at the well site will be installed as needed for safety. The surrounding land uses within the project
footprint consist mainly of residential uses surrounding the Plant No. 129 site in three directions, with
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 11
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
residents directly adjacent to the property line of Plant No. 129 to the east and south. Thus, the
proposed project has a potential to create a new source of substantial lighting or glare during
construction that could adversely affect nighttime views at the adjacent residences, and residences
can be considered a light sensitive land use. The existing site lighting will remain in place, and minor
additional lighting would be outfitted on the exterior of the structure that encloses the well, with
interior lighting anticipated to be installed as well. As this exterior lighting is anticipated to be utilize
low watt bulbs, and will be directed downwards similar to that existing exterior lighting at Plant No
129, new exterior lighting is not anticipated to create a new source of lighting or glare that would be
obtrusive at adjacent sensitive receptors. Lighting will be required during the 24-hour drilling phase
of the well construction. In order to ensure that impacts to this issue area remain less than
significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented.
AES-1 Night lighting will be located and shielded so as to avoid creating a
nuisance to nearby residents. Light generated during activities taking
place at night shall not spill off the well site onto adjacent occupied
structures.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1, lighting and glare impacts will be less
than significant.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 12
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the 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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.No Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two
3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The Well No. 129 Project is located in
an area that does not support agricultural uses. Neither the project site nor the adjacent and
surrounding properties are designated for agricultural use; no agricultural activities exist in the
immediate vicinity of the project area; and there is no potential for impact to any agricultural uses
or values as a result of project implementation. According to the San Bernardino Countywide Plan
Agricultural Resources Map (Figure II-1), the proposed project has not been designated for
agricultural use; no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance exists
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 13
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
within the vicinity of the proposed project. No adverse impact to any agricultural resources would
occur from implementing the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
b.
c.
No Impact – There are no agricultural uses currently within the project footprint or on adjacent
properties. The proposed well is located within the following land use designation: Low Density
Residential. The proposed well is located within the R-1 10,000 zoning classification within the City
of Highland. No potential exists for a conflict between the proposed project and agricultural zoning
or Williamson Act contracts within the project area. No mitigation is required.
No Impact – Please refer to issues II(a) and II(b) above. The project site is in an urbanized area
surrounded by residential housing. The proposed well is located within the following land use
designation: Low Density Residential. The proposed well is located within the R-1 10,000 zoning
classification within the City of Highland. Neither the land use designation nor zoning classification
supports forest land or timberland uses or designations. No potential exists for a conflict between
the proposed project and forest/timberland zoning. No mitigation is required.
d.
e.
No Impact – There are no forest lands within the project area, which is because the project area is
urbanized and removed from nearby mountains, where much of the area’s forestland is located. No
potential for loss of forest land would occur if the project is implemented. No mitigation is required.
No Impact – Because the project footprint and surrounding area do not support either agricultural or
forestry uses and, furthermore, because the project footprint and environs are not designated for
such uses, implementation of the proposed project would not cause or result in the conversion of
farmland or forest land to alternative use. No adverse impact would occur. No mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 14
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
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?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information utilized in this section of the Initial Study was obtained from
the following technical study: East Valley Water District Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared
by Urban Crossroads dated May 28, 2024. This technical study is provided as Appendix 1 to this document.
Background
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis-Presley Air Quality
Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under
the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity
with federal and state air quality standards. As stated, the project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745-
square-mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.
The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San
Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is
bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the
north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of
the Salton Sea Air Basin is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward as far
as the Palo Verde Valley.
Climate
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature,
wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.
The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to mid 60s (degrees Fahrenheit
[°F]). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in
average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB,
with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All
portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 15
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite
moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important
modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide
(SO ) to sulfates (SO ) is heightened in air with high relative humidity. The marine layer provides an24
environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual
average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent (%) along the coast and 59% inland. Since the
ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a
characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.
More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall
varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly
and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered
thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with
frequency being higher near the coast.
Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The
remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key
factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of
possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14½ hours of possible
sunshine.
The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines
the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy
season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region
from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed
“Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum
photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze
and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences
between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general
northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational
cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes
and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the
SCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina
Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication
of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air
pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow
layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine
subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to
pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to
1,500 feet above mean sea level.
A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains
at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary
with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur primarily in the
winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet
above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
carbon monoxide (CO) from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of
high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 16
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are
levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with
each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the
health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants
are ozone (O ) (precursor emissions include NO and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter3X
(PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO ), sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards22
are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as
nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for
the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O , PM ,3 10
and PM2.5.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Trend
In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to
reduce the amount of TAC emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars, trucks,
stationary products, and consumer products. According to the Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air
Contaminants in California journal article which was prepared for CARB, results show that between 1990-
2012, ambient concentration and emission trends for the seven TACs responsible for most of the known
cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California have declined significantly (between 1990 and
2012). The seven TACs studied include those that are derived from mobile sources: diesel particulate matter
(DPM), benzene (C H ), and 1,3-butadiene (C H ); those that are derived from stationary sources:6 6 4 6
perchloroethylene (C Cl ) and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)); and those derived from photochemical24
reactions of emitted VOCs: formaldehyde (CH O) and acetaldehyde (C H O).4 The decline in ambient224
concentration and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented
to address cancer risk.
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating
air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with
pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they
gather are defined as “sensitive receptors.” These structures typically include uses such as residences,
hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the localized significance
threshold (LST) Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the
project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of
PM and PM , since PM and PM thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.10 2.5 10 2.5
Receptors in the project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the project site
boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the
project site. Receptors in the project study area are shown on Figure III-1 under the Localized
Construction Emissions section later in the report.
•
•
•
•
Receptor R1 represents the existing residence at 7804 Calle Del Rio Street, approximately 45 feet
southwest of the project site.
Receptor R2 represents the existing residence at 7811 Calle Del Rio Street, approximately 98 feet
south of the project site.
Receptor R3 represents the existing residence at 7814 Santa Angela Street, approximately 207 feet
southeast of the project site.
Receptor R4 represents the existing residence at 30463 McLean Street, approximately 226 feet
northeast of the project site.
4 It should be noted that ambient DPM concentrations are not measured directly. Rather, a surrogate method using the
coefficient of haze (COH) and elemental carbon (EC) is used to estimate DPM concentrations.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 17
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Applicable Regulatory Requirements
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this project include but are not
limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings).
SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of
anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust
emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust
and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule
is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity
that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
•Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be
seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
•
•
•
•
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized
at all times.
Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept
daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
Methodology
In May 2024, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other
California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.
The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant
(VOCs, NO , SO , CO, PM , and PM ) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantifyXX102.5
applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. Accordingly, the latest
version of CalEEMod has been used for this project to determine construction and operational air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions.
Air Quality Regional Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table
III-1. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the
SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an
individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.
Table III-1
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
NOX
Construction
100 lbs./day
75 lbs./day
Operations
55 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
550 lbs./day
VOC
PM10 150 lbs./day
55 lbs./dayPM2.5
SOX 150 lbs./day
550 lbs./dayCO
lbs./day – Pounds Per Day
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 18
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Air Quality Localized Emissions Thresholds
For this project, the appropriate area for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Central San Bernardino Valley
monitoring station (SRA 34). LSTs apply to CO, NO , PM , and PM . The SCAQMD produced look-up tables2102.5
for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in
determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look-up tables identify thresholds at only
1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance
thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table III-2 were calculated by
interpolating the threshold values for the project’s disturbed acreage.
It should be noted that though the project is less than 1 acre in size, the acreage disturbed is based on the
equipment list and days during each phase of construction according to the anticipated maximum number
of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. The equipment-specific grading
rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. It should
be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes
over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same
land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies
equipment-specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Scrapers;
therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in the demolition, site preparation and
grading phase was replaced with Crawler Tractors. The project’s construction activities could disturb a
maximum of approximately 1 acre per day for well drilling, construction, development, testing, demolition,
building construction, paving, 3.5 acres per day for site preparation, and 3 acres per day for grading
activities. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently
lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As such, Table III-2 presents thresholds for localized
construction and operational emissions.
Table III-2
MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Emissions (lbs./day)Source Activity VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Well Drilling,
Construction,
Development,
Testing
118 lbs./day 667 lbs./day 4 lbs./day 3 lbs./day
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
220 lbs./day
203 lbs./day
118 lbs./day
118 lbs./day
118 lbs./day
118 lbs./day
1,359 lbs./day
1,230 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
11 lbs./day
9 lbs./day
4 lbs./day
4 lbs./day
4 lbs./day
1 lbs./day
6 lbs./day
5 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
1 lbs./day
Construction
Operations
Building Construction
Paving
-
1Source of LSTs is provided on page 14 of 32.
Impact Analysis
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by
relatively poor air quality. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743-square-mile
area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions
of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is
principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well
as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 19
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In
response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the
state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more
effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of
air pollution control on the economy.
In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP
continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well
as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing
incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a
strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP,
the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions,
including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RTP/SCS,
a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region
meet the federal CAA requirements. The project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined
using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and
Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook. These indicators are discussed below.
The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing
air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the
AQMP.
The violations that under this criterion refer to are the CAAQS and National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance
thresholds were exceeded.
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were
exceeded. As evaluated, the project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source
emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than
significant impact is expected.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the project is determined to be consistent with the first
criterion.
The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project
build-out phase.
The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved
within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans
adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts,
which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent
with the growth projections in the City of Highland General Plan is considered to be consistent with
the AQMP.
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use
assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential
would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such,
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 20
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would
result.
The City of Highland General Plan designates the project site as “Low Density Residential.” This
designation limits land uses to single-family detached residential, and mobile homes, subject to
applicable General Plan policies and ordinance provisions of the City of Highland. As previously stated,
the proposed project includes the initiative to drill and construct a new groundwater production well.
Although this finding is inconsistent with the current zoning designation, it should be noted that the
site currently functions as a water storage facility. The proposed project aims to install a new
groundwater well rather than introduce a use that is more intensive than the current operations on
site. Furthermore, the project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional or localized air
quality significance thresholds.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the project is determined to be consistent with the AQMP
and a less than significant impact is expected.
b.Less Than Significant Impact ‒ Air pollution emissions associated with the proposed project would
occur over both a short and long-term time period. Short-term emissions include fugitive dust from
construction activities (i.e., site prep, demolition, grading) and exhaust emissions at the project site.
Long-term emissions generated by future operation of the proposed well would be through a demand
for energy to operate and through project related traffic.
Construction Emissions
In May 2024 the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with
other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of CalEEMod2022.1.1.
Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the project would result in emissions of VOCs, NO , SO , CO,X X
PM , and PM . Construction-related emissions are expected from the following activities:10 2.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Demolition Activities
Removal of existing asphalt will be required to construct the 40’ x 20’ well building, resulting in
approximately 91 tons of demolished material.
Grading Activities
Dust is typically a major concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable
to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions.” Fugitive
dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area
disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to
calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. The project is expected to
balance and will not require import/export.
On-Road Trips
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, vendors, and haul
trucks commuting to and from the site. Worker and hauling trips are based on CalEEMod defaults.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 21
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Construction Duration
For purposes of analysis, construction of project is expected to commence in September 2024 and
would last through August 2025. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a
“worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since
emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to
emission regulations becoming more stringent.5 The duration of construction activity and associated
equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per
CEQA Guidelines.
Construction Equipment
Equipment modeled is based on CalEEMod defaults and consultation with EVWD. Consistent with
industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment will operate up to a
total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two-thirds of the period during which construction
activities are allowed pursuant to the code.
Regional Construction Emissions Summary
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table III-3, and as shown,
the project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Thus,
through compliance with mandatory Rule 403, the project would result in a less than significant
impact associated with construction activities. Detailed Construction model outputs are presented in
Attachment A to Appendix 1.
Table III-3
REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Emissions (lbs./day)Source VOC NOX
Summer
9.08
CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2024
2025
1.11
4.13
14.20
33.80
0.02
0.06
0.64
7.82
0.41
4.5237.50
Winter
9.1020241.10
1.01
4.13
75
13.80
13.60
33.80
550
0.02
0.02
0.06
150
NO
0.64
0.57
7.82
150
NO
0.41
0.34
4.52
55
2025 8.50
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
37.50
100
NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.
Regional Operational Emissions
Long-term air quality impacts occur from mobile source emissions generated from project-related
traffic and from stationary source emissions generated from natural gas. The proposed project
primarily involves construction activity. For on-going operations, mobile emissions would be
generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project sites during on-going maintenance.
However, the project would generate a nominal number of traffic trips for periodic maintenance and
inspections and would not result in any substantive new long-term emissions sources. As this project
5 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year
increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment
being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 22
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
involves the operations of a well which is expected to produce 967-acre feet per year (314,889,124
gallons per year) it is assumed that consumer products would not be used.
All operational equipment associated with the project would be electrically powered and would not
directly generate local air emissions. It is our understanding that the proposed project will include
the use of a 350-horsepower pump.
Stationary area source emissions are typically generated by the consumption of natural gas for space
and water heating devices and the use of consumer products. Stationary energy emissions would
result from energy consumption associated with the proposed project. However, the proposed project
may include the use of an emergency diesel generator supplying power to the treatment plant in
case of emergency. If a backup generator were installed, the lead agency would be required to obtain
the applicable permits from SCAQMD for operation of such equipment. The SCAQMD is responsible
for issuing permits for the operation of stationary sources to reduce air pollution, and to attain and
maintain NAAQS and CAAQS within the SCAB. The project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. A
backup generator would be used only in emergency situations and for routine testing and
maintenance purposes. Based on guidance from SCAQMD, the backup generator would operate for
a maximum of 200 hours annually or approximately 0.5 hours per day. Emissions associated with the
backup generator are summarized on Table III-4, as shown, emissions from the backup generator
would not contribute a substantial amount of emissions capable of exceeding SCAQMD thresholds.
As project operations would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the project would not violate an air
quality standard or contribute to an existing violation. Therefore, project operations would not result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than
significant. Detailed model outputs for the backup diesel generator emissions calculations are
presented in Attachment A of Appendix 1.
Emissions associated with the pump are summarized in Table III-4. Project operational-source
emissions would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for
any criteria pollutant, a less than significant impact would occur for project-related operational-source
emissions and no mitigation is required.
Table III-4
TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions (lbs./day)Source VOC NOX
Summer
0.04
CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Stationary Source
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
0.01
0.01
55
0.04
0.04
550
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
55
0.04
55
NO NO NO
Winter
0.04Stationary Source
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
0.01
0.01
55
0.04
0.04
550
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
55
0.04
55
NO NO NO
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 23
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Conclusion
The City of Highland General Plan designates the project site as “Low Density Residential.” This
designation limits land uses to single-family detached residential, and mobile homes, subject to
applicable General Plan policies and ordinance provisions of the City of Highland. As previously stated,
the proposed project includes the initiative to drill and construct a new groundwater production well.
Although this finding is inconsistent with the current zoning designation, it should be noted that the
site currently functions as a water storage facility. The proposed project aims to install a new
groundwater well rather than introduce a use that is more intensive than the current water operations
on the Plant No. 129 site. Furthermore, the project, as evaluated herein, would not exceed the
regional or localized air quality significance thresholds. The CAAQS designate the project site as
nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the project site as
nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White
Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report
the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for
all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the
significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI)
significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance
threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI
is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA
analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both
of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for
project specific and cumulative impacts.
Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to
be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance
thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are
generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”
Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or
construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific
impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants
for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant,
adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational
emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered
cumulatively considerable.
Construction Impacts: The project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding
analysis demonstrates that proposed project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not
result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed project construction-source
emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.
Operational Impacts: The project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis
demonstrates that proposed project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in
exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project operational-source emissions
would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.
c.Less Than Significant Impact ‒ The potential impact of project-generated air pollutant emissions at
sensitive receptors has also been considered.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 24
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Localized Construction Emissions
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality
are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or
state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized
Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing
Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-46. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project
that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can
use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. It should be noted
that SCAQMD also states that projects that are statutorily or categorically exempt under CEQA would
not be subject to LST analyses. As such, although not required for this project, LST analysis is
presented to further underscore that there are in fact no significant impacts associated with the
project.
The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the
project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use
where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the project site has been used to determine localized
construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM and PM (since PM and PM102.5 10 2.5
thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time The nearest receptor used for evaluation of
localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R1 existing residence at 7804 Calley Del Rio Street,
approximately 45 feet (14 meters) southwest of the project site. Receptors in the project study area
shown on Figure III-1. It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is
possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located
closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.”
As such, for evaluation of localized PM and PM , a 25-meter distance will be used.10 2.5
As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to
the project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of
NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is
reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours.
As there are no industrial/commercial uses located at a closer distance than the residential homes
that are located adjacent to the project site, the same 25-meter distance will be used for evaluation
of localized impacts of NOX and CO.
Table III-5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the
project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A to Appendix
1. As shown in Table III-5, emissions resulting from the project construction will not exceed the
numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a
less than significant impact would occur for localized project-related construction-source emissions
and no mitigation is required.
6 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal
protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air
within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental
policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender,
race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.”
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 25
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Table III-5
PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Emissions (lbs./day)On-Site Emissions NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Well Drilling, Construction, Development, Testing
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
8.99 12.50
667
0.37
4
0.34
3118
NO NO NO NO
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
22.20 19.90
667
1.55
4
0.94
3118
NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
37.50 32.40
1,359
NO
7.59
11
4.47
6220
NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
29.70 28.30
1,230
NO
3.62
9
2.09
5203
NO NO NO
Building Construction
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
11.30
118
14.10
667
0.47
4
0.43
3
NO NO NO NO
Paving
7.45Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
9.98
667
NO
0.35
4
0.32
3118
NO NO NO
Results of the LST analysis indicate that the project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance
thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial
pollutant concentrations during project construction.
Localized Operational Emissions
According to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the
operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile
sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer
facilities). As previously discussed, the project would generate a nominal number of traffic trips in
the context of on-going maintenance resulting in a negligible amount of new mobile source emissions.
The proposed project will include the use of a pump and an emergency generator. Localized
emissions are summarized in Table III-6.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 26
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Table III-6
PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Emissions (lbs./day)On-Site Emissions NOX
0.04
118
NO
CO
0.04
667
NO
PM10
0.00
1
PM2.5
0.00
1
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?NO NO
Additionally, the project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during
operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant
concentrations as the result of project operations.
CO “Hot Spot” Analysis
As discussed below, the project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot
spots.” Further, detailed modeling of project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this
conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of
the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were
to occur.
It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when
idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly
stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a
maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are
more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation
of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the
SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO
concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy
intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis
did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table III-7.
Table III-7
CO MODEL RESULTS
CO Concentrations (ppm)Intersection Location Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
3.7Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
4.6
4
3.5
4.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.7
3
5.2
8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.
Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide
(1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual
meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a
particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at
the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the
“hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this
intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003
AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 27
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour
standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO
concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to
increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or
24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO
impact. Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on
Table III-8. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue,
which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062
vph and 7,719 vph respectively. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this
intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to
400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed
the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).
Table III-8
CO MODEL RESULTS
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Intersection Location Eastbound
(AM/PM)
4,954/2,069
Westbound Southbound Northbound
(AM/PM)
560/933
Total
(AM/PM)
8,062/7,719
(AM/PM)(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
1,830/3,317 721/1,400
1,417/1,764
2,540/2,243
1,217/2,020
1,342/1,540
1,890/2,728
1,760/1,400
2,304/1,832
1,384/2,029
479/944
1,551/2,238
821/1,674
756/1,150
6,614/5,374
6,634/8,674
4,212/5,514
d.Less Than Significant Impact – Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as
agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills or various heavy industrial
uses. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment
exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and
the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed project’s (long-
term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from
construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in
nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus
considered less than significant. It is expected that project-generated refuse would be stored in
covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations.
The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent
occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed project construction
and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 28
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 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, 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?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information is provided based on a study titled “Biological Resources
Assessment for West Valley Water District’s Proposed Well No. 129 Project” (BRA) prepared by HDR dated
July 10, 2024 and provided as Appendix 2.
General Site Conditions
The project area lies in the geographically based ecological classification known as the Inland Valleys –
Level IV ecoregion, of the Southern California/Northern Baja Coast – Level III ecoregion. The goal of
regional ecological classifications is to reduce variability based on spatial covariance in climate, geology,
topography, climax vegetation, hydrology, and soils. The Inland Valleys ecoregion is a heavily urbanized
ecoregion that historically consisted of the alluvial fans and basin floors immediately south of the San
Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.
The proposed project is located at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, within San Bernardino
County, with only one small residential subdivision separating the project site from the San Bernardino
Mountain foothills. The proposed project site is in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed. The project site
currently contains EVWD’s Plant No. 129, which consists of two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a
booster pump station. The site has been entirely developed and is covered with asphalt excepting the areas
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 29
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
on the northwestern, northern, and eastern site boundaries, which contain trees and managed vegetation.
The ground surface of the proposed project site ranges in elevation from between about 1,527 to 1,558
feet amsl. The site slopes gently along the project’s eastern boundary, as the adjacent residences are at a
slightly higher elevation than the project site.
The project site supports one (1) plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports two
(2) land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. The majority of the project site
supports non-native grassland that occurs in varying densities throughout the site, except on the paved
and dirt roads that intersect the site. This plant community is dominated by non-native grasses such as
common Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus) and oats (Avena spp.) and supports primarily
weedy/early successional species.
The Project survey site is disturbed land completely fenced and developed with access roads, existing
reservoir, and operation/maintenance facilities and equipment. There is no extant native habitat occurring
on the site. The surrounding areas support a mixed shrub community typical of the area and generally
characterized by native shrub vegetation with some disturbance from off-highway vehicles and the dumping
of trash, and transient encampments. Dominant species are creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), burrobush
(Franseria dumosa), rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus depressus), indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides)
and Russian thistle (Salsola sp.). Annuals observed during the survey included fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.),
brome (Bromus sp.), filaree Storksbill (Erodium sp.), and schismus (Schismus barbatus). Human
disturbances associated with the surrounding developments.
The project area does not support any native habitats. The site has been cleared of vegetation, and only
scattered individuals of annual species occurs in the proposed construction area.
Special-Status Plants
According to the CNDDB, 6 sensitive species (2 plant species, 4 animal species) have been documented in
the Redlands, USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. This list of sensitive species includes any state and/or
federally listed threatened or endangered species, or candidates, California Fully Protected species,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and
otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is
interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of
“species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest
conservation need.
Only one state candidate species has been documented within the Redlands quad. There are no known
occurrences within 3 miles of the proposed reservoir site.
The federal iPAC report identifies the potential for 4 listed or candidate species however non-are mapped
within 13 miles of the site.
Special-Status Wildlife
No state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species were observed
within the Development Area during the reconnaissance-level field survey. An analysis of the likelihood for
occurrence of all CNDDB sensitive species documented in the Redlands, quad is provided in Appendix A.
This analysis considers species’ range as well as documentation within the vicinity of the Subject Parcel
and includes the habitat requirements for each species and the potential for their occurrence on site, based
on required habitat elements and range relative to the current site condition.
The Development Area does not have any native or natural habitats, further the project will be located in
an asphalt parking lot.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 30
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Special-Status Habitats
The Subject Parcel does not contain any sensitive habitats, including any USFWS designated Critical Habitat
for any federally listed species. The nearest Critical Habitat unit is greater than 3 miles northwest of the
Subject Parcel.
The Development Area will not result in any loss or adverse modification of USFWS designated Critical
Habitat, or any other special status habitats.
Jurisdictional Waters
The Subject Parcel is within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Area . The Santa Ana River is the largest river
entirely within Southern California in the United States. It rises in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows
for most of its length through San Bernardino and Riverside counties, before cutting through the northern
Santa Ana Mountains via Santa Ana Canyon and flowing southwest through urban Orange County to drain
into the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana River is 96 miles (154 kilometers [km]) long, and its drainage basin
is 2,650 square miles (6,900 km2) in size.
No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the project site during the field
investigation. Further no blueline streams have been recorded on the project site. Therefore, development
of the project will not result in impacts to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdiction and regulatory
approvals will not be required.
Conclusion
Based literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report,
implementation of the project is not expected to have significant impacts on federally or State listed species
known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on
designated Critical Habitat, since there is no federal nexus, or regional wildlife corridors/linkages because
none exist within the area. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the project
site during the field investigation. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the
recommendations provided below, no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents or
special-status species will occur from implementation of the proposed project.
Impact Analysis
a.Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the project has no potential for a significant
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW
or USFWS. The project site is vacant and no longer supports any native habitat, and because the
site has been fully disturbed, there are no sensitive habitats that could support special status species
located within the Project footprint. The BRA provided as Appendix 2 to this Initial Study determined
that the project site does not contain suitable habitat for the following species with a potential to
occur in the project area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marsh Sanward (Arenaria Paludicola) Federally Endangered (FE)/State Endangered (SE)
Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii) FE/SE
Crotch bumble bee State Candidate Endangered (CE)
salt marsh bird's-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. Maritimum) FE/SE
western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Federal Threatened (FT)/SE
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) FE/SE
Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) FE/SE
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) FE/SE
Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Sanctorum) FE/SE
Steelhead - (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) (southern California DPS pop. 10) FE/CE
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) FT
southern mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) FE/SE
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 31
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
•
•
western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) Federal Proposed Endangered
least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
No State- and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species were
observed on site during the field survey. Given that no State- and/or federally-listed threatened or
endangered species, or other sensitive species are anticipated to occur within the project site based
on the results of the BRA, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to have
a substantial adverse effect 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.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed project has a no potential to have
an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. The project footprint does not contain suitable
habitat for any of the sensitive species with a potential to occur in the project APE, and it does not
contain any known riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified by any agency.
Therefore, there is a less than significant potential for implementation of this project to have an
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
c.No Impact – According to the data gathered by HDR in the BRA, no federally protected wetlands
occur within the project footprint. HDR assessed the project area of potential effect (APE) for the
presence of any state and/or federal jurisdictional waters. The result of the jurisdictional waters
assessment is that there are no wetland or non-wetland waters of the United States (WOTUS) or
waters of the State potentially subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and/or Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or the
CDFW under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC), respectively. Therefore, the project will
not impact any jurisdictional waters and no state or federal jurisdictional waters permitting will be
required. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will have no potential to impact any
federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
No mitigation is required.
d.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Based on the field survey of the project site,
the project will not substantially interfere with or impede the use of native nursery sites. Habitat
linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development.
Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or
migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to
allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover
is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor
to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that
allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species.
Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural
fluctuations in resources.
According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the project site is not mapped as occurring
within or adjacent to any Major Open Space Areas. Furthermore, the proposed project would be
installed within an existing facility that is fenced, and therefore does not currently serve as a wildlife
corridor. Additionally, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone
habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the project site to these, or any other, identified wildlife
corridors or linkages. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not disrupt or have any
adverse effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 32
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
The State protects all migratory and nesting native birds. Several bird species were identified as
potentially occurring in the project area, and the proposed project site contains suitable habitat for
nesting birds within the site. To avoid impacting nesting birds as required by the Federal MBTA and
California FGC, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
BIO-1 Nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist no
more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground
disturbance activities. Preconstruction surveys shall focus on both direct
and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting
behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid
potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If
active nests are found during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, a
Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared and implemented by the
qualified avian biologist. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines
for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, ongoing monitoring,
establishment of avoidance and minimization measures, and reporting.
The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based on the
nesting species, individual/pair’s behavior, nesting stage, nest location,
its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration of the disturbance
activity. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, any grubbing or vegetation
removal should occur outside peak breeding season (typically February 1
through September 1).
Thus, with implementation of the above measure, any effects on wildlife movement or the use of
wildlife nursery sites can be reduced to a less than significant impact.
e.
f.
Less Than Significant Impact – Based on the field survey, there are no species that are specifically
protected by a local policy or ordinance specific to the proposed project site. As no biological
resources located within the project footprint are protected under local policies or ordinances, impacts
under this issue are considered less than significant.
No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under response IV(a) above. The project is not located
in an area within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and implementation of the project will
therefore not result in a significant impact to any such plans. No further mitigation is necessary.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 33
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 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?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information is provided based on the “Cultural Resources Assessment for
the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project” that was prepared by Michelle Hart of Mojave Archaeological
Consulting. The report is dated January 2024 and is provided as Appendix 3 to this Initial Study. The
following information is abstracted from this report. It provides an overview and findings regarding the
cultural resources found within the project area.
Background
At the request of Tom Dodson and Associates, Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC, conducted a cultural
resources investigation for the East Valley Water District’s proposed Well 129 project, in the City of
Highland, San Bernardino County, California. This report was prepared in accordance with the CEQA as
part of the Initial Study for the project. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and state and local guidelines,
the EVWD is the Lead Agency for the proposed project.
EVWD proposes to install Well 129 on an approximately 2.4 acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]
1210-381-10). The parcel currently contains two 3-million-gallon steel reservoirs, an associated booster
station, and asphalt paved parking and work areas surrounded by block walls, chain link fencing, and an
access gate. The project site is located northeast of the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara
Street, in the City of Highland, on the USGS 7.5-minute map for Redlands, CA, within Section 1 of Township
1 South Range 3 West.
This report describes the methods and results of the cultural resources investigation of the project area,
which included a records search and literature review, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a pedestrian survey. The purpose of the investigation was to
provide the East Valley Water District with the information and analysis necessary to determine the potential
for the proposed project to impact “historical resources” and “archaeological resources” under CEQA.
The records search performed by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), included a 0.5-mile-wide buffer (study area), and
indicated twenty-four previous cultural resource investigations and seven cultural resources are
documented within the 0.5-mile study area. Of the previous investigations, one covered a portion of the
project site (Mckenna et al. 1992). No cultural resources have been previously documented within the 2.4-
acre project site.
The SLF search with the NAHC was completed with negative results. A copy of the NAHC’s response letter
and a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of the project area are provided as an
appendix to the Cultural Report (Appendix 3). Compliance with tribal notification and consultation under
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 34
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
AB 52 has been conducted by EVWD. AB 52 Consultation was initiated on May 1, 2024 with the three tribes
that requested consultation with EVWD: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
responded by requesting consultation on the proposed project, and requested the incorporation of several
mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts to both cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Due the age of any applicable previous cultural resource investigations, Mojave Archaeological Consulting
conducted a site visit and survey of the 2.4-acre project site on 16 May 2024. The visit confirmed the level
of previous disturbance and development of the site. Based on historic research, the site once contained
an orchard, and historic irrigation features and historic refuse have been previously recorded outside of the
project site, but within the surrounding area. The historic orchard rows were removed in approximately
1995, when the site was cleared and graded for the installation of the reservoir tanks, a booster station
structure, and asphalt paved parking and work areas. The periphery of the site is surrounded by block
walls, chain link fencing, and an access gate.
Few areas of visible ground surface remain with the exception of several feet of earthen berm on the
northern periphery of the site bounding an adjacent flood control channel and approximately 0.7-acres on
the eastern side of the site which consists of steep slope with irrigated vegetation and what appears to be
non-native topsoil. The unpaved areas of the site were visually inspected to confirm levels of prior
disturbance and to assess the potential for buried cultural deposits.
The project site is located on land that was used historically for agricultural purposes. No traces of historic
orchard trees, historic irrigation systems, or any historic debris remain on the site. Oak creek, immediately
to the north of the parcel, was utilized as an irrigation ditch during historic periods but the natural creek
channel and subsequent irrigation ditch have been heavily modified through time for flood control purposes,
altering both the natural and historic corridor of the creek/irrigation ditch any characteristic features. The
entirety of the project site is heavily disturbed through decades of use including historic agricultural
production, followed by subsequent grading, cut and fill, and contouring using heavy equipment in the
1990’s, and the installation of the present water pumping and storage facility. Because of this, there is little
to no potential for any intact or substantial buried cultural resources to remain at the project site.
Considering these findings, Mojave Archaeological Consulting recommends to the East Valley Water District
that the proposed project will have no impact on historical or archaeological resources. No further cultural
resources work is recommended necessary for the proposed project activities. However, in the unlikely
event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance for project activities, all
work should be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the
significance and integrity of the find. If intact and significant archaeological remains are encountered, the
impacts of the project should be mitigated appropriately. Any such discoveries, and subsequent evaluation
and treatment, should be documented in a cultural resources report, which would be submitted to the
SCCIC for archival purposes. Additionally, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Statute &
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event
of an accidental discovery of human remains. Finally, as progress plans are finalized, if the project area is
expanded to include areas not covered by this survey or other recent cultural resource investigations,
additional cultural resource studies may be required.
Impact Analysis
a&b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment" (Public Resource Code [PRC] §21084.1). "Substantial adverse
change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such
that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired."
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 35
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Per the above discussion and definition, no archaeological sites or isolates were recorded within the
project boundaries. Thus, no archaeological or historical isolates requires further consideration during
this study. In light of this information and pursuant to PRC §21084.1, the following conclusions have
been reached for the project:
•No historical resources within or adjacent to the project area have any potential to be disturbed
as they are not within the proposed area in which the facilities will be constructed and developed,
and thus, the project as it is currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to
any known historical resources.
•No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless
construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.
However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated
with the project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
CUL-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these
facilities, ground disturbing activities in the immediate area of the finds
shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately
by a qualified archaeologist. Responsibility for making this determination
shall be with the District. The archaeological professional shall assess the
find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appro-
priate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act.
Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) have requested the following cultural
mitigation measures to be implemented to minimize impacts to cultural resources, as follows:
CUL-2 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project
activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot
buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other
portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during
this assessment period.ꢀAdditionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as
detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact era finds and be
provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial
assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with
regards to significance and treatment.
CUL-3 If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as
amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts
of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed
within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the
project and implement the Plan accordingly.
With the above mitigation measures, the potential for impacts to cultural resources will be reduced
to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
c.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – As noted in the discussion above, no available
information suggests that human remains may occur within the APE and the potential for such an
occurrence is considered very low. Human remains discovered during the project will need to be
treated in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code (HSC) §7050.5 and PRC
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 36
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
§5097.98, which is mandatory. State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code) as well as
local laws requires that the Police Department, County Sheriff and Coroner’s Office receive notification
if human remains are encountered. Additionally, the YSMN have requested the following mitigation
measure to that would minimize potential impacts related to human remains and funerary objects as
follows:
CUL-4 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any
activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity
(within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner
shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5
and that code enforced for the duration of the project.ꢀ
As such, the potential for discovery and treatment of human remains will be reduced to a less than
significant level through compliance with existing laws and through the implementation of mitigation.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 37
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
VI. ENERGY: 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 operations?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
SUBSTANTIATION
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact – Energy consumption encompasses many different activities. For
example, construction can include the following activities: delivery of equipment and material to a
site from some location (note it also requires energy to manufacture the equipment and material,
such as harvesting, cutting and delivering wood from its source); employee trips to work, possibly
offsite for lunch (or a visit by a catering truck), travel home, and occasionally leaving a site for an
appointment or checking another job; use of equipment onsite (electric or fuel); and sometimes
demolition and disposal of construction waste. For the proposed project the number of construction
workers will be limited to about 5 persons at a given time during construction with no new employees
anticipated to be required once construction has concluded. The project would require ground
disturbance in paved and undeveloped areas in places where trenching is required to install piping.
To minimize energy costs of construction debris management, laws are in place that require diversion
of all material subject to recycling. During construction, the proposed project will utilize construction
equipment that is CARB approved, minimizing emissions generated and electricity required to the
extent feasible. This would prevent a significant impact during construction due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and would also conform to the CARB
regulations regarding energy efficiency.
The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and connecting piping
within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage
reservoirs, and a booster pump station. No new employees are anticipated to be required in support
of the project once the well is in operation. The project will be supplied power from Southern
California Edison (SCE). Additionally, it is not anticipated that back-up generators will be installed,
though the District currently utilizes portable back-up generators when needed to ensure that each
well has continuous electricity. As such, the project is not anticipated to require a significant amount
of electricity in the context of existing available power sources. The well and supporting infrastructure
must be constructed in conformance with a variety of existing energy efficiency regulatory
requirements or guidelines including, but not limited to the following:
•Compliance California Green Building Standards Code, AKA the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part
11), which became effective on January 1, 2017. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to
improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of
building through the use of building concepts encouraging sustainable construction practices.
Compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC) would ensure that the building
energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful or unnecessary.
Compliance with diversion of construction and demolition materials from landfills.
Compliance with AQMD Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting finish materials.
Compliance with AQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2 to reduce the release of undesirable emissions.
Compliance with diesel exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles and off-road diesel vehicle/equip-
ment operations.
•
•
•
•
•
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 38
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Compliance with these regulatory requirements for operational energy use and construction energy
use would not be wasteful or unnecessary use of energy. Further, SCE is presently in compliance
with State renewable energy supply requirements and SCE will supply electricity to the project. The
proposed project does not include any substantive new stationary or mobile sources of emissions,
and therefore, by its very nature, will not generate substantial amounts of energy demand from
project operations. The project does not propose a trip-generating land use or facilities that would
generate any substantive amount of on-going energy demands. While it is anticipated that the project
would require intermittent maintenance, such maintenance would be minimal requiring a negligible
amount of traffic trips on an annual basis. As such, under the operational scenario for the proposed
project, the proposed project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy
consumption that could result in a significant adverse impact to energy issues based on compliance
with the referenced laws, regulations and guidelines.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – Based on the analysis in the preceding discussion, the proposed
project will not conflict with current State energy efficiency or electricity supply requirements or any
local plans or programs for renewable energy or energy efficiency requirements. No mitigation is
required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 39
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
(i)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? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
(iv) 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 onsite or offsite land-
slide, 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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.i. Ground Rupture
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
project footprint is located in the City of Highland. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zones are the San
Andreas Fault located less than one hundred feet to the north of the project site; the fault zones are
depicted on Figure VII-1, the San Bernardino Countywide Plan Earthquake Fault Zones Map. The
fault zones are within close proximity to the project site. While the well itself can be installed safely
and without risk of seismic hazard, including fault rupture that would directly or indirectly cause
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 40
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, the structure that will
enclose the well could experience failure as a result of the project site’s proximity to the San Andreas
Fault. Therefore, mitigation would be required to minimize impacts under this issue to a less than
significant level through ensuring that well enclosure is analyzed thoroughly through a site specific
geotechnical report with specific design recommendations.
GEO-1: Prior to construction of the well enclosure, a design-level geotechnical
investigation, including collection of site specific subsurface data if
appropriate, shall be completed. The geotechnical evaluation shall identify
all potential seismic hazards including fault rupture, and characterize the
soil profiles, including liquefaction potential, expansive soil potential,
subsidence, and landslide potential. The geotechnical investigation shall
recommend site specific design criteria to mitigate for seismic and non-
seismic hazards, such as special foundations and structural setbacks, and
these recommendations shall be incorporated into the design of the
proposed project.
The design and construction of wells is controlled by both state and local design construction
standards. Compliance with these standards and requirements of the City is mandatory and
considered adequate mitigation for potential impacts associated with the well development, but MM
GEO-1 is required to ensure that the well enclosure would be installed in a manner that would
minimize hazards related to earthquake fault rupture. Therefore, the potential for this project to
expose people or property to the hazard of earthquake fault rupture is considered less than significant
through the implementation of mitigation.
ii. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Less Than Significant Impact – As stated in the discussion above, the San Andreas Fault runs through
the San Bernardino Mountains through the northern portion of the City of Highland, and as with much
of southern California, the proposed well and well enclosure will be subject to strong seismic ground
shaking impacts should any major earthquakes occur in the future, particularly due to the site’s
location adjacent to the San Andreas Fault Alquist Priolo Fault Zone, as shown in Figure VII-1. In
the event of an earthquake in Southern California, some seismic ground shaking would likely be
experienced in the project area sometime during the operational life of the proposed wells and
monitoring devices. The proposed well would be installed and housed within a small structure.
Ground shaking could result in structural damage to new well facilities, which in turn could affect
operation of the proposed well. Therefore, structural and mechanical failure of facilities caused by
seismic ground shaking could potentially threaten the safety of on-site workers.
The structural elements of facilities proposed under this Project Category would undergo appropriate
design-level geotechnical evaluations prior to final design and construction as required to comply
with the CBC. The geotechnical engineer, as a registered professional with the State of California, is
required to comply with the CBC and local codes while applying standard engineering practice and
the appropriate standard of care required for projects in the San Bernardino County area. The
California Professional Engineers Act (Building and Professions Code Sections 6700-6799) and the
Codes of Professional Conduct, as administered by the California Board of Professional Engineers,
Land Surveyors, and Geologists, provide the basis for regulating and enforcing engineering practice
in California. Compliance with these construction and building safety design standards would reduce
potential impacts associated with ground shaking to a level of less than significant. Thus, impacts
under this issue are considered less than significant.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 41
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
iii. Seismic-Related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The three factors determining whether a site is
likely to be subject to liquefaction include seismic shaking, type and consistency of earth materials,
and groundwater level. Liquefaction of saturated cohesionless soils can be caused by strong ground
motion resulting from earthquakes. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated,
cohesionless soils lose their strength due to the build-up of excess pore water pressure during cyclic
loading such as that induced by earthquakes. According to the map prepared for the County of San
Bernardino Countywide Plan Liquefaction & Landslides Map (Figure VII-2), the project site is located
in an area known to be highly susceptible to liquefaction. The proposed wells located on or in soils
with a moderate to high potential for liquefaction could experience damage or failure as a result of
liquefaction. Therefore, adverse effects involving liquefaction would be potentially significant. As
such, the implementation of MM GEO-1 would be required to minimize impacts under this issue to
a less than significant level through ensuring that the proposed project is analyzed thoroughly
through a site specific geotechnical report with specific design recommendations. The implementation
of MM GEO-1 would reduce the potential impacts from liquefaction hazards through a design level
geotechnical investigation with implementation of specific design recommendations.
iv. Landslide
Less Than Significant Impact – Landslides in the project area are generally known to occur around
the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The proposed project footprint is located along the
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, but the proposed project area is relatively flat, and
generally is not located in an area that would be susceptible to landslide. According to the map
prepared for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan Liquefaction & Landslides Map (Figure VII-2),
the project site is not located in an area that is considered susceptible to landslides. No potential
events can be identified that would result in adverse effects from landslides or that would cause
landslides that could expose people or structures to such an event as a result of project
implementation. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
b.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. However, the
project may result in exposing some soil to erosion during site development activities before the well
is drilled and completed. Due to the disturbed nature of the existing site and the flat topography, it
is concluded that the potential for this project to cause substantial soil erosion is low. Development
of the proposed wells would result in construction activities that would need to comply with SCAQMD
Rule 403 for dust control that would ensure the prevention and/or management of wind erosion and
subsequent topsoil loss. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would ensure that construction activities
that generate wind-induced soil erosion are below significance thresholds as this is a requirement
intended to prevent significant wind-induced soil erosion. As a mandatory requirement, mitigation is
not required to ensure compliance with the above Rule. Implementation of BMPs through the
mitigation measures provided below, in conjunction with MM HYD-3 in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section to control erosion is considered adequate to mitigate potential impacts associated
with the water-related erosion of soil. Please refer to the detailed discussion and mitigation measures
addressing wind-related soils erosion (fugitive dust) in the Air Quality section.
GEO-2 Excavated areas shall be backfilled and compacted such that erosion does
not occur. Paved areas disturbed by this project shall be repaved in such
a manner that roadways and other disturbed areas are returned to the
pre-project conditions or better.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 42
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
GEO-3 All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be sprayed
with water or soil binders twice a day or more frequently if fugitive dust
is observed migrating from the site within which the pipelines are being
installed.
GEO-4 The District shall identify any additional BMPs to ensure that the discharge
of surface water does not cause erosion downstream of the discharge
point. This shall be accomplished by reducing the energy of any site
discharge through an artificial energy dissipater or equivalent device. If
any substantial erosion or sedimentation occurs, any erosion or
sedimentation damage shall be restored to pre-discharge conditions.
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, any impacts are considered less than
significant. No further mitigation is necessary.
c.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The coarse alluvial soils located at the project
sites exhibit stability. Based on a review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey of the project footprint, the soils underlying
the project site are Hanford7 coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes and Psamments, Fluvents and
Frequently flooded soils, with Psamments being the primary soil underlying the project footprint
(Appendix 4). These series are well drained, and is in a negligible to low runoff class. Non-seismically
induced geologic hazards such as landslides, subsidence, lateral spreading, settlement, and slope
failure can be caused by unstable soils. Soil instability from landslides, subsidence, lateral spreading,
settlement, and slope failure can cause collapse of structures. The proposed well may be installed
within an area containing unstable soils, and as such, could experience damage or failure as a result.
Additionally, subsidence and collapse could damage the proposed facilities and affect the safety of
on-site or visiting employees. Therefore, adverse effects involving unstable soils would be potentially
significant. As such, the implementation of MM GEO-1 is required to minimize impacts under this
issue to a less than significant level through ensuring that new wells are analyzed thoroughly through
a site specific geotechnical report with specific design recommendations. The implementation of MM
GEO-1 would reduce the potential impacts related to unstable soils through a design level
geotechnical investigation with implementation of specific design recommendations for
implementation of the proposed Well No. 129 Project. Thus, impacts under this issue are considered
less than significant through the implementation of mitigation.
d.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
project site is generally flat. As stated above, the USDA Web Soil Survey indicates that the majority
of the project APE is underlain by Hanford coarse sandy loam and Psamments, Fluvents and
Frequently flooded soils, with Psamments being the primary soil underlying the project footprint.
These soil types are not classified as being expansive under Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), particularly as expansive soils are typically in the clay soil family. These classes of soils
are well drained and are not considered expansive. Expansive soils are typically in the clay soil family,
which are not known to occur within the project footprint. However, the specific soil properties of a
site can vary on a small scale, and may include undetermined areas that exhibit expansive properties.
Thus, as the proposed project soils have not yet been tested, there is a potential that such facilities
could be installed within a site containing expansive soils. Therefore, adverse effects involving
expansive soils would be potentially significant. As such, implementation of MM GEO-1 is necessary
to reduce the potential impacts related to expansive soils through a design level geotechnical
investigation with implementation of specific design recommendations. Thus, mitigation is required
7 USDA, 1999. Tujunga Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HANFORD.html (accessed 05/04/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 43
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
to minimize impacts under this issue to a less than significant level through ensuring that the well
site is analyzed thoroughly through a site-specific geotechnical report with specific design
recommendations.
e.
f.
No Impact – The proposed project proponent is EVWD, and the overall purpose of the proposed
project is to expand EVWD’s water system to accommodate future demand by development in the
project area. No septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of
the project. Thus, no impacts related to the use of septic tanks or alternative water disposal systems
will occur.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
potential for discovering paleontological resources during development of the project is considered
moderate given that the San Bernardino Countywide Plan Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) indicates that the project site is located within low-to-high sensitivity for paleontological
resources. However, as the proposed project has already been developed with excavation occurring
in order to install the existing onsite piping, it is not anticipated that unique geologic features would
occur on or beneath the project footprint. However, because the project has not been surveyed at
depth in recent history, and the fact that these resources are located beneath the surface and can
only be discovered as a result of ground disturbance activities, the following contingency measure
shall be implemented:
GEO-5 Should any paleontological resources be encountered during construction
of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area
of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed
immediately by a qualified paleontologist. Responsibility for making this
determination shall be with the District’s onsite inspector. The
paleontological professional shall assess the find, determine its
significance, and determine appropriate mitigation measures within the
guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act that shall be
implemented to minimize any impacts to a paleontological resource.
With incorporation of this contingency mitigation, the potential for impact to paleontological
resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 44
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: 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?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information utilized in this section of the Initial Study was obtained from
the following technical study: East Valley Water District Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared
by Urban Crossroads dated May 28, 2024. This technical study is provided as Appendix 1 to this document.
Climate Change Setting
Global climate change (GCC) is the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect
to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking
place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific
evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere,
including carbon dioxide (CO ), methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of242
scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human
activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.
An individual project like the proposed project evaluated in this memo cannot generate enough GHG
emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed project may participate
in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of
all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because
these changes may have serious environmental consequences, this memo will evaluate the potential for
the proposed project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential
contribution to the greenhouse effect.
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature,
wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring
atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO , N O, CH , hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons224
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time
(duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases
allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming
the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the
atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average
temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative
accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed
increase in the earth’s temperature.
For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO , CH , and N O were evaluated because these gases are242
the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as
fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 45
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate
these gases.
Standards of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts from GHG
emissions are significant. Would the project:
•
•
Threshold 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs?
The evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a project against both existing
conditions and a “threshold of significance.” For establishing significance thresholds, the Office of Planning
and Research’s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) state “[w]hen adopting thresholds
of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended
by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt
such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) further states, “. . . A lead agency shall have discretion to determine,
in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse
gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use . . .; or (2) Rely on a
qualitative analysis or performance-based standards.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides that a lead agency should consider the following factors, among
others, in assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions:
•
•
•
Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
as compared to the existing environmental setting.
Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead
agency determines applies to the project.
Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements
adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse
gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency
through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of
greenhouse gas emissions. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider
a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s
incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution
is not cumulatively considerable.
Establishment of Significance Thresholds
Based on the foregoing guidance, the East Valley Water District has elected to rely on compliance with a
local air district threshold in the determination of significance of project-related GHG emissions. Specifically,
the District has selected the interim 3,000 Metric Tons of CO equivalent per year (MTCO e/yr). threshold22
recommended by SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare
project-related GHG emissions.
The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior to
its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by
the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate Change white
paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 46
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be
subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10
percent of all GHG-producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance
threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse
impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to
implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development
projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90
percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion
of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved
while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute
approximate 1 percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050.
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e/yr., SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were
removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high,
leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD
analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-
use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial
land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric
generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by
SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from
projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that
the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e/yr. The SCAQMD set their significance
threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e.,
3,000 MTCO2e/yr.) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to
provide further analysis.
The District understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed
by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding
policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold was developed and
recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft
Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and
subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its
support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the
SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where
all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also
are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use
in 2022. Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed
for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this analysis, if project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000
MTCO2e/yr. threshold, then project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-significant impact
pursuant to Threshold GHG-1. On the other hand, if project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000
MTCO2e/yr., the project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions.
Impact Analysis
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The estimated GHG emissions for the project land use are summarized
on Table VIII-1. The estimated GHG emission include emissions from CO2, CH4, N2O, and
Refrigerants (R). As shown on Table VIII-1, the project would generate a total of approximately
1,046.97 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed project are presented in
Attachment A of Appendix 1.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 47
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
The project is assumed to require less than one year for construction. During project construction,
the CalEEMod2022.1 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual
CO2 emissions identified in Table VIII-1.
Table VIII-1
TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Emission (lbs./day)Source CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 8.35 3.33E-04 0.00 1.33E-03 8.36
Energy 268.00
439.00
0.61
0.03
10.30
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
269.00
769.00
0.61
Water 0.25
Stationary 0.00
Total CO2e (All Sources)1,046.97
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not been
established by the SCAQMD for projects where it is not the lead agency. As an interim threshold
based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the District has
opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold
2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on
capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold
developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. for all project.
The project would result in approximately a net 1,046.97 MTCO2e/yr.; the proposed project would
not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the project would result in
a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely
on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from
GHG emissions.
Construction
40% below 1990 levels by 2030
By using newer and electrified construction equipment as it is phased in pursuant to requirements
under AB 197 and similar laws, policies and programs, the project will be aligned with applicable
plans and policies and would, therefore, not otherwise conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
This is consistent with SB 32’s goal of reducing statewide emissions of greenhouse gases by 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030.
85% below 1990 levels by 2045 / 2050
While construction activities associated with the implementation of the project would result in
emissions of CO and CH (see previous section regarding threshold 1, most of the emissions will24
come from the burning of fossil fuel in construction equipment. These emissions from construction
equipment will decrease even more as emissions technology improves in the next 20 years.
Additionally, it is likely that diesel equipment will be cleaner and more efficient, powered by renewable
diesel, and/or phased out due to local Climate Action Plans and state requirements (such by AB 197)
by 2045. Newer electrified construction equipment will also become more broadly available, further
decreasing construction emissions.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 48
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
This is consistent with AB 1279’s goal of reducing emissions to 85% below 1990 levels and carbon
neutrality by 2045 and, by extension, Executive Order S-03-05’s goal of reducing emissions to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050.
Operations
40% below 1990 levels by 2030
Operational emissions are powered primarily by electricity, so the project’s GHG emissions will decline
as renewable and carbon neutral energy sources make up a larger and larger percentage of power
on the grid in compliance with state’s plans, policies, and regulations.
This is consistent with SB 32’s goal of reducing statewide emissions of greenhouse gases by 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030.
85% below 1990 levels by 2045 / 2050
Operational emissions are powered primarily by electricity, so the project’s GHG emissions will decline
as renewable and carbon neutral energy sources make up a larger and larger percentage of power
on the grid in compliance with state’s plans, policies, and regulations.
Finally, the implementation of the project will increase local water supplies, thereby avoiding the
need to import water from remote sources. By reducing the demand for importing water, which is
energy intensive and generates GHG emissions, the project will offset GHG emissions that would
otherwise have occurred absent implementation of the project.
This is consistent with AB 1279’s goal of reducing emissions to 85% below 1990 levels and carbon
neutrality by 2045 and, by extension, Executive Order S-03-05’s goal of reducing emissions to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. This is also consistent with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan goals and
objectives, which are based on compliance with AB 1279.
Conclusion
Results of the assessment indicate that the project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact
during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and GHG.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 49
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
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 one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials 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 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?
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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The proposed project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, operation of the proposed well is anticipated to
require treatment prior to connecting to the District’s existing distribution system. It is anticipated
that the well would store chemicals required for the treating of water extracted from the well.
Chemicals used in the water production process will be chlorine (sodium hypochlorite 12.5%) for
disinfection and orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor for existing copper lines within the District’s
distribution system east of Boulder Avenue. It is unknown at this time if additional treatment will be
required for the well to meet the standards of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The District will comply with state and standards for handling this
material. If any other constituents of concern (COCs) are found in the groundwater extracted by the
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 50
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
proposed well, the District will implement the appropriate treatment method. If water quality is
degraded it must be blended to a level below Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or any specific
pollutant exceeding MCLs must be treated and brought into compliance with General Permit discharge
requirements prior to discharge to meet the MCL requirements for that pollutant. Furthermore, the
District has developed safety standards and operational procedures for safe transport and use of its
operational and maintenance materials that are potentially hazardous. These procedures will comply
with all federal, state and local regulations will ensure that the project operates in a manner that
poses no substantial hazards to the public or the environment. No additional mitigation is necessary
to ensure the impact of managing these chemicals result in a less than significant impact on the
environment. Therefore, potential impacts to the public or the environment through accidental
release due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than
significant. The District has standard operational procedures for safe transport and use of its
operational and maintenance materials. No additional measures are necessary to ensure the impact
of managing this chemical result in a less than significant impact on the environment.
b.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. During
construction or maintenance activities in support of the proposed project, fuels, oils, solvents, and
other petroleum materials classified as "hazardous" will be used to support these operations.
Mitigation designed to reduce, control or remediate potential accidental releases must be
implemented to prevent the creation of new contaminated areas that may require remediation in the
future and to minimize exposure of humans to public health risks from accidental releases. The
following mitigation measure reduce such accidental spill hazards to a less than significant level:
HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities
will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local
regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released.
The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an
appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.
By implementing this measure, potentially substantial adverse environmental impacts from accidental
releases associated with installation of the proposed well can be reduced to a less than significant
level. Additionally, roadways adjacent to and within the project footprint are public roads that can be
used by any common carrier to or from the local area. For such transporters, the existing regulatory
mandates ensure that the hazardous materials and any hazardous wastes transported to and from
the project site will be properly managed. These regulations are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of
the California Code of Regulations. For example, maintenance trucks for construction equipment must
transport their hazardous materials in appropriate containers, such as tanks or other storage devices.
In addition, the haulers must comply with all existing applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations regarding transport, use, disposal, handling and storage of hazardous wastes and
material, including storage, collection and disposal. Compliance with these laws and regulations
related to transportation will minimize potential exposure of humans or the environment to significant
hazards from transport of such materials and wastes. Therefore, through the implementation of
mitigation, potentially substantial adverse environmental impacts from accidental releases associated
with installation of the proposed well can be reduced to a less than significant level.
c.Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is not located within one quarter mile of a school;
the nearest school is Cram Elementary School, located a little over a mile northwest of the project
site at 29700 Water St, Highland, CA 92346. The proposed project is not anticipated to emit
hazardous emissions or handle large quantities of hazardous materials or substances that would
cause a significant impact to a local school. Furthermore, the District will develop further safety
standards and operational procedures and continue to enforce existing safety standards and
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 51
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
operational procedures for safe transport and use of its operational and maintenance materials that
are potentially hazardous. As such, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste during construction or
operation in a quantity that would pose any danger to people adjacent to, or in the general vicinity
of, the project site. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project to this issue area would be
considered less than significant.
d.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not be located on a site that is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. None of the
proposed actions related to the development of the proposed well would be near to or impact a site
known to have hazardous materials or a site under remediation for hazardous materials or associated
issues. A review of the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database indicates
that no open hazardous materials cleanup sites are located within a 2,500-foot radius of the proposed
well development site (Figure IX-1). There are no nearby open or closed Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup sites. Therefore, the proposed project is not forecast to result in a
significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with this issue area. No mitigation is
required.
e.
f.
No Impact ‒ The project site is located at a great distance from any nearby airport. As shown on the
Airport Safety & Planning Areas map prepared for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan (Figure
IX-2), the proposed project is not located within an Airport Safety Review Area for either the
Redlands Airport or the San Bernardino International Airport. Therefore, there is no potential safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area as a result of proximity to a public airport
or private airstrip. No mitigation is required.
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed well would be confined to the Plant No. 129 site, with
no planned encroachment onto the adjacent roadways because the pipelines that connect to the
District’s water distribution system are already connected to the piping interior to the Plant No. 129
site. The installation of the new well, associated appurtenances, and connecting piping will require
no work within the adjacent roadways, nor will it require work within any of the roadways identified
as emergency evacuation routes (refer to San Bernardino Countywide Plan Evacuation Route Map
(Figure IX-3). Due to its location and point of access, there will be no potential to interfere with an
emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. At no time during construction of Well
No. 129 will any access to or along these roads be restricted. For additional information, please refer
to the Transportation/Traffic Section of this document, Section XVII. Therefore, the proposed project
is not forecast to Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts under this issue are considered less than
significant
g.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project area is located at a distance of about
900 feet from the San Bernardino Mountain foothills, but the project is still located within a very
high fire hazard severity zone (Figure IX-4). The proposed project footprint is located within a Local
Responsibility Area (LRA). However, the project will not construct any habitable structures, only the
enclosure for the proposed well, which would be similar to the enclosure for the proposed booster
pump station that presently exists at the Plant No. 129 site. The proposed well would function to
pump and distribute water throughout the EVWD service area, and would not be constructed of
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 52
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
flammable materials or involve any spark-producing activities, or human occupancy. Operational
impacts of the proposed well would be less than significant with no mitigation.
The use of spark-producing construction machinery within a fire risk area could create hazardous fire
conditions and expose people or structures to wildfire risks. Based on past experience with wildfires
in the area, the Valley Region does not experience the same level of wildfire hazards as do the
mountain areas where fuel loads are greater, and as such, this part of the project area can be
successfully evacuated and life preserved, even if property is damaged. The implementation of MM
HAZ-2 would require the preparation of a fire management plan/fuel modification plan for the
proposed well, and it would identify comprehensive strategies to reduce fire potential during
construction and over long-term operation. Therefore, potential significant impacts due to installation
of proposed well infrastructure would be reduced to less than significant level with implementation
of MM HAZ-2.
HAZ-2 Prior to construction, fire hazard reduction measures shall be
incorporated into a fire management/fuel modification plan for the
proposed facility, and shall be implemented during construction and
over the long-term for protection of the site. These measures shall
address all staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development
that are planned to use spark-producing equipment. These areas shall
be cleared of dried vegetation or other material that could ignite. Any
construction equipment that includes a spark arrestor shall be equipped
with a spark arrestor in good working order. During the construction of
the project, all vehicles and crews working at the project site shall have
access to functional fire extinguishers and related fire prevention
equipment (such as emergency sand bags, etc.) at all times. In addition,
construction crews shall have a spotter during welding activities to look
out for potentially dangerous situations, including accidental sparks.
This plan shall be reviewed by the District and CAL FIRE for review and
comment, where appropriate, and approved prior to construction and
implemented once approved. The fire management plan shall also
include sufficient defensible space or other measures at a facility site
located in a high or very high FHSZ to minimize fire damage to a level
acceptable to the District over the long term.
Therefore, though the proposed project is located within an area considered susceptible to wildfire
hazards, with the implementation of MM HAZ-2, the proposed project would have a less than
significant expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 53
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
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 onsite or
offsite?
(ii)substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding onsite or offsite?
(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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
project includes activities that have a potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements due to direct discharge of water brought to the surface during well testing. Prior to
pumping large quantities of water from the proposed municipal-supply water well, EVWD will need
to test the quality of the water to verify that it does not contain contaminants that would exceed the
standard water quality objectives for this portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The Santa Ana
RWQCB would have jurisdiction over the groundwater quality and surface water discharges for the
new well. A General Permit within the Regional Board’s jurisdiction covers the discharge of
groundwater generated from well drilling and development activities. This General Permit establishes
specific performance requirements for discharges from well activities and the proposed project must
comply with these requirements. Before discharge from the well test program can proceed, sampling
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 54
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
must be completed to ensure that maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of all pollutants are not
exceeded in the groundwater brought to the surface and discharged. If water quality is degraded it
must be blended to a level below MCLs or any specific pollutant exceeding MCLs must be treated and
brought into compliance with General Permit discharge requirements prior to discharge to meet the
MCL requirements for that pollutant. The following mitigation measure ensures that no significantly
degraded groundwater (above MCLs) will be discharged during well testing:
HYD-1 The District shall test the groundwater produced from the well prior to
discharge. Prior to or during discharge any contaminants shall be blended
below the pertinent MCL or treated prior to discharge, including sediment
or other material.
The proposed project may result in some soil erosion during drilling and construction activities. Due
to the disturbed nature of the project site, and the flat topography of each site, it is concluded that
the potential for this project to cause substantial soil erosion, and subsequent water quality impacts,
is low. Due to the small size of the area that would be disturbed as part of construction of the
proposed project (less than one acre), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not
required. However, the District shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during
construction, which will be enforced by the following mitigation measure:
HYD-2 The District shall require that the construction contractor to implement
specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all
construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of
keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters.
These practices shall include a Plan that identifies the methods of
containing, cleanup, transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals
or materials released during construction activities that are compatible
with applicable laws and regulations. BMPs to be implemented by the
District include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
The use of silt fences or coir rolls;
The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins;
The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff;
The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site;
The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to
prevent the tracking of silt and other pollutants from the site onto
public roads;
•
•
The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum
necessary to efficiently perform the construction activities required.
Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in water courses
or other areas subject to the flow of surface water; and
Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with waterproof
material during rain events to control erosion of soil from the
stockpiles.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures, as well as MMs HAZ-1 and HYD-3 below, is
considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to stormwater runoff to a less than significant level.
The project would have a less than significant impact under this issue. No further mitigation is
required.
b.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would not deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a substantial lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 55
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). The proposed well would extract
water from the San Bernardino Basin (SBB) portion of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin. The San
Bernardino Basin (SBB), labeled the “San Bernardino Basin Area” in the Judgment, was adjudicated
in gross, by the Western-San Bernardino Judgment (Western Judgment) in 1969. The Western
Judgment calculated the natural safe yield of the SBB to be 232,100 AFY for all extractions, including
surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Surface water is diverted from Mill Creek, Lytle
Creek, and the Santa Ana River.
EVWD’s water supply consists primarily of groundwater from wells in the western portion of the
service area. These wells, in the San Bernardino Basin (SBB), supply approximately 80% of the total
water supply. In addition to groundwater, EVWD provides treated surface water from the Santa Ana
River and the State Water Project. EVWD produced 15,169 acre feet (AF) of groundwater from the
SBB in 2020, and estimates that groundwater will make up 10,257 AF of its supply in 2025, and up
to 12,035 AF in 2045, with alternative sources of supply making the difference to meet the District’s
demand. Refer to the 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water
Management Plan.8 Between 2013 and 2022, EVWD utilized 15-16 wells for its groundwater
production with the annual production ranging from 12,702 to 18,289 AFY during this period. To
ensure its annual pumping rights and water demands continue to be met, EVWD proposes to install
the proposed Well No. 129. As the proposed well would enable pumping within EVWD’s pumping
rights, it is not anticipated that the proposed well would substantially decrease groundwater supplies
in the SBB.
The well is not designed to interfere with any private wells located within the same aquifer. However,
since pumping tests will not be conducted until the proposed well is completed, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented by the District to ensure that other wells within this local
aquifer do not incur a significant adverse impact from pumping the proposed well.
HYD-3 The District shall conduct a pump test of the new well and determine
whether any other wells are located within the cone of depression once
the well reaches equilibrium. If any private wells are adversely impacted
by future groundwater extractions from the proposed well, the District
shall offset this impact through provision of water service; or adjusting
the flow rates or hours of operation to mitigate adverse impacts.
Ultimately, through implementation of the above mitigation measure, the potential to substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be reduced to less than
significant. No additional mitigation is required.
c.
(i-iii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project would install a new well,
associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site,
which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The
proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation onsite, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite, or create or contribute runoff water
8 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, 2021. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional
Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sbvwcd.org/our-projects/upper-santa-ana-integrated-regional-water-
management-plan/ (accessed 05/08/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 56
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The proposed project will be implemented within a site containing existing facilities in support of
EVWD’s Plant No. 129, and therefore would be located within a fully developed site. Once the
proposed well is installed, the drainage pattern of the area of disturbance would not change
substantially. It is not anticipated that substantial erosion or siltation would occur on site, given that
the drainage will be managed as it is at present. The well site will require minimal grading, demolition
of existing concrete, and excavation to install connecting piping in the small area in which the well
will be installed, and as such would have a less than significant potential to interfere with the
discharge of stormwater over the long-term as the site will remain essentially the same, with only
the small area that will be temporarily or permanently disturbed as a result of the well development
and associated piping installation. Furthermore, because the development of the well would alter the
site only minimally, the project would not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff, such
that flooding on- or off-site would occur.
The District will implement a set of BMPs to control discharges that surface runoff with pollutants
could cause that may cause a significant adverse impact to surface water quality. Storm water
pollution prevention BMPs will be incorporated to control potential pollution from construction
activities in the vicinity of the selected project site. These measures, such as silt fencing, detention
basins, etc., are mandatory, as are the measures for ongoing non-point source pollution controls
implemented by the local jurisdictions once the project is completed. The mandatory BMPs applied
in conjunction with MMs HAZ-1, and HYD-3 in conjunction with MM HYD-4 below, are deemed
sufficient to reduce potential surface water quality impacts to a less than significant level. This is
because the stormwater discharge will be treated to the point that the discharge will meet
requirements for stormwater runoff from construction sites.
HYD-4 The District and construction contractor shall select best management
practices applicable to the project site and activities on the site to achieve
a reduction in pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, both during
and following development of the proposed municipal-supply water well
and associated pipeline, and to control urban runoff after the Project is
constructed and the well (if approved for operation post well testing) is in
operation.
Adequate drainage facilities exist or will be developed by this proposed project to accommodate
future drainage flows, and will therefore result in a less than significant impact. Based on the data
outlined above, this project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area; result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite; or, 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. Therefore, with the mitigation
measure identified above, impacts under these issues are considered less than significant. No further
mitigation is required.
c.
(iv). No Impact – According to the County of San Bernardino General Plan 100-Year Floodplain Map
(Figure X-1), the proposed project is not located in a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area.
Development of the well at this site, which, as previously stated would only require minimal ground
disturbance, and furthermore, the site would be returned to its similar condition to that which exists
at present (i.e. impervious surfaces where the well will be installed), and therefore would not impede
or redirect flows. The location is outside of roadways, and drainage will be managed within the site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 57
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
impede or redirect flows. No impacts are anticipated under this issue. No mitigation is required.
d.Less Than Significant Impact – As stated above under issue X(c[iv]), the proposed project is located
within Zone X and is therefore not delineated as being within a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Department of Water Resources (DWR) flood plain (Figure X-2). The project site is
not located near any large bodies of water, so impacts associated with seiche or tsunami cannot
occur. Mudflow typically occurs on hillsides and the proposed project is not located on a hillside or in
an area exposed to significant mudflow. The project is not located within a flood hazard zone, and
based on the BMPs required to ensure that any hazardous materials are handled according to State
and District standards, it is not anticipated that a release of pollutants would occur at the project
site. As previously stated, BMPs in place would ensure that the minimal potential for pollutants that
may occur on site would not be released in the event of project inundation. Therefore, impacts under
this issue are considered less than significant.
e.Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is located in the Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin, SBB,
which has been designated very low priority by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA). The project is located in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed. The SGMA empowers local
agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to manage basins and requires GSAs
to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for crucial groundwater basins in California. The
SGMA “requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft
and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these
basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For
critically over-drafted basins, that will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins,
2042 is the deadline.”9 The SBB was adjudicated under the Western Judgment, which generally
provides for the following:
•
•
A determination of safe yield of the San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA),
Establishment 64,872 acre-feet rights that can be extracted from the SBBA by plaintiff parties.
This is equal to 27.95 percent of safe yield,
•An obligation of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) to replenish any
extractions from SBBA by non-plaintiffs in aggregate in excess of 167,228 acre-feet(equal to
72.05 percent of safe yield),
•
•
An obligation of Western to replenish the Colton and Riverside Basins if extractions for use in
Riverside County in aggregate exceed certain specific amounts, and
An obligation of Valley District to replenish the Colton and Riverside basins if water levels are
lower than certain specific water level elevations in specified wells. 10
As previously stated, between 2013 and 2022, EVWD utilized 15-16 wells for its groundwater
production with the annual production ranging from 12,702 to 18,289 AFY during this period. To
ensure its annual pumping rights and water demands continue to be met, EVWD proposes to install
the proposed Well No. 129. As the proposed well would enable pumping within EVWD’s pumping
rights, and given that EVWD must comply with the Western Judgment, the proposed installation of
an extraction well within the SBB would not result in a conflict with the SGMA. Thus, it is not
anticipated that the proposed well development project would have a significant potential to conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. Furthermore, by controlling water quality during construction and operations
through implementation of both short- and long-term best management practices at the site, no
9 California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2024. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management (accessed 02/12/24)
10 Valley District, 2021. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.sbvwcd.org/~documents/route%3A/download/3811/ (accessed 05/09/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 58
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
potential for conflict or obstruction of the Regional Board’s water quality control plan has been
identified. Impacts are less than significant.
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: 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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.No Impact – The Well No. 129 Project footprint is located within the City of Highland. The proposed
project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s
existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a
booster pump station. There are no features of the well or project as a whole that would create a
barrier or physically divide an established community, particularly given that well would be integrated
into the landscape unobtrusively within existing infrastructure owned and operated by EVWD. Thus,
the project does not involve construction of new structures that would cause any physical division of
communities. Since the proposed project occurs within and supports existing land use designations,
no potential exists for the proposed project to physically divide an existing community. No impact
will result and no mitigation is required.
b.No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under issue XI(a) above. The well would be located within
the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two 3-MG water storage
reservoirs, and a booster pump station. In general, water production facilities are zone independent
because they are needed to support all types of land uses. Per Government Code Section 53091,
building ordinances of local cities or counties do not apply to the location or construction of facilities
for the projection, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water or wastewater. Therefore,
any project facilities that could potentially conflict with local General Plan land use designations would
not be subject to a conditional use permit or general plan amendment. The City of Highland supports
the provision of adequate infrastructure; therefore, the project would not conflict with the goals and
policies of the applicable General Plans. Thus, implementation will not conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 59
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: 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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a&b. No Impact – The well would be located within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station. The Well No. 129
Project footprint is located within the City of Highland. The project is located in a residential area
within the eastern portion of the City of Highland’s boundaries, north of the Santa Ana River and its
associated open space, along with EVWD facilities located to the southeast of the project site. The
San Bernardino Countywide Plan Mineral Resource Zones map indicates that the proposed project is
located within the MRZ-3 zone—a moderate potential or possible location for mineral resources to
occur—for aggregate resources (Figure XII-1). Additionally, the proposed project is not within an
area designated by the State Mining and Geology Board in 1987 or 2013 as a Regional Significant
Construction Aggregate Resource Areas in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region.
Given that the proposed project is not located on a delineated state or regionally significant site, and
that no mineral extraction currently occurs or is known to have ever occurred on the property, it is
anticipated that the additional development of the Plant No. 129 site would not result in 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 a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts are anticipated under this issue and no mitigation
is required
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 60
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of a
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?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information utilized in this section was obtained from the technical study
“East Valley Water District Well No. 129 Noise Assessment” (NA) prepared by Urban Crossroads dated July
11, 2024, and provided as Appendix 5 to this document.
Background
Noise is generally described as unwanted sound. The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station, and would be installed
within the City of Highland.
Receiver Locations
To assess the potential for construction noise impacts, four receiver locations were identified as
representative locations for analysis. Sensitive uses or receivers are generally defined as locations where
people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the
land.
To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site
were identified, as shown on Figure XIII-1. The selection of receiver locations is based on Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans
and the Federal Transit Authority (FTA). Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located
at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those
presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening
structures. Since the exact location of the drilling activity is not known, distances are measured in a straight
line from the Project boundary to each receiver location.
Noise Prediction Model
To fully describe the construction noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise
prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can
analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced
Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise
levels.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 61
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
The drilling rig noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation
provided due to geometric spreading when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source)
propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The local topography of each site out to each receiver
location based on lidar data. The model does not account for any existing structures or other manmade
obstacles. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the CadnaA noise analysis to account for
predominately hard site conditions.
City of Highland Property Line Noise Standards
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the
Project, stationary-source (operational) noise levels such as the expected [Category], as well as noise from
construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under the City’s Municipal Code.
However, the currently adopted City of Highland Municipal Code included in Appendix 3.1 does not identify
any quantifiable exterior noise level standards for non-transportation (stationary) noise sources. However,
Table 7.2 in the City of Highland General Plan Noise Element provides exterior noise standards (City of
Highland, March 2006), as shown in Exhibit D. While Exhibit D indicates the noise levels are based on dBA
CNEL, however, they are also provided based on the daytime and nighttime periods. Since CNEL levels are
based on 24-hour noise levels, the noise level limits are assumed to be intended as hourly noise level limits,
i.e., dBA Leq.
Table XIII-1
CITY OF HIGHLAND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
City of Highland General Plan Noise Element.
Construction Noise Sources
Using reference construction equipment noise levels level measurements and the CadnaA noise prediction
model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations
were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis
relies on the equipment with the highest reference noise level operating continuously over a 24-hour period.
Drill rigs have several substantial noise sources, each with its own characteristics. The main sources of
noise are the generator set, the compressor, the mud pump, and the top drive of the drill rig.
Pumps/compressors and generator noise sources were placed five feet above ground level, and the drill rig
top drive was placed fourteen feet above ground level. Drill rig and associated equipment noise levels were
developed from a noise survey conducted by Behrens and Associates, Inc. of three different drill rig systems
in 2006. Each of the drill rigs was rated at 1,000 horsepower and was capable of drilling depths ranging
from 12,000 to 15,000 feet. The surveyed drill rigs are similar in capability to the drill rig proposed for the
Project. Based on peak noise levels provided by the survey, reference noise levels with a uniform distance
of 50 feet were calculated and are provided in Table XIII-2.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 62
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Table XIII-2
CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise LevelConstruction Stage Reference Construction Activity1
(dBA Leq)
Drill Rig Top Drive
Compressors/Pumps
Generators
82
80
85
Borehole Drilling 87.6
1 Behrens and Associates, Inc., 2006
Impact Analysis
a.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Well No. 129 Project footprint is located
within the City of Highland and will occur within a vacant site set in a residential area. However, once
installed, the well would be enclosed, and would generate only minimal operational noise.
Furthermore, all associated pipelines would be located underground. The background noise in the
vicinity of the project is relatively low, as the project is in a residential area, with some vacant land
in the vicinity.
Short Term Construction Noise
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model,
calculations of the Project construction noise levels with all equipment operating simultaneously were
completed. As shown in Table XIII-3, the unabated construction noise levels for activities at Location
1 are expected to range from 59.2 to 74.5 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses. Appendix B
includes the unabated typical construction CadnaA noise model calculations.
As shown in Table XIII-3, the unabated construction noise levels for drilling activities are expected
to exceed applicable standards at R1 through R3 and at R11 through R14. Therefore, various
mitigation strategies were evaluated to reduce drilling noise levels to acceptable levels. The first
option was to install temporary barriers around the drilling activity. However, even with 24-foot-high
barriers surrounding the activity the Project would not comply with the City of Highland noise level
limits at R-1 through R-3. Therefore, relocating equipment within the site, shielding of specific
equipment, as well as various barrier height were evaluated.
Table XIII-3
UNABATED DRILLING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Project Construction Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3Receiver
Location1
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)2
Threshold
Exceeded?
Daytime Nighttime
74.5
Daytime Nighttime
R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
74.5
70.5
61.5
59.2
46.3
46.5
46.6
45.8
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
70.5 Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
61.5
59.2
46.3
46.5 No
46.6 No
45.8 No
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 63
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Project Construction
Noise Levels Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3Receiver
Location1
Threshold
Exceeded?(dBA Leq)2
Daytime
47.9
Nighttime
47.9
Daytime Nighttime
R09
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
60
60
60
60
60
60
55
55
55
55
55
55
No No
No52.0 52.0 No
Yes
Yes
No
60.4 60.4 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
64.4 64.4
57.9 57.9
55.2 55.2 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Figure XIII-1.
2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations.
3 City of Highland Municipal Code, Section 30-469.
Based on the modeling, the following abatement measures would allow the Project to comply with
the City of Highland daytime and nighttime noise level standards (refer to Figure XIII-2):
•a sound blanket barrier on three sides (southwest, southeast, and northeast) of the drill rig
mast,
•
•
•
a 15-foot-high barrier should be erected along the southwestern boundary,
a minimum 12-foot-high barrier along the southwest boundary,
a minimum height of 10-foot-high barrier should be erected along the northeastern and
northwestern boundaries, and
•the generator and compressor should be placed near the existing tanks and as far away from
the properties to the southeast as possible, and a 12-foot-high barrier should be erected on
three sides (northwest, southwest, and southeast) of the generator and compressor.
Table XIII-4
ABATED DRILLING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Project Construction Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)2Receiver
Location1
Threshold
Exceeded?
Daytime Nighttime
54.7
Daytime
60
Nighttime
R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
R09
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
54.7
53.8
48.9
44.6
43.5
43.5
43.8
42.8
41.1
41.9
47.8
49.2
45.1
42.9
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
No No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
53.8 60 No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
48.9 60
44.6 60
43.5 60
43.5 60
43.8 60
42.8 60
41.1 60
41.9 60
47.8 60
49.2 60
45.1 60
42.9 60
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 64
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Figure XIII-1.
2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations.
3 City of Highland Municipal Code, Section 30-469.
To comply with the City of Highland the City of Highland noise standards during daytime and nighttime
hours, the following mitigation measure is required:
NOI-1 To comply with the City of Highland noise standards during daytime and
nighttime hours, noise barriers with a minimum height of 15 feet shall be
erected along the southwestern boundary, a sound blanket barrier on three
sides (southwest, southeast, and northeast) of the drill rig mast, a 15-foot-
high barrier should be erected along the southwestern boundary, a
minimum 12-foot high barrier along the southwest boundary, and a
minimum height of 10-foot-high barrier should be erected along the
northeastern and northwestern boundary. Additionally, the generator and
compressor shall be placed near the existing tanks and as far away from the
properties to the southeast as possible, and a 12-foot-high barrier should be
erected on three sides (northwest, southwest, and southeast) of the
generator and compressor. An effective barrier requires a weight of at least
2 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts,
perforations, or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the
source. Examples of temporary barrier material includes 5/8 inch plywood,
5/8 inch oriented-strand board, or sound blankets capable of providing a
minimum sound transmission loss (STC) of 27 or a Noise Reduction
Coefficient (NRC) of 0.85. Refer to Figure XIII-2.
This Noise Assessment demonstrates that the drill rig noise levels associated with East Valley Water
District Well No. 129 Project can satisfy the City of Highland exterior noise level standards at all
nearby receiver locations with the use of barriers shielding the receivers to the east and south of the
Project site. Unabated noise levels at R3 would not exceed the City of Highland noise level standards
and would not require a barrier along the northwest side of the Project site. Therefore, with the
implementation of the identified noise abatement measures shown on Figure XIII-2, the
construction noise levels would comply with the City of Highland noise level limits during daytime
and nighttime hours and impacts would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Noise
Well pump noise would be minimized through the project design, which includes housing the well in
a structure to reduce operational noise levels to a less than significant impact, should the noise levels
from the well pump exceed City of Highland standards. The connecting pipelines will not generate
any noise once constructed.
Conclusion
Therefore, through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, neither operation
or construction of the proposed project would violate City of Highland noise standards outlined in the
City’s Municipal Code. Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
b.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium
or object. The rumbling sound caused by vibration of room surfaces is called structure borne noises.
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g. explosions, machinery, traffic, trains,
construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous or transient. Vibration is often
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 65
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
described in units of velocity (inches per second), and discussed in decibel (VdB) units in order to
compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts related to human
development are generally associated with activities such as train operations, construction, and heavy
truck movements.
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB; levels would generally
be considered even less in rural areas such as the area surrounding the project footprint.
Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB, while 75 VdB is
the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Construction
activity can result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration, but is generally associated with pile
driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment, such as air compressors, light trucks,
hydraulic loaders, etc. generates little or no ground vibration. While no enforceable regulations for
vibration exist within the City, the Federal Transit Association (FTA) guidelines identify a level of 80
VdB for sensitive land uses. This threshold provides a basis for determining the relative significance
of potential project related vibration impacts. As shown in Table XIII-5, the use of vibration-
generating construction equipment would generate vibration levels ranging from 0.003 to 0.089
in/sec PPV, or 58 to 94 VdB, at a distance of 25 feet. Table XIII-6 summarizes the minimum distances
at which vibration generated by construction equipment would attenuate to less than significant
levels at various receivers. Construction activities utilizing equipment at the minimum distances
shown in Table XIII-6 would have a less than significant construction vibration impact.
Table XIII-5
VIBRATION LEVELS MEASURED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Equipment
Drill Rig1
PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)VdB at 25 feet
0.089
0.076
87
83Loaded Truck
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; VdB = vibration decibels
1 Vibration levels from caisson drilling were used as a proxy for drill rigs.
Source: 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 04/03/24).
Table XIII-6
VIBRATION LEVEL CONTOURS DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Minimum Distance to Receiving Land Use for a Less Than Significant Impact
(feet)
Daytime
Vibration-
Sensitive
Land Uses3
Nighttime
Vibration-
Sensitive Land
Uses4
Equipment All Other
Structures2Historic Sites1
Loaded Truck
Drill Rig5
20
20
10
15
10
15
35
55
PPV = peak particle velocity in inches per second; VdB = vibration decibels
Note: Distances are rounded to the nearest 5 feet.
1 Distance to the 0.12 in/sec PPV contour (FTA construction vibration damage criteria for buildings extremely susceptible to
vibration damage, as shown in Table XIII-1).
2 Distance to the 0.2 in/sec PPV contour (FTA construction vibration damage criteria for non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings, as shown in Table XIII-1).
3 Distance to the 0.24 in/sec PPV contour (the level at which vibration associated with transient vibration sources is distinctly
perceptible, as shown in Table XIII-1).
4 Distance to 80 VdB contour (the recommended threshold to evaluate human annoyance impacts at residences and buildings
where people normally sleep).
5 Caisson drilling was used as a proxy for drill rigs.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 66
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
For well drilling activities, the proposed project would be installed outside of the minimum distances
from historic and other structures, daytime vibration-sensitive land use, and nighttime vibration-
sensitive land use because the well will not be installed along the property line, it will be installed at
a greater distance from the residences than shown on Figure XIII-3 (the drill will be greater than
55 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, and loaded trucks will operate 35 feet from the nearest
sensitive receptor, per MM NOI-2, below). As such, though well drilling activities generate relatively
substantial vibration, given the distance between where the ground disturbance activities will be
located, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, it is not anticipated that vibration from
either construction or operation activities would reach any nearby residences.
NOI-2 The well shall be drilled at a distance of 55’ or greater from the nearest
sensitive receptor, shown on Figure XIII-3. Loaded trucks delivering
materials to the site and hauling materials away shall be operated at a
distance at or greater than 35’ or greater from the nearest sensitive
receptor, shown on Figure XIII-3, for the duration of construction.
The project does not include any facilities that would result in substantial operational vibration, such
as heavy truck deliveries, or use of equipment that generates substantial vibration, and therefore no
operational vibration impacts are anticipated to occur that would be perceptible at the nearest
sensitive receptor. Thus, through the implementation of MM NOI-2, above, vibration impacts
associated with the project would be less than significant with mitigation.
c.No Impact – The project site is located at a great distance from any nearby airport. As shown on the
Airport Safety & Planning Areas map prepared for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan (Figure
IX-2), the proposed project is not located within an Airport Safety Review Area for either the
Redlands Airport or the San Bernardino International Airport, and therefore is not located within the
noise contours for the Airport. Therefore, there is no potential for the project to expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of proximity to a public
airport or private airstrip. No mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 67
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial 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) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the project will not induce substantial population
growth in the area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). The project is considered
a vital infrastructure project because it would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping, and would be installed within the City of Highland. The proposed project will
require a temporary work force; however, this is short-term and with a maximum of about 5
employees will not induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, according to the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), the total population of City of Highland was 55,211
persons.11 The SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast12 notes that the City of
Highland is anticipated to grow to 68,900 residents by 2045. This indicates that the City has room
for population growth in the future. As such, given that no additional employees will be required once
the well is in operation, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to induce
substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. No mitigation is required.
b.No Impact – The proposed Well No. 129 Project will occur within the existing Plant No. 129 site,
which contains no housing or persons therein. No housing is proposed as part of the project and no
housing exists and no persons reside within the project footprint. Therefore, implementation of the
project as a whole will not displace any existing housing or displace a substantial number of people
that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur as
a result of project implementation. No mitigation is required.
11 SCAG, 2021. Local Profiles Spreadsheet. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/2021_local_profiles_dataset.xlsx?1661892901 (accessed 05/09/24)
12 SCAG, 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?16060011299 (accessed 05/09/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 68
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered govern-
mental facilities, 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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of
Highland. The CAL FIRE provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the Highland
community through a cooperative agreement that provides for Cal Fire employees to staff City-owned
facilities and apparatus. The City has three fire stations: Station 541 located at 26974 Base Line;
Station 542 located at 29507 Base Line; and Station 543 is located at 7469 Sterling Avenue. Station
542 is located about a couple of miles to the northwest of the project site. The proposed project may
require the use of chemicals such as sodium hypochlorite and orthophosphate at the well site. Proper
storage and handling are required to prevent any potential fire hazards; however, compliance with
Federal, State, and local standards pertaining to hazardous materials would prevent a significant
impact from occurring. The structure proposed—a structure to enclose the well at the well site—
would not present a substantial fire hazard because the materials used to construct the enclosure
are considered fire-resistant. Further, during construction, the use of spark-producing construction
machinery within a fire risk area could create hazardous fire conditions and expose people or
structures to wildfire risks. The implementation of MM HAZ-2 would require the preparation of a
fire management plan/fuel modification plan for the proposed well, and it would identify
comprehensive strategies to reduce fire potential during construction and over long-term operation.
Therefore, potential significant impacts on fire protection services would be reduced to less than
significant level with implementation of MM HAZ-2.
HAZ-2 Prior to construction, fire hazard reduction measures shall be
incorporated into a fire management/fuel modification plan for the
proposed facility, and shall be implemented during construction and
over the long-term for protection of the site. These measures shall
address all staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development
that are planned to use spark-producing equipment. These areas shall
be cleared of dried vegetation or other material that could ignite. Any
construction equipment that includes a spark arrestor shall be equipped
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 69
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
with a spark arrestor in good working order. During the construction of
the project, all vehicles and crews working at the project site shall have
access to functional fire extinguishers and related fire prevention
equipment (such as emergency sand bags, etc.) at all times. In addition,
construction crews shall have a spotter during welding activities to look
out for potentially dangerous situations, including accidental sparks.
This plan shall be reviewed by the District and CAL FIRE for review and
comment, where appropriate, and approved prior to construction and
implemented once approved. The fire management plan shall also
include sufficient defensible space or other measures at a facility site
located in a high or very high FHSZ to minimize fire damage to a level
acceptable to the District over the long term.
Thus, with compliance to Federal, State, and local standards, and with the implementation of MM
HAZ-2, no new or altered fire protection facilities will be required to serve this project. Any impact
to the existing fire protection system is considered random and less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of
Highland. The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department provides police protection services to the
Highland community. The Sheriff’s Department has one patrol station in the City of Highland, located
at 26985 East Baseline, Highland, California 92346. The Sheriff Station is located about 6 miles to
the west of the proposed project site. The station is currently staffed with 34 sworn officers (which
includes 1 Captain, 1 Lieutenant, 6 Sergeants, 3 Detectives and 23 patrol deputies), as well as 9 non-
sworn civilian employees (which includes 1 secretary, 4 clerical personnel, and 4 Sheriff’s Service
Specialists). The project is located within existing patrol routes. The project is not anticipated to
generate growth within the project area that would create a new demand for police protection
because no additional employees will be required once the well is installed and is in operation. The
construction of the well will require only a temporary work force. The proposed project will not include
the kind of use that would likely attract criminal activity, except for random trespass and theft;
however, construction equipment will be stored in such a manner that public will not have access to
it, and once in operation, the project will be consistent with that which exists at present at Plant No.
129, which is fenced to prevent public from accessing the site. Thus, due to the type of project
proposed, no new or expanded police or sheriff facilities would need to be constructed as a result of
the project. Therefore, impacts to police protection resources from implementation of the proposed
project are considered less than significant; no mitigation measures are required.
c.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of
Highland. The proposed project is located within the Redlands Unified School District, which consists
of 26 schools. The nearest school is Cram Elementary School, located a little over a mile northwest
of the project site at 29700 Water Street, Highland CA 92346. As discussed under Chapter XIV,
Population and Housing, above, the project would not induce population growth within the City, as
it will neither construct housing, nor result in a growth in employment opportunities within the area.
Because the project would install new infrastructure through the development of a new well, and
would not develop any facilities that are commercial, residential, or industrial in nature, the proposed
project is not required to pay any fees to offset impacts to school facilities. Thus, the proposed project
will not generate an increase in elementary, middle, or high school population. Therefore, any impacts
under this issue are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 70
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
d.No Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two
3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of Highland. Because the
project would develop infrastructure through the installation of a new well and would not develop
any facilities that are commercial, residential, or industrial in nature, the proposed project is not
required to pay any fees to offset impacts to park facilities. As stated in the preceding sections, the
proposed project is not anticipated to create a substantial increase in population because it does
require additional EVWD staff to operate this new well. Implementation of the proposed project will
not impact any current or planned park use, as it will be constructed within a site that has not been
designated for nor developed as a park use. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not
cause a substantial adverse physical impact to any parks within the City. No impacts are anticipated,
and no mitigation is required.
e.No Impact – Other public facilities include library and general municipal services. The City of Highland
has one public library, the Highland Branch of the San Bernardino County Library, which is a Library
and Environmental Learning Center located at 7863 Central Avenue. The Highland Branch Library
serves residents in the City and in the neighboring City of San Bernardino. Funding for the library
services comes from the City’s Development Impact Fee fund collected from other projects and a
variety of state and federal grants. Since the project will not directly induce substantial population
growth, it is not forecast that the use of such facilities will increase as a result of the proposed project.
As a result, the implementation of the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities; 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 public services to include other public facilities. Thus, no impacts are
anticipated under this issue and no mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 71
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XVI. RECREATION:
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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.No Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two
3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of Highland. As previously
discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing and Section XV, Public Services, this project will
not contribute to an increase in the population beyond that already allowed or planned for by local
and regional planning documents. Therefore, this project will not result in an increase in the demand
for parks and other recreational facilities and implementation of the proposed project would not
increase the use of any parks within the area, nor would it result in the physical deterioration of other
surrounding facilities. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required.
b.No Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated appurtenances, and
connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully developed with two
3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of Highland. The project
does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As previously stated, the proposed
project will occur within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is not designated for
recreational use and does not contain recreational uses at present. Furthermore, the proposed
project is not forecast to induce substantial population growth as the well will operate without daily
in-person supervision; visits will occur by District employees on an as needed or scheduled
maintenance basis. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur under this issue, and no mitigation
is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 72
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: 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 inter-
sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of
Highland. The proposed well would be confined to the project site, with no encroachment onto the
adjacent sidewalk to connect to existing District water distribution pipelines as shown on Figure 4.
At no time during the installation of the well will adjacent roadways be closed. During construction,
an estimated 10-15 roundtrips from construction workers per day will occur to install the proposed
new well. An average of 15 roundtrips per day would occur to support construction efforts (i.e.,
delivery or removal of construction materials). No new roads are required to construct or operate
this project. No temporary roadway closures will be required. Given the temporary nature of the
construction proposed, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. Thus, the installation of the proposed Well No. 129 Project would not have any
potential to reduce the capacity of the adjacent roadways. Once constructed, no traffic would be
generated by this project other than visits to the well by EVWD personnel to inspect and maintain
facilities where necessary, resulting in minimal vehicle miles traveled once the well is in operation.
Implementation of the project has the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Thus,
the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact pertaining to the circulation system,
particularly given that impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities will be temporary, and will
not permanently disrupt circulation thereof.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, and connecting piping within the District’s existing Plant No. 129 site, which is fully
developed with two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump station within the City of
Highland. The proposed project will require minimal vehicle miles traveled to accomplish once
constructed. In the short term, construction of the proposed well would result in the generation of
an average of about 15 roundtrips per day on the adjacent roadways by construction personnel and
trucks removing any excavated materials on site. The vehicle miles traveled in these instances would
likely average less than 80 miles round trip. The number of temporary truck trips will be minimized
by using 15 cubic yard material haulers instead of smaller 10 cubic yard trucks to haul material onto
and off of the site. Additionally, the same trucks that haul material onto the site would also carry
material off of the site. VMT standards, which are intended to monitor and address long-term
transportation impacts resulting from future development, do not apply to temporary impacts
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 73
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
associated with construction activities. Therefore, no construction impact associated with VMT per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 would occur.
Once constructed, no daily traffic would be generated by this project other than visits to the well by
EVWD personnel to inspect and maintain facilities when necessary, resulting in minimal vehicle miles
traveled once the well is in operation. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) states, “Projects that generate or
attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT
impact.” Scheduled maintenance visits would also occur in the future with one trip per maintenance
event, with occasional trips also occurring when unforeseen circumstances arise that would require
maintenance or repair of certain facilities. As such, the proposed project would generate less than
110 trips per day, which is below the recommended screening threshold. Thus, development of the
Well No. 129 Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to vehicle miles travelled,
and thus would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.
c.No Impact – The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
or incompatible uses. The construction of the proposed well would occur at one location at the within
Plant No. 129, which contains existing water infrastructure features supporting EVWD’s water
distribution systems. With the exception of the aforementioned trip generation during the
construction phase, the proposed project will not impact any adjacent roadways. The construction
would take approximately 9 months. The suburban residential roadways along which the project
would be installed—Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street—may experience a temporary increase
in traffic from construction workers during construction. As stated under issue XVII(a) above, the
project will not modify or change any paved roadways so it would not increase any hazards due to
design features or incompatible use in the short-term. In the long term, no impacts to any roadway
hazards or incompatible uses in existing roadways are anticipated because once the well is
operational, roadway traffic in the area will return to its original condition. Thus, there would be no
potential for an increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible use. No impacts are
anticipated under this issue and no mitigation is required.
d.No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under issue XVII(a) above. The proposed project will not
require the closure of any lanes on the major roadways in the vicinity of the project site (Greenspot
Road). No impacts are expected on Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street since these are
suburban roadways. During construction, a potential exists for short-term hazards and constraints
on both normal and emergency access within the affected area, especially during well construction
requires the highest number of employees. There are no evacuation routes located within the project
footprint, and the installation of the proposed well would not hinger emergency access to the site
during either operations or construction. Adequate emergency access is available via Calle Del Rio
Street and Vista Clara Street throughout construction. Therefore, the project will have no impacts on
emergency access and no mitigation is required.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 74
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would
the project cause a substantial change in the
significance of tribal cultural resources, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographic-
ally defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value
to the 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), or
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 sub-
division (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.
SUBSTANTIATION
A Tribal Resource is defined in the Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following:
•Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American Tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be
eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register
of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1;
•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 Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purpose of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California
American tribe;
•
•
A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape;
A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined
in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in
subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal resource if it conforms with the criteria of
subdivision (a).
a&b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The District has been contacted by three
California tribes: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. AB 52 was initiated with the three tribes on May 1, 2024. One
tribe responded to the District’s AB 52 consultation notification: the YSMN. YSMN responded that the
proposed project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the
Tribe. However, due to the nature and location of the proposed project, and given the Tribe’s CRM
Department’s present state of knowledge, YSMN does not have any concerns with the project’s
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 75
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
implementation. As a result, YSMN requests that the following mitigation measures shall be
implemented to protect such resources:
TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management
Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-2, of any
pre-contact era cultural resources discovered during project
implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the
find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA
(as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment
Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN,
and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall
allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the
remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site..
TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the
project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports,
etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for
dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult
with YSMN throughout the life of the project.ꢀ
YSMN also requested that MM CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 provided in Subsection V, Cultural
Resources be implemented to protect cultural and tribal cultural resources. Ultimately, given the
feedback that has been provided by YSMN during the AB 52 consultation process, implementation of
the proposed project can be implemented without the potential for significant impacts to occur
through the implementation of MMs CUL-1 through CUL-4, and MMs TCR-1 through TCR-2.
Thus, the project has a less than significant potential to cause a substantial change in the significance
of tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to the California Native American tribe and that
is either 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), or 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.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 76
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would
the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
stormwater 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 treat-
ment 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?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Water
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is a well development project within the EVWD
service area. As discussed in the preceding sections, the development of the proposed well would
not have a significant impact on the environment. As discussed under Hydrology and Water Quality
issue X(b), the proposed wells will extract groundwater from the Bunker Hill Subbasin. The amount
of water the District plans to extract from the Basin is minimal compared to the overall amount of
water extracted the Bunker Hill Subbasin. The proposed new well is forecast to increase groundwater
extraction by an estimated 1,600 AFY. This is anticipated to fall within EVWD’s water rights, and
EVWD must comply with the 1961 Decree in operating the proposed well. As such, though the
project would install a well that will connect to District’s existing service area should they be viable,
the project would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, impacts under this issue are considered
less than significant.
Wastewater
No Impact – The proposed project would install a well and connecting pipelines to connect to the
District’s existing potable water distribution system. The well development is not anticipated to
require expansion or development of new wastewater treatment facilities. This project would not
require connection to wastewater treatment collection services once in operation. As such, this
project is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects. No impacts under this issue are anticipated.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 77
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Stormwater
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project will manage stormwater at the well site. The
proposed project site has already been developed with EVWD’s existing Plant No. 129 facilities, and
already contains existing stormwater infrastructure. Adequate drainage facilities exist or will be
developed by this project to accommodate future onsite drainage flows. The well will occupy a
minimal portion of the site, and as such, the project is not anticipated to result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts under this issue are considered less
than significant.
Electric Power
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new well, associated
appurtenances, well housing, and connecting piping. The new well and connection pipelines will
require electricity to operate the well pump. The project site is served by Southern California Edison
(SCE), and is not anticipated to require extension of electricity in order to operate, as the site is
currently connected to the electrical system with available supply of electricity at the site. Given that
the project will not require additional construction or relocation of electrical power facilities, and that
the project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact under any issue, the proposed project
would have no potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects. No impacts are anticipated under this issue.
Natural Gas
No Impact – Development of the new well would not demand natural gas. Therefore, the project
would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new
or expanded natural gas facilities. No impacts are anticipated.
Telecommunications
No Impact – Development of the new well would not require installation of wireless internet service
or phone serve because the site is already connected through existing telecommunication
connections. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental effect related to
the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. No impacts are
anticipated.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – Please refer to issue X(b), Hydrology and Water Quality, above. The
proposed project will develop a well to supply water to the District’s service area. EVWD’s water
supply consists primarily of groundwater from wells in the western portion of the service area. These
wells, in the SBB, supply approximately 80% of the total water supply. In addition to groundwater,
EVWD provides treated surface water from the Santa Ana River and the State Water Project. EVWD
produced 15,169 AF of groundwater from the SBB in 2020, and estimates that groundwater will make
up 10,257 AF of its supply in 2025, and up to 12,035 AF in 2045, with alternative sources of supply
making the difference to meet the District’s demand. Refer to the 2020 Upper Santa Ana River
Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan.13 Between 2013 and 2022, EVWD
utilized 15-16 wells for its groundwater production with the annual production ranging from 12,702
to 18,289 AFY during this period. To ensure its annual pumping rights and water demands continue
to be met, EVWD proposes to install the proposed Well No. 129. As the proposed well would enable
pumping within EVWD’s pumping rights, it is anticipated that there will be available water supply
within the SBB to support the District’s new well pumping operations. Therefore, the proposed project
is anticipated to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
13 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, 2021. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional
Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sbvwcd.org/our-projects/upper-santa-ana-integrated-regional-water-
management-plan/ (accessed 05/08/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 78
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts under this issue
are less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c.No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under XIX(a) above. The well operation will not require
installation of restroom facilities; construction will require portable toilets that will be handled by the
provider of such facilities. As such, given that the well operation will not require any new connection
to wastewater treatment services, it is not anticipated that the project would 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.
No impacts under this issue are anticipated.
d&e. Less Than Significant Impact – Other than a small amount of construction wastes (concrete, wood,
etc.) and a small amount of waste associated with operating the proposed well, the project will not
generate a substantial amount of solid wastes and will not adversely affect the existing solid waste
disposal system. Any construction and demolition (C&D) waste will be recycled to the maximum
extent feasible and any residual materials will be delivered to one of several C&D disposal sites in
the area surrounding the project site. Many of these C&D materials can be reused or recycled, thus
prolonging our supply of natural resources and potentially saving money in the process.
In accordance with CALGreen Code 5.408.4, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated
vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing must be reused or recycled. As this is a
mandatory requirement, no mitigation is required to ensure compliance by EVWD for this project.
Because of increased construction recycling efforts resulting from CalGreen and other regulations,
opportunities for construction recycling are becoming easier to find, such as one in Highland that
accepts a wide range of construction and demolition debris materials: Asphalt, Concrete, Brick,
Concrete with Rebar, Mixed Loads, Rock, Roof Tile, Cardboard, Wood, Metals, Dirt, and Appliances.
There are additional facilities that accept C&D materials located in the surrounding areas14 including
facilities in Mira Loma and Rialto.
The facilities that accept C&D materials, combined with the landfills in the surrounding area, have
adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Solid waste will be disposed of in accordance with
existing regulations at an existing licensed landfill. The project will not conflict with any state, federal,
or local regulations regarding solid waste.
The San Bernardino Countywide Plan identifies landfills that serve the planning area. The San Timoteo
Sanitary Landfill and Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill serve the project area. The San Timoteo Sanitary
Landfill has a maximum permitted daily capacity of 2,000 tons per day, with a permitted capacity of
20,400,000 cubic yards (CY), with 11,402,000 CY of capacity remaining. The Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill has a maximum permitted daily capacity of 7,500 tons per day, with a permitted capacity of
101,300,000 CY, with 67,520,000 CY of capacity remaining. The County anticipates an increase in
solid waste generation of 5,979,355 pounds per day at Build-Out of the Countywide Plan.
The above landfills permit thousands of tons of waste per day, which is beyond what the expected
amount of waste would be generated by the proposed transmission main during construction.
Furthermore, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate any operational waste as the project
will install the transmission main below ground. As such, the proposed project would comply with all
federal, State, and local statues related to solid waste disposal.
14 San Bernardino County, 2021. The County of San Bernardino County Construction & Demolition Waste Recycling
Guide. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/RecyclingGuide-2021.pdf (accessed 02/15/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 79
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Any hazardous materials collected within the project footprint during either construction or operation
of the project will be transported and disposed of by a permitted and licensed hazardous materials
service provider. Therefore, the project is expected to comply with all regulations related to solid
waste under federal, state, and local statutes. The project is expected to comply with all regulations
related to solid waste under federal, state, and local statutes and be served by a landfill(s) with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. No mitigation
is necessary.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 80
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsi-
bility 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 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 downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
SUBSTANTIATION
a.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project site is an area susceptible to wildland fires, and
is located within an area delineated as a Very High FHSZ in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) shown
on Figure IX-4. As stated under Section XVII, Transportation under issue (d), the proposed project
is not located along an emergency route, nor would implementation of the project impede emergency
response from accessing the site or surrounding area. As stated under issue XVIII(c), the proposed
project would install a well that would occur within an already developed site containing water
facilities. The proposed well would be confined to the Plant No. 129 site, with no planned
encroachment onto the adjacent roadways because the pipelines that connect to the District’s water
distribution system are already connected to the piping interior to the Plant No. 129 site. The
installation of the new well, associated appurtenances, and connecting piping will require no work
within the adjacent roadways, nor will it require work within any of the roadways identified as
emergency evacuation routes (refer to San Bernardino Countywide Plan Evacuation Route Map
(Figure IX-3). Due to its location and point of access, there will be no potential to interfere with an
emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. At no time during construction of Well
No. 129 will any access to or along these roads be restricted. Therefore, the proposed project is not
forecast to impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts
under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Operation and maintenance of the proposed well would be anticipated to be provided by the District
personnel. It is unknown at this time what treatment will be required for the wells to meet the
standards of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW).
However, the proposed project is anticipated to install a structure to house the sodium hypochlorite
required to chlorinate the water extracted at the well, and this substance is considered a potentially
hazardous substance. The District will comply with state and standards for handling this material.
Furthermore, the District has developed safety standards and operational procedures for safe
transport and use of its operational and maintenance materials that are potentially hazardous. These
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 81
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
procedures will comply with all federal, state and local regulations will ensure that the project
operates in a manner that poses no substantial hazards to the public or the environment. As a result,
operation of the proposed well would have a less than significant potential to impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan with the implementation of mitigation.
b.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is located within the existing developed Plant
No. 129 site, which has been modified to be flat with the exception of slopes along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the site. The proposed project would install a small structure, but this structure
would not place people on the project site for long periods of time or pose a significant threat to
people or property from wildfire risk. The site is located has been cleared of vegetation. Because the
proposed project is a water infrastructure project, as it would develop a well, and because the
provision of water supply is considered a benefit to the prevention of the spreading of wildfire in high
risk areas, it is not anticipated that development at this site would expose occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire. Therefore, given that the proposed project does not contain any
human occupancy (residential) structures leaving personnel onsite for long periods of time beyond
for necessary maintenance, it is not anticipated that the project would exacerbate fire risks thereby
exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of
wildfire. Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The project will install a new well and associated
infrastructure within the existing developed Plant No. 129 site. The site contains minimal vegetation
where it occurs on the project site, which could exacerbate fire risk during construction at this site
located within a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The proposed project does not include any new uses, such as
power lines, that would have a potential to result in random fire risk under accidental circumstances
(such as a downed wire, etc.). However, during construction, because the proposed project is located
within a High Hazard Severity Zone in an SRA, construction may exacerbate fire risk temporarily. As
such, the proposed project requires the following mitigation measure, which would minimize fire risk
during activities that would utilize electric equipment by requiring construction crews to carry fire
prevention equipment during activities involving electrical equipment.
WF-1 During site clearing within the project site when any electrical
construction equipment is in use, the construction crew shall have fire
prevention equipment (such as fire extinguishers, emergency sand bags,
etc.) to put out any accidental fires that could result from the use of
construction/maintenance equipment.
Furthermore, as identified under issue IX(g), based on past experience with wildfires in the area, the
Valley Region does not experience the same level of wildfire hazards as do the mountain areas where
fuel loads are greater, and as such, this part of the project area can be successfully evacuated and
life preserved, even if property is damaged. The implementation of MM HAZ-2 would require the
preparation of a fire management plan/fuel modification plan for the proposed well, and it would
identify comprehensive strategies to reduce fire potential during construction and over long-term
operation. Therefore, potential significant impacts due to installation of proposed well infrastructure
would be reduced to less than significant level with implementation of MM HAZ-2.
HAZ-2 Prior to construction, fire hazard reduction measures shall be
incorporated into a fire management/fuel modification plan for the
proposed facility, and shall be implemented during construction and
over the long-term for protection of the site. These measures shall
address all staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development
that are planned to use spark-producing equipment. These areas shall
be cleared of dried vegetation or other material that could ignite. Any
construction equipment that includes a spark arrestor shall be equipped
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 82
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
with a spark arrestor in good working order. During the construction of
the project, all vehicles and crews working at the project site shall have
access to functional fire extinguishers and related fire prevention
equipment (such as emergency sand bags, etc.) at all times. In addition,
construction crews shall have a spotter during welding activities to look
out for potentially dangerous situations, including accidental sparks.
This plan shall be reviewed by the District and CAL FIRE for review and
comment, where appropriate, and approved prior to construction and
implemented once approved. The fire management plan shall also
include sufficient defensible space or other measures at a facility site
located in a high or very high FHSZ to minimize fire damage to a level
acceptable to the District over the long term.
The proposed project would not result in any ongoing impacts to the environment that would
exacerbate fire risk as the proposed project would not be manned, and would increase water supply
availability; however, MM HAZ-2 would apply to operations and would ensure that fire hazard
reduction measures are employed to further minimize operational wildfire hazards. Therefore, with
the implementation of MMs WF-1 and HAZ-2 above, the project would not have a significant
potential to exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment. Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.
d.Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is located within the existing developed Plant
No. 129 site, which has been modified to be flat with the exception of slopes along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the site. The discussion under Section VII, Geology and Soils, concluded that
the project would not have a significant potential to experience landslides or slope instability,
particularly given that this project area has not been delineated as containing potential for landslides
or slope instability by the San Bernardino Countywide Plan. The proposed project is located not
located in an area that has been historically subject to flooding. Furthermore, the project does not
propose any human occupancy (residential) structures leaving personnel onsite for long periods of
time beyond for necessary maintenance and thus the exposure of persons to such an event is
minimal. As stated under the Hydrology Subchapter, flood risks at the project site are minimal, and
therefore downslope flooding is not anticipated to occur as a result of post-fire slope instability or
drainage changes. As such, the development of the Well No. 129 Project at this site is anticipated to
have a less than significant potential to expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 83
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
Incorporated
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
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?
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
SUBSTANTIATION
The analysis in this Initial Study and the findings reached indicate that the proposed project can be
implemented without causing any new project specific or cumulatively considerable unavoidable significant
adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation is required to control potentially significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant impact level. The following findings are based
on the detailed analysis of the Initial Study of all environmental topics and the implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in the previous text and summarized in this section.
a.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The project has no potential to cause a
significant impact any biological or cultural resources. The project has been identified as having no
potential to degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce 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 reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. The project requires mitigation to prevent significant impacts from
occurring as a result of implementation of the project, including mitigation to protect nesting birds.
Based on the historic disturbance of the site, and its current disturbed condition, the potential for
impacting cultural resources is low. Based on the past disturbance of the project footprint, it has
been determined that no cultural resources of importance are anticipated to occur within the pipeline
alignment, so it is not anticipated that any resources could be affected by the project because no
cultural resources exist. However, because it is not known what could be unearthed upon any
excavation activities, contingency mitigation measures are provided to ensure that, in the unlikely
event that any resources are found, they are protected from any potential significant adverse impacts.
Please see biological and cultural sections of this Initial Study.
b.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the
proposed Well No. 129 Project has the potential to cause impacts that are individually or cumulatively
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 84
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
considerable. While there may be cumulatively significant impacts under various issues discussed in
this Initial Study as a result of cumulative projects, the proposed project’s contribution to such
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, the provision of additional water
transmission main is generally viewed as a benefit to the community. The issues of Aesthetics,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire require the
implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and ensure
that cumulative effects are not cumulatively considerable. All other environmental issues were found
to have no significant impacts without implementation of mitigation. The potential cumulative
environmental effects of implementing the proposed project have been determined to be less than
considerable and thus, less than significant impacts.
c.Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The project will achieve long-term community
goals by providing additional water supply, which would serve existing, planned, and future uses
within EVWD’s service area. The short-term impacts associated with the project, which are mainly
construction-related impacts, are less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed project is
compatible with long-term environmental protection. The issues of Geology and Soils, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Wildfire require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce
human impacts to a less than significant level. All other environmental issues were found to have
no significant impacts on humans without implementation of mitigation. The potential for direct
human effects from implementing the proposed project have been determined to be less than
significant.
Conclusion
This document evaluated all CEQA issues contained in the Initial Study Checklist form. The evaluation
determined that either no impact or less than significant impacts would be associated with the issues of
Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and
Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities
and Service Systems. The issues of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and
Wildfire require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level. The required mitigation has been proposed in this Initial Study to reduce impacts for these issues to
a less than significant impact and will be implemented by the District.
Based on the findings in this Initial Study, EVWD proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
for the East Valley Water District Well No. 129 Project. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt an MND will be
issued for this project by the District. The Initial Study and NOI will be circulated for 30 days of public
comment because this project does involve state agencies as either a responsible or trustee agency. At the
end of the 30-day review period, a final MND package will be prepared and it will be reviewed and
considered by the District. EVWD will hold a future hearing for project adoption at their offices, the date
for which has not yet been schedule. If you or your agency comments on the MND/NOI for this project,
you will be notified about the meeting date in accordance with the requirements in Section 21092.5 of
CEQA (statute).
__________
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections
21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka
Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 3129; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador
Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco
(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. Revised 2019 Authority: Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21083.09 Reference: Public
Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 85
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Aesthetics
AES-1 Night lighting will be located and shielded so as to avoid creating a nuisance to nearby
residents. Light generated during activities taking place at night shall not spill off the well site
onto adjacent occupied structures.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist no more than three (3)
days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities. Preconstruction surveys shall
focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting
behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation
as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the preconstruction
nesting bird surveys, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared and implemented by the
qualified avian biologist. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing active
nests, establishing buffers, ongoing monitoring, establishment of avoidance and minimization
measures, and reporting. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based
on the nesting species, individual/pair’s behavior, nesting stage, nest location, its sensitivity to
disturbance, and intensity and duration of the disturbance activity. To avoid impacts to nesting
birds, any grubbing or vegetation removal should occur outside peak breeding season (typically
February 1 through September 1).
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, ground
disturbing activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection
shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. Responsibility for making this
determination shall be with the District. The archaeological professional shall assess the find,
determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures
within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.
CUL-2 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist
meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other
portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment
period.ꢀAdditionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department
(YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact era finds
and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the
nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
CUL-3
CUL-4
If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are
discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and
Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as
detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and
implement the Plan accordingly.
If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with
the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5
and that code enforced for the duration of the project.ꢀ
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 86
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Prior to construction of the well enclosure, a design-level geotechnical investigation, including
collection of site specific subsurface data if appropriate, shall be completed. The geotechnical
evaluation shall identify all potential seismic hazards including fault rupture, and characterize
the soil profiles, including liquefaction potential, expansive soil potential, subsidence, and
landslide potential. The geotechnical investigation shall recommend site specific design criteria
to mitigate for seismic and non-seismic hazards, such as special foundations and structural
setbacks, and these recommendations shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed
project.
GEO-2
GEO-3
GEO-4
Excavated areas shall be backfilled and compacted such that erosion does not occur. Paved
areas disturbed by this project shall be repaved in such a manner that roadways and other
disturbed areas are returned to the pre-project conditions or better.
All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be sprayed with water or soil
binders twice a day or more frequently if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site
within which the pipelines are being installed.
The District shall identify any additional BMPs to ensure that the discharge of surface water
does not cause erosion downstream of the discharge point. This shall be accomplished by
reducing the energy of any site discharge through an artificial energy dissipater or equivalent
device. If any substantial erosion or sedimentation occurs, any erosion or sedimentation
damage shall be restored to pre-discharge conditions.
GEO-5 Should any paleontological resources be encountered during construction of these facilities,
earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an
onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. Responsibility
for making this determination shall be with the District’s onsite inspector. The paleontological
professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and determine appropriate
mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act that shall
be implemented to minimize any impacts to a paleontological resource.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in
compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the
contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an
appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.
HAZ-2 Prior to construction, fire hazard reduction measures shall be incorporated into a fire
management/fuel modification plan for the proposed facility, and shall be implemented during
construction and over the long-term for protection of the site. These measures shall address
all staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development that are planned to use spark-
producing equipment. These areas shall be cleared of dried vegetation or other material that
could ignite. Any construction equipment that includes a spark arrestor shall be equipped with
a spark arrestor in good working order. During the construction of the project, all vehicles and
crews working at the project site shall have access to functional fire extinguishers and related
fire prevention equipment (such as emergency sand bags, etc.) at all times. In addition,
construction crews shall have a spotter during welding activities to look out for potentially
dangerous situations, including accidental sparks. This plan shall be reviewed by the District
and CAL FIRE for review and comment, where appropriate, and approved prior to construction
and implemented once approved. The fire management plan shall also include sufficient
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 87
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
defensible space or other measures at a facility site located in a high or very high FHSZ to
minimize fire damage to a level acceptable to the District over the long term.
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1 The District shall test the groundwater produced from the well prior to discharge. Prior to or
during discharge any contaminants shall be blended below the pertinent MCL or treated prior
to discharge, including sediment or other material.
HYD-2 The District shall require that the construction contractor to implement specific Best Manage-
ment Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater
and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters.
These practices shall include a Plan that identifies the methods of containing, cleanup,
transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals or materials released during construction
activities that are compatible with applicable laws and regulations. BMPs to be implemented
by the District include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
The use of silt fences or coir rolls;
The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins;
The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff;
The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site;
The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to prevent the tracking
of silt and other pollutants from the site onto public roads;
•
•
The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum necessary to efficiently
perform the construction activities required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be
stored in water courses or other areas subject to the flow of surface water; and
Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with waterproof material during rain
events to control erosion of soil from the stockpiles.
HYD-3
HYD-4
The District shall conduct a pump test of the new well and determine whether any other wells
are located within the cone of depression once the well reaches equilibrium. If any private
wells are adversely impacted by future groundwater extractions from the proposed well, the
District shall offset this impact through provision of water service; or adjusting the flow rates
or hours of operation to mitigate adverse impacts.
The District and construction contractor shall select best management practices applicable to
the project site and activities on the site to achieve a reduction in pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable, both during and following development of the proposed municipal-supply
water well and associated pipeline, and to control urban runoff after the Project is constructed
and the well (if approved for operation post well testing) is in operation.
Noise
NOI-1 To comply with the City of Highland noise standards during daytime and nighttime hours, noise
barriers with a minimum height of 15 feet shall be erected along the southwestern boundary, a
sound blanket barrier on three sides (southwest, southeast, and northeast) of the drill rig mast, a
15-foot-high barrier should be erected along the southwestern boundary, a minimum 12-foot high
barrier along the southwest boundary, and a minimum height of 10-foot-high barrier should be
erected along the northeastern and northwestern boundary. Additionally, the generator and
compressor shall be placed near the existing tanks and as far away from the properties to the
southeast as possible, and a 12-foot-high barrier should be erected on three sides (northwest,
southwest, and southeast) of the generator and compressor. An effective barrier requires a weight
of at least 2 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts, perforations, or line-
of-sight openings between shielded areas and the source. Examples of temporary barrier material
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 88
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
includes 5/8 inch plywood, 5/8 inch oriented-strand board, or sound blankets capable of providing
a minimum sound transmission loss (STC) of 27 or a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) of 0.85.
Refer to Figure XIII-2.
NOI-2 The well shall be drilled at a distance of 55’ or greater from the nearest sensitive receptor,
shown on Figure XIII-3. Loaded trucks delivering materials to the site and hauling materials
away shall be operated at a distance at or greater than 35’ or greater from the nearest sensitive
receptor, shown on Figure XIII-3, for the duration of construction.
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN)
shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-2, of any pre-contact era cultural resources discovered
during project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so
as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed
significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and
Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all
subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present
that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-
site..
TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records,
site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead
Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN
throughout the life of the project.ꢀ
Wildfire
WF-1 During site clearing within the project site when any electrical construction equipment is in use,
the construction crew shall have fire prevention equipment (such as fire extinguishers,
emergency sand bags, etc.) to put out any accidental fires that could result from the use of
construction/maintenance equipment.
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 89
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
REFERENCES
CAL FIRE, 2024. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d
008 (accessed 07/11/24)
California Department of Conservation, 2024. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones map
California Department of Conservation, 2024. California Geological Survey
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/. (accessed 07/11/24)
California Department of Conservation, 2024. Important Farmland Finder Map.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed 07/11/24)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024. EnviroStor
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed 07/11/24)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2024. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-
Management (accessed 02/12/24)
California Department of Water Resources, 2024. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management
(accessed 05/17/24)
California Office of Planning and Research, 2023. General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element
Guidelines, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure,
California State Water Resources Control Board, 2024. GeoTracker
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed 07/11/24)
Federal Transit Authority (FTA), 2020. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manualhttps://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual
.pdf (accessed 07/11/24)
HDR, 2024. “Biological Resources Assessment for East Valley Water District’s Proposed Well No. 129
Project” Appendix 2.
City of Highland, March 2006. General Plan
Mojave Archaeological Consulting, 2024. “Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water
District Well 129 Project” Appendix 3
San Bernardino County, 2020. San Bernardino Countywide Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report.
https://countywideplan.com/resources/document-download/ (accessed 02/13/24)
San Bernardino County, 2020. San Bernardino Countywide Plan.
San Bernardino County, 2021. The County of San Bernardino County Construction & Demolition Waste
Recycling Guide. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/RecyclingGuide-2021.pdf
(accessed 02/15/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 90
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
San Bernardino County, October 2020. San Bernardino Countywide Plan.
https://countywideplan.com/resources/document-download/ (accessed 02/13/24)
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, 2021. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated
Regional Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.sbmwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/7864/2020-IRUWMP-Executive-
Summary_FINAL?bidId= and https://www.sbmwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/7859/Part-2-
Chapter-8_SBMWD_2020-UWMP-Chapter_Final?bidId= (accessed 05/03/24)
SCAG, 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?16060011299 (accessed
05/09/24)
SCAG, 2021. Local Profiles Spreadsheet. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/2021_local_profiles_dataset.xlsx?1661892901 (accessed 05/09/24)
Urban Crossroads, 2024. East Valley Water District Well No. 129 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Assessment (Appendix 1)
Urban Crossroads, 2024. East Valley Water District Well No. 129 Noise Assessment. March 29, 2024
Appendix 6
USDA, 1999. Tujunga Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HANFORD.html (accessed
05/04/24)
Valley District, 2021. 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water
Management Plan. https://www.sbvwcd.org/~documents/route%3A/download/3811/ (accessed
05/09/24)
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 91
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
FIGURES
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants EVWD Service Area
FIGURE 2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Regional Location
FIGURE 3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Site Location
Explanation
Proposed WellA@
Water Main
Drain Line
3-million gal.
steel reservoir Sewer Main
Parcel Boundary
Fire Hydrant
7
2A@ 8 e9Inlet1
4
5 3 2!! Manhole6
Booster
Station Site Layout Notes
1 - Drill Rig (10'x55')
2 - Pipe Trailer (10'x45')3-million gal.
steel reservoir
3 - 21,000 gal. Settling Tank
(10'x40')
2!4 - Tool House (10'x30')
5 - Compressor (10'x10')
6 - Generator (10'x10')
!
e
7 - Roll-off Bin, 10 Yards (8'x14')
8 - Mud Tank (10'x40')
9 - Field Office (10'x30')
Prepared by:References/Notes:Prepared for:±Well Site1:1,000
40 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web
Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Datum: WGS 1984
0 10 20 60 80
Feet
0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01
Miles Project Deꢀcriꢁtion for tꢂe EVWD
Well ꢃoꢄ 129 Project
FIGURE 4
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Site Plan
FIGURE I-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Scenic Routes & Highways
FIGURE II-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants California Important Farmland Finder
FIGURE III-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Sensitive Receiver Locations
FIGURE VII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
FIGURE VII-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Liquefaction and Landslide
FIGURE VII-3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Paleontological Sensitivity
FIGURE IX-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker
FIGURE IX-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Airport Safety and Planning
FIGURE IX-3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Evacuation Routes
FIGURE IX-4
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Fire Hazards
FIGURE X-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Flood Hazards
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette Legend
117°8'40"W 34°6'59"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, ARSPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone XOTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual ChanceB
8
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
OTHER
FEATURES
Digital Data Available ÜNo Digital Data Available
UnmappedMAP PANELS
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 5/8/2024 at 8:03 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Feet
2,000
117°8'3"W 34°6'29"N1:6,00002505001,000 1,500
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 =
FIGURE X-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants FEMA FIRM Panels
FIGURE XII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Mineral Resources Zones
FIGURE XIII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Construction Noise Source and Receiver Locations
FIGURE XIII-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Drill Rig Noise Abatement
FIGURE XIII-3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Sensitive Receptor Distance
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
APPENDIX 1
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
May 24, 2024
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
Haseeb Qureshi
Alyssa Barnett
JOB NO:16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE
GAS
ASSESSMENT
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality &
Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the East Valley Water District (Project), which is
located in the City of Highland.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The East Valley Water District (EVWD) is undertaking a significant initiative to drill
and construct a new groundwater production well within its Foothill Pressure
Zone, referred to as EVWD Well 129 and as shown on Exhibit 1.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project would result in a less than
significant with respect to air quality and greenhouse gases.
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 2 of 32
EXHIBIT 1: SITE PLAN
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 3 of 32
PROJECT AIR QUALITY
IMPACTS
AIR QUALITY SETTING
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB)
The Project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) (1). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis-Presley Air
Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional
district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its
jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As stated, the Project
site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745-square-mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes
portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.
The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and
San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave
Desert Air Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles
/ Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the
east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bounded by the San Jacinto
Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.
Regional Climate
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the
temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.
The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to mid 60s (degrees
Fahrenheit [°F]). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows
greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the
coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown
Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum
temperatures above 100°F.
Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface
is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea
air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the
conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO ) to sulfates (SO ) is heightened in air with high relative humidity.2 4
The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the
spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent
(%) along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early
morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects
decrease with distance from the coast.
More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average
rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los
Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually
consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in
the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 4 of 32
Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the
SCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant
radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are
approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are
approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.
The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind
determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn
to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling
storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods
of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season,
which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow
is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind.
Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean
and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind
circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of
the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes
and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind
regime in the SCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered
over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring
and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing
of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut
by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent
marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an
impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure
is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.
A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding
mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer
forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions.
These inversions occur primarily in the winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is
weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions
effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) from
vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of
primary pollutants along the coastline.
Wind Patterns and Project Location
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and
geographical location. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and
low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming
the remainder of the perimeter.
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly
onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are
characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months
than during the rainy winter season.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 5 of 32
Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air
quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse
health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are
called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described
in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) (precursor emissions include NOX
and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment
areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The
Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O 3
and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O , PM , and310
PM2.5 .
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Trend
In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted
regulations to reduce the amount of TAC emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such
as cars, trucks, stationary products, and consumer products. According to the Ambient and
Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California journal article (2) which was prepared for
CARB, results show that between 1990-2012, ambient concentration and emission trends for the
seven TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in
California have declined significantly (between 1990 and 2012). The seven TACs studied include
those that are derived from mobile sources: diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene (C H ), and66
1,3-butadiene (C H ); those that are derived from stationary sources: perchloroethylene (C Cl )4 6 2 4
and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)); and those derived from photochemical reactions of emitted
VOCs: formaldehyde (CH O) and acetaldehyde (C H O).1 The decline in ambient concentration224
and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented to
address cancer risk.
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when
evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly,
and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these
persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors.” These structures
typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain
for 24 hours. Consistent with the localized significance threshold (LST) Methodology, the nearest
land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to
determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, since
PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.
Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the
Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade,
1 It should be noted that ambient DPM concentrations are not measured directly. Rather, a surrogate method using the
coefficient of haze (COH) and elemental carbon (EC) is used to estimate DPM concentrations.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 6 of 32
whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 2
under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report.
•
•
•
•
Receptor R1 represents the existing residence at 7804 Calle Del Rio Street, approximately
45 feet southwest of the Project site.
Receptor R2 represents the existing residence at 7811 Calle Del Rio Street, approximately
98 feet south of the Project site.
Receptor R3 represents the existing residence at 7814 Santa Angela Street, approximately
207 feet southeast of the Project site.
Receptor R4 represents the existing residence at 30463 McLean Street, approximately
226 feet northeast of the Project site.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for O , CO, NO , SO , PM , and lead (Pb) (3). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions3X210
sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives,
and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes
emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California
must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times
in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal
air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (4). The CAA
also mandates that each state submit and implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for local
areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that
demonstrate how the standards will be met.
The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not
meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment
and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The
sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I
(Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (5) (6). Title I provisions were
established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O , NO , SO ,3 2 2
PM , CO, PM , and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard102.5
for O and to adopt a NAAQS for PM .3 2.5
Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions
require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol
and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of
hydrocarbons and NO . NO is a collective term that includes all forms of NO which are emittedXXX
as byproducts of the combustion process.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 7 of 32
CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring
implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for
regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates
achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other
mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical
date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants
for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO4,
visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H S), and vinyl chloride (C H Cl). However, at this time, H S and C H Cl223223
are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be
a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (7) (8).
Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from
stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts
have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.
Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that
include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans
are required to include:
•
•
Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources;
Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents)
and indirect sources (e.g., motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial
development);
•
•
A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new
or modified permitted sources of emissions;
Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a
substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled;
•
•
Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators;
Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or
15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO , CO and PM . However, air basinsX10
may use an alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than
5% per year under certain circumstances.
AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the
SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federal ambient air quality
standards (9). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions,
accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the
economy.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 8 of 32
APPLICABLE REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTSSCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include
but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (10) (11).
SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as
a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent
and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition
capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to
earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any
transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate
fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
•
•
•
•
•
Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months
will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically
stabilized.
All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be
minimized at all times.
Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will
be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto
the paved surface.
METHODOLOGY
In May 2024, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction
with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod
Version 2022.1.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-
source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NO , SO , CO, PM , and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from directXX10
and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from
mitigation measures (12). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this
Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are
taken from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (14 CCR
§§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related
to air quality if it would (13):
•
•
Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 9 of 32
•
•
Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Threshold 4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people.
AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS
THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as
summarized at Table 1 (14). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019)
indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated
thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality
impact.
TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS
THRESHOLDSPollutant
NOX
Construction
100 lbs./day
75 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
550 lbs./day
Operations
55 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
55 lbs./day
150 lbs./day
550 lbs./day
VOC
PM10
PM2.5
SOX
CO
lbs./day – Pounds Per Day
AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS
THRESHOLDS
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Central San Bernardino
Valley monitoring station (SRA 34). LSTs apply to CO, NO , PM , and PM2.5. The SCAQMD210
produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening
look-up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look-
up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been
utilized to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the
thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the
Project’s disturbed acreage.
It should be noted that though the Project is less than 1 acre in size, the acres disturbed is based
on the equipment list and days during each phase of construction according to the anticipated
maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. The
equipment-specific grading rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A:
Calculation Details for CalEEMod (15). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is
representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other
words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5
acres in a given 8-hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies equipment-
specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Scrapers;
therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in the demolition, site
preparation and grading phase was replaced with Crawler Tractors. The Project’s construction
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 10 of 32
activities could disturb a maximum of approximately 1 acre per day for well drilling, construction,
development, testing, demolition, building construction, paving, 3.5 acres per day for site
preparation, and 3 acres per day for grading activities. Any other construction phases of
development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is
disclosed herein. As such, Table 2 presents thresholds for localized construction and operational
emissions.
TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS
THRESHOLDS
Emissions (lbs./day)
Source Activity
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Well Drilling,
Construction,
Development,
Testing
118 lbs./day 667 lbs./day 4 lbs./day 3 lbs./day
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
220 lbs./day 1,359 lbs./day
203 lbs./day 1,230 lbs./day
11 lbs./day
9 lbs./day
4 lbs./day
4 lbs./day
4 lbs./day
1 lbs./day
6 lbs./day
5 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
3 lbs./day
1 lbs./day
Construction
Operations
118 lbs./day 667 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
667 lbs./day
Building Construction 118 lbs./day
Paving
-
118 lbs./day
118 lbs./day
1Source of LSTs is provided on page 14 of 32.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NO , SO ,X X
CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are expected from the following activities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES
Removal of existing asphalt will be required to construct the 40’ x 20’ well building, resulting in
approximately 91 tons of demolished material.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 11 of 32
GRADING ACTIVITIES
Dust is typically a major concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not
amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive
emissions.” Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil
moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation,
etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of
activity. The Project is expected to balance and will not require import/export.
ON-ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, vendors, and
haul trucks commuting to and from the site. Worker and hauling trips are based on CalEEMod
defaults.
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of Project is expected to commence in September 2024
and would last through August 2025. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents
a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates
since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases
due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.2 The duration of construction activity and
associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet
as required per CEQA Guidelines (16).
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment modeled is based on CalEEMod defaults and consultation with the Project Applicant.
Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment
will operate up to a total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two-thirds of the period during
which construction activities are allowed pursuant to the code.
REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table 3, and as shown,
the Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Thus,
the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with construction activities.
Detailed Construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A.
2 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year
increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment
being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 12 of 32
TABLE 3: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
SUMMARY Emissions (lbs./day)
Source
VOC NOX
Summer
9.08
CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2024
2025
1.11
4.13
14.20
33.80
0.02
0.06
0.64
7.82
0.41
4.5237.50
Winter
9.102024
2025
1.10
1.01
4.13
75
13.80
13.60
33.80
550
0.02
0.02
0.06
150
NO
0.64
0.57
7.82
150
NO
0.41
0.34
4.52
55
8.50
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
37.50
100
NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.
REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term air quality impacts occur from mobile source emission generated from Project-related
traffic and from stationary source emissions generated from natural gas. The proposed Project
primarily involves construction activity. For on-going operations, mobile emissions would be
generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project sites during on-going
maintenance. However, the project would generate a nominal number of traffic trips for periodic
maintenance and inspections and would not result in any substantive new long-term emissions
sources. As this Project involves the operations of a well which is expected to produce 967-acre
feet per year (314,889,124 gallons per year) it is assumed that consumer products would not be
used.
All operational equipment associated with the Project would be electrically powered and would
not directly generate air emissions. It is our understanding that the proposed Project will include
the use of a 350-horsepower pump.
Stationary area source emissions are typically generated by the consumption of natural gas for
space and water heating devices and the use of consumer products. Stationary energy emissions
would result from energy consumption associated with the proposed Project. However, the
proposed Project may include the use of an emergency diesel generator supplying power to the
treatment plant in case of emergency. If a backup generator were installed, the lead agency would
be required to obtain the applicable permits from SCAQMD for operation of such equipment. The
SCAQMD is responsible for issuing permits for the operation of stationary sources to reduce air
pollution, and to attain and maintain NAAQS and CAAQS within the SCAB. The Project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is non-attainment. A backup generator would be used only in emergency situations and
for routine testing and maintenance purposes. Based on guidance from SCAQMD, the backup
generator would operate for a maximum of 200 hours annually or approximately 0.5 hours per
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 13 of 32
day. Emissions associated with the backup generator are summarized on Table 4, as shown,
emissions from the backup generator would not contribute a substantial amount of emissions
capable of exceeding SCAQMD thresholds. As Project operations would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds, the Project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing
violation. Therefore, Project operations would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Detailed model
outputs for the backup diesel generator emissions calculations are presented in Attachment A.
Emissions associated with the pump are summarized in Table 4. Project operational-source
emissions would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD
for any criteria pollutant, a less than significant impact would occur for Project-related
operational-source emissions and no mitigation is required.
TABLE 4: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL
EMISSIONS Emissions (lbs./day)
Source VOC NOX
Summer
0.04
CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Stationary Source 0.01
0.01
55
0.04
0.04
550
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
55
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
0.04
55
NO NO NO
Winter
0.04Stationary Source 0.01
0.01
55
0.04
0.04
550
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
150
NO
0.00
0.00
55
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
0.04
55
NO NO NO
LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (17). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air
quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the
federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are
referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in
response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-43. LSTs represent
the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
3 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection
from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their
communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and
enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status,
or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.”
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 14 of 32
most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor.
The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its
air quality impact analyses. It should be noted that SCAQMD also states that Projects that are
statutorily or categorically exempt under CEQA would not be subject to LST analyses. As such,
although not required for this Project, LST analysis is presented to further underscore that there
are in fact no significant impacts associated with the Project.
The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining
the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land
use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine
localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since
PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time The nearest receptor used for
evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R1 existing residence at 7804 Calley
Del Rio Street, approximately 45 feet (14 meters) southwest of the Project site. Receptors in the
Project study area shown on Exhibit 2. It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states
that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries
located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25
meters (17).” As such, for evaluation of localized PM10 and PM2.5, a 25-meter distance will be used.
As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial
use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for
emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or
less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods
of one to 8 hours. As there are no industrial/commercial uses located at a closer distance than
the residential homes that are located adjacent to the Project site, the same 25-meter distance
will be used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 15 of 32
EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR
LOCATIONS
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 16 of 32
Table 5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the
Project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. As
shown in Table 5, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed the numerical
thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than
significant impact would occur for localized Project-related construction-source emissions and
no mitigation is required.
TABLE 5: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS Emissions (lbs./day)
On-Site Emissions
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Well Drilling, Construction, Development, Testing
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
8.99 12.50
667
0.37
4
0.34
3118
NO NO NO NO
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
22.20 19.90
667
1.55
4
0.94
3118
NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
37.50 32.40
1,359
NO
7.59
11
4.47
6220
NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
29.70 28.30
1,230
NO
3.62
9
2.09
5203
NO NO NO
Building Construction
Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
11.30
118
14.10
667
0.47
4
0.43
3
NO NO NO NO
Paving
7.45Maximum Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
9.98
667
NO
0.35
4
0.32
3118
NO NO NO
LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
According to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the
operational phase of a proposed Project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 17 of 32
mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse
or transfer facilities). As previously discussed, the Project would generate a nominal number of
traffic trips in the context of on-going maintenance resulting in a negligible amount of new mobile
source emissions. The proposed Project will include the use of a pump and an emergency
generator. Localized emissions are summarized in Table 6.
TABLE 6: PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL
IMPACTS Emissions (lbs./day)
On-Site Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions
NOX
0.04
118
NO
CO
0.04
667
NO
PM10
0.00
1
PM2.5
0.00
1SCAQMD Localized Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?NO NO
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO.
1Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743-square-mile area consisting of the
four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be
referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally
responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state
and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet
state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB.
In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient
air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions,
accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the
economy.
In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP
continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as
well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include
utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and
developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (18). Similar
to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and
planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the
integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements
(19). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as
discussed below.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and
Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook (20). These indicators are discussed below.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 18 of 32
The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air
quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
The violations that under this criterion refer to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS
violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were
exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source
emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than
significant impact is expected.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first
criterion.
The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-
out phase.
The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved
within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans
adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth
forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development
consistent with the growth projections in City of Highland General Plan is considered to be
consistent with the AQMP.
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use
assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential
would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As
such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant
impact would result.
The City of Highland General Plan designates the Project site as “Low Density Residential.” This
designation limits land uses to single-family detached residential, and mobile homes, subject to
applicable General Plan policies and ordinance provisions of the City of Highland. As previously
stated, the proposed Project includes the initiative to drill and construct a new groundwater
production well. Although this finding is inconsistent with the current zoning designation, it
should be noted that the site currently functions as a water storage facility. The proposed Project aims
to install a new groundwater well rather than introduce a use that is more intensive than the current
operations on site. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional
or localized air quality significance thresholds.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the
AQMP and a less than significant impact is expected.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO.
2Would the Project 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?
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 19 of 32
The City of Highland General Plan designates the Project site as “Low Density Residential.” This
designation limits land uses to single-family detached residential, and mobile homes, subject to
applicable General Plan policies and ordinance provisions of the City of Highland. As previously
stated, the proposed Project includes the initiative to drill and construct a new groundwater
production well. Although this finding is inconsistent with the current zoning designation, it
should be noted that the site currently functions as a water storage facility. The proposed Project aims
to install a new groundwater well rather than introduce a use that is more intensive than the current
operations on site. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional
or localized air quality significance thresholds. The CAAQS designate the Project site as
nonattainment for O , PM , and PM while the NAAQS designates the Project site as3102.5
nonattainment for O and PM .3 2.5
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:
White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution
(21). In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and
cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental
Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific
and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC
emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0
while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only
one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a
CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the
cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1
million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.
Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the
SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and
cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not
exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively
significant.”
Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or
construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-
specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those
pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have
a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and
operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be
considered cumulatively considerable.
Construction Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates
that proposed Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in
exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions
would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.
Operational Impacts
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 20 of 32
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates
that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances
of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project operational-source emissions would be
considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO.
3Would the expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also
been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD
localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not
be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.
Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during
operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant
concentrations as the result of Project operations.
CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot
spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this
conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance
of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm
were to occur.
It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when
idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become
increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in
California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain
vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner
fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control
technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more
accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was
conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon
time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on
Table 7.
TABLE 7: CO MODEL RESULTS
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Intersection Location
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
3.7Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
4.6
4
3.5
4.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.7
3
5.2
8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 21 of 32
Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide
(1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual
meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion
at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration
measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating
intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes
and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air
measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (22). In contrast, an adverse CO
concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour
standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO
concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would
have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour
(vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a
significant CO impact (23). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot”
analysis is shown on Table 8. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard
and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph and AM/PM
traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (24). The 2003 AQMP estimated that the
1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic
volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4
ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).
TABLE 8: CO MODEL RESULTS
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Intersection Location Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317
1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540
2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728
1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400
721/1,400
2,304/1,832
1,384/2,029
479/944
560/933
1,551/2,238
821/1,674
756/1,150
8,062/7,719
6,614/5,374
6,634/8,674
4,212/5,514
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO.
4Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land
uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
•
•
•
Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
Wastewater treatment plants
Food processing plants
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 22 of 32
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chemical plants
Composting operations
Refineries
Landfills
Dairies
Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction
equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction
activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed
Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor
impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term,
and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of
construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated
refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance
with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with
the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required (25).
PROJECT GHG ANALYSIS
CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING
Global climate change (GCC) is the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with
respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the
climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and
magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased
concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this42
increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and
industrialization over the past 200 years.
An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated in this memo cannot generate enough
GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project
may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with
the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute
potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental
consequences, this memo will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have a significant
effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to
temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by
naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO , N O, CH , hydrofluorocarbons224
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 23 of 32
important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from
10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere,
but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur
naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into
the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the
earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is
currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered
to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.
For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO , CH , and N O were evaluated because these242
gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other
substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were
not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors
or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.
REGULATORY SETTING
Executive Order S-3-05
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through
Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
•
•
•
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that
will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is
an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private
sector.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be
reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include CO , CH , N O,2 4 2
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since AB 32
was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs.
CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to
AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-
effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts
of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in
the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea
levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and
residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 24 of 32
increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-
related problems.”
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric ton of CO2 equivalent per
year (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (26). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020
are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual”
(BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from
AB 32 regulations (27). At that level, a 28.4% reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO2e
1990 inventory. In October 2010, CARB prepared an updated BAU 2020 forecast to account for
the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of
adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a
21.7% reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (28).
Progress in Achieving AB 32 Targets and Remaining Reductions Required
The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in
Executive Order S-3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by
CARB for 2000 through 2012 (29). The State has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for
2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory
achieved this target.
•
•
•
1990: 427 MMTCO2e (AB 32 2020 target)
2000: 463 MMTCO2e (an average 8% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base)
2010: 450 MMTCO2e (an average 5% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base)
CARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels
by 2020. As described earlier in this section, CARB revised the 2020 BAU inventory forecast to
account for new lower growth projections, which resulted in a new lower reduction from BAU to
achieve the 1990 base. The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levels
was 28.4% and the latest reduction from 2020 BAU is 21.7%.
•2020: 545 MMTCO2e BAU (an average 21.7% reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990
base)
Senate Bill (SB) 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB
32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a
reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds
upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-
05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates
a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the
Governor, but also the Legislature (30).
AB 197
A condition of approval for SB 32 was the passage of AB 197. AB 197 requires that CARB consider
the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize direct reductions in GHG emissions at mobile
sources and large stationary sources. AB 197 also gives the California legislature more oversight
over CARB through the addition of two legislatively appointed members to the CARB Board and
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 25 of 32
the establishment a legislative committee to make recommendations about CARB programs to
the legislature.
Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by
Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales are required
to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by
December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises
California’s RPS requirement to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to
achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local
publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible
renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail
end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027,
and 60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B-
55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to
maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural
Resources Agency (CNRA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department
of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and
Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.
Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted
in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new
energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential,
industrial, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is
administered by the California Building Standards Commission.
CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the
2022 California Green Building Code Standards that was effective on January 1, 20234. As
construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed in 2024, the Project would be required
to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time.
SCAQMD
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The
SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a
lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as
a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the
project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This
expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the
development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.
4 The 2022 California Green Building Standard Code will be published July 1, 2022.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 26 of 32
In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use
projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed
several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim
CEQA GHG Significance Threshold that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has
not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD
Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial
evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by
the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the
following tiered approach:
•Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable
exemption under CEQA.
•Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction
plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have
significant GHG emissions.
•Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be
consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are
averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s
emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less
than significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 metric ton of CO2 equivalent
(MTCO2e/yr.)
o
o
Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr.
Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e/yr.; commercial: 1,400
MTCO e/yr.; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO e/yr.2 2
•Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this
percentage is currently undefined.
o
o
Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO e per SP per22
year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO e
per SP per year for plans
2 2
•Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05 year 2050 goal as the basis
for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to
worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.
SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air
quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the Project would include stationary sources of
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 27 of 32
emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary
permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations.
SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
•
•
Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials.
Rule 2701, Southern California (SoCal) Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a
voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified
GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
•Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission
reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in
response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The
SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a
lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as
a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the
project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This
expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the
development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.
GHG IMPACTS
Standards of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts from
GHG emissions are significant. Would the project:
•
•
Threshold 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a project against both
existing conditions and a “threshold of significance.” For establishing significance thresholds, the
Office of Planning and Research’s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) state
“[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of
significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by
experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by
substantial evidence.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) further states, “. . . A lead agency shall have discretion to
determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to
quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology
to use . . .; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides that a lead agency should consider the following
factors, among others, in assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions:
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 28 of 32
• Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that
the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction
or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be
adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce
or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. In
determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s
consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the
project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s
incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds
Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Highland has elected to rely on compliance with a
local air district threshold in the determination of significance of Project-related GHG emissions.
Specifically, the City has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold recommended by
SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare Project-
related GHG emissions.
The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology.
Prior to its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the
options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their
CEQA & Climate Change white paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that
unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a
geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing
projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90
percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts
associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to
implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill
development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to
proceed. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to
capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that
cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high
enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of
projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050 (31).
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e/yr., SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87
of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew
emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 29 of 32
percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population
combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of
projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial
processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining
operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide
a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects
within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that
the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e/yr. The SCAQMD set their significance
threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of
emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr.) to define small projects that are considered less than significant
and do not need to provide further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold for residential/commercial uses was
proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no
permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr.
threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial
evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas
Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of
which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all
documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that
provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD
significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also
are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal
[80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus,
remains valid for use in 2022 (31). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not
thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this analysis, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the
3,000 MTCO2e/yr. threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-
significant impact pursuant to Threshold GHG-1. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG
emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/yr., the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG
emissions.
GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO.
1Would the Project have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would
result in a significant impact on the environment?
PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized on Table 9. The estimated
GHG emission include emissions from Carbon Dioxide (CO ), Methane (CH ), Nitrous Oxide (N O),2 4 2
and Refrigerants (R). As shown on Table 9, the Project would generate a total of approximately
1,046.97 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented
in Attachment A.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 30 of 32
TABLE 9: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Emission (lbs./day)
N2O
Source
CO2 CH4 R Total CO2e
8.36Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 8.35 3.33E-04 0.00 1.33E-03
Energy 268.00
439.00
0.61
0.03
10.30
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
269.00
769.00
0.61
Water
Stationary
Total CO2e (All Sources)1,046.97
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not
been established by the SCAQMD for Projects where it is not the lead agency. As an interim
threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the
City has opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook.
Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical
threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The
latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. for all projects
(32).
The Project would result in approximately a net 1,046.97 MTCO2e/yr.; the proposed Project would
not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the Project would result
in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.
GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO.
2Would the Project have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or
performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions (33).
CONSTRUCTION
40% below 1990 levels by 2030
By using newer and electrified construction equipment as it is phased in pursuant to
requirements under AB 197 and similar law, policies and programs, the Project will be aligned
with applicable plans and policies and would, therefore, not otherwise conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 31 of 32
This is consistent with SB 32’s goal of reducing statewide emissions of greenhouse gases by 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030.
85% below 1990 levels by 2045 / 2050
While construction activities associated with the implementation of the Project would result in
emissions of CO and CH (see previous section regarding threshold 1, most of the emissions will24
come from the burning of fossil fuel in construction equipment. These emissions from
construction equipment will decrease even more as emissions technology improves in the next
20 years. Additionally, it is likely that diesel equipment will be cleaner and more efficient, powered
by renewable diesel, and/or phased out due to local Climate Action Plans and state requirements
(such by AB 197) by 2045. Newer electrified construction equipment will also become more
broadly available, further decreasing construction emissions.
This is consistent with AB 1279’s goal of reducing emissions to 85% below 1990 levels and carbon
neutrality by 2045 and, by extension, Executive Order S-03-05’s goal of reducing emissions to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050.
OPERATIONS
40% below 1990 levels by 2030
Operational emissions are powered primarily by electricity, so the Project’s GHG emissions will
decline as renewable and carbon neutral energy sources make up a larger and larger percentage
of power on the grid in compliance with state’s plans, policies, and regulations.
This is consistent with SB 32’s goal of reducing statewide emissions of greenhouse gases by 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030.
85% below 1990 levels by 2045 / 2050
Operational emissions are powered primarily by electricity, so the Project’s GHG emissions will
decline as renewable and carbon neutral energy sources make up a larger and larger percentage
of power on the grid in compliance with state’s plans, policies, and regulations.
Finally, the implementation of the Project will increase local water supplies, thereby avoiding the
need to import water from remote sources. By reducing the demand for importing water, which
is energy intensive and generates GHG emissions, the Project will offset GHG emissions that
would otherwise have occurred absent implementation of the Project.
This is consistent with AB 1279’s goal of reducing emissions to 85% below 1990 levels and carbon
neutrality by 2045 and, by extension, Executive Order S-03-05’s goal of reducing emissions to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. This is also consistent with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan goals and
objectives, which are based on compliance with AB 1279.
CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant
impact during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and GHG.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Kaitlyn Dodson-Hamilton, Tom Dodson & Associates
May 24, 2024
Page 32 of 32
Add contact info consistent with other memos?
If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at hqureshi@urbanxroads.com.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
REFERENCES
1. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Southern California Air Basins. [Online]
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/maps/scabc7map.pdf.
2. Ralph Propper, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado,
Bart
Croes, and Dongmin Luo. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in
California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology. 2015.3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online]
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
5. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean-
air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-i.
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment
Summary: Title II. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-
clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-ii.
7. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online]
2009.
[Cited: April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.8. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
[Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.9. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.[Online]April 2016.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.
10. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST.
[Online]
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-
403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.11. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.
12. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.
13. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.
14. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air
Quality Significance Thresholds.[Online]http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
15. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation
Details for CalEEMod. CalEEMod. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
16. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
17. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds
Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.
18. —. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] March
2017.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-
management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.19. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.[Online]September 2020.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-
plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
20. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993).
1993.21. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to
Address
Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air
Quality
Management District,2003.
http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf.
22. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan.
[Online] 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.
23. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [Online] http://www.baaqmd.gov/.
24. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan.[Online]2003.https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-
quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.
25. —. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-
book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf.
26. California Air Resources Board. GHG 1990 Emissions Level & 2020 Limit. California
Air
Resources Board. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-2020-limit.27. —. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. 2008.
28. —. STATUS OF SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED MEASURES. [Online] [Cited: September
19,2019.]
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.
29. —. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2014.
30. California Legislative Information. Senate Bill No. 32. [Online] September 8,
2016.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB3
2.
31. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Interim CEQA GHG Significnace
Threshold
for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar : s.n., 2008.32. —. Interim CEQA GHG Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.
[Online]December 5,2008.http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf.
33. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018 CEQA California Environmental Quality
Act. 2018.
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
ATTACHMENT A
CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL
OUTPUTS
16049-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
East Valley Water District Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
1 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.11. Well Drilling, Construction, Development, Testing (2024) - Unmitigated
3.13. Well Drilling, Construction, Development, Testing (2025) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
2 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
3 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
4 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
6 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
East Valley Water District
9/16/2024
2025
—
Project/site
County
2.50
11.2
7804 Calle Del Rio St, Highland, CA 92346, USA
County San Bernardino-South Coast
HighlandCity
Air District South Coast AQMD
South CoastAir Basin
TA Z 5168
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.22App Version
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq Special Landscape Population Description
ft)Area (sq ft)
7 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.63
0.80
Acre 0.63
0.02
0.00
800
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
Unrefrigerated 1000sqft Well Building
Warehouse-No Rail
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.4.91
—
4.13
—
37.5
—
33.8
—
0.06
—
1.93
—
5.89
—
7.82
—
1.78
—
2.74
—
4.52
—
—
—
6,881
—
6,881
—
0.28
—
0.17
—
2.47
—
6,908
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit.1.31
—
1.10
—
9.10
—
13.8
—
0.02
—
0.37
—
0.26
—
0.64
—
0.34
—
0.06
—
0.41
—
—
—
2,114
—
2,114
—
0.09
—
0.02
—
0.03
—
2,123
—Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit.0.63
—
0.53
—
4.62
—
6.37
—
0.01
—
0.18
—
0.18
—
0.36
—
0.17
—
0.06
—
0.23
—
—
—
1,067
—
1,067
—
0.04
—
0.01
—
0.14
—
1,071
—Annual
(Max)
Unmit.0.11 0.10 0.84 1.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.04 —177 177 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 177
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
8 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Year TOG
—
ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily -
Summer
(Max)
—————————
2024
2025
1.31
4.91
—
1.11
4.13
—
9.08
37.5
—
14.2
33.8
—
0.02
0.06
—
0.37
1.93
—
0.26
5.89
—
0.64
7.82
—
0.34
1.78
—
0.06
2.74
—
0.41
4.52
—
—
—
—
2,138
6,881
—
2,138
6,881
—
0.09
0.28
—
0.02
0.17
—
1.15
2.47
—
2,149
6,908
—Daily -
Winter
(Max)
2024
2025
1.31
1.20
—
1.10
1.01
—
9.10
8.50
—
13.8
13.6
—
0.02
0.02
—
0.37
0.31
—
0.26
0.26
—
0.64
0.57
—
0.34
0.28
—
0.06
0.06
—
0.41
0.34
—
—
—
—
2,114
2,109
—
2,114
2,109
—
0.09
0.09
—
0.02
0.02
—
0.03
0.03
—
2,123
2,119
—Average
Daily
2024
2025
Annual
2024
2025
0.27
0.63
—
0.23
0.53
—
1.91
4.62
—
2.90
6.37
—
< 0.005 0.08 0.05
0.18
—
0.13
0.36
—
0.07
0.17
—
0.01
0.06
—
0.08
0.23
—
—
—
—
—
—
443
1,067
—
443
1,067
—
0.02
0.04
—
0.01
0.01
—
0.10
0.14
—
446
1,071
—
0.01
—
0.18
—
0.05
0.11
0.04
0.10
0.35
0.84
0.53
1.16
< 0.005 0.01
< 0.005 0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.03
< 0.005 0.02
0.01 0.04
73.4
177
73.4
177
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 73.8
1770.01 < 0.005 0.02
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG
—
ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,—————————
Summer
(Max)
Unmit.0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 603 3,667
—
4,271
—
62.2
—
1.51
—
0.00
—
6,277
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————
Unmit.0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
9 / 50
< 0.005 603 3,667 4,271 62.2 1.51 0.00 6,277
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Average
Daily
——————————————————
(Max)
Unmit.0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 603 3,667
—
4,271
—
62.2
—
1.51
—
0.00
—
6,277
—Annual
(Max)
————————
Unmit.< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 99.9 607 707 10.3 0.25 0.00 1,039
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG
—
ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,—————————
Summer
(Max)
Mobile
Area
0.00
—
0.00
< 0.005
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
——
Energy
Water
Waste
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
—1,616
2,047
0.00
0.00
3.69
1,616
2,651
0.00
0.00
3.69
0.15
62.1
0.00
0.00
0.02
1.49
0.00
0.00
—1,625
4,648
0.00
0.00
3.71
——603
0.00
—
—
————————————
Off-Road 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —
Stationar 0.01
y
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
Total 0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 603 3,667
—
4,271
—
62.2
—
1.51
—
0.00
—
6,277
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————
Mobile
Area
0.00
—
0.00
< 0.005
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
——
Energy
Water
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
—1,616
2,047
1,616
2,651
0.15
62.1
0.02
1.49
—1,625
4,648——603 —
10 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Waste ———————
—
———
—
—0.00
—
0.00
0.00
3.69
0.00
0.00
3.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
3.71
Off-Road 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stationar 0.01
y
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
Total 0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 603 3,667
—
4,271
—
62.2
—
1.51
—
0.00
—
6,277
—Average
Daily
————————
Mobile
Area
0.00
—
0.00
< 0.005
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
——
Energy
Water
Waste
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
—1,616
2,047
0.00
0.00
3.68
1,616
2,651
0.00
0.00
3.68
0.15
62.1
0.00
0.00
0.02
1.49
0.00
0.00
—1,625
4,648
0.00
0.00
3.69
——603
0.00
—
—
————————————
Off-Road 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —
Stationar 0.01
y
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
Total 0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 603 3,667
—
4,271
—
62.2
—
1.51
—
0.00
—
6,277
—Annual
Mobile
Area
————————
0.00
—
0.00
< 0.005
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
——
Energy
Water
Waste
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
0.00
—
—0.00
—
—268
339
0.00
0.00
0.61
268
439
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.03
10.3
0.00
0.00
< 0.005
0.25
0.00
0.00
—269
769
0.00
0.00
0.61
——99.9
0.00
—
—
————————————
Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —
Stationar < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
y
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 99.9 607 707 10.3 0.25 0.00 1,039
3. Construction Emissions Details
11 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
3.1. Demolition (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 2.86
Equipment
2.40
—
22.2
—
19.9
—
0.03
—
0.92
—
—0.92
0.63
0.00
—
0.84
—
—0.84
0.10
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
3,425
—
3,425
—
0.14
—
0.03
—
—3,437
—Demolitio —
n
0.63
0.00
—
0.10
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
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
Average
Daily
———————
—
———
—
——
—
—
—
——————
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment
0.01
—
0.12
—
0.11
—
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005
—
< 0.005 18.8
—
18.8
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 —18.8
—Demolitio —
n
——< 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02
Equipment
0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.12
Demolitio —
n
—————< 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 —
12 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.02
—
0.07
0.00
0.95
—
1.17
0.00
0.54
—
0.00
0.00
0.01
—
0.00
0.00
0.01
—
0.20
0.00
0.21
—
0.20
0.00
0.22
—
0.00
0.00
0.01
—
0.05
0.00
0.06
—
0.05
0.00
0.07
—
—
—
—
—
211
0.00
795
—
211
0.00
795
—
0.01
0.00
0.08
—
0.01
0.00
0.13
—
0.78
0.00
1.69
—
215
0.00
838
—
Hauling 0.10
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
0.00 0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.08
0.00
4.36
—
1.08
0.00
4.36
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.59Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Annual
Worker
Vendor
———————————————
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
0.00 0.00
0.18
0.00
0.72
0.18
0.00
0.72
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
3.3. Site Preparation (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 4.82
Equipment
4.05 37.5 32.4 0.05 1.93 —1.93 1.78 —1.78 —5,528 5,528 0.22 0.04 —5,547
13 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Dust ——————5.66 5.66 —2.69 2.69 ———————
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
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
————————————
—
—
—————
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.07
Equipment
0.06
—
0.51
—
0.44
—
< 0.005 0.03 —0.03
0.08
0.02
—
—0.02
0.04
75.7
—
75.7
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 76.0
—Dust ———0.08 0.04 ——
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
Annual ————
—
—
—
——
—
———
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment
0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.6
Dust ——————0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.01 ———————
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
Vendor
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
1.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
247 247 0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.00
0.00
250
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
14 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Average
Daily
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
3.14
0.00
0.00
—
3.14
0.00
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.19
0.00
0.00
—
0.00 0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
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
Annual
Worker
Vendor
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
3.5. Grading (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 3.80
Equipment
3.20
—
29.7
—
28.3
—
0.06
—
1.23
—
—1.23
2.39
1.14
—
—1.14
0.95
—
—
6,599
—
6,599
—
0.27
—
0.05
—
—
—
6,622
—Dust —2.39 0.95
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
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
15 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Average
Daily
————————————
—
—
—————
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment
0.02
—
0.16
—
0.16
—
< 0.005 0.01 —0.01
0.01
0.01
—
—0.01
0.01
36.2
—
36.2
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 36.3
—Dust ———0.01 0.01 ——
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
Annual ——
—
—
—
——
—
———
—
—
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03
Equipment
0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.99 5.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.01
Dust ——————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
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
Vendor
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
—
0.09
0.00
0.00
—
1.56
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
282
0.00
0.00
—
282
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
1.05
0.00
0.00
—
286
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
0.00 0.00
—
—
1.44
0.00
1.44
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.46
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
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
Vendor
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (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 1.45
Equipment
1.21
0.00
—
11.3
0.00
—
14.1
0.00
—
0.03
0.00
—
0.47
0.00
—
—0.47
0.00
—
0.43
0.00
—
—0.43
0.00
—
—
—
—
2,630
0.00
—
2,630
0.00
—
0.11
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
—2,639
0.00
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
Average
Daily
————————————
—
—
——————
Off-Road 0.18
Equipment
0.15
0.00
1.39
0.00
1.74
0.00
< 0.005 0.06 —0.06
0.00
0.05
0.00
—0.05
0.00
324
0.00
324
0.00
0.01
0.00
—
< 0.005
0.00
—
—325
0.00Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————
—
———
—
——
—
———
—
—
Off-Road 0.03
Equipment
0.03 0.25 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 53.9
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
17 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —
—
—
—
4.73
4.05
0.00
—
4.73
4.05
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
4.81
4.25
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
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
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.54
0.50
0.00
—
0.54
0.50
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
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
—Annual
Worker
Vendor
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09
0.08
0.00
0.09
0.08
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Onsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.95
Equipment
0.80
0.83
7.45
—
9.98
—
0.01
—
0.35
—
—
—
0.35
—
0.32
—
—
—
0.32
—
—
—
1,511
—
1,511
—
0.06
—
0.01
—
—
—
1,517
—Paving —
18 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
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 0.01
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.28 8.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.31
Paving —< 0.005
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
Annual ———————
—
———
—
——
—
—————
—
—
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
Equipment
0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.38
Paving —< 0.005
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
Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
—
0.07
0.00
0.00
—
1.17
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.20
0.00
0.00
—
0.20
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.05
0.00
0.00
—
0.05
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
211
0.00
0.00
—
211
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.78
0.00
0.00
—
215
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
0.00 0.00
—
—
1.08
0.00
1.08
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
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
Vendor
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
3.11. Well Drilling, Construction, Development, Testing (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Onsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.20
Equipment
1.00
0.00
—
8.99
0.00
—
12.5
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
0.37
0.00
—
—0.37
0.00
—
0.34
0.00
—
—0.34
0.00
—
—
—
—
1,850
0.00
—
1,850
0.00
—
0.08
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
—1,856
0.00
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.20
Equipment
1.00
0.00
—
8.99
0.00
—
12.5
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
0.37
0.00
—
—0.37
0.00
—
0.34
0.00
—
—0.34
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,850
0.00
—
1,850
0.00
—
0.08
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
—1,856
0.00
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Average
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.25
Equipment
0.21
0.00
—
1.88
0.00
—
2.62
0.00
—
< 0.005 0.08 —0.08
0.00
—
0.07
0.00
—
—0.07
0.00
—
387
0.00
—
387
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
< 0.005
0.00
—
—389
0.00
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Annual —
20 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Off-Road 0.05
Equipment
0.04
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.48
0.00
< 0.005 0.01 —0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
—0.01
0.00
—
—
64.1
0.00
64.1
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 —64.4
0.00Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
0.11
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
—
0.10
0.00
0.00
—
1.69
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
288
0.00
0.00
—
288
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
1.15
0.00
0.00
—
292
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
Worker
Vendor
0.11
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
—
0.11
0.00
0.00
—
1.28
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
264
0.00
0.00
—
264
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.03
0.00
0.00
—
267
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Average
Daily
—
Worker
Vendor
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
0.00
—
0.28
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.05
0.00
0.00
—
0.05
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
56.0
0.00
0.00
—
56.0
0.00
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 56.8
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Annual
Worker
Vendor
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 9.28
0.00
0.00
9.28
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.41
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
3.13. Well Drilling, Construction, Development, Testing (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
21 / 50
NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Onsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.11
Equipment
0.92
0.00
—
8.41
0.00
—
12.4
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
0.31
0.00
—
—0.31
0.00
—
0.28
0.00
—
—0.28
0.00
—
—
—
—
1,851
0.00
—
1,851
0.00
—
0.08
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
—1,857
0.00
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.11
Equipment
0.92
0.00
—
8.41
0.00
—
12.4
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
0.31
0.00
—
—0.31
0.00
—
0.28
0.00
—
—0.28
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,851
0.00
—
1,851
0.00
—
0.08
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
—
—1,857
0.00
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Average
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.31
Equipment
0.26
0.00
2.35
0.00
3.48
0.00
0.01
0.00
—
0.09
0.00
—
—0.09
0.00
0.08
0.00
—0.08
0.00
518
0.00
518
0.00
0.02
0.00
—
< 0.005
0.00
—
—520
0.00Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————
—
———
—
——
—
———
—
—
Off-Road 0.06
Equipment
0.05 0.43 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 85.8 85.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 86.0
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
Vendor
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
1.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
282 282 0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.05
0.00
0.00
286
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
22 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker
Vendor
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
—
0.10
0.00
0.00
—
1.17
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.26
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
0.06
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
258
0.00
0.00
—
258
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.01
0.00
0.00
—
0.03
0.00
0.00
—
262
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Average
Daily
—
Worker
Vendor
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
—
0.03
0.00
0.00
—
0.35
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.07
0.00
0.00
—
0.07
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
0.00
—
0.02
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
73.3
0.00
0.00
—
73.3
0.00
0.00
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 74.4
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
Hauling 0.00
Annual
Worker
Vendor
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 12.1
0.00
0.00
12.1
0.00
0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.3
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Hauling 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
————————————
—
———
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
23 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Unrefrige 0.00
Warehouse-No
Rail
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Unrefrige 0.00
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—Annual
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
Unrefrige 0.00
rated
Warehou
se-No
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rail
Total 0.00
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
24 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—————
—
—
—
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Unrefrige —
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
undefine
d
————————————1,616 1,616 0.15 0.02 —1,625
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,616
—
1,616
—
0.15
—
0.02
—
—
—
1,625
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00Unrefrige —
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
undefine
d
————————————1,616 1,616 0.15 0.02 —1,625
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,616
—
1,616
—
0.15
—
0.02
—
—
—
—
1,625
—Annual
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
25 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Unrefrige —
rated
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Warehou
se-No
Rail
undefine
d
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
268
268
268
268
0.03
0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
269
269Total
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
———————
—
—
———
—
—
——
—
—
———
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00Unrefrige 0.00
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
26 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Unrefrige 0.00
rated
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total 0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.00
—Annual
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
Unrefrige 0.00
rated
Warehou
se-No
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
Rail
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG
—
ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Consum
er
Products
—
—
—
0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Architect
ural
Coatings
< 0.005
< 0.005Total
27 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Consum
er
Products
0.00
< 0.005Architect
ural
Coatings
Total —
—
—
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Consum
er
0.00
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
—
—
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Total
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,
Summer
(Max)
———————
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
————
Other ——————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
28 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Unrefrige —
rated
——————————603 2,047 2,651 62.1 1.49 —4,648
Warehou
se-No
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
603
—
2,047
—
2,651
—
62.1
—
1.49
—
—
—
4,648
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
603
0.00 0.00 0.00
62.1
0.00
1.49
—
—
0.00
Unrefrige —
rated
2,047 2,651 4,648
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
603
—
2,047
—
2,651
—
62.1
—
1.49
—
—
—
—
4,648
—Annual
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
Unrefrige —
rated
Warehou
se-No
—
—
———
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
99.9
99.9
339
339
439
439
10.3
10.3
0.25
0.25
—
—
769
769
Rail
Total ———
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
29 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
——————
—
—
—
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00Unrefrige —
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00Unrefrige —
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.00
—Annual
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt
Surfaces
Unrefrige —
rated
Warehou
se-No
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
Rail
Total —
30 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,———————————————
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme TOG
nt
Type
ROG
—
NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,——————————————
Summer
(Max)
Pumps
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
0.00
0.00
31 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Pumps
Total
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
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
Pumps
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme TOG
nt
Type
ROG
—
NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,——————————————
Summer
(Max)
Emergen 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.71
cy
Generato
r
Total 0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 3.69
—
3.69
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.71
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
———————————
Emergen 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.71
cy
Generato
r
Total 0.01
—
0.01
—
0.04
—
0.04
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 3.69
—
3.69
—
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.71
—Annual ———————————
32 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Emergen < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
Generator
0.01
0.01
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 0.00
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
0.61
0.61Total< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme TOG
nt
Type
ROG
—
NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,——————————————
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio TOG
n
ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,——————————
Summer
(Max)
33 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,———————————————
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
—Daily,——————————
Summer
(Max)
Avoided ——————————————————
34 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Subtotal —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Sequest
ered
Subtotal —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Remove
d
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Sequest
ered
Subtotal —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Remove
d
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—Remove
d
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
35 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name
Demolition
Phase Type
Demolition
Start Date
5/24/2025
5/28/2025
6/4/2025
6/6/2025
8/8/2025
9/16/2024
End Date
5/27/2025
6/3/2025
6/5/2025
8/7/2025
8/11/2025
5/23/2025
Days Per Week
5.00
Work Days per Phase Phase Description
2.00
5.00
2.00
45.0
2.00
180
—
—
—
—
—
—
Site Preparation
Grading
Site Preparation
Grading
5.00
5.00
Building Construction
Paving
Building Construction
Paving
5.00
5.00
Well Drilling, Construction, Trenching
Development, Testing
5.00
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Demolition
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower
33.0
Load Factor
0.73Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00
Demolition
Demolition
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
Excavators Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
3.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
36.0
367
367
87.0
36.0
148
367
423
84.0
0.38
0.40
0.40
0.43
0.38
0.41
0.40
0.48
0.37
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Dozers
Crawler Tractors
Excavators
Grading Graders
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers
ScrapersGrading
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
36 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Cranes Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
367 0.29
0.20
0.74
0.37
Forklifts 82.0
14.0
84.0
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Building Construction
Paving
Welders Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
10.0
46.0
81.0
89.0
36.0
83.0
0.45
0.42
0.36
0.38
0.50
Pavers
Paving Paving Equipment
RollersPaving
Well Drilling,Bore/Drill Rigs
Construction,
Development, Testing
Well Drilling,
Construction,
Development, Testing
Forklifts Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
2.00
82.0
14.0
37.0
84.0
46.0
0.20
0.74
0.48
0.37
0.45
Well Drilling,
Construction,
Development, Testing
Generator Sets
Air CompressorsWell Drilling,
Construction,
Development, Testing
Well Drilling,
Construction,
Development, Testing
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Well Drilling,Welders Diesel
Construction,
Development, Testing
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day
37 / 50
Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Demolition ————
Demolition Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—
15.0
—
18.5
10.2
20.0
—
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Demolition
Demolition 11.5
—Demolition HHDT
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
———
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—
17.5
—
18.5
10.2
20.0
—
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT0.00
—HHDT
———
Grading Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—
20.0
—
18.5
10.2
20.0
—
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Grading
Grading 0.00
—Grading HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
———
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—
0.34
0.13
0.00
—
18.5
10.2
20.0
—
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
———
Paving Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—
15.0
—
18.5
10.2
20.0
—
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Paving
Paving 0.00
—Paving HHDT
Well Drilling, Construction,
Development, Testing
———
38 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Well Drilling, Construction,
Development, Testing
Worker 20.0
—
18.5
10.2
20.0
—
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Well Drilling, Construction,
Development, Testing
Vendor
Well Drilling, Construction,
Development, Testing
Hauling 0.00
—Well Drilling, Construction,
Development, Testing
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 Residential Exterior Area Coated Non-Residential Interior Area Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
(sq ft)(sq ft)Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
0.00
—
0.00
—
0.00
17.5
6.00
0.00
91.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
———
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.63
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
39 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Water Exposed Area 3
2
74%
36%
74%
36%Water Demolished Area
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
100%Other Asphalt Surfaces
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
0.63
0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year
2024
2025
kWh per Year
0.00
CO2
532
532
CH4
0.03
0.03
N2O
< 0.005
< 0.0050.00
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday
0.00
Trips/Saturday
0.00
Trips/Sunday
0.00
Trips/Year
0.00
VMT/Weekday
0.00
VMT/Saturday
0.00
VMT/Sunday
0.00
VMT/Year
0.00Other Asphalt
Surfaces
Unrefrigerated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse-No Rail
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
40 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
(sq ft)
0 0.00 1,200 400 1,651
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
0.00
0.00
Snow Days
Summer Days
day/yr
day/yr
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2
349
349
CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00
0.00
0.0330
0.0330
0.0040
0.0040
0.00
0.00Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Other Asphalt Surfaces
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
0.00 0.00
0.00314,889,124
41 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Other Asphalt Surfaces
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
0.00
0.00
—
—
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type
Pumps
Fuel Type
Electric
Engine Tier
Average
Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower
350
Load Factor
1.00 24.0 0.74
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type
Diesel
Number per Day
1.00
Hours per Day
0.55
Hours per Year
200
Horsepower
8.00
Load Factor
0.73Emergency Generator
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)
42 / 50
Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. 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
27.8
Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat annual days of extreme heat
43 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
4.35
—
annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
meters of inundation depth
24.9 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider
inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters
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
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
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
44 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Climate Hazard
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone
—
100
53.1
20.0
85.2
1.49
65.6
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing
Pesticides
45 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Toxic Releases
Traffic
39.4
12.6
—Effect Indicators
CleanUp Sites
Groundwater
40.8
0.00
35.6
33.2
0.00
—
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma 61.5
77.6
59.3
—
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Education 8.99
14.7
17.3
6.73
78.3
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Education
—
76.41473117
79.81521879
79.66123444
—
46 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
62.03002695
100
21.73745669
—
Auto Access 96.70216861
3.721288336
—
Active commuting
Social
2-parent households
Voting
68.31772103
80.48248428
—Neighborhood
Alcohol availability
Park access
76.9665084
35.82702425
12.48556397
33.02964199
13.92275119
—
Retail density
Supermarket access
Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership 92.2751187
53.70204029
81.45771847
0.51328115
76.50455537
—
Housing habitability
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes
Insured adults 85.66662389
0.0Arthritis
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure
Cancer (excluding skin)
27.1
0.0
0.0
47 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes
Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity
0.0
0.0
0.0
76.7
29.3
94.1
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Injuries
Physical Health Not Good
Stroke
19.6
0.0
0.0
Health Risk Behaviors
Binge Drinking
—
0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk
0.0
—
45.3
0.0SLR Inundation Area
Children 79.8
81.3
58.4
17.5
47.5
—
Elderly
English Speaking
Foreign-born
Outdoor Workers
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
48 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density
71.1
13.5
23.0
—
Traffic Access
Other Indices
Hardship 27.1
—Other Decision Support
2016 Voting 84.8
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)43.0
71.0
No
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)
No
No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
49 / 50
East Valley Water District Detailed Report, 5/7/2024
Construction: Construction Phases
Construction: Off-Road Equipment
Operations: Vehicle Data
Construction schedule based on consultation with the Applicant
Construction equipment based on consultation with the Applicant
Project not anticipated to generate substantive amount of trips
Project does not anticipate landscapingOperations: Landscape Equipment
Operations: Energy Use Building use is to house a well. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for the land use modeled are not
appropriate
Operations: Water and Waste Water
Operations: Solid Waste
Based on information provided by Applicant the average water use for a well is 967 AFY (314,889,124
GPY)
Building use is to house a well. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for the land use modeled are not
appropriate
Operations: Consumer Products
Operations: Off-Road Equipment
Building use is to house a well. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for the land use modeled are not
appropriate
Based on similar projects
50 / 50
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
APPENDIX 2
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation
For
EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT
WELL NO. 129 PROJECT
Enter Project Location
July 10, 2024
.
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................iii
1.
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Development Area Description ...........................................................................................................2
Location ...............................................................................................................................................4
Environmental Setting .........................................................................................................................8
Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................................ 9
Biological Resources Assessment ........................................................................................................9
1.2
1.3
2.
2.1
2.1.1 Biological Resources Assessment Field Survey ........................................................................................9
2.2
3.
3.1
Jurisdictional Delineation ....................................................................................................................9
Results........................................................................................................................................ 12
Existing Biological and Physical Conditions........................................................................................12
3.1.1 Habitat...............................................................................................................................................12
3.1.2 Wildlife...............................................................................................................................................12
3.2 Special Status Species and Habitats...................................................................................................13
3.2.1 Special Status Species........................................................................................................................13
3.2.2 Special Status Habitats.......................................................................................................................16
3.3
4.
Jurisdictional Delineation ..................................................................................................................16
Conclusions and Recommendations. .......................................................................................... 24
Sensitive Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................24
Jurisdictional Waters .........................................................................................................................26
References.................................................................................................................................. 28
4.1
4.2
5.
Figures: Pages 30-34:
Figure 1 - Regional Location map
Figure 2 – Site Location Map
Figure 3 – Areal Site Map
Figure 4 – Development Map
Table 1. CNDDB Species and Habitats Documented Within the Redlands USGS 7.5-
Minute Quadrangle
Appendix A. Site Photos
Appendix B. Regulatory Framework
Appendix C CNDDB List
Appendix D iPAC Report
1 | P a g e
Executve Summary
HDR, Inc. was retained by To m Dodson and Associates to conduct a Biological Resources Assessment,
Jurisdictonal Delineaton for a proposed East Valley Water District’s (District) proposed installaton of a new water
well. The new well is designated Well No. 129 and will be located within a less than one acre porton of an
existng approximately 2.37-acre reservoir site within the City of Highland, San Bernardino County, California. The
site is located north/northwest of the intersecton of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street, south of Oak
Creek in the City of Highland. The project is mapped within the USGS Topo 7.5-minute map ”Redlands”, in Secton
1, Township 1 South and Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian. The approximate GPS coordinates of the
project site are 34.112523°, -117.139739°.
In June 2024, HDR’s biologists conducted a Biological Resources Assessment survey to address potental efects of
the proposed reservoir constructon on designated Critcal Habitats and/or special status species. The results of
the Biological Resources Assessment are intended to provide sufcient baseline informaton to the District and, if
required, to City and/or County planning ofcials as well as any potentally interested federal and state regulatory
agencies to determine if the proposed project is likely to result in any adverse efects to sensitve biological
resources and, if necessary, to identfy mitgaton measures to ofset those efects.
Data regarding biological resources in the proposed project vicinity were obtained through literature review and
feld investgaton. Available databases and documentaton relevant to the Development Area were reviewed for
documented occurrences of sensitve species that could potentally occur in the Development Area vicinity,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated Critcal Habitat online mapper and Informaton for Planning
and Consultaton System, as well as the most recent versions of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
and California Natve Plant Society Electronic Inventory.
The result of the feld survey was that no state or federally listed species were identfed within the Development
Area and the Development Area is not within or adjacent any federal Critcal Habitat. The entre reservoir site is
approximately 2.26 acres and is hardscaped, developed, and completely fenced. The entre work area occurs
within this fenced area and encompasses less than one acre. No modifcatons to the existng the existng 3-
million-gallon reservoirs is proposed. The fenced area is unvegetated and disturbed. Small area with sparse non-
natve plant species occurs on the sloped area and along the fence line to the east away from the proposed well
site. See Figure 3 for Areal Site View, and Site photographs.
The database searches identfed:
Marsh Sanward (Arenaria Paludicola) FE/SE
Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii) FE/SE
Crotch bumble bee (State Candidate Endangered)
salt marsh bird's-beak (Chloropyron maritmum ssp. Maritmum) FE/SE
western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) FT/SE
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) FE/SE
Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) FE/SE
southwestern willow fycatcher (Empidonax traillii extmus) FE/SE
Santa Ana River woollystar )Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Sanctorum) FE/SE
steelhead - (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) (southern California DPS pop. 10) FE/CE
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptla californica californica) FT
southern mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) FE/SE
western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) Federal Proposed Endangered
least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
2 | P a g e
There is no suitable habitat within the project site for any of these species. Further the site does not occur with
Designated Critcal Habitat. Therefore, “take” authorizaton for Proposed project area will not be required.
The Site was also assessed for the presence of state and/or federal jurisdictonal waters that may potentally be
impacted by the Development Area. The jurisdictonal waters assessment was conducted in accordance with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineaton Manual, Jurisdictonal Determinaton using the Instructonal
Guidebook, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineaton Manual: Arid West Region and
the Environmental Protecton Agency and the Department of the Army’s “2023 Amended Rule: Defniton of
‘Waters of the United States,’” efectve September 8,2023. The result of the jurisdictonal waters assessment is
that there are no wetland or non-wetland jurisdictonal waters within the Subject Parcel. Therefore, the
proposed project will not impact any jurisdictonal waters of the United States or State Waters. No state or
federal jurisdictonal waters permitng will be required under current regulatons.
This report describes biological resources, identfes state and/or federally listed species with potental to occur
on site, presents representatve site photographs. According to protocol and standard practces, the results of the
Biological Resource Assessment will remain valid for the period of one year (February 2025), afer which tme, if
the site has not been disturbed in the interim, another survey may be required to determine the persistng
absence of special status species and to verify environmental conditons on site. Regardless of survey results and
conclusions given herein, if any state or federally listed species are found on site during Development Area-
related work actvites, all actvites likely to afect the animal(s) should cease immediately and regulatory
agencies should be contacted to determine appropriate management actons.
3 | P a g e
1.Introducton
The Proposed 1.5-million-gallon (MG) reservoir at the existng Reservoir 6A site. Therefore, on behalf of Tom
Dodson and Associates (TDA) HDR, Inc. (HDR) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) report for
the proposed reservoir constructon. The BRA feldwork was conducted by biologist Lisa Paterson in December
2023. The purpose of the BRA survey was to address potental efects of the proposed reservoir constructon on
designated Critcal Habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listng as endangered or
threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),
as well as any species otherwise designated as sensitve by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW
[formerly California Department of Fish and Game]) and/or the California Natve Plant Society (CNPS).
In December 2023, HDR’s biologists conducted a Biological Resources Assessment survey to address potental
efects of the proposed reservoir constructon on designated Critcal Habitats and/or special status species. The
results of the Biological Resources Assessment are intended to provide sufcient baseline informaton to the
District and, if required, to City and/or County planning ofcials as well as any potentally interested federal and
state regulatory agencies to determine if the proposed project is likely to result in any adverse efects to sensitve
biological resources and, if necessary, to identfy mitgaton measures to ofset those efects.
The reservoir constructon area was assessed for sensitve species known to occur locally. Atenton was focused
on those state and/or federally listed as threatened or endangered species and California Fully Protected species
that have been documented in the vicinity of the existng reservoir site, whose habitat requirements are present
within or adjacent to the Development Area. Results of the Biological Resource Assessment are intended to
provide sufcient baseline informaton to the Development Area Proponent and, if required, to City, County or
other local government planning ofcials and federal and state regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW, respectvely, to determine if the Development Area is likely to result in any
adverse efects on sensitve biological resources and to identfy mitgaton measures to ofset those efects.
In additon to the BRA survey, the Development Area was assessed for the presence of state and/or federal
jurisdictonal waters potentally subject to regulaton by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Secton
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Secton 401 of the CWA
and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and CDFW under Secton 1600 of the California Fish and Game
Code (FGC), respectvely.
Data regarding biological resources in the Development Area vicinity were obtained through literature review and
feld investgaton. Available databases and documentaton relevant to the Development Area were reviewed for
documented occurrences of sensitve species that could potentally occur in the Development Area vicinity,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated Critcal Habitat online mapper and Informaton for Planning
and Consultaton System, as well as the most recent versions of the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB).
1.1 Development Area Descripton
The District seeks to install a new well, which would aid the District in meetng current and future demand, and
provide backup for an existng aging well (Well No. 142) in the District’s service area. Well No. 129 is proposed to
be located within a less than one acre porton of an approximately 2.37-acre parcel within the City of Highland
(Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 1210-381-10) a site north/northwest of the intersecton of Calle Del Rio Street
and Vista Clara Street, south of Oak Creek in the City of Highland (refer to the site plan provided as Figure 4). The
District owns APN 1210-381-10, which presently contains two 3-million gallon (MG) steel water storage
reservoirs. The site is referred to as EVWD Plant No. 129.
4 | P a g e
The site would include the following features: the new well (wellhead); an 8” diameter pipeline connectng to the
District’s booster pump staton onsite; a 4’ diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that extends 2’ above grade
and 16” RCP drain line; chlorine and orthophosphate dosing systems; a 55’ x 20’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU)
block building with a standing seam metal roof enclosing the wellhead, discharge header, pump-to-waste header,
electrical equipment, and chemical facilites. It is assumed that minor grading will be required to construct the
structure.1.2 Environmental Setng
Reservoir 6A and the proposed Reservoir 6A-2 are in the western porton of the Mojave Desert, west side of the
Mojave River at the base of the northern site of the transverse San Gabriel Mountain range. The Phelan-Piñon
Hills area is subject to both seasonal and annual variatons in temperature and precipitaton. Average annual
maximum temperatures peak at 98.1 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) in July and fall to an average annual minimum
temperature of 29.2° F in January. Average annual precipitaton is greatest from November through March and
reaches a peak in February (1.05 inches). Precipitaton is lowest in the month of June (0.04 inches). Annual total
precipitaton averages 5.52 inches.
The proposed project is located at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, within San Bernardino County,
with only one small residental subdivision separatng the project site from the San Bernardino Mountain foothills.
The proposed project site is in the Upper Santa Anna Valley. The project site currently contains EVWD’s Plant No.
129, which consists of two 3-MG water storage reservoirs, and a booster pump staton. The site has been entrely
developed and is covered with asphalt exceptng the areas on the northwestern, northern, and eastern site
boundaries, which contain trees and managed vegetaton. The ground surface of the proposed project site ranges
in elevaton from between about 1,527 to 1,558 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The site slopes gently along the
project’s eastern boundary, as the adjacent residences are at a slightly higher elevaton than the project site.
1.2 Environmental Setng
The project area lies in the geographically based ecological classifcaton known as the Inland Valleys – Level IV
ecoregion, of the Southern California/Northern Baja Coast – Level III ecoregion. The goal of regional ecological
classifcatons is to reduce variability based on spatal covariance in climate, geology, topography, climax
vegetaton, hydrology, and soils. The Inland Valleys ecoregion is a heavily urbanized ecoregion that historically
consisted of the alluvial fans and basin foors immediately south of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino
Mountains.
5 | P a g e
2.Assessment Methodology
2.1 Biological Resources Assessment
Data regarding biological resources in the Development Area vicinity were obtained through literature review,
desktop evaluaton and feld investgaton. Prior to performing the feld survey, available databases, and
documentaton relevant to the Development Area were reviewed for documented occurrences of sensitve
species that could potentally occur in the Development Area vicinity. The USFWS designated Critcal Habitat
online mapper, USFWS threatened and endangered species occurrence data overlay, and the most recent versions
of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Natve Plant Society Electronic Inventory
(CNPSEI) databases were searched for sensitve species data in the Redlands, USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle.
These databases contain records of reported occurrences of state and federally listed species or otherwise
sensitve species and habitats that may occur within the vicinity of the Development Area site (approximately 3
miles). Other available technical informaton on the biological resources of the area was also reviewed including
previous surveys and recent fndings.
2.1.1 Biological Resources Assessment Field Survey
Biologist Lisa Paterson conducted a biological resources assessment of the Development Area on December 5,
2023. The feld survey and foristc botanical feld survey consisted of a pedestrian survey that encompassed the
entre Subject Parcel and immediate surrounding area where feasible and appropriate. Wildlife species were
detected during feld surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, and/or other sign. In additon to species observed,
expected wildlife usage of the site was determined based on known habitat preferences of regional wildlife
species and knowledge of their relatve distributons in the area. The focus of the faunal species survey was to
identfy potental habitat for special status wildlife that may occur within the Development Area vicinity.
2.2 Jurisdictonal Delineaton
On December 5, 2023, Ms. Paterson also evaluated the Subject Parcel for the presence of
riverine/riparian/wetland habitat and jurisdictonal waters, i.e. Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), as regulated by the
USACE and RWQCB, and/or jurisdictonal streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by the CDFW.
Prior to the feld visit, aerial photographs of the Development Area were viewed to identfy drainage features
within the survey area as indicated from topographic changes, blue-line features, or visible drainage paterns.
Environmental Protecton Agency (EPA) Water Program “Waters GeoViewer 2.0” and “Google Earth Pro” data
layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas had been
documented within the vicinity of the site, and to assess connectvity to a Traditonally Navigable Water or a
Relatvely Permanent Wate r. Similarly, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Natural Resources
Conservaton Service (NRCS) “Web Soil Survey” was reviewed for soil types found within the Development Area to
identfy the soil series in the area and to check these soils to determine whether they are regionally identfed as
hydric soils. Downstream connectvity of waterways (if present) were reviewed on Google Earth Pro aerial
photographs and topographic maps to determine jurisdictonal status. The lateral extent of potental USACE
jurisdicton was measured at the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in accordance with regulatons set forth in
33CFR part 328 and the USACE guidance documents listed below:
2.2.1 USACE – Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineaton Manual, Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report Y-87-1 (on-line editon), January 1987 - Final Report.
2.2.2 USACE – Jurisdictonal Determinaton Form Instructonal Guidebook (JD Form Guidebook), May 30,
2007.
6 | P a g e
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
USACE – A Field Guide to the Identfcaton of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid
West Region of the Western United States (A Delineaton Manual), August 2008.
USACE – Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineaton Manual: Arid West
Region (Version 2.0), September 2008.
USACE – Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatc Resources Delineaton Reports (Minimum
Standards), January 2016.
The Environmental Protecton Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army’s “Amended 2023
WOTUS Rule: Defniton of ‘Waters of the United States,’” September 1, 2020 efectve September 8,
2023.
2.3 Jurisdictonal Waters of the US: Waters and Wetlands
To be considered a jurisdictonal Waters of the United State under the CWA, Secton 404 a feature must fall within
one of the Categories below:
(a)(1) Traditonally Navigable Waters
(i) Traditonal Navigable Waters: Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptble
to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
fow of the tde.
(ii) Territorial Seas
(iii) Interstate Waters
(a)(2) Impoundments of Jurisdictonal Waters
(a)(3) Tributaries: Tributaries of waters identfed in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) that are relatvely permanent,
standing, or contnuously fowing bodies of wate r.
(a)(4) Adjacent Wetlands: Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identfed in Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) WOTUS and have a contnuous surface
connecton to those waters.
(a)(5) Additonal Waters: Intrastate Lakes and ponds not identfed in (a)(1) through (4).that are relatvely
permanent, standing or contnuously fowing bodies of water with a contnuous surface connecton to
waters identfed in (a)(1) or (a)(3).
To be considered a jurisdictonal wetland under the federal CWA, Secton 404, an area must possess three (3)
wetland characteristcs: hydrophytc vegetaton, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, and be adjacent to an (a)(1),
(2), or(3) Water as defned in the Amended Waters Rule.
►Hydrophytc vegetaton: Hydrophytc vegetaton is plant life that grows, and is typically adapted for life, in
permanently or periodically saturated soils. The hydrophytc vegetaton criterion is met if more than 50 percent of
the dominant plant species from all strata (tree, shrub, and herb layers) is considered hydrophytc. Hydrophytc
species are those included on the 2018 Natonal Wetland Plant Lists for the Arid West Region (USACE 2018). Each
species on the lists is rated with a wetland indicator category, as shown in Table 1. To be considered hydrophytc,
the species must have wetland indicator status, i.e., be rated as OBL, FACW or FAC.
7 | P a g e
Table 1. Wetland Indicator Vegetaton Categories
Category Probability
Obligate Wetland (OBL)
Facultatve Wetland (FACW)
Facultatve (FAC)
Almost always occur in wetlands (estmated probability >99%)
Usually occur in wetlands (estmated probability 67 to 99%)
Equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (estmated
probability 34 to 66%)
Facultatve Upland (FACU)
Obligate Upland (UPL)
Usually occur in non-wetlands (estmated probability 67 to 99%)
Almost always occur in non-wetlands (estmated probability >99%)
►Hydric Soil: Soil maps from the USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023) were reviewed for soil types
found within the Development Area. Hydric soils are saturated or inundated long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditons that favor growth and regeneraton of hydrophytc vegetaton. There are
several indirect indicators that may signify the presence of hydric soils including hydrogen sulfde generaton, the
presence of iron and manganese concretons, certain soil colors, gleying, and the presence of motling. Generally,
hydric soils are dark in color or may be gleyed (bluish, greenish, or grayish), resultng from soil development under
anoxic (without oxygen) conditons. Bright motles within an otherwise dark soil matrix indicate periodic
saturaton with intervening periods of soil aeraton. Hydric indicators are partcularly difcult to observe in sandy
soils, which are ofen recently deposited soils of food plains (entsols) and usually lack sufcient fnes (clay and
silt) and organic material to allow use of soil color as a reliable indicator of hydric conditons. Hydric soil indicators
in sandy soils include accumulatons of organic mater in the surface horizon, vertcal streaking of subsurface
horizons by organic mater, and organic pans.
The hydric soil criterion is satsfed at a locaton if soils in the area can be inferred or observed to have a high
groundwater table, if there is evidence of prolonged soil saturaton, or if there are any indicators suggestng a
long-term reducing environment in the upper part of the soil profle. Reducing conditons
are most easily assessed using soil color. Soil colors were evaluated using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell
2000). Soil pits are dug (when necessary) to an approximate depth of 16-20 inches to evaluate soil profles for
indicatons of anaerobic and redoximorphic (hydric) conditons in the subsurface.
►Wetland Hydrology: The wetland hydrology criterion is satsfed at a locaton based upon conclusions
inferred from feld observatons that indicate an area has a high probability of being inundated or saturated
(fooded, ponded, or tdally infuenced) long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditons
in the surface soil environment, especially the root zone (USACE 1987 and USACE 2008).
Evaluaton of CDFW jurisdicton followed guidance in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes
and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (CDFW, 2010). Specifcally, CDFW jurisdicton would occur where a stream has a
defnite course showing evidence of where waters rise to their highest level and to the extent of associated
riparian vegetaton.
8 | P a g e
3.Results
3.1 Existng Biological and Physical Conditons
The Project survey site is disturbed land completely fenced and developed with access roads, existng
reservoir, and operaton/maintenance facilites and equipment. There is no extant natve habitat
occurring on the site. The surrounding areas support a mixed shrub community typical of the area and
generally characterized by natve shrub vegetaton with some disturbance from of-highway vehicles and
the dumping of trash, and transient encampments. Dominant species are creosote bush (Larrea
tridentata), burrobush (Franseria dumosa), rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus depressus), indian rice grass
(Oryzopsis hymenoides) and Russian thistle (Salsola sp.). Annuals observed during the survey included
fddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), brome (Bromus sp.), flaree Storksbill (Erodium sp.), and schismus (Schismus
barbatus). Human disturbances associated with the surrounding developments.
3.1.1 Habitat
The project area does not support any natve habitats. The site has been cleared of vegetaton, and only
scatered individual of annual species occurs in the proposed constructon area.
3.1.2 Wildlife
Amphibians and Reptles
No amphibian species were observed or otherwise detected within the Subject Parcel during the
reconnaissance- level survey and none are expected to occur, due to the dry, upland nature of the site
and absence of nearby water sources. Reptle species observed within the Subject Parcel during the
reconnaissance-level feld survey include western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans).
Birds
Birds were the most observed wildlife group during survey and species observed or otherwise detected
in the Development Area during the reconnaissance-level survey include: red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys).
Mammals
Identfcaton of mammals within the Subject Parcel was generally determined by physical evidence
rather than direct visual identfcaton. This is because 1) many of the mammal species that potentally
occur onsite are nocturnal and would not have been actve during the survey and 2) no small mammal
trapping was performed.
The only mammal species observed was California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi).
Special Status Species and Habitats
According to the CNDDB, 6 sensitve species (2 plant species, 4 animal species) have been documented in
the Redlands, USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. This list of sensitve species includes any state and/or
federally listed threatened or endangered species, or candidates, California Fully Protected species,
9 | P a g e
CDFW designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a
general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or
protecton status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The
CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservaton need.
Only one state candidate species documented within the Redlands quad. There are no known
occurrences within 3 miles of the proposed reservoir site.
The federal iPAC report identfes the potental for 4 listed or candidate species however non-are
mapped within 13 miles of the site.
3.1.3 Special Status Species
No state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitve species were
observed within the Development Area during the reconnaissance-level feld survey. An analysis of the
likelihood for occurrence of all CNDDB sensitve species documented in the Redlands, quad is provided in
Appendix A. This analysis considers species’ range as well as documentaton within the vicinity of the
Subject Parcel and includes the habitat requirements for each species and the potental for their
occurrence on site, based on required habitat elements and range relatve to the current site conditon.
Findings: The Development Area does not have any natve or natural habitats, further the will
site will located in an asphalt parking lot
Special Status Habitats
The Subject Parcel does not contain any sensitve habitats, including any USFWS designated Critcal
Habitat for any federally listed species. The nearest Critcal Habitat unit is greater than 3 miles northwest
of the Subject Parcel.
Findings: The Development Area will not result in any loss or adverse modifcaton of USFWS
designated Critcal Habitat, or any other special status habitats.
3.2 Jurisdictonal Delineaton
The Subject Parcel is within the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Area . The Santa Ana River is the largest river
entrely within Southern California in the United States.[4] It rises in the San Bernardino Mountains and
fows for most of its length through San Bernardino and Riverside countes, before cutng through the
northern Santa Ana Mountains via Santa Ana Canyon and fowing southwest through urban Orange
County to drain into the Pacifc Ocean. The Santa Ana River is 96 miles (154 km) long,[5] and its drainage
basin is 2,650 square miles (6,900 km2) in size.
Waters of the U.S.
The USACE has authority to permit the discharge of dredged or fll material in WOTUS under Secton 404
of the CWA. WOTUS are defned as:
“All waters used in interstate or foreign commerce; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all
other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermitent and ephemeral streams),
10 | P a g e
mudfats, sand fats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds,
where the use, degradaton, or destructon of which could afect interstate commerce; impoundments of
these waters; tributaries of these waters; or wetlands adjacent to these waters” (Secton 404 of the
CWA; 33 CFR 328.3 (a).
Therefore, CWA jurisdicton exists over the following Categories:
(a)(1) Traditonally Navigable Waters
(i) Traditonal Navigable Waters: Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptble
to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
fow of the tde.
(ii) Territorial Seas
(iii) Interstate Waters
(a)(2) Impoundments of Jurisdictonal Waters
(a)(3) Tributaries: Tributaries of waters identfed in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) that are relatvely
permanent, standing, or contnuously fowing bodies of wate r.
(a)(4) Adjacent Wetlands: Wetlands are areas meetng all three wetland parameters that are
adjacent to jurisdictonal (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) WOTUS and have a contnuous surface
connecton to those waters.
(a)(5) Additonal Waters: Intrastate Lakes and ponds not identfed in (a)(1) through (4).that are
relatvely permanent, standing or contnuously fowing bodies of water with a contnuous
surface connecton to waters identfed in (a)(1) or (a)(3).
There are no wetland or non-wetland WOTUS within site.
State Lake/Streambed
There are waters of the State within site.
4. Conclusions and Recommendatons
4.1 Sensitve Biological Resources
A BRA survey of the Subject Parcel was conducted in December of 2023 to identfy potental habitat for
special status wildlife within the Development Area. No special status wildlife species, including any state
and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, were observed or otherwise detected within
the Project Site during the reconnaissance-level assessment survey. There is no suitable habitat for
desert tortoise, California Condor, southwestern pond turtle, Crotch’s bumble bee, or Monarch buterfy.
The reservoir site does not contain any sensitve habitats, including any USFWS designated Critcal
Habitat for any federally listed species, and the Development Area will not result in any loss or adverse
modifcaton of Critcal Habitat.
11 | P a g e
Nestng Birds
The habitat within the Development Area is suitable to support nestng birds. Most natve bird species
are protected from unlawful take by the MBTA (Appendix D). In December 2017, the Department of the
Interior (DOI) issued a memorandum concluding that the MBTA’s prohibitons on take apply “[…] only to
afrmatve actons that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their
eggs” (DOI 2017).
The State of California provides additonal protecton for natve bird species and their nests in the FGC
(Appendix D). Bird nestng protectons in the FGC include the following (Sectons 3503, 3503.5, 3511,
3513 and 3800):
•Secton 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destructon of the nest or eggs of any
bird.
•Secton 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destructon of any nests, eggs, or
birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys, and falcons,
among others), and Strigiformes (owls).
•
•
Secton 3511 prohibits the take or possession of Fully Protected birds.
Secton 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof, as
designated in the MBTA. To avoid violaton of the take provisions, it is generally required that
Development Area- related disturbance at actve nestng territories be reduced or eliminated
during the nestng cycle.
•Secton 3800 prohibits the take of any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in
California that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).
In general, impacts to all bird species (common and special status) can be avoided by conductng work
outside of the nestng season, which is generally February 1st through August 31st. However, if all work
cannot be conducted outside of nestng season, the following is recommended:
➢To avoid impacts to nestng birds (common and special status) during the nestng season, a
qualifed Avian Biologist should conduct pre-constructon nestng bird surveys prior to
Development Area-related disturbance to suitable nestng areas to identfy any actve nests. If
no actve nests are found, no further acton would be required. If an actve nest is found, the
biologist should set appropriate no-work bufers around the nest which would be based upon
the nestng species, its sensitvity to disturbance, nestng stage and expected types, intensity
and duraton of disturbance. The nest(s) and bufer zones should be feld checked weekly by a
qualifed biological monitor. The approved no-work bufer zone should be clearly marked in the
feld, within which no disturbance actvity should commence untl the qualifed biologist has
determined the young birds have successfully fedged and the nest is inactve.
12 | P a g e
➢
4.2 Jurisdictonal Waters
In additon to the BRA and focused botanical feld survey, the Subject Parcel was also assessed for the
presence of any state and/or federal jurisdictonal waters. The result of the jurisdictonal waters
assessment is that there are channels or ponded features withing the reservoir site. Therefore, no
permitng with the CDFW, RWQCB, or USACOE will be required.
13 | P a g e
5. References
Calfora: Informaton on California plants for educaton, research and conservaton. [web applicaton].
2023.
Berkeley, California: The Calfora Database [a non-proft organizaton]. Available at:
htp://www.calfora.org/; accessed 2 June 2023.
California Burrowing Owl Consortum. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitgaton Guidelines.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staf report on burrowing owl mitgaton. Memo from
C.F.
Raysbrook, Interim Director to Biologist, Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and
Game.Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in
Dryland Watersheds. Prepared by Kris Vyverberg, Senior Engineering Geologist, Conservaton
Engineering. December 2010.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staf Report on Burrowing Owl Mitgaton. State
of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.
California Natve Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California [online editon, v8-03 0.45]. Available at: htp://www.rareplants.cnps.org; accessed 2 June
2023.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2023. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Version 5.2.14. Available at: htps://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data; accessed
2 June 2023.
County of Riverside, Environmental Programs Department. Revised August 17, 2006. Burrowing Owl
Survey Instructons for Western Riverside Multple Species Habitat Conservaton Plan Area, March 29,
2006.
County of Riverside, Land Informaton System. APN 900-030-036 search for site-specifc informaton and
maps. Dudek & Associates, Inc. June 17, 2003. Riverside County Integrated Development Area. Final
Western Riverside County
Multple Species Habitat Conservaton Plan. Volume I, The Plan, and II.
Dudek & Associates, Inc. June 17, 2003. Riverside County Integrated Development Area. Final Western
Riverside County Multple Species Habitat Conservaton Plan. Volumes II-A through E, The Reference
Document.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineaton Manual," Technical Report Y-
87-1,
14 | P a g e
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Staton, Vicksburg, Miss.
Grifth, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Smith, D.W., Cook, T.D., Tallyn, E., Moseley, K., and Johnson, C.B., 2016,
Ecoregions of California (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1021, with map, scale
1:1,100,000, htp://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161021; accessed 2 June 2023.
Goldwasser, S. 1981. Habitat requirements of the Least Bell's Vireo. Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Nongame
Wildlife Investgatons Rep. 81.09, Proj. E-W4, Job IV-38.1. Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec. Rep. 81.09.
Jepson Flora Development Area (eds.) 2023, Jepson eFlora, htp://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/efora/; accessed
2 June 2023.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The Natonal Wetland Plant List: 2016
wetland ratngs. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Natonal Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2023. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper. Available
online at: htps://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html; accessed 2 June 2023.
Natural Resources Conservaton Service (NRCS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. Map Unit Descriptons. Riverside
County Area, California. Available at: htp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm; accessed
2 June 2023.
Sawyer, John O., Keeler-Wolf, Todd, and Evens, Julie M. 2009. A manual of California vegetaton. Second
Editon.
California Natve Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. 1,300 pages.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. USACE Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary
Wetlands Delineatons, November 30, 2001 (Minimum Standards).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Jurisdictonal Determinaton Form Instructonal Guidebook
(JD Form Guidebook). May 30.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineaton Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Cente r.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. A Field Guide to the Identfcaton of the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (A Delineaton Manual).
August 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Final Determinaton of Critcal Habitat for the Least Bell’s
Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus); Final Rule. 59 FR 4845.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. DRAFT Recovery Plan for the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat, April
1997.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
15 | P a g e
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Draf recovery plan for the least Bell’s vireo. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Ofce. April 8, 3 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. Issued by the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Ofce. April 8, 3 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Buterfy
(Euphydryas editha quino). Portland, Oregon. x + 179 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Allium munzii (Munz’s Onion) 5-Year Review: Summary and
valuaton. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Ofce Carlsbad, CA.
Western Regional Climate Cente r. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Beaumont #2,
California (040609). Available at: htps://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0609; accessed 2 June 2023.
85 FR 22250. 2020. The Environmental Protecton Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army’s
“Navigable Waters Protecton Rule: Defniton of ‘Waters of the United States,’” April 21, 2020 (efectve
June 22, 2020
16 | P a g e
Figure 1
EMWD Well No 129 Regional Locaton Map
17
Figure 2
EMWD Well No. 129 Site Locaton Map
18
Legend
Work Area
Reservoir Site
Figure 3
EMWD Well No. 129 Areal Map
19
Appendix A. CNDDB Species and Habitats Documented Within the
Redlands,USGS 7.5-Minute
Quadrangle
20
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk None None Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted or
marginal type. Nest sites mainly in riparian
growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon
bottoms on river floodplains; also, live
oaks.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
None
None
None
None
None
None
Resident in Southern California coastal
sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral.
Frequents relatively steep, often rocky
hillsides with grass and forb patches.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Anniella stebbinsi Southern California legless
lizard
Generally south of the Transverse Range,
extending to northwestern Baja California.
Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Disjunct populations in
the Tehachapi and Piute Mountains in Kern
County. Variety of habitats; generally in
moist, loose soil. They prefer soils with a
high moisture content.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands The Site is developed and contains two three-
and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting.
Roosts must protect bats from high
temperatures. Very sensitive to
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
disturbance of roosting sites.
21
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Endangered Endangered Marshes and swamps. Growing up through The Site is developed and contains two three-
dense mats of Typha, Juncus, Scirpus, etc.
in freshwater marsh. Sandy soil. 3-170 m.
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy snake None
None
None
None
None
None
Patchily distributed from the eastern
portion of San Francisco Bay, southern San
Joaquin Valley, and the Coast, Transverse,
and Peninsular ranges, south to Baja
California. Generalist reported from a
range of scrub and grassland habitats,
often with loose or sandy soils.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated whiptail Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub,
chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood
habitats. Prefers washes and other sandy
areas with patches of brush and rocks.
Perennial plants necessary for its major
food: termites.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail Found in deserts and semi-arid areas with
sparse vegetation and open areas. Also
found in woodland and riparian
areas.Ground may be firm soil, sandy, or
rocky.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
22
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Athene cunicularia
Berberis nevinii
Bombus crotchii
burrowing owl None None 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.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Nevin's barberry Endangered Endangered Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian scrub. On steep, N-facing
slopes or in low grade sandy washes. 90-
1590 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Crotch's bumble bee None Candidate
Endangered
Coastal California east to the Sierra-
Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia,
Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's mariposa-lily None None Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest. Occurs on
rocky and sandy sites, usually of granitic or
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
alluvial material. Can be very common after biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
fire. 60-2500 m.are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
23
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Centromadia pungens
ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant None None Valley and foothill grassland, chenopod
scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian
woodland. Alkali meadow, alkali scrub;
also in disturbed places. 5-1170 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
None None Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands,
sagebrush, etc. in western San Diego,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles
Counties, inclusive of Orange County.
Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in
association with rocks or coarse gravel.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh bird's-beak Endangered Endangered Marshes and swamps, coastal dunes.
Limited to the higher zones of salt marsh
habitat. 0-10 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry's spineflower None None Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.
Dry slopes and flats; sometimes at
interface of 2 vegetation types, such as
chaparral and oak woodland. Dry, sandy
soils. 90-1220 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
24
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Threatened Endangered Riparian forest nester, along the broad,
lower flood-bottoms of larger river
systems. Nests in riparian jungles of
willow, often mixed with cottonwoods,
with lower story of blackberry, nettles, or
wild grape.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Crotalus ruber red-diamond rattlesnake None None Chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert
areas from coastal San Diego County to the
eastern slopes of the mountains. Occurs in
rocky areas and dense vegetation. Needs
rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface
cover objects.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Cuscuta obtusiflora var. Peruvian dodder
glandulosa
None None Marshes and swamps (freshwater).
Freshwater marsh. 15-280 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Dipodomys merriami
parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat
Endangered Endangered Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam
substrates characteristic of alluvial fans and million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
flood plains.Needs early to intermediate
seral stages.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
25
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat Threatened Threatened Primarily annual and perennial grasslands,
but also occurs in coastal scrub and
sagebrush with sparse canopy cover.
Prefers buckwheat, chamise, brome grass
and filaree. Will burrow into firm soil.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned spineflower Endangered Endangered
Endangered
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub (alluvial fan sage scrub). Flood
deposited terraces and washes; associates
include Encelia, Dalea, Lepidospartum, etc.
Sandy soils. 200-765 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern willow
flycatcher
Endangered Riparian woodlands in Southern California.The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Eremophila alpestris
actia
California horned lark None Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma
County to San Diego County. Also main part million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
of San Joaquin Valley and east to foothills.
Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain
meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain
fields, alkali flats.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
26
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Eriastrum densifolium
ssp. sanctorum
Santa Ana River woollystar Endangered Endangered Coastal scrub, chaparral. In sandy soils on
river floodplains or terraced fluvial
deposits. 180-705 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Eugnosta busckana Busck's gallmoth None
None
None
None
None
None
Coastal southern California. Tiny micro-
moth (1 cm) with larva forming galls on
host plant Encelia californica (California
brittlebush). Adult flight period is during
winter, generally from November to
February, and have been reported at UV
lights and porch lights.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats,
including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands,
chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff
faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat Summer resident; inhabits riparian thickets
of willow and other brushy tangles near
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
watercourses. Nests in low, dense riparian, The proposed well is located within the asphalted
consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; yard and parking area. There are no natural
forages and nests within 10 ft of ground.biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
27
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Imperata brevifolia
Lanius ludovicianus
Lasiurus xanthinus
California satintail None None Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian scrub,
mojavean desert scrub, meadows and
seeps (alkali), riparian scrub. Mesic sites,
alkali seeps, riparian areas. 3-1495 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
loggerhead shrike None
None
None
None
None
None
Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-
juniper, Joshua tree, and riparian
woodlands, desert oases, scrub and
washes. Prefers open country for hunting,
with perches for scanning, and fairly dense
shrubs and brush for nesting.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
western yellow bat Found in valley foothill riparian, desert
riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly
palms. Forages over water and among
trees.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Lepidium virginicum
var. robinsonii
Robinson's pepper-grass Chaparral, coastal scrub. Dry soils,
shrubland. 4-1435 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
28
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's bushmallow None None Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. In a wash.
305-455 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Neolarra alba white cuckoo bee None
None
None
None
None
None
Known only from localities in Southern
California. Cleptoparasitic in the nests of
perdita bees.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat Coastal scrub of Southern California from
San Diego County to San Luis Obispo
County. Moderate to dense canopies
preferred. They are particularly abundant
in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat Variety of arid areas in Southern California;
pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, etc.
Rocky areas with high cliffs.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
29
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 10
steelhead - southern
California DPS
Endangered Candidate
Endangered
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.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse None None Lower elevation grasslands and coastal
sage communities in and around the Los
Angeles Basin. Open ground with fine,
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
sandy soils. May not dig extensive burrows, yard and parking area. There are no natural
hiding under weeds and dead leaves
instead.
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard None None 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.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Polioptila californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Threatened None Obligate, permanent resident of coastal
sage scrub below 2500 ft in Southern
California. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid
washes, on mesas and slopes. Not all areas
classified as coastal sage scrub are
occupied.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
30
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow-
legged frog
Endangered Endangered Disjunct populations known from southern
Sierras (northern DPS) and San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mtns
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
(southern DPS). Found at 1,000 to 12,000 ft yard and parking area. There are no natural
in lakes and creeks that stem from springs
and snowmelt. May overwinter under
frozen lakes. Often encountered within a
few feet of water. Tadpoles may require 2 -
4 yrs to complete their aquatic
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
development.
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Santa Ana speckled dace
8
None
None
None
None
None
None
Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San
Gabriel rivers. May be extirpated from the
Los Angeles River system. Requires
permanent flowing streams with summer
water temps of 17-20 C. Usually inhabits
shallow cobble and gravel riffles.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish's gooseberry Riparian woodland. Salix swales in riparian
habitats. 65-300 m.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Setophaga petechia yellow warbler Riparian plant associations in close The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
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 biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
and thickets, and in other riparian plants
including cottonwoods, sycamores, ash,
and alders.
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
31
CNDDB Element Occurrences for USGS 7.5 min Quadrangle
“Redlands”
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
List
State List Habitat Probability of Occurrence
Spea hammondii western spadefoot Proposed
Threatened
None Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but
can be found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Taxidea taxus American badger None None Most abundant in drier open stages of
most shrub, forest, and herbaceous
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient The proposed well is located within the asphalted
food, friable soils and open, uncultivated
ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs
burrows.
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped gartersnake None None 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.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered Endangered 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.
The Site is developed and contains two three-
million-gallon reservoirs and supporting facilities.
The proposed well is located within the asphalted
yard and parking area. There are no natural
biological habitats within the reservoir site. There
are no suitable habitat or resources to support this
species. Therefore, the probability of occurrence is
zero.
E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare
32
State Species of Special Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited acreages, and/or continuing threats. Raptor
and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess or destroy the nest or
eggs of any such bird.”
State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were
created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for
necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.
33
Appendix A - SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo. View of
existing
Reservoir,
existing building,
and proposed
well site
inbetween.
Photo 2. View
existing
Conditions to the
east of the
proposed well
site
Photo #3
Typical view east of
the proposed site
Photo #4
Typical view
proposed well
location.
Appendix B. Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulatons
Clean Water Act
The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the naton’s waters.” Secton 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of
dredged or fll material into “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) without a permit from the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The defniton of waters of the United States includes rivers,
streams, estuaries, territorial seas, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. Wetlands are defned as those areas
“that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duraton sufcient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetaton typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditons” (33 Code of Federal Regulatons [CFR] 328.3 7b). The U.S.
Environmental Protecton Agency (EPA) also has authority over wetlands and may override a USACE
permit. Substantal impacts to wetlands may require an individual permit. Development Areas that only
minimally afect wetlands may meet the conditons of one of the existng Natonwide Permits. A Water
Quality Certfcaton or waiver pursuant to Secton 401 of the CWA is required for Secton 404 permit
actons; in California this certfcaton or waiver is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB).
Amended 2023 Water of the US Defniton:
The USACE has authority to permit the discharge of dredged or fll material in WOTUS under Secton 404
of the CWA. According to the EPA and the Department of the Army’s January, 2023 was amended
September 2023 following the Sacket Supreme Court Decision (efectve May 25, 2023). The Defniton
of ‘Waters of the United States,’” WOTUS are defned under 5 catatories: (a)(1) i Traditonal navigable
waters, ii The territorial seas, iii Interstate waters; (a)(2) Impoundments of Jurisdictonal Waters; (a)(3)
Relatvely Permanent Waters that are tributaries to and (a)(1) or (a)(2) Water; (a)(4) Wetlands with a
contnuous surface connecton to (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) Water; and (a)(5) Water not identfed in (a)(1)-
(4) that are Relatvely permanent, standing or contnuously fowing with a contnuous surface connect to
waters identfed in (a)(1) or (a)(3) (85 FR 22250).
The 2023 Amended Rule specifcally excludes from the defniton of WOTUS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
b)(1) Waste treatment systems
(b)(2) Prior converted cropland
(b)(3) Certain ditches
(b)(4) Artfcially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if irrigaton ceased
(b)(5) Certain artfcial lakes and ponds
(b)(6) Artfcial refectng or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water
(b)(7) Certain waterflled depressions
(b)(8) Swales and erosional features.
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects plants and wildlife that are listed by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Natonal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
endangered or threatened. Secton 9 of the ESA (USA) prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where
taking is defned as any efort to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or
atempt to engage in such conduct” (50 CFR 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing,
maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutng, digging
up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violaton of state law
(16 United States Code [USC] 1538). Under Secton 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult
with the USFWS if their actons, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely afect an
endangered species (including plants) or its critcal habitat. Through consultaton and the issuance of a
biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is
incidental to an otherwise authorized actvity, provided the acton will not jeopardize the contnued
existence of the species. The ESA specifes that the USFWS designate habitat for a species at the tme of
its listng in which are found the physical or biological features “essental to the conservaton of the
species,” or which may require “special Management consideraton or protecton...” (16 USC §
1533[a][3].2; 16 USC § 1532[a]). This designated Critcal Habitat is then aforded the same protecton
under the ESA as individuals of the species itself, requiring issuance of an Incidental Take Permit prior to
any actvity that results in “the destructon or adverse modifcaton of habitat determined to be critcal”
(16 USC § 1536[a][2]).
Interagency Consultaton and Biological Assessments
Secton 7 of ESA provides a means for authorizing the “take” of threatened or endangered species by
federal agencies, and applies to actons that are conducted, permited, or funded by a federal agency.
The statute requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS or Natonal Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), as appropriate, to ensure that actons they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the contnued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destructon or
adverse modifcaton of critcal habitat for these species. If a Proposed Development Area “may afect” a
listed species or destroy or modify critcal habitat, the lead agency is required to prepare a biological
assessment evaluatng the nature and severity of the potental efect.
Habitat Conservaton Plans
Secton 10 of the federal ESA requires the acquisiton of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the USFWS
by non- federal landowners for actvites that might incidentally harm (or “take”) endangered or
threatened wildlife on their land. To obtain a permit, an applicant must develop a Habitat Conservaton
Plan that is designed to ofset any harmful impacts the proposed actvity might have on the species.
Fish and Wildlife Coordinaton Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordinaton Act (16 U.S.C. Sectons 661 to 667e et seq.) applies to any federal
Development Area where any body of water is impounded, diverted, deepened, or otherwise modifed.
Development Area proponents are required to consult with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife
agency.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protecton Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protecton Act (The Eagle Act) (1940), amended in 1962, was originally
implemented for the protecton of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In 1962, Congress amended
the Eagle Act to cover golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), a move that was partally an atempt to
strengthen protecton of bald eagles, since the later were ofen killed by people mistaking them for
golden eagles. This act makes it illegal to import, export, take (molest or disturb), sell, purchase, or
barter any bald eagle or golden eagle or part thereof. The golden eagle, however, is accorded somewhat
lighter protecton under the Eagle Act than that of the bald eagle.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 implements internatonal treates between the United
States and other natons created to protect migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests from
actvites, such as huntng, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized
in the regulatons or by permit. As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualifed
applicants for the following types of actvites: falconry, raptor propagaton, scientfc collectng, special
purposes (rehabilitaton, educaton, migratory game bird propagaton, and salvage), take of depredatng
birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulatons governing migratory bird permits can
be found in 50 CFR Part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. The
State of California has incorporated the protecton of birds of prey in Sectons 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of
the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).
However, on December 22, 2017 the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a memorandum
concluding that MBTA’s prohibitons on take apply “[…] only to afrmatve actons that have as their
purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs” (DOI 2017). Therefore, take of
migratory birds or their actve nests (i.e., with eggs or young) that is incidental to, and not the purpose
of, an otherwise lawful actvity does not consttute a violaton of the MBTA.
Executve Orders (EO)
Invasive Species – EO 13112 (1999): Issued on February 3, 1999, promotes the preventon and
introducton of invasive species and provides for their control and minimizes the economic, ecological,
and human health impacts that invasive species cause through the creaton of the Invasive Species
Council and Invasive Species Management Plan.
Migratory Bird – EO 13186 (2001): Issued on January 10, 2001, promotes the conservaton of migratory
birds and their habitats and directs federal agencies to implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Protecton and Enhancement of Environmental Quality—EO 11514 (1970a), issued on March 5, 1970,
supports the purpose and policies of the Natonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and directs federal
agencies to take measures to meet natonal environmental goals.
Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (Division E, Title I, Secton 143 of the Consolidated Appropriatons
Act, 2005, PL 108–447) amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sectons 703 to 712) such that
nonnatve birds or birds that have been introduced by humans to the United States or its territories are
excluded from protecton under the Act. It defnes a natve migratory bird as a species present in the
United States and its territories as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This list excluded
two additonal species commonly observed in the United States, the rock pigeon (Columba livia) and
domestc goose (Anser domestcus).
Birds of Conservaton Concern
Birds of Conservaton Concern (BCC) is a USFWS list of bird species identfed to have the highest
conservaton priority, and with the potental for becoming candidates for listng as federally threatened
or endangered. The chief legal authority for BCC is the Fish and Wildlife Conservaton Act of 1980
(FWCA). Other authorites include the FESA, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Department of
the Interior U.S Code (16 U.S.C. § 701). The 1988 amendment to the FWCA (Public Law 100-653, Title
VIII) requires the Secretary of the Interior, through the USFWS, to “identfy species, subspecies, and
populatons of all migratory nongame birds that, without additonal conservaton actons, are likely to
become candidates for listng under the Endangered Species Act of 1973” (USFWS, 2008a).
State Regulatons
California Fish and Game Code Sectons 1600 through 1606 of the
CFGCThis secton requires that a Streambed Alteraton Applicaton be submited to the CDFW for “any actvity
that may substantally divert or obstruct the natural fow or substantally change the bed, channel, or
bank of any river, stream, or lake.” The CDFW reviews the proposed actons and, if necessary, submits to
the applicant a proposal for measures to protect afected fsh and wildlife resources. The fnal proposal
that is mutually agreed upon by the Department and the applicant is the Streambed Alteraton
Agreement. Ofen, Development Areas that require a Streambed Alteraton Agreement also require a
permit from the USACE under Secton 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditons of the Secton
404 permit and the Streambed Alteraton Agreement may overlap.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Sectons 2050 to 2085) establishes the policy of the state
to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats by
protectng “all natve species of fshes, amphibians, reptles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants,
and their habitats, threatened with extncton and those experiencing a signifcant decline which, if not
halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designaton.” Animal species are listed by the CDFW
as threatened or endangered, and plants are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. However, only
those plant species listed as threatened or endangered receive protecton under the California ESA.
CESA mandates that state agencies do not approve a Development Area that would jeopardize the
contnued existence of these species if reasonable and prudent alternatves are available that would
avoid a jeopardy fnding. There are no state agency consultaton procedures under the California ESA.
For Development Areas that would afect a species that is federally and State listed, compliance with ESA
satsfes the California ESA if the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) determines that the
federal incidental take authorizaton is consistent with the California ESA under Secton 2080.1. For
Development Areas that would result in take of a species that is state listed only, the Development Area
sponsor must apply for a take permit, in accordance with Secton 2081(b).
Fully Protected Species
Four sectons of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) list 37 fully protected species (CFGC Sectons
3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). These sectons prohibit take or possession "at any tme" of the species
listed, with few exceptons, and state that "no provision of this code or any other law will be construed
to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to ‘take’ the species,” and that no previously issued
permits or licenses for take of the species "shall have any force or efect" for authorizing take or
possession.
Bird Nestng Protectons
Bird nestng protectons (Sectons 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513 and 3800) in the CFGC include the following:
•Secton 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destructon of the nest or eggs of any
bird.
•Secton 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destructon of any nests, eggs, or
birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys, and falcons,
among others), and Strigiformes (owls).
•
•
Secton 3511 prohibits the take or possession of Fully protected birds.
Secton 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof, as
designated in the MBTA. To avoid violaton of the take provisions, it is generally required that
Development Area- related disturbance at actve nestng territories be reduced or eliminated
during the nestng cycle.
Secton 3800 prohibits the take of any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California
that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).
Natve Plant Protecton Act
The Natve Plant Protect Act (NPPA) (1977) (CFGC Sectons 1900-1913) was created with the intent to
“preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by
CDFW. The Fish and Game Commission has the authority to designate natve plants as endangered or
rare and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA (CFGC 2050-2116) provided further
protecton for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the Fish and Game Code.
Appendex C
CNDDB
LIST
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Query Criteria:Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Redlands (3411712))
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FPSpeciesElement Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
ABNKC12040
AFCAA01031
ARAAD02031
IILEE0G040
None None G5 S4 WL
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1 Threatened None G2T1
G2
S1 SSC
SSC
green sturgeon - southern DPS
Actinemys marmorata Proposed
Threatened
None SNR
S2
northwestern pond turtle
Adela oplerella None None G2
Opler's longhorn moth
Agelaius tricolor ABPBXB0020
ABPBX91091
AAAAA01181
AAAAD01070
ARACC01020
ARACC01060
IMBIV04220
None Threatened
None
G1G2
G5T3
G2G3T3
G3
S2 SSC
WL
tricolored blackbird
Aimophila ruficeps canescens None S4
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1 Threatened
None
Threatened
None
S3 WL
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Aneides niger S3 SSC
SSC
SSC
Santa Cruz black salamander
Anniella pulchra None None G3 S2S3
S3
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella stebbinsi None None G3
Southern California legless lizard
Anodonta californiensis None None G3 S2?
S3
California floater
Antrozous pallidus AMACC10010
ABNKC22010
ABNGA04040
ABNGA04010
PDCAR040L0
ARADB01017
ABNSB13010
ARACJ02060
ARACJ02143
None None G4 SSC
FP
pallid bat
Aquila chrysaetos None None G5 S3
golden eagle
Ardea alba None None G5 S4
great egret
Ardea herodias None None G5 S4
great blue heron
Arenaria paludicola Endangered
None
Endangered
None
G1 S1 1B.1
SSC
SSC
WL
marsh sandwort
Arizona elegans occidentalis G5T2
G5
S2
California glossy snake
Asio otus None None S3?
S2S3
S3
long-eared owl
Aspidoscelis hyperythra None None G5
orange-throated whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri None None G5T5 SSC
coastal whiptail
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Report Printed on Monday, July 08, 2024
Page 1 of 6
Information Expires 12/30/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FPSpeciesElement Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010
PDBER060A0
IIHYM24380
None None G4 S2 SSC
Berberis nevinii Endangered
None
Endangered
None
G1 S1 1B.1
Nevin's barberry
Bombus caliginosus G2G3
G2
S1S2
S2
obscure bumble bee
Bombus crotchii IIHYM24480 None Candidate
EndangeredCrotch's bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis IIHYM24252 None Candidate
Endangered
G3 S1
western bumble bee
Brachyramphus marmoratus ABNNN06010
ABNKC19070
ICMAL34010
PMLIL0D150
PDAST4R0R4
AMAFD05031
ABNNB03031
PDSCR0J0C2
PDPGN040J2
ABNKC11011
ABNRB02022
AMACC08010
ABNME01010
ARADE02090
PDCUS01111
ABNUA01010
Threatened
None
Endangered
Threatened
None
G3 S2
marbled murrelet
Buteo swainsoni G5 S4
Swainson's hawk
Calasellus californicus None G2 S3
An isopod
Calochortus plummerae None None G4 S4 4.2
Plummer's mariposa-lily
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis None None G3G4T2
G5T3T4
G3T3
G4?T1
G3T2
G5
S2 1B.1
smooth tarplant
Chaetodipus fallax fallax None None S3S4
S3
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Charadrius nivosus nivosus Threatened
Endangered
None
None SSC
1B.2
1B.1
SSC
western snowy plover
Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum Endangered
None
S1
salt marsh bird's-beak
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi S2
Parry's spineflower
Circus hudsonius None None S3
northern harrier
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Threatened
None
Endangered
None
G5T2T3
G4
S1
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Corynorhinus townsendii S2 SSC
SSC
SSC
2B.2
SSC
Townsend's big-eared bat
Coturnicops noveboracensis None None G4 S2
yellow rail
Crotalus ruber None None G4 S3
red-diamond rattlesnake
Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa None None G5T4?
G4
SH
S3
Peruvian dodder
Cypseloides niger None None
black swift
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Report Printed on Monday, July 08, 2024
Page 2 of 6
Information Expires 12/30/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FPSpeciesElement Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander
AAAAH01020
AMAFD03061
AMAFD03143
AMAFD03100
AMAFD03042
PDPGN0V010
ABNGA06030
ABNKC06010
ABPAE33043
ABPAT02011
AMAFJ01010
PDPLM03035
IILEM2X090
None None G2G3
G4T1
G5T1
G2
S2S3 SSC
Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis None None S2
Berkeley kangaroo rat
Dipodomys merriami parvus Endangered
Threatened
None
Endangered
Threatened
None
S1 SSC
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi S3
Stephens' kangaroo rat
Dipodomys venustus venustus G4T1
G1
S1
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
Dodecahema leptoceras Endangered
None
Endangered
None
S1 1B.1
slender-horned spineflower
Egretta thula G5 S4
snowy egret
Elanus leucurus None None G5 S3S4
S3
FP
white-tailed kite
Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered
None
Endangered
None
G5T2
G5T4Q
G5
southwestern willow flycatcher
Eremophila alpestris actia S4 WL
California horned lark
Erethizon dorsatum None None S3
North American porcupine
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Endangered
None
Endangered
None
G4T1
G1G3
G4G5T4
G5T1
G4T4
G5T3
G3
S1 1B.1
SSC
Santa Ana River woollystar
Eugnosta busckana S2S3
S3S4
S3
Busck's gallmoth
Eumops perotis californicus AMACD02011
IILEPK4055
None None
western mastiff bat
Euphydryas editha bayensis Threatened
Delisted
None
None
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Falco peregrinus anatum ABNKD06071
ABPBX1201A
IMBIV19010
Delisted
None
S3S4
S3
American peregrine falcon
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa SSC
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
Gonidea angulata None None S2
western ridged mussel
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ABNKC10010
ABPBX24010
PMPOA3D020
Delisted
None
Endangered
None
G5 S3 FP
bald eagle
Icteria virens G5 S4 SSC
2B.1
yellow-breasted chat
Imperata brevifolia None None G3 S3
California satintail
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Report Printed on Monday, July 08, 2024
Page 3 of 6
Information Expires 12/30/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FPSpeciesElement Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
ABPBR01030
AMACC05032
AMACC05070
ABNME03041
PDBRA1M114
ICBRA10010
ICBRA06010
None None G4 S4 SSC
Lasiurus cinereus None None G3G4
G4G5
G3T1
G5T3
G3
S4
hoary bat
Lasiurus xanthinus None None S3 SSC
FP
western yellow bat
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus None Threatened
None
S2
California black rail
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii None S3 4.3
Robinson's pepper-grass
Lepidurus packardi Endangered
None
None S3
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Linderiella occidentalis None G2G3
GXQ
G4T2
G5T2T3
G1
S2S3
SX
S2
California linderiella
Malacothamnus parishii PDMAL0Q0C0 None None 1A
Parish's bushmallow
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus ARADB21031
ABPBXA301S
ILARA47020
AMACC01070
AMACC01020
IIHYM81010
Threatened Threatened
None
Alameda whipsnake
Melospiza melodia pusillula None S2 SSC
Alameda song sparrow
Microcina homi None None S2
Hom's micro-blind harvestman
Myotis evotis None None G5 S3
long-eared myotis
Myotis yumanensis None None G5 S4
Yuma myotis
Neolarra alba None None GH SH
S2S3
S3S4
S4
white cuckoo bee
Neotoma fuscipes annectens AMAFF08082
AMAFF08041
ABNGA11010
AMACD04010
AFCHA02034
AFCHA0209J
AFCHA0209G
None None G5T2T3
G5T3T4
G5
SSC
SSC
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia None None
San Diego desert woodrat
Nycticorax nycticorax None None
black-crowned night heron
Nyctinomops femorosaccus None None G5 S3 SSC
pocketed free-tailed bat
Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered G5T2Q
G5T1Q
G5T3Q
S2
coho salmon - central California coast ESU
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 Candidate
Endangered
S1
steelhead - southern California DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 None S3 SSC
steelhead - central California coast DPS
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Report Printed on Monday, July 08, 2024
Page 4 of 6
Information Expires 12/30/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FPSpeciesElement Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
ABNKC01010
AMAFD01041
ARACF12100
ABPBJ08081
ABPAU01010
ABNME05011
AAABH01054
AAABH01022
AAABH01330
AMAFF02040
AFCJB3705K
PDGRO020F3
CTT32720CA
ABNNM14010
ABPBX03010
AMABA01071
CTT61310CA
CTT62400CA
AAABF02020
IILEPJ6143
None None G5 S4 WL
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus None None G5T2
G4
S1S2
S4
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
FP
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Phrynosoma blainvillii None None
coast horned lizard
Polioptila californica californica Threatened
None
None G4G5T3Q
G5
S2
coastal California gnatcatcher
Progne subis None S3
purple martin
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
None
Endangered
Endangered
None
G3T1
G3T2
G2G3
G1
S2
California Ridgway's rail
Rana boylii pop. 4 S2
foothill yellow-legged frog - central coast DPS
Rana draytonii S2S3
S2
SSC
WL
FP
California red-legged frog
Rana muscosa Endangered
Endangered
None
southern mountain yellow-legged frog
Reithrodontomys raviventris G1G2
G5T1
G5TX
G1
S3
salt-marsh harvest mouse
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8 S1 SSC
1A
Santa Ana speckled dace
Ribes divaricatum var. parishii None None SX
Parish's gooseberry
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub None None S1.1
S2
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Rynchops niger None None G5 SSC
SSC
SSC
black skimmer
Setophaga petechia None None G5 S3
yellow warbler
Sorex vagrans halicoetes None None G5T1
G4
S1
salt-marsh wandering shrew
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest None None S4
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland None None G4 S4
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
Spea hammondii Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3
G1G2T1
G5
S3S4
S1S2
S1
SSC
western spadefoot
Speyeria adiaste adiaste None None
unsilvered fritillary
Spirinchus thaleichthys AFCHB03010 Proposed
Endangered
Threatened
longfin smelt
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Report Printed on Monday, July 08, 2024
Page 5 of 6
Information Expires 12/30/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FPSpeciesElement Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
ABNNM08103
AAAAF02020
AMAJF04010
ARADB36160
ARADB3613B
IIORT36030
Endangered Endangered G4T2T3Q S2 FP
Taricha rivularis None None G2 S2 SSC
SSC
SSC
FP
red-bellied newt
Taxidea taxus None None G5 S3
American badger
Thamnophis hammondii None None G4 S3S4
S2
two-striped gartersnake
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Endangered
Endangered
None
Endangered
None
G5T2Q
G1
San Francisco gartersnake
Trimerotropis infantilis S1
Zayante band-winged grasshopper
Tryonia imitator IMGASJ7040
ABPBW01114
None G2 S2
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3
least Bell's vireo
Record Count: 112
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 30 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch
Report Printed on Monday, July 08, 2024
Page 6 of 6
Information Expires 12/30/2024
Appendix D
iPAC List
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
APPENDIX 3
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
FOR THE EAST VALLEY WAT ER DISTRICT
WELL 129 PROJECT
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 1210-381-10
CITY OF HIGHLAND,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR SUBMITTAL TO:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
31111 GREENSPOT ROAD,
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:
Michelle Hart, M.A.
Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC
PO Box 271
Tom Dodson and Associates
2150 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Joshua Tree, CA 92252
Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC May 2024
Document Details
Document Title Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project
Assessor’s Parcel Number 1210-381-10, City of Highland, San Bernardino County,
California
Document Subtitle
28 May 2024Date
Michelle Hart, M.A.Author
Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC
East Valley Water District
Tom Dodson and Associates
Consulting Firm
For Submittal to
Prepared for
USGS Quadrangle 7.5-minute Redlands, California; Section 1 T1S R3W, San Bernardino Baseline and
Meridian
Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC May 2024
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
At the request of Tom Dodson and Associates, Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC, conducted a
cultural resources investigation for the East Valley Water District’s proposed Well 129 project, in the City
of Highland, San Bernardino County, California. This report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the Initial Study for the project. Pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA and state and local guidelines, the East Valley Water District (EVWD) is the Lead
Agency for the proposed project.
EVWD proposes to install Well 129 on an approximately 2.4 acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number
[APN] 1210-381-10). The parcel currently contains two 3-million-gallon steel reservoirs, an associated
booster station, and asphalt paved parking and work areas surrounded by block walls, chain link fencing,
and an access gate. The project site is located northeast of the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and
Vista Clara Street, in the City of Highland, on the USGS 7.5-minute map for Redlands, CA, within Section
1 of Township 1 South Range 3 West.
This report describes the methods and results of the cultural resources investigation of the project area,
which included a records search and literature review, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a pedestrian survey. The purpose of the investigation was
to provide the East Valley Water District with the information and analysis necessary to determine the
potential for the proposed project to impact “historical resources” and “archaeological resources” under
CEQA.
The records search performed by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), included a 0.5-mile-wide buffer (study area), and
indicated twenty-four previous cultural resource investigations and seven cultural resources are
documented within the 0.5-mile study area. Of the previous investigations, one covered a portion of the
project site (Mckenna et al. 1992). No cultural resources have been previously documented within the
2.4-acre project site.
The SLF search with the NAHC was completed with negative results. A copy of the NAHC’s response
letter and a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of the project area are provided
as an appendix to this report. Compliance with tribal notification and consultation under AB 52 is the
responsibility of the Lead Agency (EVWD) under CEQA.
As most of the project site had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and due the age of
any applicable previous cultural resource investigations, Mojave Archaeological Consulting conducted a
site visit and survey of the 2.4-acre project site on 16 May 2024. No cultural resources were identified.
The project site is located on land that was used historically for agricultural purposes. No traces of historic
orchard trees, historic irrigation systems, or any historic debris remain on the site. Oak creek, immediately
to the north of the parcel, was utilized as an irrigation ditch during historic periods but the natural creek
channel and subsequent irrigation ditch have been heavily modified through time for flood control
purposes, altering both the natural and historic corridor of the creek/irrigation ditch any characteristic
features. The entirety of the project site is heavily disturbed through decades of use including historic
agricultural production, followed by subsequent grading, cut and fill, and contouring using heavy
equipment in the 1990’s, and the installation of the present water pumping and storage facility. Because
of this, there is little to no potential for any intact or substantial buried cultural resources to remain at the
project site.
Considering these findings, Mojave Archaeological Consulting recommends to the East Valley Water
District that the proposed project will have no impact on historical or archaeological resources. No further
cultural resources work is recommended necessary for the proposed project activities. However, in the
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024
ABSTRACT
unlikely event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance for project
activities, all work should be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can
assess the significance and integrity of the find. If intact and significant archaeological remains are
encountered, the impacts of the project should be mitigated appropriately. Any such discoveries, and
subsequent evaluation and treatment, should be documented in a cultural resources report, which would
be submitted to the SCCIC for archival purposes. Additionally, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
CEQA Statute & Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be
followed in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains. Finally, as progress plans are
finalized, if the project area is expanded to include areas not covered by this survey or other recent
cultural resource investigations, additional cultural resource studies may be required.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview...............................................................................................................................................1
2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................5
2.1
2.2
2.3
Current Site Use ...................................................................................................................................5
Topography and Geology .....................................................................................................................5
Local Climate and Ecology ...................................................................................................................5
3 CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE..............................................................................................................8
3.1 Prehistoric Chronology .........................................................................................................................8
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
Late Archaic Period (4,000 to 1,500 B.P.)............................................................................8
Saratoga Springs Period (1500 to 750 B.P.)........................................................................9
Late Prehistoric Period (750 to 400 B.P.).............................................................................9
Protohistoric Period............................................................................................................10
3.2
3.3
Ethnographic Setting ..........................................................................................................................10
Historical Setting.................................................................................................................................11
4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................12
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
California Environment Quality Act .....................................................................................................12
California Register of Historical Resources Criteria of Evaluation ......................................................12
Regulations Concerning Discovery of Human Remains .....................................................................13
Senate Bill 18......................................................................................................................................14
Assembly Bill 52 .................................................................................................................................14
5
6
METHODS........................................................................................................................................16
5.1
5.2
5.3
Literature and Records Search...........................................................................................................16
Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Outreach.................................................................16
Field Methods .....................................................................................................................................16
RESULTS .........................................................................................................................................17
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Previous Investigations.......................................................................................................................17
Previously Identified Resources..........................................................................................................19
Historic Map and Aerial Imagery.........................................................................................................19
New Survey Results ...........................................................................................................................20
7
8
CONCLUSION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................22
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................23
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024
CONTENTS
SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
List of Plates and Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Project Vicinity.…..………………….………………………………………………………….2
Project Location……………………………........................................................................3
Project Site.….………………………………………………………………………………….4
Plates 1 to 4 Project Site and Setting …….………………………..........................................................6
List of Tables
Table 6.1-1 Previous Investigations within or Intersecting the Project Site ……………………....…....17
Additional Previous Investigations within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site.…..………..……....17
Previous Recorded Resources within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site.…...…………………...19
Historic Map and Aerial Imagery Features within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site……………20
Table 6.1-2
Table 6.2-1
Table 6.3-1
Acronyms and Abbreviations
B.P.before present
ca.circa
cal calibrated years
CCR
CEQA
CHRIS
cm
California Code of Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
California Historical Resources Information System
centimeter
CRHR
DPR
EVWD
GLO
GPS
m
California Register of Historical Resources
California Department of Parks and Recreation
East Valley Water District
General Land Office
Global Positioning System
meter
NAHC
NPS
OHP
PRC
SLF
Native American Heritage Commission
National Park Service
Office of Historic Preservation
Public Resources Code
Sacred Lands Files
USGS United States Geological Survey
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The East Valley Water District proposes to drill and construct a new groundwater production well (Well
129), within its Foothill Pressure Zone in Highland, California. The well project will serve a dual purpose of
maintaining current and future drinking water supplies and fortifying drought resiliency as outlined in the
EVWD’s 2024 draft Drought Contingency Plan.
Currently the well project is in its preliminary design phase. The EVWD plans to construct the well on an
approximately 2.4-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 1210-381-10). The parcel contains two
3-million-gallon steel reservoirs, an associated booster station, and asphalt paved parking and work areas
surrounded by block walls, chain link fencing, and an access gate. According to preliminary design plans,
the well would be constructed within a previously-disturbed and paved area to the west of the existing
water reservoirs and may include a disturbance footprint up to 50-feet in diameter at the well location. The
well would be drilled to a depth of up to 540-feet for the installation of the well-casing and other materials.
Staging for drill equipment including a drill rig, pipe trailer, compressors, generators, a field office, and
other components would all occur within the western portion of the site on previously disturbed and paved
areas. Further details regarding the installation of a permanent pumping system and associated
infrastructure for the well will be determined in subsequent stages by the EVWD.
The project site is located northeast of the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street, in
the City of Highland, on the USGS 7.5-minute map for Redlands, CA, within Section 1 of Township 1
South Range 3 West.
The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Initial technical studies to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project include a cultural resources assessment of the
project site. Tom Dodson and Associates retained Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC, to conduct the
cultural resources investigation for project compliance with CEQA. The East Valley Water District is the
Lead Agency for compliance with CEQA.
Michelle Hart, M.A, meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Professional Qualifications in the
disciplines of Archaeology (Prehistoric and Historic), History, and Architectural History (36 CFR 61), and
served as Principal Investigator for the current study. Ms. Hart initiated records searches with the South
Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and
completed background research, survey fieldwork, and report writing. SCCIC staff completed the
archaeological records search.
This report presents a site description (Section 2); the cultural context, which provides a review of the
prehistoric and historic background for the project area (Section 3); the regulatory framework that
mandates consideration of cultural resources in project planning (Section 4); the methods used in the field
survey and resource evaluation (Section 5); the results of the study (Section 6); conclusions and
recommendations (Section 7); and references cited (Section 8).
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 1
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 2
INTRODUCTION
Figure 2: Project Location, Scale 1:24,000, USGS 7.5’ Redlands, CA Topographic Quadrangle
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 3
INTRODUCTION
Figure 3: Project Site on NAIP Aerial Imagery (Data Source: USGS Earth Explorer)
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 4
SITE DESCRIPTION
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Current Site Use
The project site consists of an approximately 2.4-acre parcel owned by the East Valley Water District. It is
located on the northeast side of the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street, in the
community of East Highlands within the City of Highland, San Bernardino County. The site is situated in a
residential area north of Greenspot Road. The parcel is surrounded by single family homes to the east,
south, and southwest. To the northeast, the project site is bound by a concrete-lined flood control channel
for Oak Creek. The site itself contains two large 3-million-gallon steel reservoirs, an associated booster
station and asphalt paved parking and work areas surrounded by block walls, chain link fencing, and an
access gate. The entirety of the site is paved and developed with the exception of approximately 0.7-
acres on the eastern side of the site which consists of steep slope that has been stabilized with irrigated
non-native vegetation. The site is accessed via a gated driveway on the southwest side of the parcel. A
small, paved access road to the west of the entry gate provides access to the flood control channel to the
north of the property.
2.2 Topography and Geology
The project site is located at the base of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, in northern
Highland, in the inland valley region of San Bernardino County. The area is located within a series of
rocky alluvial fans in the drainages of Plunge Creek and Oak Creek, running south and southwest of the
Santa Ana River. Peaks of the mountains to the north rise from 6,000 to over 10,000 feet and include
Highland Peak, Whitecliff Peak, Silver Peak, and Morton Peak, which drain into steep and deeply incised
canyons which feed the Santa Ana River and multiple streams and drainages. The geologic units which
comprise the project site include unconsolidated quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits dating from the
Pleistocene to Holocene (USGS 2023). The project site lies at an elevation of approximately 1,530-feet
and slopes to the southwest. Soils in the general area consist of sandy loam with numerous boulders and
rocks.
2.3 Local Climate and Ecology
Highland has a Mediterranean climate with an average of thirteen inches of precipitation annually. High
temperatures in the summer are hot and can exceed 96-degrees Fahrenheit. Winters are comparatively
mild and rarely drop below 38 degrees. Prior to historical development, vegetation in the general vicinity
of the project site would have been dominated by valley grassland and Riversidian sage-scrub
communities, with riparian communities at springs, creeks, and other water sources. Common plant
species native to the project area would have included California buckwheat, brittle-bush, black sage,
white sage, Yerba Mansa and a variety of grasses, forbs and succulents. The region also would have
provided habitat for various fauna including bobcat, gray fox, opossum, raccoons, jackrabbits, cottontail
rabbits, kangaroo rats, ground squirrels, Mule deer, coyote, quail, rattlesnakes, and other species.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 5
SITE DESCRIPTION
Plate 1: Overview of the project site from Calle Del Rio Street, view to the northeast.
Plate 2: West side of project site looking towards booster station, view to the
northwest from entry gate.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 6
SITE DESCRIPTION
Plate 3: Overview of the project site with existing reservoir tanks and paved areas,
view towards the north from the access gate.
Plate 4: Overview of unpaved area, east side of parcel beyond reservoir tanks. Ground
surface consists of non-native top-soil and irrigated landscaping on steeply cut and
contoured slope, view to the northeast from Vista Clara Street.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 7
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
3 CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
The following presents a cultural context for the project vicinity. This overview addresses the broader
perspective of prehistoric and historic use in the area and is based upon numerous past reports and
synthesis that summarize the history of human occupation in Southern California. This context is
summarized from relevant reports (Goldberg et al. 2001), as well as cultural frameworks from several
decades of past regional archaeological research, including Horne and McDougal (2003), Rogers (1929,
1939), Warren (1980, 1984); Warren and Crabtree (1986), and Wilke (1978) among others, as cited
below.
3.1 Prehistoric Chronology
Prehistoric occupation of the inland valleys of Southern California can be divided into seven cultural
periods: Paleoindian (circa 12,000–9,500 B.P.), Early Archaic (9,500–7,000 B.P.), Middle Archaic (7,000–
4,000 B.P.), Late Archaic (4,000–1,500 B.P.), Saratoga Springs (1,500–750 B.P.), Late Prehistoric (750–
410 B.P.), and Protohistoric (410–180 B.P.), which was followed by the ethnographic period. Due to the
nature of most prehistoric archaeological sites identified within the Highland area, the prehistoric cultural
setting discussed below begins in the Late Archaic period. For the most part, the prehistory of the inland
valleys of Southern California is less thoroughly understood than that of the nearby desert and coastal
regions, and with the exception of a small selection of recent research in recent decades, including that of
Horne and McDougal (2003), there is a lack of comprehensive synthesis developed specifically for the
interior valley and mountain localities of Southern California that characterize the region.
3.1.1 Late Archaic Period (4,000 to 1,500 B.P.)
Archaeologists discuss the Late Archaic period as a time of cultural intensification in Southern California
(Goldberg et al. 2001). The beginning of the Late Archaic coincides with the Little Pluvial period, a time of
increased moisture in the region which continued to increase in the desert interior by approximately 3,600
B.P. and lasted throughout most of the Late Archaic period resulting in more extensive occupation of the
region. By approximately 2,100 B.P., however, drying and warming increased, possibly providing a
catalyst for resource intensification. Archaeological site types typical of this period include residential
bases with large diverse artifact assemblages, abundant faunal remains, and cultural features; as well as
temporary base camps and task-specific activity areas. Generally, sites showing evidence of the most
intensive use tend to be on benches adjacent to mountain ranges and near reliable water sources, such
as springs or streams, while less intensively used sites often occur either on upland benches or on the
margins of active alluvial fans (Goldberg et al. 2001).
Data from Late Archaic archaeological sites also suggest increased sedentism and a semi-sedentary
resource collection strategy. The increase of features and midden deposits in sites with Late Archaic
components is suggestive of longer use and more frequent reuse than that seen during the Middle
Archaic period, which perhaps can be attributed to increasing moisture which improved the conditions
and available resources of Southern California after 3,100 B.P. (Goldberg et al. 2001). A warmer and
dryer climate after 2,100 B.P. likely stressed populations and influenced resource procurement strategies,
ultimately contributing to subsistence diversification, resource intensification, and perhaps resulting in a
permanent trend towards less mobile lifeways (Goldberg et al. 2001).
Advanced resource processing technologies introduced during the Late Archaic period include the mortar
and pestle which were used for processing acorns, mesquite pods, and other hard seeds. This
development correlates with the warming and drying trend that began around 2,100 B.P. and resulting
resource intensification and increased reliance on storable food staples. At the same time, hunting also
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 8
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
presumably gained in importance. Archaeological evidence of this includes many broad leaf-shaped
blades and stemmed or notched projectile points that have been found in association with mammal
bones. Bone and antler implements and the occasional use of asphaltum and steatite are also
characteristic of this period (Goldberg et al. 2001).
Most chronological sequences for Southern California recognize the introduction of the bow and arrow
around 1,500 B.P. The transition to this technology is marked by the appearance of small arrow points as
well as arrow shaft straighteners. Overall, technology represented in the artifact assemblage of this period
is similar to that of the preceding Middle Archaic but new tools were added either as innovations or as
“borrowed” cultural items. Common diagnostic projectile points of this period are still consistent with dart
points based on their large size, but also include more refined notched, concave base, and small
stemmed forms including Elko, Humboldt, and Gypsum types (Warren 1984). Rose Spring arrow points
began to appear in the archaeological record as bow and arrow technology from the Great Basin and the
Colorado River region spread to California, beginning in the desert regions.
3.1.2 Saratoga Springs Period (1500 to 750 B.P.)
During the beginning of the Saratoga Springs Period, cultural trends that began during the Late Archaic
Period continue. These include increasing adaptation to an increasingly arid environment in the desert
and increased trade relations (Warren 1984). Warren defined four cultural spheres within the Mojave and
Colorado deserts during the early part of this period, including a southern desert sphere influenced by
Patayan cultures from the Colorado River. Warren discusses these trends within the Coachella Valley
and San Jacinto Mountain regions, but it is less clear whether this influence extended as far west as the
inland valley region where the project area is located.
Lake Cahuilla was periodically present within the Coachella Valley, and researchers estimate its last
infilling occurred around 1,450 B.P. As a large freshwater lake in an otherwise arid region, it was the
focus of Native subsistence activities including the exploitation of fish, waterfowl, and other wetland
resources. Linguistic evidence suggests that desert people who spoke Shoshonean languages, may have
moved into Southern California at this time. Brown and Buff Ware pottery first appeared on the lower
Colorado River at about 1,200 B.P. and started to spread across the California deserts by about 1,100
B.P. (Moratto 1984). By around 1,060 B.P., environmental conditions became notably warmer and drier.
This period of intense drought extended throughout the Southwest (Stine 1994; Warren 1984). As desert
areas became increasingly marginal, Native American populations are believed to have retreated to more
favorable foothill and mountain environments. Human occupation of the inland valley regions may also
have declined during this period and use focused on springs and other reliable sources of water
(Goldberg et al. 2001).
3.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period (750 to 400 B.P.)
Warmer and drier climate extended into the Late Prehistoric Period, until around 575 B.P. A period of
lower temperatures and increased precipitation, known as the “Little Ice Age”, resulted in increased
resource productivity and corresponding population growth in the inland region. Artifact assemblages that
included Cottonwood Triangular arrow points began to appear in inland areas at this time, and obsidian
sourced from Obsidian Butte in the Colorado Desert is seen more frequently (Goldberg et al., 2001). By
about 500 B.P., distinctive ethic patterns developed among native populations in Southern California,
potentially reflective of accelerated cultural change brought about by increased efficiency in cultural
adaptation and diffusion of technology from the southern Great Basin as well as the central coastal region
of California (Douglas 1981). As Lake Cahuilla receded large shoreline sites occupied by Patayan
populations were abandoned and Patayan people move westward into Anza Borrego, Coyote Canyon,
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 9
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
the Upper Coachella Valley, the Little San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Jacinto Plain (Wilke 1976,
Waters 1983). It is estimated the final desiccation of Lake Cahuilla occurred by approximately 400 B.P.
(A.D. 1640), which resulted in a final population shift away from the lakebed into the Peninsular Ranges
to the west, and the Colorado River regions to the east.
3.1.4 Protohistoric Period
Advanced technologies including the utilization of the bow and arrow resulted in increased hunting
efficiency while a renewed abundance of mortars and pestles indicates extensive exploitation of various
hard nuts and seeds. As a result of increased resource utilization of the area, sedentism intensified with
small fully sedentary villages forming during the Protohistoric period. This is demonstrated by sites
containing deeper midden deposits suggesting more permanent habitation. Protohistoric Period villages,
or rancherias, were noted by the early non-native explorers (True 1966,1970). The cultural assemblage
associated with this transitional period included the introduction of locally manufactured ceramic vessels
and ceramic smoking pipes, an abundance of Obsidian Butte lithic material, Cottonwood Triangular and
Desert Side-notched arrow points, as well as the addition of European trade goods, such as glass trade
beads (Meighan 1954).
3.2 Ethnographic Setting
The project site is located within an area generally associated with the Serrano Indians, though also
geographically bordering the lands of the Gabrielino and the Luiseno. It is difficult if not nearly impossible
to assign definitive boundaries for tribal territories in the area due to aspects of sociopolitical organization
and a lack of data. As noted by Strong (1929) and Bean and Smith (1978), the Serrano were organized
into autonomous localized lineages occupying definite favored territories and village sites, but rarely
claimed any territory farther removed from these locations.
Historically, the Serrano territory was wide-ranging, centered out of the San Bernardino Mountains, and
including portions of the desert to the east, and the San Bernardino Valley region the south (Kroeber
1925). Estimates of pre-contact populations of most native groups in California vary substantially between
sources, but Lowell John Bean suggested that the Serrano may have had a population of perhaps 2,500
people (Bean and Smith 1978).
Ethnographically, the Serrano relied on hunting, gathering, and fishing. Game for hunting included deer,
antelope, rabbits, other small mammals, and various birds. Plant staples consisted of acorns, pine nuts,
bulbs and tubers, berries, mesquite pods, various cacti, and yucca. Diverse materials were used for
foraging and processing food, as well as shelter clothing, and other items. These materials included shell,
wood, bone, stone, plant materials, animal skins, and features to make basketry, pottery, blankets, mats,
nets, clothing, cordage, bows, arrows, drills, pipes, musical instruments, and other specialized items
(Bean and Smith 1978). Reliable water sources dictated settlement locations and most villages were
situated near water sources such as springs and streams. Serrano houses and other structures were
generally round and constructed of poles covered with bark and tule mats. After contact, Serrano shelters
were more commonly rectangular (Kroeber 1925). Villages also often had a ceremonial house which
served as a central gathering place; other structures included granaries and sweathouses (Bean and
Smith 1978).
Serrano contact with European populations occurred by 1771 when the Mission San Gabriel was
established. More direct influence took place by 1819 when the Asistencia of San Bernardino in Redlands
was established. Between 1819 and 1834 the Serrano were removed to the Mission and much of their
traditional lifeway was dramatically altered. The Serrano and other tribes played an important role in the
settlement of the region during the mission era and subsequent rancho period, as native populations,
though substantially diminished by this time, supplied much of the labor force.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 10
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
The project site is near the San Manuel Reservation, and Serrano-affiliated tribes include the Morongo
Band of Mission Indians, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
(Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation) and the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians (nahc.ca.gov 2024).
3.3 Historical Setting
Generally, European contact with Southern California Native American groups dates to as early as 1540
with the arrival of the Spanish into California and the Southwest. In the 1770’s Father Garces interacted
with Southern California Native Americans as he traveled across the Mojave Desert and through the
Cajon Pass enroute to the coastal region of Southern California (Walker 1986). Shortly after, Father
Juniper Serra directed the establishment of nine missions throughout Alta California, including the
Mission San Gabriel de Archangel in the San Gabriel Valley. Extensive tracts of land in the area were
administered by the Mission San Gabriel until the Mexican government declared independence from
Spain and ordered the secularization of the California missions in 1824. Following this order, mission
lands were transferred and allotted to individuals to relocate populations from Mexico to California for
settlement (Perry 2004 citing Mckenna 1995), and following transfer to private ownership, lands including
the valley areas of Highland were converted to ranching and agricultural production (Perry 2004).
The project site is located near the boundary of the Rancho San Bernardino, a Mexican land grant of over
35,000 acres that was patented to Don Antonio Maria Lugo in 1813. Lugo’s sons obtained subsequent
land grants. Beginning in the 1850’s the Lugos sold portions of their land to Mormon settlers. The current
project site was located just outside of this settlement and was subject to homesteading, purchasing from
the federal government, or granted as right-of-way property to the railroad.
As early as 1882, lands which include the current project site were owned by F.E. Brown, a large land
holder in San Bernardino County (Mckenna 1992). By the 1890’s most of the lands within Section 1 were
owned by Alfred M. Alpin and an individual named Raiss. The lands were then transferred to various
owners including members of a family named Smith. Research of tax deeds and assessor’s records by
Mckenna et al (1992) indicates the Smith family constructed irrigation in the area as early as the 1890’s
and planted orchards in both Section 6 and Section 1 north of Greenspot Road. A review of historic maps
and aerial imagery confirms that orchard trees were present within the project site until modern periods
when the site was cleared and graded for the construction of reservoir tanks in the mid-1990’s.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 11
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The project requires review and approval from the East Valley Water District and is subject to the
requirements of CEQA. The CEQA Statute & Guidelines (Association of Environmental Professionals
2021) direct lead agencies to determine whether a project will have a significant impact on historical
resources. Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered “historically significant” is a “historical
resource” if it is included in a local register of historical resources, listed in or determined eligible for listing
on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or meets the requirements for listing on the
CRHR under any one of the criteria of historical significance (see Section 4.2).
Compliance with CEQA’s cultural resource provisions typically involves several steps. Archival research
and field surveys are conducted, and identified cultural resources are inventoried and evaluated in
prescribed ways. A prehistoric and historical archaeological site, standing structure, building, or object
deemed by the lead agency to be a historical resource must be considered in project planning and
development. A project with an impact that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource is a project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The lead agency
is responsible for identifying potentially feasible measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant
impacts in the significance of historical resources.
4.1 California Environment Quality Act
The CEQA Statute & Guidelines include procedures for identifying, analyzing, and disclosing potential
adverse impacts to historical resources, which include all resources listed in or formally determined
eligible for the CRHR, or local registers. CEQA further defines a “historical resource” as a resource that
meets any of the following criteria of historical significance:
A resource listed, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for
listing, in the CRHR (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1, Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Section 4850 et seq.)
A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k),
public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
A resource identified as significant (i.e., rated 1-5) in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) (California Department of Parks and Recreation [DPR] 523
Form), unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant.
Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines
to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource
is considered “historically significant” if it meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section
5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852), as outlined below.
4.2 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria of Evaluation
Under CEQA, a resource may be considered “historically significant” if it meets one or more of the
following criteria:
1. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California; or
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 12
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The fact that a resource is not listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the CRHR, not included in a local
register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k)), or identified in an historical
resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from
determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1
4.3 Regulations Concerning Discovery of Human Remains
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5‐7055
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5‐7055 requires that, in the event of discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined that
the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other
related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death,
and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been
made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the
manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two
working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized
representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner
determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native
American, they should contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
This code mandates that the lead agency adhere to the following regulations when a project results in the
identification or disturbance of Native American human remains:
a) Whenever the Native American Heritage Commission receives notification of a discovery of Native
American human remains from a county coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended
from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land
or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains
and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating
or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The
descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 24 hours of their
notification by the commission. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
b) Whenever the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent, or the
descendent identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized
representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation provided for in
subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94 fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner
or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 13
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
American burials with appropriate dignity on the property, in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbance.
c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5097.9, the provisions of this section, including those actions
taken by the landowner or his or her authorized representative to implement this section, and any action
taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 5097.94, shall be
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act [Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000)].
d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30244, the provisions of this section, including those actions
taken by the landowner or his or her authorized representative to implement this section, and any action
taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (1) of Section 5097.94, shall be
exempt from the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 [Division 20 (commencing with
Section 30000)].
4.4 Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 requires cities and counties to notify and consult with California Native American Tribes
about proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting Tribal cultural resources.
Senate Bill 18 stipulates that, as of March 2005, cities and counties must send any proposals for revisions
or amendments to general plans and specific plans to those California Native American Tribes that are on
the NAHC’s contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Cities
and counties must also conduct consultations with these tribes prior to adopting or amending their
general plans or specific plans or designating land as open space.
4.5 Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill 52 was enacted to guarantee that Tribal cultural resources are protected to the largest
extent possible throughout the development process. Tribal cultural resources are defined by PRC
Section 21074 as follows:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1.
(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 subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
(3) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent
that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
(4) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in
subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h)
of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
If Tribal cultural resources are identified within a project area, impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the
extent feasible. Assembly Bill 52 protects these resources by requiring that lead agencies seek Tribal
consultation prior to the release of any CEQA documentation. Lead agencies must notify Tribes
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 14
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
traditionally and culturally affiliated with a potential project area within 14 days of a development
application being complete. Upon this initial notification, tribes would confirm consultation within 30 days
of notification if consultation is deemed necessary.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 15
METHODS
5 METHODS
This study was conducted in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
Archaeological Resource Management Reports Guidelines (California OHP 1990), the Guidelines For
Archaeological Research Designs (California OHP 1991), and The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation [48 Federal Register 44716-44740] (NPS 1983).
5.1 Literature and Records Search
A records search was requested from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on 09 April 2024 in order to identify any
previously recorded cultural resources and previous cultural resource investigations in the vicinity of the
project site. Additionally, maps and aerial imagery were reviewed to determine historic land uses in the
area. The results of the SCCIC records search and historic map review are summarized in Section 6.
5.2 Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Outreach
Mojave Archaeological Consulting also contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on
09 April 2024, requesting a review of their Sacred Lands Files (SLF) to determine if any known Native
American cultural properties (e.g., cultural resources, traditional use or gathering areas, places of
religious or sacred activity) are present within or adjacent to the project area. The NAHC responded on 29
April 2024, stating the SLF search results were negative.
Compliance with Tribal notification and consultation under AB 52 is the responsibility of the Lead Agency
(East Valley Water District) under CEQA. The results of the NAHC SLF search and applicable Native
American contact list are included in Appendix A to elicit further information concerning any potential tribal
cultural resources and to assist with government-to-government consultation requirements as needed.
5.3 Field Methods
Mojave Archaeological Consulting’s Principal Investigator Michelle Hart visited the project site on 16 May
2024. The site has been previously developed by the water district and contains reservoir tanks,
associated pumping equipment, and paved areas. As such, few areas of visible ground surface remain
with the exception of several feet of earthen berm on the northern periphery of the site bounding an
adjacent flood control channel and approximately 0.7-acres on the eastern side of the site which consists
of steep slope with irrigated vegetation. The unpaved areas of the site were visually inspected to confirm
levels of prior disturbance and to assess the potential for buried cultural deposits. The results and findings
of the field visit are further summarized in Section 6.4.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 16
RESULTS
6 RESULTS
6.1 Previous Investigations
A CHRIS literature and records search was performed by the SCCIC, which included a 0.5-mile-wide
buffer (study area). The results of the search were received on 08 May 2024. A total of 24 cultural
resource investigations have been previously conducted within the 0.5-mile study area (Tables 6.1-1 and
6.1-2). One of these investigations (McKenna 1992) included a portion of the current project site and is
discussed below.
McKenna et al. conducted a cultural resource study of the right-of-way and facilities for the Greenspot
Road Pipeline project in 1992. McKenna’s study encompassed a small portion of the project site. Four
historic cultural resources were identified and recorded during the study, none of which fall within the
current project site.
Table 6.1-1: Previous Investigations within or intersecting the Project Site
Number Year Author(s)Title
SB-02652 1992 Jeanette A.
McKenna
An Archaeological Monitoring Program for the Greenspot Road
Pipeline Along Greenspot Road, East Highlands, San Bernardino
County, California
Table 6.1-2: Additional Previous Investigations within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site
Number Year Author(s)Title
SB-00219 1974 Sarah H.
Schlanger
Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeology of “East Highlands
Ranch” East Highlands, California
SB-00715
SB-01124
1978 Joseph E. Hearn
1981 Michael K. Lerch
Cultural Resources Assessment of East Highland Ranch Property
Cultural Resources Assessment of the East Highland Ranch, San
Bernardino County, California
SB-01125 1986 Michael K. Lerch Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Tracts 13467, 13468,
and 13469, East Highlands Ranch Phase 3, San Bernardino County,
California
SB-01410
SB-01566
1983 East Highlands
Ranch, Inc.
East Highlands Ranch Photo Essay
1986 James Brock, John Santa Ana River Upstream Alternatives, Cultural Resources Survey
F. Elliott, Benjamin
Resnick, and
William A. Sawyer
SB-01755
SB-01783
1987 Jeanne E. Arnold,
Anne Q. Duffield,
Roberta S.
Archaeological Resources of the Seven Oaks Dam Project, Upper
Santa Ana River Locality
Greenwood, R.
Paul Hampson,
and Thad M. Van
Bueren
1988 David Hornbeck
and Howard Botts
Seven Oaks Dam Project: Water Systems
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 17
RESULTS
Number Year Author(s)Title
SB-01808 1988 R. Paul Hampson,
Jerrel Sorensen,
Susan K.
Cultural Resources Survey, Upper Santa Ana River, California
Goldberg, Mark T.
Swanson, and
Jeanne E. Arnold
SB-02029
SB-02853
1989 Victor C. De
Munck
Initial Cultural Resource Assessment: A Cultural Resource
Assessment of a 20 Acre Tract of Land Designated P.N. 2-9013-000
Located in the East Highlands Area of San Bernardino County,
California
1991 John M. Foster,
James J. Schmidt,
Carmen A. Weber,
Gwendolyn R
Cultural Resource Investigation: Inland Feeder Project, MWD of
Southern California
Romani, and
Roberta S.
Greenwood
SB-03037 1995 Deborah Mclean,
Mari Pritchard-
Parker, and Brad
Sturm
Cultural Resources Assessment for 278.4 Acres within East
Highlands Ranch, San Bernardino County, California
SB-03478
SB-04067
1985 Eric B. Sweetman
2004 Bai Tom Tang
David Graves—Special Use Permit
APN: 297-021-04, -05 & the Southern Portion of 097-021-12, Due
Diligence/ Feasibility Investigation, City of Highland, San Bernardino
County, California
SB-04827
SB-04828
SB-04831
2005 Josh Smallwood
2006 Josh Smallwood
Historical/Archaeological Cultural Resources Survey Report: The
Calvary Chapel Project, City of Highland, San Bernardino County,
California
Historical/Archaeological Cultural Resources Survey Report:
(Addendum to) The Calvary Chapel Project, City of Highland, San
Bernardino County, California
2005 Curt Duke and
David Brunzell
Cultural Resources Assessment: Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land
Management and Habitat Conservation Plan, San Bernardino
County, California
SB-05672
SB-05816
2005 URS Corporation Cultural Resources Technical Report: North Fork Channel, East
Valley Water District
2007 Tiffany A. Schmidt
and Janis K.
East Branch Extension Phase II Archaeological Survey Report, San
Bernardino County, California
Offerman
SB-06839
SB-07459
2010 Mitchell Marken East Branch Extension Phase II Project, Extended Phase I
Archaeological Survey and Assessment
2012 Bai “Tom” Tang,
Terri Jacquemain,
Harry Quinn,
Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Enhanced
Recharge Facilities for Santa Ana River Water Diverted by Valley
District and Western under Water Rights Permit Project (Phase 1 &
2), Cities of Highland and Redlands, San Bernardino County,
California
Daniel Ballester,
and Nina Gallardo
SB-07569
SB-08040
2003 Dennis P.
McDougall and Jill
A. Onken
Inland Feeder Pipeline Project: Final Synthetic Report of
Archaeological Findings, San Bernardino County, California
2015 Bai “Tom” Tang
and Michael
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract
Map no. 18893, City of Highland, San Bernardino County, California
Hogan
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 18
RESULTS
6.2 Previously Identified Resources
Based on the SCCIC search, seven cultural resources have been previously documented within 0.5-miles
of the project site. The resources include the North Fort Main Canal, the East Highlands Ranch, an
irrigation system and orchard, a historic camp site, and refuse scatters. No prehistoric resources have
been previously documented within 0.5-miles of the project site and none of the previously documented
historic resources fall within or intersect the project site.
Table 6.2-1: Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site
Resource Resource Description NRHP/CRHR EligibilityNumber
P-36-006544 “North Fork Main Canal”Unknown/Unevaluated
CA-SBR-006544H
P-36-007051
CA-SBR-007051H
“East Highlands Ranch”Unknown/Unevaluated
Unknown/Unevaluated
Unknown/Unevaluated
Unknown/Unevaluated
Unknown/Unevaluated
Not Eligible
P-36-07215
CA-SBR-007215H
Historic irrigation system and orchard (“Greenspot No. 1”)
Historic refuse scatterP-36-010184
CA-SBR-010184H
P-36-010681
CA-SBR-010681H
“Cone Camp”
P-36-0033121
CA-SBR-03312H
Historic refuse scatter
P-36-060194 Historic isolate (refuse scatter)
6.3 Historic Map and Aerial Imagery
Maps and aerial imagery were also reviewed to determine the historic land uses in the 0.5-mile Study
Area and to identify the potential for historic cultural features within the project site (Table 6.3-1). Sources
included General Land Office (GLO) survey plat maps dating to 1858; USGS topographic maps dating to
1899, 1901,1924,1939,1954, and 1967; and aerial imagery dating from 1938 through present
(glorecords.blm.gov, earthexlorer.usgs.gov, and netronline.com, accessed 25 May 2024).
In 1858, no roads, trails, structures, or other cultural features are depicted within the 0.5-mile Study Area.
In 1899 and 1901, settlement of the area is apparent, and the general vicinity is named “East Highlands”
on USGS topographic maps. Multiple cultural features are depicted within the Study Area including “Old
North Fork Ditch”, located approximately 0.5 miles south of the project site and “Highlands Ditch”,
approximately 450 feet to the north, running parallel to the base of the San Bernardino Mountains.
Several unnamed roads and unnamed structures are also present in the vicinity. Immediately east of the
project site is an unimproved two-track road or trail leading to a structure which is depicted approximately
350 feet northeast of the project site adjacent to Highlands Ditch.
The Study Area remains little changed on historic topographic maps in the 1920’s and 1930’s. By 1954,
the “Old North Fork Ditch” and “Highlands Ditch” appear to have been partially realigned to form the
“North Fork Canal” to the north of the project site. Improved “Greenspot Road” is present to the south of
the project site and an unnamed unimproved road is depicted trending north from Greenspot Road to the
project site where it diverges into two road segments which then parallel the North Fork Canal and the
base of the San Bernardino Mountains. A tributary of Oak Creek, previously undepicted on earlier maps,
lies immediately north of the project site. The general area, including the project site, is planted with citrus
rows or orchards.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 19
RESULTS
The citrus rows or orchards are also visible in the earliest available imagery of the area dating to 1938
and the project site and surrounding vicinity contained rows of orchard trees through at least the 1980’s.
The orchard rows were cleared from the project site by 1995, at which time the site was graded and the
two reservoir tanks were constructed. The Oak Creek tributary which bounds the north side of the project
site and appears as a minor agricultural canal in earlier imagery, was graded and substantially widened
for flood control by 1995. By 2002, the project site is surrounded by a housing development to the east,
south, and southwest, and the Oak Creek flood control channel appears to have been lined with concrete.
In summary, historic maps and aerial imagery confirm the general vicinity of the project site appears to
have been used for agricultural cultivation beginning as early as the 1890’s. This use is evidenced by
nearby irrigation ditches, canals, and access roads. Orchard or citrus rows were present by the 1930’s or
earlier and the project site appears to have been used exclusively for this purpose through the 1980’s.
There is no indication of any buildings or structures on the site prior to the circa 1995 construction of the
EVWD reservoir tanks. The Oak Creek tributary abutting the north side of the site appears to have been
utilized as an irrigation ditch during later historic periods but was substantially altered through time and is
now a modern flood control channel.
Table 6.3-1: Historic Map and Aerial Imagery Features within 0.5-Mile of the
Project Site
Year In Project
SiteMap/Source Description
1899,
1901
USGS 1:625,000
Redlands, California
“Old North Fork Ditch”No
“Highland Ditch”
Unnamed Roads
Unnamed Structures
“North Fork Canal”
“Greenspot Road”
Unnamed Roads
Unnamed Structures
Orchard Trees
No1924
1939
USGS 1:24,000
Redlands, California No
No
1954,
1967
USGS 1:24,000
Redlands, California
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes1938-
1985
USGS Aerial Imagery Orchard Trees
6.4 New Survey Results
As most of the site had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and given the age (circa early
1990’s) of the only previous investigation which covered a portion of the project site, new survey was
conducted on 16 May 2024. The visit confirmed the level of previous disturbance and development of the
site. Based on historic research, the site once contained an orchard, and historic irrigation features and
historic refuse have been previously recorded outside of the project site, but in the general area. The
historic orchard rows were removed in approximately 1995, when the site was cleared and graded for the
installation of the reservoir tanks, a booster station structure, and asphalt paved parking and work areas.
The periphery of the site is surrounded by block walls, chain link fencing, and an access gate.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 20
RESULTS
Few areas of visible ground surface remain with the exception of several feet of earthen berm on the
northern periphery of the site bounding an adjacent flood control channel and approximately 0.7-acres on
the eastern side of the site which consists of steep slope with irrigated vegetation and what appears to be
non-native topsoil. The unpaved areas of the site were visually inspected to confirm levels of prior
disturbance and to assess the potential for buried cultural deposits.
No traces of historic orchard trees or any historic irrigation systems remain on the site. Oak creek,
immediately to the north of the parcel, was utilized as an irrigation ditch during historic periods but the
natural creek channel and subsequent irrigation ditch have been heavily modified through time for flood
control purposes, altering both its natural and historic corridor and any characteristic features. In
summary, the entirety of the site is heavily disturbed through decades of use including historic agricultural
production, followed subsequent grading, cut and fill, and contouring using heavy equipment in the
1990’s, and the installation of a water pumping and storage facility by the water district. Because of this,
there is little to no potential for any intact or substantial buried cultural resources to remain at the project
site.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 21
CONCLUSION AND MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
7 CONCLUSION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mojave Archaeological Consulting, LLC has prepared this cultural resources assessment on behalf of
Tom Dodson and Associates for the construction of the East Valley Water District’s Well 129 in Highland,
San Bernardino County.
In accordance with CEQA, to determine the potential for the proposed project to impact
historical/archaeological resources eligible for or listed on the CRHR, Mojave Archaeological Consulting’s
assessment included a records search and literature review, an SLF search with the NAHC, and a site
visit and archaeological survey of the approximately 2.4-acre project site.
In summary of the research presented within this report, the project site is located on land that was used
historically for agricultural purposes. No traces of historic orchard trees, historic irrigation systems, or any
historic debris remain on the site. Oak creek, immediately to the north of the parcel, was utilized as an
irrigation ditch during historic periods but the natural creek channel and subsequent irrigation ditch have
been heavily modified through time for flood control purposes, altering both its natural and historic
corridor and destroying any characteristic features. The entirety of the project site is heavily disturbed
through decades of use including historic agricultural production, followed by subsequent grading, cut and
fill, and contouring using heavy equipment in the 1990’s, and the installation of the present water pumping
and storage facility by the water district. Because of this, there is little to no potential for any intact or
substantial buried cultural resources to remain at the project site.
Considering these findings, Mojave Archaeological Consulting recommends to the East Valley Water
District that the proposed well drilling and installation will have no impact on historical or archaeological
resources. No further cultural resources work is recommended necessary for the proposed project
activities. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can
assess the significance and integrity of the find. If intact and significant archaeological remains are
encountered, the impacts of the project should be mitigated appropriately. Any such discoveries, and
subsequent evaluation and treatment, should be documented in a cultural resources report, which would
be submitted to the SCCIC for archival purposes.
Additionally, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Statute & Guidelines Section 15064.5(e),
and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of the discovery of human
remains. Finally, as project plans are further developed, if the project area is expanded to include areas
not covered by this survey or other recent cultural resource investigations in the study area, additional
cultural resource studies may be required.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 22
REFERENCES
8 REFERENCES
Association of Environmental Professionals
2021 2021 CEQA Statute & Guidelines.
https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf.
Basgall, M.E., K.R. McGuire, and A.J. Gilreath
1986 Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-INY-30; A Multi-Component Prehistoric Site Near
Lone Pine, Inyo County, California. On file at the California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento.
Basgall, Mark E., and D.L. True
1985 Crowder Canyon Archaeological Investigations, San Bernardino County, Volumes 1 and
2, CA-SBr-421 and CA-SBr-713. Prepared by Far West Anthropological Research Group,
Inc.
Bean, Lowell J.
1978 Serrano. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 571–574. Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 8, William Sturdevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell J., and Sylvia B. Vane (editors)
1978 Persistence and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and
the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line, by Lowell John Bean, Henry F.
Dobyns, M. Kay Martin, Richard W. Stoffle, Sylvia Brakke Vane, and David M. White.
Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, California.
Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff
1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity
47(3):485–503.
California Office of Historic Preservation (California OHP)
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports Guidelines.
1991 Guidelines For Archaeological Research Designs.
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.
Douglas, R. C.
1981 Archaeological, Historical/Ethnohistorical, and Paleontological Assessment, Weir Canyon
Park-Road Study, Orange County, California. On file at the University of California
Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California.
Goldberg, S. K., C. J. Klink, J. A. Onken, W. G. Spaulding, M. C. Robinson, M. C. Horne, and R. L.
McKim
2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report
of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Synthesis of Findings. Report prepared by
Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. On file at the Eastern Information Center.
Harrington, J.P.
1986 The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907–1957, Vol.
3: Native American History, Language, and Culture of Southern California/Basin. Krause
International Publications, White Plains, New York.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 23
REFERENCES
Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall
2003 Cultural Resources Element of the City of Riverside General Plan Update. Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. On file at the Eastern Information Center.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology of
the Smithsonian Institution, Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C.
Madsen, David B and David Rhode
1994 Across the West. Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa. David.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Mckenna, Jeanette A.
1992 Results of an Archaeological Monitoring Program for the Greenspot Road Pipeline, Along
Greenspot Road, East Highlands, San Bernardino County, California. On file at the South
Central Coastal Information Center.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
10(2):215–227.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
National Park Service (NPS)
1983 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation (48 Federal Register 44716-44740).
Norris, Robert M. and Webb, Robert W.
1976 Geology of California. Originally published by Wiley, New York.
Perry, Richard M.
2004 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of 210 Acres for the Proposed Citrus Heights
North Specific Plan in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file at
the South Central Coastal Information Center.
Pigniolo, Andrew R.
2004 Points, Patterns, and People: Distribution of the Desert Side-Notched Point in San Diego
County. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 14:27–39.
Ramon, Dorothy, and Eric Elliott
2000 Wayta' Yawa'. Morongo Indian Reservation, Banning, California: Malki Museum Press.
Rogers, M.J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert
Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3. San Diego, California.
Sawyer, J.O.
1994 Draft Series Descriptions of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento.
Schaefer, Jerry
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 24
REFERENCES
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert Region: Recent
Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):
60-80.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1):1–358. Berkeley.
Sutton, Mark Q.
1981 Archaeology of the Antelope Valley, Western Mojave Desert, California.
1988 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Coyote
Press Archives of California Prehistory 14. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
1996 The Current Status of Archaeological Research in the Mojave Desert. Journal of
California and Great Basin Archaeology 18(2):221–257.
Sutton, Mark Q., M.E. Basgall, J.K. Gardner, and M.W. Allen
2007 Advances in Understanding the Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Prehistory
Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 229–245.
Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Sutton, Mark Q., and David D. Earle
2017 The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly
53(2&3):1-61.
Sutton, Mark Q., Joan S. Schneider, and Robert M. Yohe
1993 The Siphon Site (CA-SBR-6580): A Millingstone Horizon Site in Summit Valley,
California. Quarterly of the San Bernardino County Museum Association 40(3).
True, D. L.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in
Southern California. Dissertation on file with the Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
1970 Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca State Park, San Diego
County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs No. 1, University of California,
Los Angeles, CA.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2023 Geologic maps of US states, electronic document,
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/.
Wallace, W.J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
Warren, Claude N.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168–
185.
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, edited by M. Moratto, pp. 339–430.
Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 25
REFERENCES
Warren, Claude N., Martha Knack, and Elizabeth von Till Warren
1980 The Archaeology and Archaeological Resources of the Amargosa–Mojave Basin
Planning Units. In A Cultural Resources Overview for the Amargosa–Mojave Basin
Planning Units. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publications,
Anthropology–History, Riverside, California.
Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, pp.
183–193. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general
editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wilke, Phillip J.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla Coachella Valley California.
Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology,
University of California Berkely.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well 129 Project May 2024 26
SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
APPENDIX 4
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
Soil Map—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
(WSC-103)
487060 487080 487100 487120 487140 487160 487180 487200
34° 6' 47'' N 34° 6' 47'' N
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
34° 6' 41'' N 34° 6' 41'' N
487060 487080 487100 487120 487140 487160 487180 487200
Map Scale: 1:972 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters
60N0
0
10 20 40
Feet
2704590180
Map projection: Web Mercator Cornercoordinates:WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/8/2024
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
Soil Map—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
(WSC-103)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.Stony Spot
Soils Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Other
Special Line Features
Special Point Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Blowout
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.Borrow Pit
Transportation
Clay Spot Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Rails
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Interstate Highways
US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Major Roads
Local Roads
Lava Flow Background
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Aerial Photography
Soil Survey Area: San Bernardino County Southwestern Part,
California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Aug 30, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 17, 2022—Jun
12, 2022Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/8/2024
Page 2 of 3
Soil Map—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California WSC-103
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
HaC
Ps
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2
to 9 percent slopes
1.4
1.0
2.4
57.8%
42.2%Psamments, Fluvents and
Frequently flooded soils
Totals for Area of Interest 100.0%
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/8/2024
Page 3 of 3
East Valley Water District
Well No. 129 Project INITIAL STUDY
APPENDIX 5
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
July 11, 2024
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
SUBJECT:EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WELL NO. 129 NOISE
ASSESSMENTDear Mr. Nathan Carlson:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Noise Assessment for the East Valley Water District Well
No. 129 Project (referred to as the “Project”) located northwest of the intersection of Calle Del Rio St. and Vista
Clara St., just south of Oak Creek in the City of Highland, as shown in Exhibit A. The Project site is on a 2.37-acre
parcel within the City of Highland (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 121-038-110). The purpose of this Noise
Assessment is to describe the potential Project-related construction noise impacts.
The site would include the following features: a new well (wellhead); an 8-inch (“) diameter pipeline connecting
to the District’s booster pump station onsite; a 4-foot (‘) diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that extends 2’
above grade and 16” RCP drain line; chlorine and orthophosphate dosing systems; a 55’ x 20’ Concrete Masonry
Unit (CMU) block building with a standing seam metal roof enclosing the wellhead, discharge header, pump-to-
waste header, electrical equipment, and chemical facilities. It is assumed that minor grading will be required to
construct the structure. The location of improvements and anticipated location of drilling equipment is shown in
Exhibit B.
The District anticipated that the new well will be drilled utilizing the reverse rotary well drilling method to about
550 feet below ground surface (bgs), based on the depth of the District’s nearby well. The objective for the well is
to generate 25 to 150 acre-feet of potable groundwater on a monthly basis. The District anticipates that the water
quality of the water extracted by the new Well No. 129 would be similar to Well No. 142, which does experience
elevated levels of combined uranium and gross alpha particle activities. The new well will require the installation
of a line shaft vertical pump and will connect to the existing booster pump station onsite. This would be sufficient
to carry water from the proposed new well to customers.
Access to the proposed project site is provided from the intersection of Calle Del Rio Street and Vista Clara Street,
where the gated Plant No. 129 can be accessed (refer to Figure 3). Stormwater is removed from the project site
via sheet flow into an on-site catch basin, which conveys the water within a 24” RCP to an off-site San Bernardino
County Flood Control District facility.
It is anticipated that about five persons will be at the Well No. 129 site at any one time to support drilling
the well: three drillers, the hydrogeologist inspector, and a foreman. Trips to complete the well will
include a few days each to mobilize and demobilize sound walls, a drill rig, pipe trailer, generator, mud
tanks, a mobile field office/storage unit, water storage tanks, and a well development rig. Other short-
term trips during the work will include deliveries of concrete, well casing, and materials to fill the annular
space within the well borehole. Daily trips to complete the well will include one roundtrip per day for
the drillers, a hydrogeologist, and a foreman. Work shall be performed on a 24-hour basis during some
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 2
phases of the project, including drilling the pilot borehole, conducting isolated aquifer zone testing,
reaming the pilot borehole, constructing the well, and performing a constant rate pumping test
(surrounding housing to be notified in advance). The durations of these activities are estimated to range
from 1 day to 2 weeks. The instantaneous yield of the new well is estimated to be up to 1,000 gpm.
Assuming the groundwater quality is potable (see the discussion under Hydrology and Water Quality),
the new well will be connected to the District’s distribution system.
EXHIBIT A: LOCATION
MAP
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 3
EXHIBIT B: PROJECT SITE
PLAN
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 4
RECEIVER
LOCATIONSTo assess the potential for construction noise impacts, four receiver locations were identified as representative
locations for analysis. Sensitive uses or receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where
the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.
To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were
identified, as shown on Exhibit C. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent
with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area
that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels
than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of
intervening structures. Since the exact location of the drilling activity is not known, distances are measured in a
straight line from the Project boundary to each receiver location.
NOISE PREDICTION
MODELTo fully describe the construction noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise
prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can
analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced
Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise
levels.
Using the ISO 9613 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise
receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to
provide a summary of the noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise
source. Consistent with the ISO 9613 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the
reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g.,
Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels
(Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary
substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers,
air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound
source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment.
The drilling rig noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation
provided due to geometric spreading when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source)
propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. (1) The local topography of each site out to each
receiver location based on lidar data. The model does not account for any existing structures or other
manmade obstacles. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the CadnaA noise analysis
to account for predominately hard site conditions.
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 5
EXHIBIT C: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER
LOCATIONS
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 6
CITY OF HIGHLAND PROPERTY LINE NOISE
STANDARDSTo analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the
Project, stationary-source (operational) noise levels such as the expected drill rig, mud pumps,
compressors, and generators, as well as noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against
standards established under the City’s Municipal Code. However, the currently adopted City of Highland
Municipal Code included in Appendix 3.1 does not identify any quantifiable exterior noise level standards
for non-transportation (stationary) noise sources. However, Table 7.2 in the City of Highland General
Plan Noise Element provides exterior noise standards (2), as shown in Exhibit D. While Exhibit D indicates
the noise levels are based on dBA CNEL, however, they are also provided based on the daytime and
nighttime periods. Since CNEL levels are based on 24-hour noise levels, the noise level limits are assumed
to be intended as hourly noise level limits, i.e., dBA Leq.
EXHIBIT D: CITY OF HIGHLAND EXTERIOR NOISE
STANDARDS
City of Highland General Plan Noise Element.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
SOURCESUsing reference construction equipment noise levels level measurements and the CadnaA noise
prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive
receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project
construction noise analysis relies on the equipment with the highest reference noise level operating
continuously over a 24-hour period.
Drill rigs have several substantial noise sources, each with its own characteristics. The main sources of
noise are the generator set, the compressor, the mud pump, and the top drive of the drill rig.
Pumps/compressors and generator noise sources were placed five feet above ground level, and the drill
rig top drive was placed fourteen feet above ground level. Drill rig and associated equipment noise levels
were developed from a noise survey conducted by Behrens and Associates, Inc. of three different drill
rig systems in 2006. Each of the drill rigs was rated at 1,000 horsepower and was capable of drilling
depths ranging from 12,000 to 15,000 feet (3). The surveyed drill rigs are similar in capability to the drill
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 7
rig proposed for the Project. Based on peak noise levels provided by the survey, reference noise levels
with a uniform distance of 50 feet were calculated and are provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE
LEVELS
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise LevelConstruction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1 (dBA Leq)
Drill Rig Top Drive 82.0
80.0
85.0
Borehole Drilling Compressors/Pumps
Generators
87.6
1 Behrens and Associates, Inc., 2006
CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL
ANALYSISUsing the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model,
calculations of the Project construction noise levels with all equipment operating simultaneously were
completed. As shown in Table 2, the unabated construction noise levels for activities at Location 1 are
expected to range from 59.2 to 74.5 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses. Appendix B includes the
unabated typical construction CadnaA noise model calculations.
As shown in Table 2, the unabated construction noise levels for drilling activities are expected to exceed
applicable standards at R1 through R3 and at R11 through R14. Therefore, various mitigation strategies
were evaluated to reduce drilling noise levels to acceptable levels. The first option was to install
temporary barriers around the drilling activity. However, even with 24-foot-high barriers surrounding
the activity the Project would not comply with the City of Highland noise level limits at R-1 through R-3.
Therefore, relocating equipment within the site, shielding of specific equipment, as well as various
barrier height were evaluated.
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 8
TABLE 2: UNABATED DRILLING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
SUMMARY
Project Construction
Noise Levels Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3Receiver
Location1
Threshold
Exceeded?(dBA Leq)2
Daytime
74.5
70.5
61.5
59.2
46.3
46.5
46.6
45.8
47.9
52.0
60.4
64.4
57.9
55.2
Nighttime
74.5
70.5
61.5
59.2
46.3
46.5
46.6
45.8
47.9
52.0
60.4
64.4
57.9
55.2
Daytime
60
Nighttime
55R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
R09
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
60 55 Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit C.
2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations.
3 City of Highland Municipal Code, Section 30-469.
Based on the modeling, the following abatement measures, as shown in Exhibit E, would allow the
Project to comply with the City of Highland daytime and nighttime noise level standards:
a sound blanket barrier on three sides (southwest, southeast, and northeast) of the drill rig mast,
a 15-foot-high barrier should be erected along the southwestern boundary,
a minimum 12-foot-high barrier along the southwest boundary,
a minimum height of 10-foot-high barrier should be erected along the northeastern and
northwestern boundaries, and
the generator and compressor should be placed near the existing tanks and as far away from the
properties to the southeast as possible, and a 12-foot-high barrier should be erected on three
sides (northwest, southwest, and southeast) of the generator and compressor.
As shown in Table 3, the mitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 59.6 to 64.0 dBA
Leq at the nearest residential land uses. Appendix B includes the abated construction CadnaA noise
model calculations. Appendix C includes photos of a typical temporary noise barrier used for water well
construction activity.
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 9
TABLE 3: ABATED DRILLING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
SUMMARY
Project Construction Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)2
Receiver
Location1
Threshold
Exceeded?
Daytime Nighttime
54.7
53.8
48.9
44.6
43.5
43.5
43.8
42.8
41.1
41.9
47.8
49.2
45.1
42.9
Daytime
60
Nighttime
55R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
R09
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
54.7
53.8
48.9
44.6
43.5
43.5
43.8
42.8
41.1
41.9
47.8
49.2
45.1
42.9
No No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
60 55 No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
60 55
1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit C.
2 Highest construction noise level operating at the Project site boundary to nearby receiver locations.
3 City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 30-469.
ABATEMENT
REQUIREMENTSTo comply with the City of Highland noise standards during daytime and nighttime hours, noise barriers with a
minimum height of 15 feet should be erected along the southwestern boundary, a sound blanket barrier on three
sides (southwest, southeast, and northeast) of the drill rig mast, a 15-foot-high barrier should be erected along
the southwestern boundary, a minimum 12-foot high barrier along the southwest boundary, and a minimum
height of 10-foot-high barrier should be erected along the northeastern and northwestern boundary. Additionally,
the generator and compressor should be placed near the existing tanks and as far away from the properties to
the southeast as possible, and a 12-foot-high barrier should be erected on three sides (northwest, southwest, and
southeast) of the generator and compressor. An effective barrier requires a weight of at least 2 pounds per
square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts, perforations, or line-of-sight openings between
shielded areas and the source. (4) Examples of temporary barrier material includes 5/8-inch plywood,
5/8-inch oriented-strand board, or sound blankets capable of providing a minimum sound transmission
loss (STC) of 27 or a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) of 0.85.
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 10
EXHIBIT-E: DRILL RIG NOISE
ABATEMENT
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 11
CONCLUSION
SThis Noise Assessment demonstrates that the drill rig noise levels associated with East Valley Water District Well
No. 129 Project can satisfy the City of Highland exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations with
the use of barriers shielding the receivers to the east and south of the Project site. Unabated noise levels at R3
would not exceed the City of Highland noise level standards and would not require a barrier along the northwest
side of the Project site. Therefore, with the implementation of the identified noise abatement measures shown
in Exhibit E, the construction noise levels would comply with the City of Highland noise level limits during daytime
and nighttime hours. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (619) 778-1971.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS,
INC.
William Maddux
Senior Associate
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Mr. Nathan Carlson
East Valley Water District
July 11, 2024
Page 12
REFERENCE
S1. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A
Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.
2. City of Highland. General Plan, Noise Element. March 2006.
3. Behrens and Associates, Inc. Gas Well Drilling Noise Impact and Mitigation Study. April 2006.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
APPENDIX A
CITY OF HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
This page intentionally left blank
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Chapter 8.50
NOISE CONTROL
Sections:
8.50.010 Findings and purpose.
8.50.020 Definitions.
8.50.030 Prohibited acts.
8.50.040 Excessive noise and vibration emanating from a motor vehicle.
8.50.050 Controlled hours of operation.
8.50.060 Exemptions.
8.50.070 Enforcement and administration.
8.50.080 Enforcement – Interference.
8.50.090 Violations – Notices – Abatement.
8.50.100 Repealed.
8.50.110 Violations – Notices – Service – Effect.
8.50.120 Immediate threats to health and welfare.
8.50.130 Administrative citations and costs of second and subsequent responses.
8.50.140 Modification, suspension and/or revocation of validly issued city permit and/or city license.
8.50.010 Findings and purpose.
A. It is the purpose of these regulations to implement the goals and objectives of the noise element of the city’s general plan, to establish community-wide noise standards and to serve as a reference for locating other city
regulations relating to noise in the community. It is further the purpose of these regulations to recognize that the existence of excessive noise within the city is a condition which is detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and
quality of life of the citizens which should be regulated in the public interest.
B. In furtherance of the foregoing purpose, the city council finds and declares as follows:
1. The making, creation or maintenance of such loud, unnecessary, unnatural or unusual noises or vibrations that are prolonged, unusual, annoying, disturbing and unnatural in their time, place and use are a detriment to the
public health, comfort, convenience, safety, general welfare and the peace and quiet of the city and its inhabitants; and
2. The public interest necessity for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted is declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared that the provisions and
prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuit of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, general welfare and property and the peace and quiet of the city
and its inhabitants. (Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings given:
“Construction equipment” means tools, machinery or equipment used in connection with construction operations, including all types of “special construction” equipment as defined in the pertinent sections of the California Vehicle
Code when used in the construction process on any construction site, home improvement site or property maintenance site, regardless of whether such site be located on highway or off highway.
“Enforcement officer” means a city code enforcement officer or peace officer authorized to enforce the provisions and prohibitions of this chapter pursuant to HMC 8.50.070.
“Plainly audible” means any sound that can be detected by a person using his or her unaided hearing faculties. As an example, if the sound source under investigation is a portable or personal vehicular sound amplification or
reproduction device, the investigating enforcement officer need not determine the title of any music, specific words, or the artist performing the music. The detection of the vibration from the rhythmic bass component of the music
is sufficient to constitute a plainly audible sound.
“Public right-of-way” means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk, alley or similar place, owned or controlled by a government entity.
“Public space” means any real property or structure(s) on real property, owned by a government entity and normally accessible to the public, including but not limited to parks and other recreation areas.
“Responsible person” means (1) any person who owns, leases or is lawfully in charge of the property or motor vehicle where the noise violation takes place or (2) any person who owns or controls the source of the noise or
violation. If the responsible person is a minor, then the parent or guardian who has custody of the child at the time of the violation shall be the responsible person who is liable under this chapter. (Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.030 Prohibited acts.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities:
1. Sounding any horn or signal device on any automobile, motorcycle, bus or other motor vehicle in any other manner or circumstance(s) or for any other purpose than required or permitted by the Vehicle Code or other state
laws.
2. Racing the engine of any motor vehicle while the vehicle is not in motion, except when necessary to do so in the course of repairing, adjusting or testing the same.
3. Operating or permitting the use of any motor vehicle on any public right-of-way or public place or on private property within a residential zone for which the exhaust muffler, intake muffler or any other noise abatement
device has been modified or changed in a manner such that the noise emitted by the motor vehicle is increased above that emitted by the vehicle as originally manufactured.
4. Operating or permitting the use or operation of personal or commercial music or sound amplification or production equipment that is:
a. Plainly audible across property boundaries;
b. Plainly audible through partitions common to two residences within a building;
c. Plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any direction from the source of music or sound, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; or
d. Plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet in any direction from the source of music or sound, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
5. The intentional sounding or permitting the sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar, or civil defense alarm, siren, whistle, or any motor vehicle burglar alarm, except for emergency purposes or for testing, unless such alarm is
terminated within 15 minutes of activation.
6. Creating excessive noise adjacent to any school, church, court or library while the same is in use, or adjacent to any hospital or care facility, which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution, or which
disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed, clearly visible to the motoring public, indicating the presence of a school, institution of learning, church, court or hospital.
7. Making or knowingly and unreasonably permitting to be made any unreasonably loud, unnecessary or unusual noise that disturbs the comfort, repose, health, peace and quiet or which causes discomfort or annoyance to
any reasonable person of normal sensitivity. The characteristics and conditions that may be considered in determining whether this section has been violated include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The level of noise;
b. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
c. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;
d. The level of the background noise;
e. The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities;
f. The nature and zoning of the area(s) within which the noise emanates;
g. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;
h. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
i. The duration of the noise; and
j. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.
B. A violation of this section is a public nuisance.
C. A violation of this section may result in the following:
1. Issuance of an administrative citation, where the fines and penalties shall be assessed as infractions in accordance with HMC 2.56.110;
2. Issuance of a notice of public nuisance and abatement pursuant to Chapter 8.28 HMC;
3. Imposition of criminal and civil penalties, including those in Chapter 1.24 HMC; and
4. Confiscation and impoundment as evidence of the components that are amplifying or transmitting the prohibited noise.
D. An enforcement officer who encounters a violation of this section may issue a written notice to the responsible person demanding immediate abatement of the violation (written notice). The written notice shall inform the
recipient that a second violation of the same provision within a 72-hour period may result in the issuance of a criminal citation and/or notice of public nuisance, the imposition of criminal and civil penalties, and confiscation and
impoundment as evidence of the components that are amplifying or transmitting the prohibited noise.
E. Any peace officer who encounters a second violation of this section within a 72-hour period following issuance of a written notice is empowered to confiscate and impound as evidence any or all of the components amplifying or
transmitting the sound.
F. Any person claiming legal ownership of the items confiscated and impounded under this section may request the return of the item by filing a written request with the police department within seven calendar days of the
confiscation. Such requests shall be processed in accordance with the procedures adopted by the police department. (Ord. 370 § 27, 2012; Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.040 Excessive noise and vibration emanating from a motor vehicle.
A. No person shall operate or occupy a motor vehicle on any public right-of-way, public place or private property, while operating or permitting the use or operation of any radio, stereo receiver, musical instrument, television,
computer, compact disc player, tape recorder, cassette player or any other device for the production or reproduction of sound from within the motor vehicle, so that the sound is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from such
vehicle, or in the case of a motor vehicle on private property, beyond the property line.
B. A violation of this section is a public nuisance.
C. A violation of this section may result in the following:
1. Issuance of an administrative citation, where the fines and penalties shall be assessed as infractions in accordance with HMC 2.56.110;
2. Issuance of a notice of public nuisance and abatement pursuant to Chapter 8.28 HMC;
3. Imposition of criminal and civil penalties, including those in Chapter 1.24 HMC; and
4. Immediate confiscation and impoundment as evidence of the components that are amplifying or transmitting the prohibited noises or the immediate confiscation and impoundment of the motor vehicle to which the
component is attached if the same may not be removed without causing harm to the vehicle or the component.
D. Any person claiming legal ownership of a motor vehicle confiscated and impounded under this section may request the return of the vehicle by filing a written request with the police department within seven calendar days of
the confiscation. Such requests shall be processed in accordance with procedures adopted by the police department.
E. Any person claiming legal ownership of the items confiscated and impounded under this section, other than a motor vehicle, may request the return of the item by filing a written request with the police department, which shall
be processed in accordance with procedures adopted by the police department. (Ord. 370 § 28, 2012; Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.050 Controlled hours of operation.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities at a time other than between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day in the industrial (I) zone, and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
on any day in all other zones:
A. Operate or permit the use of powered model vehicles and planes.
B. Load or unload any vehicle, or operate or permit the use of dollies, carts, forklifts, or other wheeled equipment that causes any impulsive sound, raucous or unnecessary noise within 1,000 feet of a residence.
C. Operate or permit the use of domestic power tools, machinery, or any other equipment or tool in any garage, workshop, house or any other structure.
D. Operate or permit the use of gasoline or electric-powered leaf blowers such as commonly used by gardeners and other persons for cleaning lawns, yards, driveways, gutters and other property.
E. Operate or permit the use of privately operated street/parking lot sweepers or vacuums, except that emergency work and/or work necessitated by unusual conditions may be performed with the written consent of the code
enforcement officer.
F. Operate or permit the use of electrically operated compressor(s), fan(s) and other similar device(s).
G. Operate or permit the use of pile driver(s), steam or gasoline shovel(s), pneumatic hammer(s), steam or electric hoist(s) or other similar device(s).
H. Perform ground maintenance on golf course grounds and tennis courts contiguous to golf courses that creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line.
I. Operate or permit the use of any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds, or of any auxiliary equipment attached to such a vehicle, including but not limited to refrigerated truck compressors,
for a period longer than 15 minutes in any hour while the vehicle is stationary and on a public right-of-way or public space, except when movement of said vehicle is restricted by other traffic.
J. Repair, rebuild, reconstruct or dismantle any motor vehicle or other mechanical equipment or device(s) in a manner so as to be plainly audible across property lines.
K. Load, unload, open, close or otherwise handle garbage cans, recycling bins or other similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following morning, except city-permitted trash collection. (Ord. 352 § 1,
2010; Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.060 Exemptions.
The following activities and noise sources shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter:
A. Those noise events in the community (e.g., airport noise, arterial traffic noise, railroad noise) that are more accurately measured by application of the general plan noise element policy, utilizing the community noise equivalent
level (CNEL) method.
B. Activities conducted on the grounds of any public or private school during regular hours of operation.
C. Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events, provided said events are authorized by the city.
D. Legally permitted activities conducted at public places during regular hours of operation.
E. Any mechanical device, apparatus, or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work.
F. All mechanical devices, apparatus, or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions.
G. Mobile noise sounds associated with agricultural operations, provided such operations do not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a state
holiday.
H. Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application.
I. Warning devices necessary for the protection of the public safety, including, but not limited to, police, fire and ambulance sirens and train horns and sounds for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency.
J. Construction, repair or excavation necessary for the immediate preservation of life or property.
K. Construction, operation, maintenance and repair of equipment, apparatus or facilities of the park and recreation department, public work projects or essential public services and facilities, including trash collection and those of
public utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.
L. Construction, repair or excavation work performed pursuant to a valid written agreement with the city or any of its political subdivisions, which agreement provides for noise mitigation measures.
M. Any activity, to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law.
N. Any specific activity or noise source governed elsewhere in this code. Such activities include, but are not limited to:
1. Security alarm systems (Chapter 8.04 HMC);
2. Animal noise (Chapter 6.04 HMC);
3. Loud, unruly or disorderly private parties or assemblies (Chapter 9.17 HMC). (Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.070 Enforcement and administration.
The city manager, chief of police and/or their designees shall be responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 324 § 2, 2008)
8.50.080 Enforcement – Interference.
No person shall interfere with, oppose, or resist any authorized person charged with the enforcement of this chapter while such person is engaged in the performance of his duty. (Ord. 324 § 3, 2008; Ord. 283 § 4, 2002. Formerly
8.50.140)
8.50.090 Violations – Notices – Abatement.
Violations of this chapter shall be prosecuted in the same manner as other violations of this code; provided, however, in the event of an initial violation of the provisions of this chapter, a written notice shall be given the alleged
violator which specifies the time by which the condition shall be corrected or, where applicable, an application for a permit shall be received by the planning division. No complaint or further action shall be taken in the event the
cause of the violation has been removed or the condition abated or fully corrected within the time period specified in the written notice. (Ord. 370 § 29, 2012; Ord. 324 § 3, 2008; Ord. 283 § 4, 2002. Formerly 8.50.150)
8.50.100 Violations – Penalties.
Repealed by Ord. 370. (Ord. 324 § 3, 2008; Ord. 283 § 4, 2002. Formerly 8.50.160)
8.50.110 Violations – Notices – Service – Effect.
In the event the alleged violator cannot be located in order to serve the violation of intention to prosecute, such notice shall be deemed to be given upon mailing such notice by registered or certified mail to the alleged violator at
his last known address or at the place where the violation occurred, in which event the specified time period for abating the violation or applying for a variance shall commence on the date of the day following the mailing of such
notice. Subsequent violations of the same offense shall result in the immediate filing of a complaint. (Ord. 370 § 30, 2012; Ord. 324 § 3, 2008; Ord. 283 § 4, 2002. Formerly 8.50.170)
8.50.120 Immediate threats to health and welfare.
A. The city manager may order an immediate halt to any sound which exposes any person, except those excluded pursuant to HMC 8.50.060, to continuous sound levels in excess of those described herein. Within two days
following the issuance of any such order, the city shall apply to the appropriate court for an injunction to replace the order.
B. No order pursuant to subsection A of this section shall be issued if the only persons exposed to sound levels in excess of those contained herein are exposed as a result of (1) trespassing; (2) an invitation upon private property
by the person causing or permitting the sound; or (3) employment by the person or contractor of the person causing or permitting the sound.
C. Any person subject to an order issued pursuant to subsection A of this section shall comply with such order until (1) the sound is brought into compliance with the order, as determined by the city manager; or (2) a judicial order
has superseded the order of the city manager. (Ord. 324 § 3, 2008; Ord. 283 § 4, 2002. Formerly 8.50.180)
8.50.130 Administrative citations and costs of second and subsequent responses.
The city manager or his designee, in his/her sole discretion, may prosecute violations of this chapter through the administrative citation process set forth in Chapter 2.56 HMC, in lieu of the criminal or nuisance abatement process.
In the case of second and subsequent violations of this chapter, the city may assess a second response service fee in compliance with HMC 9.17.030 through 9.17.060, inclusive. (Ord. 324 § 4, 2008)
8.50.140 Modification, suspension and/or revocation of validly issued city permit and/or city license.
The violation of this chapter by any city permittee or licensee more than twice in any six-calendar-month period, in the course of operating pursuant to a validly issued city permit and/or license, may be grounds for the
modification, suspension or revocation of such license subject to normal city processes, in the discretion of the city manager. (Ord. 324 § 4, 2008)
The Highland Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 462, passed November 14, 2023.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Highland Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: https://www.cityofhighland.org/
City Telephone: (909) 864-6861
General Code
APPENDIX B
NOISE LEVEL
CALCULATIONS
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
This page intentionally left blank
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
16049 - Well No. 129
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 16049-02_Construction.cna
Date: 11.07.24
Analyst: B. Maddux
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB)0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN))
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr
Partition
2000.01
0.00
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%)
Proj. Line Sources
0.00
On
Proj. Area Sources
Ref. Time
On
Daytime Penalty (dB)
Recr. Time Penalty (dB)
Night-time Penalty (dB)
DTM
0.00
5.00
10.00
Standard Height (m)
Model of Terrain
0.00
Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection
Search Radius Src
2
100.00
Search Radius Rcvr
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector
Min. Distance Source - Reflector
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction
100.00
1000.00 1000.00
1.00 1.00
0.10
some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP))
rel. Humidity (%)
3.0 20.0 0.0
10
70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates
Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
X
(ft)
Y
(ft)
Z
(ft)(ft)
R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
R09
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R01 61.0 61.0 67.7 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
6292170.69 2349554.05
6292301.44 2349401.09
6292379.75 2349309.45
6292482.42 2349383.41
6292544.31 2349438.26
6292577.80 2349518.09
6292589.09 2349610.10
6292607.13 2349730.65
6292652.40 2349859.77
6292583.73 2349864.94
6292515.29 2349873.92
6292451.19 2349882.83
6291621.51 2350157.31
6291114.79 2349759.98
5.00
R02 57.0 57.0 63.7
R03 53.0 53.0 59.7
R04 49.8 49.8 56.5
R05 45.3 45.3 51.9
R06 45.6 45.6 52.3
R07 46.1 46.1 52.7
R08 45.1 45.1 51.8
R09 44.5 44.5 51.1
R10 45.5 45.5 52.2
R11 52.3 52.3 58.9
R12 51.1 51.1 57.7
R13 40.3 40.3 46.9
R14 38.7 38.7 45.3
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates
Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA)dB(A) (min) (min) (min)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)
Drill Rig
Generator
Compressor/Pump
Rig1 113.6 113.6 113.6 Lw 113.6 14.00
5.00
0.00
a
a
a
6292271.18 2349622.48 14.00
GEN1 116.6 116.6 116.6 Lw 116.6
COM1 111.6 111.6 111.6 Lw 111.6
6292234.64 2349597.41
6292228.29 2349591.96
5.00
0.00
Line Source(s)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Name M. ID
Name ID
Result. PWL
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Result. PWL'Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src
Number
Height
Speed
dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft)
Height
Begin
Coordinates
yEnd
(ft)
x z Ground
(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL''Lw / Li Operating Time Height
(ft)Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min)
Name ID Height
Begin
(ft)
Coordinates
y
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
z Ground
(ft)(ft)
Barrier(s)
Name Sel. M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever
left right horz. vert.
(ft) (ft)
Height Coordinates
y
(ft)
Begin
(ft)
6.00 a
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)(ft)
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
0 6292107.12 2349536.07
6292158.58 2349580.34
6292232.12 2349493.65
6292590.68 2349746.60
6292584.42 2349664.75
6292571.24 2349544.11
6292563.75 2349471.31
6292508.06 2349423.64
6292448.18 2349374.65
6292308.96 2349397.18
6292320.94 2349407.39
6292383.61 2349335.47
6292448.33 2349261.43
6292431.45 2349249.22
6292178.03 2349602.20
6292274.28 2349489.71
6292419.61 2349891.96
6292431.05 2349869.63
6292670.54 2349842.87
6292256.65 2349535.48
6292209.35 2349589.40
6292307.29 2349663.30
6292318.78 2349672.27
6292326.62 2349663.80
6292334.76 2349652.20
6292324.03 2349642.20
6292348.66 2349611.17
6292298.98 2349570.85
6292282.79 2349557.93
6292256.91 2349535.60
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 6.00 a
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
0 6.00 a
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
BARRIERTEMP
0
0
6.00 a
6.00 a
6.00
6.00
BARRIERTEMP 0 24.00 a 24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
Building(s)
Name Sel. M.ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)
0.00BUILDINGBUILDING00001x030.00 a 6292382.28 2349716.88
6292401.43 2349720.02
6292426.57 2349717.86
6292442.90 2349708.03
6292455.71 2349695.65
6292463.30 2349682.50
6292467.33 2349664.20
6292465.26 2349644.26
6292459.78 2349628.73
6292452.61 2349615.83
6292442.90 2349606.44
6292428.87 2349598.00
6292414.90 2349593.90
6292400.96 2349590.66
6292383.64 2349593.56
6292369.02 2349601.63
6292357.87 2349609.63
6292346.76 2349620.24
6292342.60 2349630.73
6292338.54 2349647.30
6292337.91 2349661.20
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Name Sel. M.ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)
6292342.64 2349683.69
6292360.39 2349705.96
6292421.13 2349577.30
6292440.29 2349580.44
6292465.43 2349578.28
6292481.76 2349568.45
6292494.57 2349556.07
6292502.16 2349542.92
6292506.19 2349524.62
6292504.11 2349504.68
6292498.64 2349489.15
6292491.47 2349476.25
6292481.76 2349466.86
6292467.72 2349458.42
6292453.76 2349454.32
6292439.81 2349451.08
6292422.50 2349453.98
6292407.88 2349462.05
6292396.73 2349470.05
6292385.62 2349480.66
6292381.46 2349491.15
6292377.40 2349507.72
6292376.77 2349521.62
6292381.50 2349544.11
6292399.24 2349566.38
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00002x 0 30.00 a
Ground Absorption(s)
Name Sel. M. ID G Coordinates
x y
(ft)(ft)
Contour(s)
Name Sel. M. ID OnlyPts Height Coordinates
Begin
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Vertical Area Source(s)
Name ID Height
Begin
(ft)
Coordinates
y
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)
Rail
Name Sel. M. ID Lw'
Day Night
(dBA) (dBA)
Train Class Correct. Vmax
Track
(dB) (km(mph)
Sound Level Spectra
Name ID Type Oktave Spectrum (dB)Source
Weight. 31.5 63
M
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin
Roads
Name Sel. M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection
Day Evening Night DTV Str.class.
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
p (%)Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist.
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (mph) (mph)(dB)(%)(dB) (ft)(ft)
RoadsGeo
Name Height Coordinates Dist LSlope
Begin
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground (ft)
(ft)
(%)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
16049 - Well No. 129
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 16049-02_ConstructionAlt.cna
Date: 11.07.24
Analyst: B. Maddux
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB)0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN))
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr
Partition
2000.01
0.00
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%)
Proj. Line Sources
0.00
On
Proj. Area Sources
Ref. Time
On
Daytime Penalty (dB)
Recr. Time Penalty (dB)
Night-time Penalty (dB)
DTM
0.00
5.00
10.00
Standard Height (m)
Model of Terrain
0.00
Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection
Search Radius Src
2
100.00
Search Radius Rcvr
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector
Min. Distance Source - Reflector
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction
100.00
1000.00 1000.00
1.00 1.00
0.10
some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP))
rel. Humidity (%)
3.0 20.0 0.0
10
70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height
(ft)
Coordinates
Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
X
(ft)
Y
(ft)
Z
(ft)
R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
R09
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R01 54.7 54.7 61.4 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
5.00 r 6292172.32 2349554.33
5.00 r 6292301.44 2349401.09
5.00 r 6292379.75 2349309.45
5.00 r 6292482.42 2349383.41
5.00 r 6292544.31 2349438.26
5.00 r 6292577.80 2349518.09
5.00 r 6292589.09 2349610.10
5.00 r 6292607.13 2349730.65
5.00 r 6292652.40 2349859.77
5.00 r 6292583.73 2349864.94
5.00 r 6292515.29 2349873.92
5.00 r 6292451.19 2349882.83
5.00 r 6291621.51 2350157.31
5.00 r 6291114.79 2349759.98
5.00
R02 53.8 53.8 60.5
R03 48.9 48.9 55.6
R04 44.6 44.6 51.3
R05 43.5 43.5 50.2
R06 43.5 43.5 50.2
R07 43.8 43.8 50.4
R08 42.8 42.8 49.5
R09 41.1 41.1 47.7
R10 41.9 41.9 48.6
R11 47.8 47.8 54.4
R12 49.2 49.2 55.9
R13 45.1 45.1 51.8
R14 42.9 42.9 49.6
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Point Source(s)
Name M. ID
Rig1
Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates
Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min)
103.6 103.6 103.6 Lw 113.6
X
(ft)
Y
(ft)
Z
(ft)(ft)
Drill Rig with sound blanket reduction (-10 dB)14.00
5.00
5.00
a
a
a
6292271.18 2349622.48 14.00
6292317.90 2349632.80
6292322.49 2349637.24
Generator
Compressor
GEN1 116.6 116.6 116.6 Lw 116.6
COM1 111.6 111.6 111.6 Lw 111.6
5.00
5.00
Line Source(s)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Name M. ID
Name ID
Result. PWL
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Result. PWL'Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src
Number
Height
Speed
dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft)
Height
Begin
Coordinates
yEnd
(ft)
x z Ground
(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL''Lw / Li Operating Time Height
(ft)Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min)
Name ID Height
Begin
(ft)
Coordinates
y
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
z Ground
(ft)(ft)
Barrier(s)
Name Sel. M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever
left right horz. vert.
(ft) (ft)
Height Coordinates
y
(ft)
Begin
(ft)
6.00
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)(ft)
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
0 a
a
6292107.12 2349536.07
6292158.58 2349580.34
6292232.12 2349493.65
6292590.68 2349746.60
6292584.42 2349664.75
6292571.24 2349544.11
6292563.75 2349471.31
6292508.06 2349423.64
6292448.18 2349374.65
6292308.96 2349397.18
6292320.94 2349407.39
6292383.61 2349335.47
6292448.33 2349261.43
6292431.45 2349249.22
6292178.03 2349602.20
6292274.28 2349489.71
6292419.61 2349891.96
6292431.05 2349869.63
6292670.54 2349842.87
6292324.67 2349640.29
6292329.03 2349635.60
6292315.29 2349624.02
6292309.14 2349630.38
6292231.16 2349613.57
6292274.12 2349561.61
6292274.12 2349561.61
6292321.35 2349603.74
6292335.16 2349653.47
6292308.30 2349682.83
6292231.08 2349614.07
6292308.42 2349682.70
6292309.26 2349630.49
6292320.94 2349640.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 6.00
6.00BARRIEREXISTIN
G
0 a
BARRIEREXISTIN
G
BARRIERTEMP
0
0
6.00
6.00
a
a
6.00
6.00
BARRIERTEMP 0 12.00 a 12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
BARRIERTEMP
BARRIERTEMP
BARRIERTEMP
BARRIERTEMP
BARRIERTEMP
0
0
0
0
0
15.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
a
a
a
a
a
Building(s)
Name Sel. M.ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin
(ft)
30.00
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)
0.00BUILDINGBUILDING00001x0a6292382.28 2349716.88
6292401.43 2349720.02
6292426.57 2349717.86
6292442.90 2349708.03
6292455.71 2349695.65
6292463.30 2349682.50
6292467.33 2349664.20
6292465.26 2349644.26
6292459.78 2349628.73
6292452.61 2349615.83
6292442.90 2349606.44
6292428.87 2349598.00
6292414.90 2349593.90
6292400.96 2349590.66
6292383.64 2349593.56
6292369.02 2349601.63
6292357.87 2349609.63
6292346.76 2349620.24
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
Name Sel. M.ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)
6292342.60 2349630.73
6292338.54 2349647.30
6292337.91 2349661.20
6292342.64 2349683.69
6292360.39 2349705.96
6292421.13 2349577.30
6292440.29 2349580.44
6292465.43 2349578.28
6292481.76 2349568.45
6292494.57 2349556.07
6292502.16 2349542.92
6292506.19 2349524.62
6292504.11 2349504.68
6292498.64 2349489.15
6292491.47 2349476.25
6292481.76 2349466.86
6292467.72 2349458.42
6292453.76 2349454.32
6292439.81 2349451.08
6292422.50 2349453.98
6292407.88 2349462.05
6292396.73 2349470.05
6292385.62 2349480.66
6292381.46 2349491.15
6292377.40 2349507.72
6292376.77 2349521.62
6292381.50 2349544.11
6292399.24 2349566.38
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00002x 0 30.00 a
Ground Absorption(s)
Name Sel. M. ID G Coordinates
x y
(ft)(ft)
Contour(s)
Name Sel. M. ID OnlyPts Height Coordinates
Begin
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Vertical Area Source(s)
Name ID Height
Begin
(ft)
Coordinates
y
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground
(ft)
Rail
Name Sel. M. ID Lw'
Day Night
(dBA) (dBA)
Train Class Correct. Vmax
Track
(dB) (km(mph)
Sound Level Spectra
Name ID Type Oktave Spectrum (dB)Source
Weight. 31.5 63
M
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin
Roads
Name Sel. M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection
Day Evening Night DTV Str.class.
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
p (%)Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist.
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (mph) (mph)(dB)(%)(dB) (ft)(ft)
RoadsGeo
Name Height Coordinates Dist LSlope
Begin
(ft)
End
(ft)
x
(ft)
y
(ft)
z
(ft)
Ground (ft)
(ft)
(%)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
APPENDIX C
WATER WELL NOISE ABATEMENT
PHOTOS
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
This page intentionally left blank
16049-02 Noise Memo.docx
Agenda Item
#4c
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4c
Discussion Item
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of Strategic Plan
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors adopt and file the Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
East Valley Water District (District) has prepared for the next chapter through the
development of a Strategic Plan. Recognizing the changing landscape of water
management, community needs, and the completion of the Sterling Natural Resource
Center, the Strategic Plan aligns the District’s goals, resources, and actions to best
serve the Ratepayers. By adopting the Strategic Plan, the District seeks to ensure long-
term sustainability, operational efficiency, and continued reliable service.
The Strategic Plan was developed over the past year through a series of collaborative
workshops involving the Board, staff, and the Community Advisory Commission. Its
purpose is to ensure a unified approach toward achieving goals and align staff with the
vision set by the Board of Directors. The document was discussed at the October 9,
2024 Board of Directors meeting with comments incorporated into the final plan.
The Strategic Plan is attached and will be presented to the Board of Directors for
consideration and potential adoption.
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
I - Implement Effective Solutions Through Visionary Leadership
II - Maintain a Commitment to Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability
III - Deliver Public Service With Purpose While Embracing Continuous Growth
IV - Promote Planning, Maintenance and Preservation of District Resources
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by Administration and Public Affairs.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
Agenda Item
#4c
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4c
Discussion Item
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
Respectfully submitted:
________________
William Ringland
Public Affairs/Conservation Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Final Strategic Plan
strategic plan
LE
A
D
E
R
S
H
I
P
|
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
|
S
T
E
W
A
R
D
S
H
I
P
James Morales, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Ronald L. Coats
Vice Chairman of the Board
David E. Smith
Governing Board Member
Chris Carrillo
Governing Board Member
Phillip R. Goodrich
Governing Board Member
Brian Tompkins
Chief Financial Officer
Jeff Noelte
Director of Engineering &
Operations
District Leadership
Justine Hendricksen
District Clerk
Kerrie Bryan
Director of
Administrative Services
Manny Moreno
Water Reclamation Manager
Patrick Milroy
Operations Manager
William Ringland
Public Affairs/Conservation Manager
Michael Moore, P.E.
General Manager/CEO
District Headquarters
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC)
25318 5th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
District Locations
210
210
santa
a
n
a
r
i
v
e
r
sant
a
a
n
a
r
i
v
e
r
plun
g
e
c
r
e
e
k
plunge creek
eld
e
r
c
r
e
e
k
cit
y
c
r
e
e
k
city c
r
e
e
k
sa
n
d
c
r
e
e
k
tw
i
n
c
r
e
e
k
tw
i
n
c
r
e
e
k
warm cr
e
e
k
cook creek
mil
l
c
r
e
e
k
N
San Bernardino
SNRC
Highland
DistrictHeadquarters
Seven Oaks Dam
2 Strategic Plan
Table of Contents
East Valley Water District 3
Introduction ....................................................................................................................5
Strategic Planning Process ................................................................................................5
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................6
Vision .........................................................................................................................................6
Mission ......................................................................................................................................6
Core Values .............................................................................................................................6
Agency Pillars & Strategies ......................................................................................7
Effective Solutions .................................................................................................................7
Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability .......................................................8
Organizational Resiliency ...................................................................................................9
Planning, Maintenance and Preservation of District Resources .........................10
Community Engagement, Advocacy, and Leadership ............................................11
4 Strategic Plan
strategic initiativesimplementing
East Valley
Water District
is dedicated to
delivering safe,
reliable water
and wastewater
services to the
community.
In collaboration with the
Governing Board, staff,
and community members,
the District has developed
a Strategic Plan aimed at
fostering a resilient, efficient,
and effective organization.
The strategic planning
process ensures that all
actions taken by the District
are in alignment with this
Strategic Plan, approved
by the Board of Directors.
Through this process, staff
work to align the Five-Year
Work Plan, Annual Operating
Budget, and Individual
Performance Goals, all
focused on fulfilling the
Vision and Mission outlined
in the Strategic Plan.
East Valley Water District 5
eastvalley.org
STRATEGIC PLAN
Vision Mission
Five-Year Work Plan
Core
Values
Pillars &
Strategies
BRIDGE MEASURES
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Industry
Benchmarks Budget
Individual
Performance
Goals
Daily Operations
Inspiring people
to improve our
community and advance
water resources.
LEADERSHIP
Developing
relationships through
collaboration and
shared responsibility.
PARTNERSHIP
Protecting
our community’s
resources, now
and in the future.
STEWARDSHIP
Vision
East Valley Water District aspires to be a beacon of excellence and innovation within the water
industry. Through visionary leadership, we strive for a sustainable, transparent, and accountable future.
Mission
Provide our community with exceptional water and wastewater services by prioritizing sustainability,
efficiency, innovation, and ongoing collaboration.
Core Values
Strategic Plan
6 Strategic Plan
East Valley Water District 7
District Pillars & Strategies
Effective Solutions
Create innovative, efficient, and strategic approaches to achieve the District’s
goals and meet any challenge. Prioritize resources, foster the professional
development of employees, and embrace new technology driving innovation.
Identify Opportunities to
Optimize Natural Resources
Enhance the District’s use of
groundwater resources in a
sustainable way and support the
efficient storage rehabilitation.
Maximize Internal
Capabilities Through Ongoing
Professional Development
Strengthen the skills and expertise of
District staff by providing continuous
training, knowledge sharing, and
educational development opportunities.
Encourage Performance
Based Results through Staff
Empowerment
Foster a culture of accountability and
reliability by giving employees the
autonomy to take ownership of their
work and empowering staff to make
informed performance-driven decisions.
Utilize Current
Technology and Invest in
Future Solutions
Leverage existing technologies
and invest in future innovations, to
streamline District processes, improve
service delivery, and proactively
address emerging challenges.
Sustainability, Transparency, and Accountability
Responsibly manage resources while maintaining open communication
and fiscal integrity. Actively build sustainable programs, maintain
transparent operations, and open accountability to the community.
Uphold Transparent and Accountable
Fiscal and Resource Management
Manage finances and resources with
clarity and integrity. Promote open
communication about budgetary decisions
and resource allocation to ensure long-
term financial stability and effective use of
financial resources.
Pursue External
Beneficial Funding Sources
Secure additional financial
resources to support District
initiatives by actively seeking
grants, partnerships, and
alternative funding opportunities.
Manage Energy
Footprint and Consumption
Reduce the District’s environmental
impact by optimizing energy use
through the adoption of energy-
efficient practices and renewable
energy generation.
Develop a Resilient
Local Water Supply
Ensuring a reliable and sustainable
local water source for the community
by investing in water infrastructure,
maximizing supply options, and
preparing for future community demand.
8 Strategic Plan
East Valley Water District 9
Organizational Resiliency
Prepare, adapt, and respond to challenges facing the District through a
visionary organization. Build a strong internal framework to prioritize emergency
preparedness, exceptional customer service, and a positive workplace culture.
Advance Emergency
Preparedness Efforts
Enhance the District’s readiness to respond
to potential crises, such as natural disasters
or operational disruptions by developing
emergency plans, conducting regular training,
and strengthening response capabilities.
Promote a Positive
Organizational Culture
Build and foster a best-in-class work
environment where employees
feel valued, motivated, supported
and ultimately retained through
recognition, salaries/benefits, and a
sense of shared purpose.
Provide Exceptional
Customer Service
Actively engage with customers
by providing clear information,
promptly responding to questions
or concerns, and maintain a
friendly yet professional approach.
Embrace an Environment
of Active Learning and
Knowledge Sharing
Embrace and encourage ongoing
education to address evolving
challenges and contribute to the
District’s long-term success. Develop
programs to actively share knowledge
within the community and industry.
Planning, Maintenance, and Preservation of District Resources
Focus on the long-term stewardship of the District’s infrastructure and resources
to ensure reliable service and be proactive in planning, ongoing maintenance,
and modernization to meet the community’s current and future needs.
Develop Projects and Programs to Ensure
Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Service
Facilitate initiatives and programs to
strengthen the safe and reliable delivery
of water and wastewater services to
the community through infrastructure
projects and operational enhancements.
Dedicate Efforts Toward System
Maintenance and Modernization
Focus on continually upgrading and
maintaining the District’s infrastructure
to ensure safety, reliability, and water
quality is maintained. Invest in both routine
maintenance and innovative enhancements
to prevent service disruptions, extend the
lifespan of assets, and align infrastructure
with industry best practices.
Utilize a Comprehensive Asset
Management Approach
Build and maintain a District-wide asset
management program to track the
condition, performance, and life cycle of
assets to make data driven decisions on
rehab, replacement, and upgrades.
Enhance Planning Efforts that
Respond to Future Demands
Create forward-looking plans,
strategies, and projects to address
anticipated needs and maintain
reliable service into the future.
10 Strategic Plan
East Valley Water District 11
Community Engagement, Advocacy, and Leadership
Build strong local and regional partnerships furthering the District’s priorities
and advocating on behalf of the District’s community. Foster solid community
relationships through effective, informative, and educational communication.
Utilize Effective Communication
Methods to Foster Exceptional
Community Relations
Build and maintain strong, positive,
and purposeful connections with the
community through responsive and
personalized engagement.
Enhance Legislative
Advocacy to Promote Water
Security and Sustainability
Advocate for policies that support
short and long-term water security
and sustainability with a community
first approach.
Cultivate and Strengthen
Collaborative Partnerships
within the Water Industry
Build and enhance relationships
with other water and wastewater
organizations to leverage collective
expertise and demonstrate the District’s
commitment to industry collaboration.
Provide Education
Programming that
Empowers the Community
Provide educational programming,
resources, and outreach efforts to
empower District residents with
information about water conservation,
usage, and District operations.
ea
s
t
v
a
l
l
e
y
.
o
r
g
Agenda Item
#4d
October 23, 20241
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4d
Discussion Item
1
2
2
2
Regular Board Meeting
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: General Manager/CEO
SUBJECT: Consider Voting Designee for the Association of California Water Agencies
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors designate James Morales, Jr. as the voting representative
and Ron Coats as the alternate from East Valley Water District at ACWA's 2024 Fall
Conference.
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is the largest statewide coalition
of public water agencies in the country. Its nearly 460 public members collectively are
responsible for 90% of the water delivered to cities, farms, and businesses in
California. ACWA’s mission is to provide comprehensive leadership, advocacy and
resources for California public water agencies to ensure a high-quality and reliable
water supply in an environmentally sustainable and fiscally responsible manner.
ACWA recently distributed an Advisory announcing that it will conduct a vote by the
membership on proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Association. The in-
person meeting will be held during the annual conference on Wednesday, December 4,
at 1:30 p.m.
East Valley Water District is entitled to submit one vote. In order to expedite the
process, ACWA has requested that each agency identify one designated voting
representative and one alternate by Monday, November 25, 2024.
AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
I - Implement Effective Solutions Through Visionary Leadership
C. Strengthen Regional, State and National Partnerships
REVIEW BY OTHERS
This agenda item has been reviewed by Administration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
Agenda Item
#4d
October 23, 20242
Meeting Date: October 23, 2024
Agenda Item #4d
Discussion Item
1
2
2
2
Recommended by:
________________
Michael Moore
General Manager/CEO
ATTACHMENTS
Authorized Voting Representative Form
2024 ACWA MEMBERSHIP MEETINGAUTHORIZED VOTING REPRESENTATIVE FORM
SUBMIT YOUR FORM
To: Donna Pangborn, Senior Clerk of the BoardEmail: donnap@acwa.comFax: 916-669-2425
SUBMISSION DEADLINENOVEMBER 25, 2024
There will be a Membership Meeting at ACWA’s 2024 Fall Conference & Expo.
Date & Time: December 4, 2024, 1:30 p.m. Location: JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa, Palm Desert Main Stage in the Springs Ballroom F & G
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a vote by the membership on proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Association of California Water Agencies as recommended by the Board of Directors at it meeting
on September 20, 2024.
As set forth in Board Policy 2.8.1.5, each authorized voting representative has the responsibility to do the
following in order to vote:
• Pick up handheld keypad or other designated voting mechanism prior to the start time of the membership
meeting as specified in the meeting notice.
• Be physically present and inside the meeting room at the start of the membership meeting as specified on the meeting agenda.
Pick up Voting Keypad and Ask Questions
ACWA staff will be at the Membership Meeting Check-In Desk on Wednesday, December 4, from 9:00 a.m. to noon. to answer questions about the membership meeting and voting process. Voters must sign in during this time to pick up their voting keypads. Note: If you do not have your keypad by noon., you will not be able to vote,
consistent with established Board Policy 2.8.1.5.
The person designated below will attend the Membership Meeting on December 4 as our voting representative. An alternate has also been identified as a backup voter in the event one is needed.
Member Agency’s Name Agency’s Phone No.
Authorized Voting Representative’s Name Authorized Voting Representative’s Email Authorized Voting Representative’s Phone No.
Alternate Authorized Voting Representative’s Name Alternate Authorized Voting Representative’s Email Alternate Authorized Voting Representative’s Phone No.
Member acknowledges that this information has been communicated to their authorized voting representative.
Print Name of Member Agency’s Authorized Signatory Date
X
Authorized Signatory Signature
1
2 3 4 5
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Cu
b
i
c
F
e
e
t
P
e
r
S
e
c
o
n
d
Current Water Year (2025)Average (2010-Current)
5.7
86% Full
(4.9 mAF)
4.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
A
c
r
e
F
e
e
t
Capacity
Current Storage
Last Year
3.5
53% Full
(1.9 mAF)1.0
0
1
2
3
4
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
A
c
r
e
F
e
e
t
Capacity
Current Storage
Last Year
Water Supply Update
Groundwater
Bunker Hill Basin Storage
Imported Water
Lake Oroville Total Storage
Surface Water
Santa Ana River Total Inflow
Current Water Shortage Stage
Updated: 10/11/2024
40%
0
5
10
15
20
OCT JAN APR JUL
In
c
h
e
s
Big Bear
State Water
Project
Current Table A
Allocation
0
5
10
15
Oct Jan Apr Jul
In
c
h
e
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Oct Jan Apr Jul
In
c
h
e
s
Highland
Norther Sierra 8-Station
DroughtPrecipitation
Updated: 10/11/2024