Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - HASKELL CYN OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPR PHASE I PROJ M4016 PLANS & SPECS CONTR14 Agenda Item: 14 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: July 14, 2026 SUBJECT: HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I, PROJECT M4016 - PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DEPARTMENT: Public Works PRESENTER: Carla Callahan RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements — Phase I, Project M4016. 2. Find the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum complies with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulation Article 11 sections 15162 and 15164, for changes to the original project (Revised Project). 3. Award the construction contract for Phase Ito R.C. Becker, Inc., in the amount of $925,983 and authorize a contingency in the amount of $231,496, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,157,479. 4. Award the professional services contract to Psomas, to provide design services for Phase II in the amount of $67,000 and authorize a contingency in the amount of $6,700, for a total contract amount not to exceed $73,700. 5. Appropriate one-time funds in the amount of $1,560,000 from the Facilities Fund (Fund 723) to the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements, Project M4016, expenditure account M4016723-516101. 6. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all contracts and associated documents, subject to City Attorney review. Page 1 Packet Pg. 114 14 BACKGROUND Haskell Canyon Open Space, consisting of 526 acres, was acquired by the City of Santa Clarita (City) in June 2011. In August 2022, Blue Cloud Open Space, consisting of 196 acres, was acquired, which abuts the eastern boundary of Haskell Canyon Open Space. The area, totaling over 720 acres, is adjacent to the United States Forest, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), residential properties, and commercial studios. On June 24, 2025, City Council awarded the construction contract for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park. Construction of the Haskell Canyon Bike Park was recently completed. Phase I of the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project includes improvements to the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road located within the LADWP Transmission Line Right -of -Way, as shown on the attached Location Map. This roadway provides access to the Santa Clarita Archery Range and Haskell Canyon Bike Park. Improvements include re -grading and re -compacting the existing roadway, placing asphalt concrete pavement, and installing speed cushions, roadway signage, and pavement markings. These improvements will provide a smoother and more durable surface for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, reduce dust generated from roadway use, and enhance overall safety and accessibility for users accessing the City's recreational facilities. Phase II of the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project includes the design and construction of two Arizona crossings at Haskell Creek, north of Copper Hill Drive, consistent with LADWP requirements. An Arizona crossing is a low-water crossing that provides access across a drainage channel during normal conditions while allowing storm flows to safely pass over the crossing during rain events. Crossing I is located between the main canyon road and the Santa Clarita Archery Range and Crossing II is located between the main canyon road and the Haskell Canyon Bike Park, as shown on the attached Location Map. This agenda item considers awarding a professional services contract for the design of Phase II, which includes a design survey, hydraulic analysis, design of the two Arizona crossings, and project - related meetings and coordination services necessary to support future permitting and construction. Construction of Phase II will be presented to City Council for consideration of award at a future date. This project supports the Community Connections theme of the City's strategic plan, Santa Clarita Pathway Forward. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements were completed when the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Errata dated June 17, 2025 (2025 IS/MND), were approved and adopted by the Santa Clarita City Council at its regular meeting on June 24, 2025. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on May 12, 2025 (SCH #2025050436). In addition to the 2025 IS/MND, a 2025 IS/MND Addendum was recently completed. The 2025 IS/MND and 2025 IS/MND Addendum are available in the City Clerk's Reading File. The 2025 IS/MND Addendum (Addendum) evaluated the addition of asphalt concrete paving from Copper Hill Drive along the Haskell Canyon access road to the Santa Clarita Archery Range, and Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the construction of two Arizona crossings across Haskell Creek (Revised Project), which were not included in the original project. The Addendum Page 2 Packet Pg. 115 14 concluded there is substantial evidence to determine that: (1) the Revised Project does not represent a substantial change from the previously approved project evaluated in the 2025 IS/MND; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Revised Project is undertaken; and (3) the Revised Project has not introduced new information of substantial importance that was not previously known. The Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the 2025 IS/MND. No new mitigation measures are recommended in addition to those adopted at the time the 2025 IS/MND was approved that would further reduce project impacts. The 2025 IS/MND, when considered in conjunction with this Addendum, provides adequate documentation, pursuant to CEQA for the Approved and Revised Projects. Phase I Construction An invitation to bid was published and circulated via the City's e -procurement system, BidNet, on May 13, 2026. The City transmitted the solicitation to 2,105 vendors on BidNet, of which 45 vendors downloaded materials. A total of three bids were submitted and opened on June 11, 2026. The results of the bids are shown below. Company Location Bid Amount R.C. Becker, Inc. Santa Clarita, CA $ 925,983 Toro Enterprises, Inc. Oxnard, CA $ 1,336,363 Summer Construction, Inc. Santa Paula, CA $ 1,434,269 Staff recommends Phase I of the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project be awarded to R.C. Becker, Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. This contractor possesses a valid contractor's license and is in good standing with the Contractors State License Board. The contractor's bid was reviewed for accuracy and conformance to the contract documents and was found to be complete. The bid proposal adheres to the project's plans and specifications and is available in the City Clerk's Reading File. Phase II Design Services Psomas was previously awarded an as -needed professional services contract on June 2, 2025, following a competitive RFP process conducted by the City to establish a qualified list of firms capable of providing civil engineering design services for various Capital Improvement Projects. The as -needed procurement process was intended to provide the City with access to qualified engineering consultants to support project -specific needs, including civil engineering, design, and related services. Utilizing the established as -needed procurement process, staff requested a proposal from Psomas for the Phase II design services associated with the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project. Psomas was selected to perform the work based on their qualifications, availability to meet project schedules, and demonstrated experience with similar Arizona Page 3 Packet Pg. 116 14 crossing design projects. Staff recommends awarding a professional services contract for design to Psomas for Phase II of the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project in an amount not to exceed $73,700. The proposal is available in the City Clerk's Reading File. California Government Code 4526 prescribes the selection of architectural and engineering services to be based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required and does not authorize the selection of professional architect and engineering services based on cost. City staff was able to reach an agreement with Psomas at a fair and reasonable price. The requested contingencies will cover the cost of unforeseen design constraints, design modifications requested by the City, LADWP, or other permitting agencies, field investigations, including potholing for utility locations and foundations, soils investigations, and coordination with utility companies and other agencies. The requested contingencies also include potential adjustments and change orders to the work requested from LADWP and the City. The requested appropriations in the amount of $1,560,000 represent approximately $1,157,479 for Phase I construction, $73,700 for Phase II Arizona crossing design, and $328,821 for project administrative costs. Project administrative costs include staff time, project management, public works inspections, environmental coordination and support, labor compliance and environmental monitoring, permitting, and mitigation. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Upon approval of the recommended actions, a total of $1,560,000 will be available in the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project expenditure account M4016723- 516101 (Facilities Fund) to support the recommended contract and associated project costs. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Bid Proposal for R.C. Becker, Inc. (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Proposal for Psomas (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 4 Packet Pg. 117 Ccty of N SANTA CLARITA A Location Map for Haskell Canyon Open Space Feet Shared Access Improvements 0 500 1,000 Project M4016 I I I Street centerlines developed & maintained O Recreation Facilities by City of Santa Clarita GIS The City of Santa Clarita does not warrant Arizona Crossings the accuracy of the data and assumes no liability for any errors or omissions. Access Road Map prepared by: City of Santa Clarita GIS Division Q:\PROJECTS\PVV\260612g2\78477\Haskell_Canyon_Project.aprx T :I1*1 t•+ s'S4 t 7 a kk r - . 1 like Parka jc it . Packet Pg. 118 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency: Prepared by: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (661) 284-1414 Contact: Amber Rodriguez INTERNATIONAL 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 Office: (562) 200-7165 MAY 2025 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIALSTUDY......................................................................................................................... 1 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:..............................................11 B. DETERMINATION:..............................................................................................................11 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS................................................................12 I. AESTHETICS.....................................................................................................................12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES..................................................................14 III. AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................17 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................28 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................37 VI. ENERGY..........................................................................................................................41 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS..................................................................................................46 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.................................................................................53 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...................................................................62 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.............................................................................68 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................................76 XI I. MINERAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................77 XIII. I. NOISE............................................................................................................................79 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING......................................................................................86 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................................87 XVI. RECREATION...............................................................................................................90 XVII. . TRANSPORTATION.....................................................................................................92 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................................................94 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...........................................................................96 XX. WILDFIRE......................................................................................................................99 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE............................................................102 City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location.........................................................................................................5 Figure2 Project Location............................................................................................................7 Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan.....................................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES Table III -1 SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Thresholds of Significance............21 Table 111-2 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance............................................21 Table 111-3 Construction -Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions...................................................22 Table 111-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions..................................................................23 Table IV -1 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover.......................................................................30 Table VI -1 Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies ..........45 Table VIII -1 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions.............................................55 Table VIII -2 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan...............................................................56 Table VIII -3 Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020..................................................................59 Table XIII-1 Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements......................................................81 Table XIII-2 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors..............................................82 Table XIII-3 Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors................................84 APPENDICES Appendix A — Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B — Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix C — Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report Appendix D — Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix E — Geotechnical Report Appendix F — Hydrology Study Appendix G — Noise Impact Analysis Appendix H —Assembly Bill 52 Documentation City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Case Number: Lead Agency Name City of Santa Clarita and Address: 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact Person and Amber Rodriguez Phone Number: Management Analyst (661) 284-1414 atrodriguez(santaclaritagov Project Location: The Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (proposed Project) would be located in the northern portion of the City of Santa Clarita (City) and a portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County (County) on an approximately 380 -acre Project Site. The Project Site is comprised of nine parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2813-010-273, 2813-010-274, 2813-010-275, 2813-010-276, 2813-010-900, 2813-010-901, 2813-010- 902, 2813-025-270, and 3244-031-901). The western portion of the Project Site is located in the Haskell Canyon Open Space area within City boundaries on APNs 2813-010-900, and 2813-010-901, and a portion of 3244-031-901 and 2813-010-902. The eastern portion of the Project Site is located within unincorporated County boundaries on APNs 2813-010- 273, 2813-010-274, 2813-010-275, 2813-010-276, and 2813-025-270. The entire Project Site is owned by the City. Applicant's Name and Address: City of Santa Clarita May 2025 The Project Site is bounded by the Angeles National Forest to the north; Haskell Open Space, residential uses, and Copper Hill Road to the south; open space, Cesar Milan's Dog Psychology Center, and the Blue Cloud Movie Ranch to the east; and open space, a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) transmission corridor, and Pettinger Canyon Road/Forest Route 4N28 to the west. As shown in Figure 1, primary regional access to the Project Site is provided by California State Route (SR) 14, which is located approximately 7 miles to the south. As shown in Figure 2, primary vehicular access to the Project Site is from Pettinger Canyon Road/Forest Route 5N28. Blue Cloud Road would provide access to the eastern portion of the Project Site. City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan The western portion of the Project Site within the City and is designated Designation and as Open Space in the City's General Plan and zoned Open Space (OS).' Zoning: Per Santa Clarita General Plan and Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010, the OS designation is intended to identify and reserve land for passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use. Typical uses include recreation, trails, trailheads, paseos, horticulture, limited agriculture, animal grazing, and habitat preservation. Public parks are permitted by - right within the OS zone. The eastern portion of the Project Site is within the County and is designated as Rural Land 10 (RL10) and zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-2- 2). According to the Los Angeles County General Plan 2035, the purpose of the RL10 designation is to allow for single family residences, equestrian and animal uses, and agricultural and related activities. Per the Los Angeles County Municipal Code (LACMC) Section 22.16.010, the Agricultural Zones (Zones A-1 and A-2) are established to permit a comprehensive range of agricultural uses in areas particularly suited for agricultural activities. Permitted uses are intended to encourage agricultural activities and other such uses required for, or desired by, the inhabitants of the community. Low -density single-family residential development, outdoor recreational uses, and public and institutional facilities may be permitted. Description of The following subsections describe the proposed Project and the Project Project and Setting: setting. Existina Conditions The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped except for several LADWP transmission towers and dirt access paths/trails. The Project Site is primarily covered in vegetation, including black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chaparral, and non-native grass. The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent to 100 percent. The Project Site is at an elevation range of approximately 1,450 to 1,920 feet above mean sea level. Proposed Project The proposed Project would develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead (Figure 3). Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Blue Cloud Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails (beginner and intermediate), approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails (beginner, intermediate, expert, and pro), and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails (beginner, intermediate, and expert). The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City https://maps.santa-clarita.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=4b3cfb271314475db6518999b4747876. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Haskell Bike Park Core The proposed Haskell Core would be located on the western portion of the Project Site. An existing access road into the Haskell Core would lead to a proposed parking lot with approximately 40 spaces, a parking/emergency turnaround, four American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and unstructured space for four food trucks. The Haskell Core would include an event plaza with picnic tables; beginner, intermediate, and advanced pump tracks; a dual slalom course; progressive jumplines; and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core would include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, two vault restrooms, a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Several trailheads leading to perimeter, climbing, and multi -use trails would also be located in the Haskell Core. Additionally, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Haskell Core. Blue Cloud Trailhead The Blue Cloud Trailhead would be located near the central portion of the Project Site and accessible from Blue Cloud Road. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would include an unstructured parking area. The Blue Cloud Trailhead area would also include space for potential future landscape restoration and a multi -use trailhead. Visitor amenities that would be provided at the Blue Cloud Trailhead include a single vault restroom, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub, which is a meeting space for riders with a shade structure. Other Project Features The Project would include two cargo containers, located in the Haskell Core, which would be used as storage sheds. No utility connections for water, wastewater, or lighting are proposed. Operation The proposed Project would operate from dawn to dusk daily. No motorized bikes would be allowed within the Project Site except for pedal assist electric bikes. On weekdays, the proposed Project would have a maximum of 80 visitors2 and 20 vehicles. It is anticipated that the majority of weekday visitors would ride their bikes to the Project Site. On weekends, this would increase to a maximum of 180 visitors and 100 vehicles. Full- and part-time staff and volunteers would provide daily and monthly trail maintenance. Daily maintenance would consist of compaction of the trails with hand tools and hand watering, with the expectation that trails would be revegetated over time to minimize erosion. Equipment for monthly maintenance would include maintenance vehicles such as a John Deere Gator, pickup trucks, and a mini excavator/dozer. Additionally, the vault restrooms would be serviced by a septic removal truck weekly. The proposed Project would also host approximately 20 weekday events and 6 weekend events per year. Weekday events would include 10 events for high school teams and 10 Thursday race Summer Series events. Weekend events would include City -sponsored racing. For high school events, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would have a maximum of 40 visitors and generate a maximum of 20 vehicle. It is anticipated that most of the high school competitors would ride their bikes from their respective schools to the Project Site. For the weekend and Thursday race Summer Series events, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would have a maximum of 250 visitors and generate a maximum of 100 vehicles. Event days would include the operation of a generator for food trucks and music and additional staff/volunteers. 2 For the purposes of this document, visitors include riders, spectators, full- and part-time staff, and volunteers. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Anticipated Construction Schedule Construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to commence in July 2025 and to be finished in December 2025. The proposed trails would be constructed with a mini -excavator and stand -behind trail dozer. The trail widths would be 4 to 6 feet wide, and any excess soils would be used to create the trail alignments. The bike courses would require concrete footers and excavation up to four feet for the footers. Other equipment required for construction would include a skip loader, gator, pick-up trucks, water truck, water buffalo, dump truck, and cement truck. No demolition or tree removal would occur. Native plants would be used for landscaping. A total of approximately 20 acres would be disturbed. The proposed Project would use decomposed granite for most of its proposed hard surfaces, such as for the parking lot, access road/driveways, and bike trails. The only impervious areas for the proposed Project would be for the proposed ADA parking spots and the two pump tracks (beginner and intermediate). Surrounding Land Surrounding uses in the vicinity of the Project Site include open space Uses: uses to the north, south, east, and west. Commercial uses also exist along the southeastern (Cesar Milan's Dog Psychology Center) and northwestern (Veluzat Movie Ranch) portion of the Project Site. Further west, across Pettinger Canyon Road are single-family residential uses. Other Public As discussed below in Section IV, Biological Resources, there are aquatic Agencies whose features on the Project Site that may be under the jurisdiction of the Approval is California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the Los Angeles Regional Required: Water Quality Control Board. Upon determination of jurisdictional limits, permits from these agencies may be required. California Native Yes, the City has conducted consultation. Refer to the discussion under American Checklist Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources. Consultation Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .d{ a L ,•,,, ;���,,,rrr� .!" Y � {+'"b+a ,yin' r $ gytl qj I� +"` y;,.. sr.r ANGELES-. . Y ��o►�T� Win._• � r � r � �1.�'. � .9 ... � `i1 'Y:, 1q P r •� Pt'enrS� ry n �s _ � ���n F"v i ..S.6^ r..su i.r�_ �Y � YiaT�+r.. �• �A ... P 2 • Kugel Canyon jF a Snn errian -. . GRANAD HILLS • • - 118 i .y rLAKE VIEW TER • RA 4, 1 NOTTOSCALE Regional Locatie This page intentionally left blank. Source: Google Earth Pro,April2025 0 NOT TO SCALE HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Location Map I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Figure 2 This page intentionally left blank. 2 Legend A P" T-1 T-11E—NW� E,­1 D .. .-P.0 Source: Avid Trails and Hunsa ker & Associates, Inc. 2025 0 NOT TO SCALE & vd� co m m m m dri 12 0 m M C3 CD — — — --- — — — — — j ----------- HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Overall Trails Plan I IN T E R IN A T 1 0 IN A L 04/2025 - IN195477 Figure 3 This page intentionally left blank. A. 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" or a "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics 0 Biological Resources ❑ Geology /Soils 0 Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise 0 Recreation ❑ Utilities / Service Systems B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Agriculture Resources and Forestry Resources 0 Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation 0 Wildfire ❑ Air Quality ❑ Energy 0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services 0 Tribal Cultural Resources 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Name, Title Amber Rodriquez, Management Analyst City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Date 5/12/2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS Less Than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Potentially Significant Less Than 21099, would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic El ElElvista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock El El Eloutcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. In non -urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced El ElElfrom publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X nighttime views in the area? Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally considered a publicly accessible, prominent vantage point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements, as defined by local plans or policies. These may include panoramic views that are associated with an urban skyline, valley mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies. Scenic views and viewsheds are typically defined by physical features that frame the boundaries or context of scenic resources, such as natural open space, topographic formations, landscapes, water bodies, and/or large native trees. A region's topography can lend aesthetic value through the creation of public view corridors of ridgelines, and through the visual backdrop created by mountains and hillsides. Viewsheds and scenic vistas may include views of both natural and built environments, and are also considered important scenic resources. The 380-acre Project Site is characterized by a canyon with gentle to steep hills; native and non- native species such as chaparral, scrub, and grass; and trails. Views of portions of the Project Site are offered from summits on various existing trails throughout the site. Portions of the Project Site are mapped as areas of Ridgeline Preservation,3 which preserve ridgelines within City limits for the public health, safety and welfare for the long-term benefit of the community, maintenance City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, Environmental — Ridgeline Preservation Layer, https:Hmaps.santa- clarita.com/portal/apes/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=4b3cfb271314475db6518999b4747876, accessed March 8, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 of the unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity, and to achieve a higher quality of life for its residents.4 However, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as a shade structure, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not substantially change the existing visual landscape. Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines. Thus, views of the Project Site and within the Project Site would not substantially change, and the proposed Project would preserve the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Project Site is not located along or within a designated state scenic highway.5 The Project Site is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of an Interstate 5 segment that is considered an eligible state scenic highway. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a segment of the Angeles Crest Highway (State Route 2), which is located approximately 22 miles southeast of the Project Site. As such, the Project Site is not visible from designated or eligible state scenic highways. The proposed Project would not require removal of, or impact views of, any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c. In non -urbanized area, would the project 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 and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. According to CEQA Section 21071, an urbanized area is defined as an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons. The City of Santa Clarita has a population of over 220,000 persons.6 However, the Project Site is located in the northern portion of the City in a primarily undeveloped area. Thus, for the purposes of this Checklist Question, the Project Site is considered to be within a non -urbanized area. The existing visual character of the Project Site is of natural landforms such as hills and native and non-native vegetation. Local roads do not offer views of the entire Project Site. However, portions of the Project Site are visible from summits on various existing trails throughout the site. The proposed Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of the 380-acre Project Site to construct the trails and supporting facilities. The proposed trails would generally follow the existing grade of the area, and native plants would be used to revegetate any disturbed areas. The activity/programming areas, vault restrooms, and cargo containers within the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead would not be prominent features in the visual landscape. Since minimal disturbance would occur and since the Project is designed to utilize the site's existing topography and maintain the open -space nature of the site, the Project would not substantially degrade the a City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.38.070 RP 6 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps. arcgis. com/apes/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed March 11, 2024. 6 United States Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Santa Clarita city, California, Population estimates, July 1, 2022 (V2022), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaclaritacitycalifornia/PST045223, March 5, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The Project Site is within an undeveloped area with no existing lighting. The portion of the Project Site within the County is within a Rural Outdoor Lighting District, which promotes and maintains dark skies for the health and enjoyment of individuals and wildlife.'$ However, the proposed Project does not propose any lighting. Additionally, the proposed Project would operate from dawn to dusk, and thus would not generate any additional light from vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Furthermore, the proposed Project does not include any buildings or materials that could generate glare in the area. Therefore, no impact would occur related to light and glare. II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, includingtimberland are significant g Potentially Less Than Less Than environmental effects, lead agencies may Significant Significant Significant No Impact refer to information compiled by the California Impact With Mitigation Impact Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Incorporated 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 El El El 0 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural El El El use, or a Williamson Act contract? Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning, GIS-NET Planning and Zoning Information for Unincorporated L.A. County, https://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET PUblic.GIS- NET Public, accessed March 5, 2024. $ Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning, Rural Outdoor Lighting District Ordinance, httos:HDIannina.lacounty. aov/Iona-ranae-olanni na/rold/#:-:text=The%2ORural%200utdoor%2OLiahtina%2ODistrict enjoyment%20of%20individuals%20and%20wildlife, accessed March 5, 2024 City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, includingtimberland are significant g Potentially Less Than Less Than environmental effects, lead agencies may Significant Significant Significant No Impact refer to information compiled by the California Impact With Mitigation Impact Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Incorporated 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: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X 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 El El Elof 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project 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 nonagricultural use? No Impact. Based on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the portion of the Project Site located within the City's boundaries is identified as grazing land, which is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.9 The portion of the Project Site located outside of the City's boundaries is not mapped by the FMMP, and does not include any farmland. Thus, the Project would not be located on or near Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no agricultural uses or operations occur 9 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed January 29, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 onsite or within the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not convert Farmland to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The portion of the Project Site located within the City's boundaries is zoned Open Space (OS), which allows passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use, as stated in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010. The OS zoning also permits limited agricultural use related to horticulture, farmer's markets, keeping of animals, riding trails, and wildlife preserves/sanctuaries. As the Project proposes to construct a mountain bike park, which is an active open space use with trails, the Project would not conflict with the zone's allowed uses within the City boundaries. The portion of the Project Site located within the County is zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-2-2). However, the Project Site is not currently used for agriculture. Per the LACMC Section 22.16.030, outdoor recreational uses such as riding and hiking trails may be permitted within the A-2-2 zone with a ministerial site plan review. Although the bike park may be permitted with a ministerial site plan review by the County, the City is not required to comply with land use regulations adopted by the County because of intergovernmental immunity (see, e.g., Lawler V. City of Redding (1992) 7 Cal.AppAth 778; Government Code sections 53090 and 53091 [local agencies — except for cities and counties - must comply with building and zoning ordinances]). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Project Site is not part of a Williamson Act contract or any other sort of deed or land use restriction intended to preserve or foster agricultural uses.10 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. As discussed in Checklist Question Il.b, the Project Site is zoned OS within the City and A-2-2 within the County, which allows passive, natural and active open space uses, as stated in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010, and outdoor recreational uses, as stated in LACMC Section 22.16.030, respectively. The Project Site is undeveloped and does not include any land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Surrounding uses in the vicinity of the Project Site include Angeles National Forest, open space, residential uses, commercial uses, and a transmission corridor. While Angeles National Forest and the open space uses that surround the Project Site may consist of forest land and timberland, the proposed Project's uses are consistent with the allowed uses of the Project Site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest or timberland or cause rezoning of forest or timberland, and no impact would occur. 10 California Department of Conservation, California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca. gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/, accessed February 7, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact. As described in response to Checklist Question Il.c, the Project Site is undeveloped and does not include forest land. The Project Site is primarily covered in vegetation, including black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chaparral, and non-native grass, and there are no stands or groups of trees within the site that would constitute a forest. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use, and no impact would occur. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any farmland, and thus, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Additionally, as discussed in Checklist Question Il.d, the Project Site does not contain any forest land, and thus, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria Less Than established by the applicable air quality Potentially Significant Less Than management or air pollution control district Significant With Significant No Impact may be relied upon to make the following Impact Mitigation Impact determinations. Would the project: Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El ElElapplicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ quality violation? c. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ substantial number of people? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 Explanation of Checklist Responses This section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix A of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).11 AIR POLLUTANTS Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non -criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non -criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). The criteria pollutants consist of ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), lead, and particulate matter (PM). The ozone precursors consist of NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) calls these pollutants "criteria" air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health -based and/or environmentally -based criteria for setting permissible levels. The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for setting the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). In addition to the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. EXISTING SETTING The Project Site is located within western Los Angeles County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that includes the non -desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties and all of Orange County. The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin. SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air -monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The Project Site is located in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley, which covers the Santa Clarita Valley. The nearest air monitoring station to the Project Site is Santa Clarita Monitoring Station (Santa Clarita Station), which is located approximately 7.4 miles south of the Project Site at 22224 Placerita Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. However, it should be noted that due to the air 11 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project", has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project." In addition, the technical study modeled features that have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative. Moreover, the modeling assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. This represents a conservative scenario because a project's construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 monitoring station's distance from the Project Site, recorded air pollution levels at the Santa Clarita Station reflect, with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the Project Site. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed, the Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is governed by the SCAQMD. The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project is the SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP was adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023. This section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed Project with the 2022 AQMP. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQM P." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQM P if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 — Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? As discussed further in Checklist Question Ill.b and Checklist Question Ill.c, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance, as shown in Table III-3 below. Furthermore, as shown in Table III-4, the ongoing operation of the proposed Project would not generate significant air pollutant emissions on a regional basis based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and local pollutant concentrations would not exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards. Criterion 2 — Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. A project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP if it is consistent with the growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020) and the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2019 FTIP). The Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 (RTP/SCS) is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and staterequirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long- range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within southern California. SCAG's forecasts are based on population, employment, and housing data provided in the general plans of local governments, including the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the Los Angeles County General Plan. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with AQMP if it is consistent with City and County General Plans. The western portion of the Project Site is designated as Open Space in the City's General Plan and is zoned Open Space (OS). The eastern portion of the Project Site is designated as RL10 and zoned A-2-2 in the County's General Plan. The proposed bike park is an allowed use within the City's OS land use designation and zoning and the County's RL10 land use designation and A-2-2 zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the current zoning and land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. Additionally, the proposed bike park use would not increase population or housing and would generate a minimal number of employees to maintain the park. Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed the population, housing, or employment forecasts in the City and County General Plans. As such, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project Site and would be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table III-1. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 Table III-1 SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Local Air Quality Project -related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project -related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST Methodology provides Look -Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As discussed, the Project Site is located in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. The Look -Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1-acre, 2-acres and 5- acres. Although the proposed Project would disturb up to 20 acres, it is unlikely that more than 5 acres would be disturbed in any day. As such, the 5-acre threshold has been utilized in this analysis. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the Project. As such, the 200-meter thresholds were utilized in order to provide a conservative analysis. Table III-2 below shows the LSTs for NO, CO, PM,o and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities. Table III-2 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)' NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Activity Construction 275 4,608 79 26 Operation 275 4,608 19 7 Notes: ' The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 Construction Emissions Construction activities for the proposed Project include construction of a bike park. CalEEMod was utilized to calculate the construction -related emissions from the proposed Project.12 The maximum daily construction -related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Project segmented by season and year are shown below in Table III-3. Table III-3 Construction -Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC Nox CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Season and Year of Construction' Daily Summer Maximum 2025 1.17 10.6 13.8 0.02 2.57 0.63 Daily Winter Maximum 2024 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35 2025 3.47 10.6 13.7 0.02 2.57 0.63 Maximum Daily Construction 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35 Emissions SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 SCAQMD Local Thresholds2 -- 275 4,608 -- 79 26 Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No Notes: 1 The CalEEMod model run assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. The construction -related criteria pollutant emissions presented in this table represent a conservative scenario because a project's construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Table III-3 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to regional and local air quality. Operational Emissions Operation of the proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the Project -generated vehicle trips, and onsite area source emissions created from the ongoing use of the proposed Project, and the use of off -road equipment for maintenance and event days. The operations -related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod. Based on the modeling, the worst -case summer or winter VOC, NO, CO, S02, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions generated from the proposed Project's long-term operations are shown in Table 111-4. 12 The criteria air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions impacts generated by the proposed Project were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.21 CalEEMod is a computer model published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for estimating air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 Table III-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC Nox CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Activity Mobile Sources' 0.79 0.88 9.43 0.02 2.14 0.55 Area Sourcesz 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Usage3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Equipment4 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06 Total Emissions 1.20 2.88 11.83 0.03 2.21 0.61 SCAQMD Regional Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds' -- 275 4,608 -- 19 7 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: ' Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage. No natural gas would be consumed from operation of the proposed Project. 4 Off -road equipment was modeled based on a skid steer loader operating up to 8 hours per day and 12 days per year, a generator operating up to 8 hours per day and 26 days per year, and an off -highway truck making weekly water truck deliveries 1 hour per day and 52 days per year during operation of Project. 5 The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200-meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Table III-4 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to regional or local air quality. Air Quality Health Impacts Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors VOCs and NOX affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating Project -generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of non -attainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the Project's less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (Brief),13 SCAQMD noted it has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk, it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone -related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful. On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources — as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. As shown above in Table III-3, Project - related construction activities would generate a maximum of 3.72 pounds per day of VOC and 36.1 pounds per day of NO, and as shown above in Table III-4, operation of the proposed Project would generate 1.20 pounds per day of VOC and 2.88 pounds per day NO, The proposed Project would not generate anywhere near these levels of 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project's emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide level. Notwithstanding, this analysis does evaluate the proposed Project's localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NO, PM1o, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed Project's onsite emissions to the SCAQMD's applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this analysis, the proposed Project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD's LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NO, PM1o, and PM2.5. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project -Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the state and federal CO standards of 20 parts per million over one hour or 9 parts per million over eight hours. At the time of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (1993), the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created from the proposed Project and thus, no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Cumulative Net Increase in Non -Attainment Pollutants The proposed Project would not 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. The SCAQMD has published a report14 on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution, which states: "...the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (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 the Air Basin 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. 14 SCAQMD, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts From Air Pollution, August 2003. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 In conclusion, the proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and the Project's incremental operational impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the Project. There are also single-family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas to be disturbed as part of the Project. Local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed Project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations are discussed below, in addition to an analysis of the potential impacts from TAC emissions. Construction The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include construction of a bike park. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant emissions and from TAC emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction As discussed in Checklist Question Ill.b and Checklist Question Ill.c, the construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the local NO, CO, PM,o and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would create a less than significant construction - related impact to local air quality. Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of "individual cancer risk." "Individual cancer risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30-year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off -road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet's usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. As of January 2022, 50 percent or more of all contractor's equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher; by January 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors' equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher and by January 2029, 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. As such, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operation Operations of the proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations of local CO emission from the Project -generated vehicular trips and from the potential local criteria pollutant emissions from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local criteria pollutant emissions from onsite operations, and TAC emissions. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project -Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. As discussed in Checklist Question Ill.b and Checklist Question Ill.c, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to the exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed Project would occur from onsite emission sources such as architectural coatings and landscaping equipment. As discussed in Checklist Question II I.b and Checklist Question Ill.c, operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the local NO, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less -than -significant impact to local air quality from onsite emissions. Operations -Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, 27bout 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by the operation of the proposed Project that would be primarily limited to weekly water truck deliveries, and the occasional use of diesel fuel to operate generators and off -road equipment, the proposed Project would result in a less -than -significant impact related to TACs. Based on the analysis above, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 e. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints, and solvents, and from emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108 that limits VOC content in asphalt and Rule 1113 that limits the VOC content in paints and solvents would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project Site's boundaries. Through compliance with the applicable regulations that reduce odors and due to the transitory nature of construction odors, impacts related to odors would be less than significant. The proposed Project would consist of a bike park development and would not emit any known odors during operation. Therefore, no impact related to odors during operation of the proposed Project would occur. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional El El Elplans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US 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, ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community El El Elconservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g. Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified El El on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? Explanation of Checklist Responses This section is based, in part, on the Biological Resources Technical Report and Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report prepared for the Project by Michael Baker International, which are included as Appendix B and Appendix C of this IS/MND, respectively.15 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Biological Resources Technical Report, impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types within the Project Site are limited to active construction or staging areas and areas of proposed trail alignments and are shown below in Table IV-1. Based on the results of the literature review and the field survey, existing site conditions, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions, the native vegetation communities within the Project Site have a moderate or high potential to support three special -status plant species: club -haired mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus; California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 4.3), slender mariposa - lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; CRPR 1 B.2), and short -jointed beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada; CRPR 113.2). In addition, these vegetation communities also have a low potential to support three special -status plant species: Nevins barberry (Berberis nevinii; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] Endangered [FE], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] Endangered [SE], CRPR 113.1), Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae; CRPR 4.2), and island mountain -mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides var. blancheae; CRPR 4.3). All remaining special -status plant species identified by the California Natural Diversity Database 15 Note that the field surveys conducted in February 2024 for these reports were for a slightly larger Project Site. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are not expected to occur within the Project Site due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of recent extant occurrences near the Project Site, and/or the Project Site is not within the elevation range of those species. Table IV-1 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Acreage Black Sage Scrub 3.16 Disturbed Black Sage Scrub 0.35 Scrub Oak Woodland 0.74 Chaparral 18.88 Non-native Grassland 9.97 Developed/Disturbed 2.48 Total 35.58 Source: Michael Baker International; refer to Appendix B. Permanent direct impacts to special -status plant species may occur during implementation of the proposed Project. Impacts to these species can occur through the loss of counted or estimated individuals, loss of occurrence, loss of occupied habitat, and/or loss of suitable habitat. Indirect impacts to special -status plants may be short-term construction -related impacts or long-term development -related impacts. These impacts could include the accumulation of construction - related dust on plants, which may affect their ability to photosynthesize, or the alteration of waterways that may affect plant species that require a source of surface or groundwater to survive. In addition, the introduction of invasive species, pollutants, or hazardous materials may occur during construction and have an indirect impact on any special -status plant species near any active construction zone. Therefore, Mitigation Measure B10-1 requiring a rare plant survey would be required to reduce impacts related to special -status plants to a less -than -significant level. Based on the results of the literature review and the field surveys, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions of the special -status wildlife species identified in the literature review, the Project Site has a moderate or high potential to support four special -status wildlife species: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; CDFW Watch List [WL]), Bell's sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli; WL), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; CDFW species of special concern [SSC]), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC). In addition, the Project Site has a low potential to support nine special -status wildlife species: grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum; SSC), California legless lizard (Anniella spp.; SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; SSC), Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; Candidate State Endangered [CSE]), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; State Threatened [ST]), Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; SSC), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; Fully Protected [FP]), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum; SSC), and western spadefoot (Spec hammondii; SSC). One special - status wildlife species was also observed during the field survey: Lawrence's goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern). All remaining special -status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB are not expected to occur within the Project Site based on existing site conditions and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration KE Permanent direct impacts to special -status wildlife species may occur during implementation of the proposed Project. Impacts to these species, which include both bird and reptile species, include the loss of individuals, loss of important resources, and/or the loss of suitable habitat. Project construction could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, causing injury or mortality. Although most adult birds are mobile and can escape direct injury or mortality by fleeing from a construction site, a displaced animal may be more vulnerable to injury or mortality if its territory has been impacted. Furthermore, nesting birds are protected under the M BTA. For special -status bird species with potential to nest in the project area, direct impacts could include the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally between February 15 and August 31). Direct impacts to individuals of designated special -status species could occur during a critical period of these species' life cycles and could result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. These species include southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (WL), Bell's sparrow (WL), and Lawrence's goldfinch (BCC). Most reptiles are unable to escape direct impacts and may be crushed or entombed by construction equipment. Impacts could include the loss of burrows, eggs, and adult and juvenile individuals during vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities. Direct impacts to individuals of designated special -status species could occur during a critical period of these species' life cycles and could result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. These special -status reptiles include coastal whiptail (SSC) and coast horned lizard (SSC). Indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species may also occur during implementation of the proposed Project. These impacts include construction noise that may temporarily affect a bird attempting to nest in the area, or with an active nest. Construction -related noise has been documented to cause birds to abandon their nests and young, ultimately having an impact on that species' survival. Reptilian species have the potential to nest and burrow underground and ground vibration from construction can cause premature emergence due to vibrations mimicking rain, or burrow abandonment. Increased lighting due to night work may also potentially affect nearby sensitive species or attract predators to that area. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 through Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would be required to reduce impacts related to special -status wildlife to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Prior to the construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special -status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. If no special -status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required and there will be no impact to special -status plant species. If populations of special -status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, avoidance and minimization measures shall be explored to protect the special -status plant population(s). If avoidance is not possible, consultation with CDFW will be required prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands to be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity would be required to compensate for the loss of City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 habitat occupied by any non -listed special -status plant species found onsite. In the unlikely event a State or federally -listed plant species is present and avoidance is not feasible, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to the start of construction, every individual working on the Project must attend a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program training session delivered by the project biologist. The biological awareness training shall include a description of special -status species and sensitive habitats, species identification characteristics, best management practices to be implemented, project -specific avoidance measures that must be followed, and the steps necessary if special -status species are encountered at any time. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A qualified biological monitor shall be present during vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special -status reptile species. If any wildlife species are found, the project biologist shall relocate the animal(s) to appropriate habitat off -site. Daily monitoring logs will be prepared to document work activities and any relocations that were conducted. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored in the Project area during construction for one or more overnight periods shall be either securely capped prior to storage or thoroughly inspected by the contractor and/or the biological monitor for special -status wildlife species or other animals before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: To prevent inadvertent entrapment of special -status wildlife species or other animals during construction, the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager shall ensure all excavated, steep -walled holes or trenches more than 6 inches deep are provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals by the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of migratory birds and a minimum 500-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the project site to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to the Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, 11 potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. However, no associated riparian habitat was observed in association with any of these aquatic features.16 Additionally, 13 special -status vegetation communities have been reported in the California Natural Diversity Database within the US Geological Survey Warm Springs Mountain, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sleepy Valley, Burnt Peak, Lake Hughes, Del Sur, and Green Valley, California 7.5-minute quadrangles: California walnut woodland, mainland cherry forest, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, southern California three -spine stickleback stream, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern riparian forest, southern riparian scrub, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, southern willow scrub, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley oak woodland. However, none of these special -status vegetation communities were identified within the Project Site during the field surveys. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland lakes, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (WoUS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharges to waters of the State (WoS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act), and State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; and, the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and associated riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. These features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime based on the results of the Streamflow Duration Assessment Method assessment, are not relatively permanent waters, and do not exhibit a continuous surface connection to a downstream traditional navigable water. Accordingly, these features would not be considered subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the RWQCB reflects that of the State and totals approximately 0.39 acre (7,570 linear feet) of non -wetland WoS. In addition, these aquatic features exhibited a bed and bank and are therefore considered jurisdiction to CDFW under Section 1600 et seq. of CFGC; the onsite portions of these aquatic features comprise approximately 2.05 acres (7,570 linear feet) 16 In this document, "aquatic features" refer to small stream channels in the Project Site that have a distinct bed and bank, are ephemeral in nature, and potentially fall under jurisdiction of the CDFW and the RWQCB. As the "aquatic features" onsite are ephemeral, many only contain water during and after storms. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 of jurisdictional vegetated streambed. However, only the regulatory agencies can make the final determination of jurisdictional limits. Upon determination of jurisdictional limits, any potential impacts to aquatic features that are under jurisdiction of RWQCB and CDFW may require a Water Discharge Requirement and/or authorization from CDFW prior to construction. These potential impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. These impacts would decrease the amount of jurisdictional waters within the Project Site. Therefore, Mitigation Measures B1O-7 through B10- 9 would be required to reduce impacts related to state protected aquatic features to a less -than - significant level. Mitigation Measure B1O-7: Temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from the proposed Project shall require a Water Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by RWQCB prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from the CDFW shall be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFWjurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. Mitigation Measure BI0-8: Project materials shall not be cast from the Project Site into nearby habitats; further, project -related debris, surplus spoils, and trash shall be contained and removed to a proper disposal facility. Mitigation Measure B1O-9: All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the Project Site footprint and inspected by the project biologist to confirm it is free of non- native plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the project site. All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post -construction landscaping activities and erosion control best management practices shall be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program shall be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post -construction. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant. Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: dispersal, seasonal migration, and movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). Although the nature of these movements are species specific, large open spaces will generally support a diverse wildlife community representing all types of movement. Each type of movement may also be represented at a variety of scales from non -migratory movement of amphibians, reptiles, and some birds on a "local' level to many square mile home ranges of large mammals moving at a "regional' level. The location of the Project Site supports all types of wildlife movement on some scale. Movement on a smaller or "local' scale occurs throughout the surrounding vicinity as well as the Project Site. Data gathered from biological surveys indicate that the Project Site contains habitat that supports a variety of species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The home range and average dispersal distance of many of these species may be entirely contained within the Project Site and immediate vicinity. Populations of animals such as insects, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and a few bird species may find all their resource requirements without moving far or outside of the Project Site at all. Occasionally, individuals expanding their home range or dispersing from their parental range will attempt to move outside of the Project Site. Mammals known to occur within the Project Site either by direct observation or by the presence of sign include the California ground squirrel, coyote, and bobcat. Movement on a larger, "regional" scale is likely to occur to and from the Project Site due to the availability of resources within the Project Site and in the surrounding area. The Project Site is within a large open space area of the San Gabriel Mountains. The undeveloped nature of the area, in addition to the resources provided within the unnamed drainages (e.g., prey, water, and vegetative cover), ridgelines, and dirt roads, facilitate wildlife movement in the form of travel routes (i.e., a landscape feature, such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip). Given an open space area that is both large enough to maintain viable populations of species and provide a variety of travel routes (canyons, ridgelines, trails, riverbeds, and others), wildlife will use these "local' routes while searching for food, water, shelter, and mates, and will not need to cross into other large open space areas. Based on their size, location, vegetative composition, and availability of food, some of these movement areas (e.g., large drainages and canyons) are used for longer lengths of time and serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-sized mammals. This is especially true if the travel route is within a larger open space area. However, once open space areas become constrained and/or fragmented as a result of urban development or construction of physical obstacles such as roads and highways, remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas can "become" corridors as long as they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water, and do not contain obstacles or distractions (man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 The Project Site consists mostly of undeveloped land and open space with natural vegetation communities. A small portion of the Project Site consists of developed/disturbed land that is devoid of vegetation or has current or historical development. The Project Site is not identified as a wildlife corridor within any natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or subarea plan. The proposed Project consists of the establishment of recreational mountain bike trails and associated development. Although the establishment of these trails and amenities would decrease the amount of native vegetation within the Project Site, the Project is not anticipated to cause any impacts to wildlife movement or connectivity within the Project Site or to the surrounding area since development of the Project would not cause the existing open space area to become constrained or fragmented. Although the proposed Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of the 380-acre Project Site to construct the trails and supporting facilities, the proposed trails would generally follow the existing grade of the area, and native plants would be used to revegetate any disturbed areas. Therefore, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native wildlife, the use of wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, Ordinance No. 89-10, is the only policy or ordinance protecting biological resources in the City. The Project would not remove any oak trees, and thus, would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with these plans and there would be no impact. g. Would the project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita SEA Delineation Map? No Impact. Significant Ecological Areas are defined as ecologically important land and water systems that are valuable as plant or animal communities, often important to the preservation of threatened or endangered species, and conservation of biological diversity in the identified areas. The Project Site is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County." As such, implementation of the Project would not affect a Significant Ecological Area and there would be no impact. " Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan, July 2022, Chapter 9, Figure 9.3. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑iC to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation of Checklist Responses The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project by Michael Baker International, which is included as Appendix D of this IS/MND.18 a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? No Impact. A historical resource is generally defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) as a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting certain requirements; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined by the lead agency based on substantial evidence to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values. A California Historical Resources Information System Review records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was conducted on December 6, 2023, for the Project Site and a surrounding 0.5-mile radius. The SCCIC records search results indicated that six previously recorded cultural resources have been identified and recorded within the half -mile radius of the Project Site, one of which, CA-LAN-3132H, a historic -period site consisting of two structure pad foundations, intersects the Project Site. All of the resources identified within the search area were '$ Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project", has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project' and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 historic -aged resources. No prehistoric -aged sites were identified. Additionally, an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Site occurred on February 12-14, 2024. During the pedestrian survey, one newly recorded mid -twentieth-century mining site, given the temporary designation of BlueCloud-MBI-01H, was identified. Site BlueCloud-MBI-01 H was recorded during the current study as the ruins of a mining site once owned and operated by the Harris family. Archival research identified that Walter and Betty Harris applied for a mining claim for the area in 1966. While the Blue Cloud Dust Mine and the remaining machinery and mining locations may have contributed to the local economy in the Santa Clarita region in the second half of the twentieth century, research has not revealed any significant events associated with the mine that are important to national, state, regional, or local history. Archival research indicates that the site was owned and operated by Norman Harris, son of Walter and Betty Harris. While Dr. Harris may be a notable member of the Newhall and Santa Clarita community, being a founding member of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, the Blue Cloud Dust Mine is not considered to be what Dr. Harris is most known for, nor is his association with the site particularly notable or important to national, state, or local history. The site and its currently identified component features consist of a wash plant that stands, a Trailmobile dry semi- trailer, two rubble piles with associated abandoned equipment, a water tank situated for mining operations, a five -course brick retaining wall, a water standpipe with a meter, two concrete pads where structures or equipment may have been, an 1800s wooden carriage donned with a metal water tank, a tractor, a truck, and other refuse. The site does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Lastly, the information and documentation presented in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment exhaust the site's data potential. The visible ruins of the Blue Cloud Dust Mine site and the available archival information about it do not indicate that the site possesses any further potential to yield information important to the community, state, or nation's prehistory or history. Therefore, the site is recommended ineligible for listing in the California Register and is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). Therefore, no historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a) were identified within the Project Site as a result of the SCCIC records search; pedestrian survey; and California Register evaluations. As such, the Project would have no impact on historic resources. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An archaeological resource is generally defined in Section 15064.51 of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area, or place determined to be historically significant as defined in Section 15064.5(a) or as a unique archaeological resource, which is defined in PRC Section 21083.2 as an artifact, object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of public interest, or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historical event or person. Archaeological sensitivity zones are qualitative and based on the general presence and/or absence of Native American occupation sites, isolated prehistoric Native American artifacts and burials, and historic archival and archaeological materials exposed during various construction projects. The Project Site is 3 miles north of the Santa Clara River, which would have provided an important resource procurement locale for prehistoric inhabitants of the area. The Project Site City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration KE is composed of Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CmF2); Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (ScF2); Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SsB); and Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (YoC).The majority of the Project area is steeply sloped; generally, slopes of greater than 30 degrees have low potential for buried archaeological sites. Topographic maps, aerial photographs, and archival records have indicated that historic -period homesteads and mining operations were established within or near the Project Site during the early to mid -twentieth century. As discussed under Checklist Question V.a, all of the resources identified in the records search within the search area were historic -aged resources and no prehistoric -aged sites were identified. Based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results, the archaeological sensitivity for potentially unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the area of potential effect is low, and the potential for significant buried historic period resources is also considered low. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 are included to require the proper handling and disposition of archaeological resources in the unexpected event that such resources are inadvertently discovered during Project construction. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological monitoring shall occur in the area of potential effect during all soil -disturbing and grubbing/grading/excavation/trenching activities, which could impact archaeological resources. The monitor will observe construction activities to determine if cultural resources are present below the surface. The Principal Investigator (PI) will submit a request to the City during construction, requesting a modification to the monitoring program when field conditions occur that could reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. Such field conditions may include modern disturbance post- dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered. Ground -disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, geotechnical boring, trenching, grading, excavating, and the demolition of building foundations. Monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological monitor who is working under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738). The archaeological monitor shall observe ground -disturbing activities in all areas with the potential to contain significant cultural deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain and submit monitoring logs at the conclusion of monitoring. If discoveries are made during ground -disturbing activities, additional work may be required in accordance with the terms specified in the cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground -disturbing activities on the site, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the City that documents monitoring activities conducted by the Project archaeologist within 60 days of completion of monitoring. This report shall document the daily archaeological monitoring results; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the qualified archaeologist. Final monitoring reports will be submitted to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center. Any unanticipated archaeological finds and subsequent evaluation or data recovery efforts will be documented in the report. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration KE Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event an archaeological resource is unearthed during excavation, all excavations shall be halted within 50 feet of the find. Work shall stop immediately, and the discovery shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738), pursuant to the procedures set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. As the lead agency, the City shall make a determination of significance on the basis of the recommendations of the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined not to be significant, then resource -specific work shall be completed, and construction may proceed. If the resource is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, then a resource -specific archaeological resources treatment plan shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 prior to recommencing ground -disturbing activities that may impact the resource. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred treatment for historical resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. In the event that a historical resource is discovered and disturbance to such a resource cannot be avoided, one of the following treatments shall be implemented: avoidance, site capping, creation of conservation easements, or archaeological data recovery. If avoidance, site capping, or creation of a conservation easement is determined infeasible, then a Phase III data recovery excavation will be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 106 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.13, to document the resource's scientifically consequential information. The Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the consulting tribe(s) if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The Phase III study shall consist of the recovery and analysis of a statistically significant sample of the site through archaeological excavation, radiocarbon dating of organic materials or other kinds of dating, cataloging, specialist analysis, and report writing designed to document the resource in perpetuity. During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the qualified archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the area of potential effect for cataloging and analysis will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non -human remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City with evidence of final disposition of the cultural material collection: • Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting tribe(s). This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in Los Angeles County that meets federal standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 79, and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in Los Angeles County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. If more than one Native American tribe is involved with the Project and the tribes cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at an appropriate qualified repository determined by the City. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No evidence of any prior human burials or use as a burial ground was identified for the Project Site during the records search and background research conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Native American consultation process conducted for the Project. Nonetheless, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during Project construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that any impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: If human skeletal remains are found during earth -moving activities, work shall be suspended and the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office shall be notified. Standard guidelines set by California law provide for the treatment of skeletal material of Native American origin (California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.98 et seq.; Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the remains are found to be archaeological in their disposition, then after the coroner releases the site, the qualified professional archaeologist, in consultation with the most likely descendant, shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 that also incorporates the guidance in "A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated Grave Goods," published by the California Native American Heritage Commission. VI. ENERGY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary construction of energy ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan El ElElfor renewable energy or energy efficiency? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 Explanation of Checklist Responses This section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix A of this IS/MND.19 EXISTING SETTING Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for onsite distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands. In 2022, Los Angeles County consumed 68,485 gigawatt-hours per year of electricity. Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one-third of the state's total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet. In 2022, Los Angeles County consumed 2,820 million therms of natural gas. Petroleum -based fuels currently account for a majority of California's transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the State has been working on developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, petroleum -based fuel consumption in California has declined. In 2022, 3,070 million gallons of gasoline and 295 million gallons of diesel was sold in Los Angeles County. a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum -based fuel supplies and distribution systems. The following 19 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project", has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project." In addition, the technical study modeled features that have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative. Moreover, the modeling assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. This represents a conservative scenario because a project's construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed Project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the proposed Project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction The proposed Project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms: 1. Petroleum -based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips; 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Construction -Related Electricity During construction the proposed Project would consume electricity to construct the proposed bike park and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the Project Site by portable generators. Electricity consumed during Project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Therefore, the use of electricity during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Construction -Related Natural Gas Construction of the proposed Project would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Development of the proposed Project would not require any natural gas connections and no natural gas lines would be moved as part of the proposed Project. Therefore, no impact to natural gas supply and infrastructure would occur related to construction. Construction -Related Petroleum Fuel Use Petroleum -based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would be utilized by both off -road equipment operating on the Project Site and on -road automobiles transporting workers to and from the Project Site as well as on -road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the Project Site. The off -road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off -road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions in CaIEEMod. It is estimated that construction of the proposed Project would consume 2,623 gallons of gasoline and 43,512 gallons of diesel fuel. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the gasoline and 0.01 percent of the diesel used annually in Los Angeles County. As such, the construction -related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current county -wide petroleum usage rates. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be required to adhere to all state and SCAQMD regulations for off -road equipment and on -road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Additionally, development of the Project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed Project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete. However, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction. Operation The on -going operation of the proposed Project would require the use of energy resources limited to generators for food trucks and music, and from off -road equipment used for the maintenance of the trails. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment, and vehicle trips. Operations -Related Electricity Operation of the proposed Project would not utilize any electricity, other than from the occasional generator use that is included under the analysis of operations -related off -road equipment below. Operations -Related Natural Gas Operation of the proposed Project would not utilize any natural gas. Operations -Related Off -Road Equipment Skip loaders, mini -excavators, and/or a trail dozer would be utilized for monthly maintenance of the trails. In addition, portable generators would be utilized for events for the operation of a food truck and/or for music. It is estimated that off -road equipment for operation of the proposed Project would consume 652 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would be required to adhere to all state and SCAQMD regulations for off -road equipment. As such, operational activities for the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of diesel fuel. Therefore, impacts regarding operational off -road equipment energy usage would be less than significant. Operations -Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage Operation of the proposed Project would result in increased consumption of petroleum -based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project Site. It is estimated that the proposed Project would consume 18.458 gallons of gasoline per year from vehicle travel. This equates to 0.0005 percent of the gasoline consumed annually in Los Angeles County. As such, the operations -related petroleum use from the proposed Project would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 It should be noted that the proposed Project would comply with all federal, state, and city requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy. Furthermore, the proposed Project promotes the use of alternative modes of travel (i.e., bicycles). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The City currently does not have a plan pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, the applicable energy plan for the proposed Project is the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan. The proposed Project's consistency with the applicable energy -related policies in the General Plan are shown in Table VI-1. Table VI-1 Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies Policy No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. CO Promote use of solar lighting in parks and Consistent. No permanent lighting would be 8.2.6 along paseos and trails, where practical. installed as part of the proposed Project. CO Evaluate site plans proposed for new Consistent. The proposed Project does not 8.3.1 development based on energy efficiency include any structures that would utilize pursuant to LEED (Leadership in Energy and energy. Environmental Design) standards for New Construction and Neighborhood Development, including the following: a) location efficiency; b) environmental preservation; c) compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods; and d) resource efficiency, including use of recycled materials and water CO Promote construction of energy efficient Consistent. The proposed Project does not 8.3.2 buildings through requirements for LEED include any structures that would utilize certification or through comparable alternative energy. requirements as adopted by local ordinance CO Require new development to use passive Consistent. The proposed Project does not 8.3.6 solar heating and cooling techniques in include any structures that would utilize building design and construction, which may energy. Proposed shade structures and vault include but are not be limited to building restrooms would be designed to use passive orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, solar heating and cooling techniques. placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs, shade trees, and paving materials City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 Policy No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions CO Encourage the use of trees and landscaping Consistent. No heating and cooling systems 8.3.7 to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, would be installed into any of the proposed through shading of buildings and parking lots. Project's structures. Where possible, trees would be planted to provide shade to the proposed event and parking areas. CO Encourage energy -conserving heating and Consistent. No heating and cooling systems 8.3.8 cooling systems and appliances, and energy- or appliances would be installed into any of efficiency in windows and insulation, in all new the proposed Project's structures. construction. CO Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage Consistent. No permanent lighting would be 8.3.9 a reduction of lighting when businesses are installed as part of the proposed Project. closed to a level required for security. Source: City of Santa Clarita, 2011. As shown in Table VI-1, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable energy - related policies from the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Directly or indirectly cause 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 El El Elarea 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? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including El ElElliquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off- ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code El ElEl(2004), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f. Result in a change in topography or ground El ElElsurface relief features? g. Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of El ElEl10,000 cubic yards or more? h. Involve development and or/grading on a ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ slope greater than 10% natural grade? i. Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ physical feature? j. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ geologic feature? Explanation of Checklist Responses The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project by ENGEO Incorporated, which is included as Appendix E of this IS/MND.20 a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 serves to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy and is intended to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue maps delineating these zones. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and 20 Note that since the completion of the geotechnical report in October 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project', has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project' and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lotforthe Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). The act defines active faults as those that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. The Project Site is located in a seismically active region in Southern California near several fault lines. However, according to the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Project Site is not mapped within a state -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.21 In addition, the Project Site is not located within any other known fault zones.22 As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, no impacts would occur. a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the City, including the Project Site, is located in the vicinity of active, conditionally active, and potentially active faults.23 The nearest fault is the Pelona Fault zone, which is located approximately one mile northeast of the Project Site.24 Seismic activity along this fault or on any other of the numerous faults in the Southern California area could cause seismic ground shaking in the City. The Project would construct a bike park with parking and visitor amenities, such as shade structures, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and picnic tables. However, the proposed Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a seismic event. Additionally, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code, Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to seismic ground shaking the event of an earthquake. Moreover, the Project would in no way exacerbate the risks of seismic ground shaking. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water -saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore - water pressure. Liquefaction typically occurs during prolonged ground shaking events such as earthquakes, and the soil acquires mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Liquefaction potential is greatest in saturated, loose, and poorly graded sand. 21 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/EQZApp/app/, accessed February 13, 2024. 22 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed February 13, 2024. 23 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, May 2022, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/ html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20-%20Safety%20Element.pdf, accessed February 13, 2024. 24 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, https:Hmaps. conservation.ca.gov/cqs/fam/, accessed February 13, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 According to the CGS, a portion of the Project Site lies within a liquefaction zone.25 The Project would construct a bike park with parking and visitor amenities, such as shade structures, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and picnic tables, as well as multi -use trails. However, the proposed Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a seismic event. Additionally, according to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project, the impacts associated with potential seismic - induced liquefaction settlements on the planned improvements are considered low. Moreover, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides tend to occur in weak soil and rock on sloping terrain. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, Santa Clarita Valley areas near rivers and floodplains are generally prone to earthquake -induced liquefaction, and hillsides are generally prone to earthquake -induced landslides. Large parts of the City are subject to these hazards, which are addressed through seismic design requirements and the Unified Development Code.26 According to the CGS, the Project Site is within a landslide zone.27 The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi -use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. However, the proposed multi -use trails would be constructed to follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, would not cause adverse effects involving landslides. The proposed Project would construct mountain bike courses (i.e., jump tracks, a dual slalom course, progressive jumplines, a progressive skills area) as well as other features in the flatter areas of the Project Site, and thus, would not cause adverse impacts involving landslides. The proposed Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a landslide. Additionally, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to landslides. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. b. Would the project result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require grading, excavation, and other construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing soils and expose soils to rainfall and wind, thereby potentially resulting in soil erosion. However, as the Project Site exceeds 1 acre, the Project would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 26 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.aov/cqs/EQZApp/app/, accessed March 5, 2024. 26 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 27 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/EQZApp/app/, accessed March 5, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 System (NPDES) Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Construction General Permit requires construction sites that disturb 1 or more acres of land to implement stormwater controls and to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The measures identified in the SWPPP are intended to minimize the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. The Project would be subject to the erosion control requirements of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control) and Chapter 17.90 related to the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control plan, and best management practices (BMPs) designed to ensure that discharges of pollutants, including sediment, are effectively prohibited. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. No construction activity would begin prior to receipt of written approval of such plan. Furthermore, the Project construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce the potential for wind erosion by requiring the implementation of dust control measures during construction. Additionally, pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 17.95, prior to issuance of grading permit, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan that incorporates appropriate post -construction BMPs, including those related to erosion would be prepared. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project Site is within landslide and liquefaction zones. However, the proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures that would be subject to liquefaction. Additionally, the proposed multi -use trails would be constructed to follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, would not cause adverse effects involving landslides. The proposed Project would construct mountain bike courses and other features in the flatter areas of the Project Site, and thus, would not cause adverse impacts involving landslides. Moreover, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to liquefaction and landslides. Subsidence generally occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the rapid and intensive withdrawal of subterranean fluids such as groundwater or oil. No extraction of gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring at the Project Site. Additionally, the proposed Project would not include any groundwater extraction which could result in subsidence. As such, Project impacts related to subsidence would not occur. Collapsible soils consist of loose, relatively low -density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of sufficient water or excessive loading. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project, the risk of hydrocollapse of native soils at the Project Site is considered low. Additionally, construction of the proposed Project would not result in excessive loading of the soils on site. The soils would be compacted and watered to maintain the bike courses and trails; however, watering is expected to reinforce the stability of the trails and soil collapse would not present an unusual risk for the Project Site. The design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. As such, Project impacts related to collapsible soils would not occur. Therefore, impacts related to an unstable geologic unit would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2004), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project, silt and lean clay were encountered in the upper portion of the geotechnical borings at the Project Site. Laboratory testing on soil samples yielded values that generally correspond to low to medium shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. However, the explorations indicate that the distribution of potentially expansive soil is highly variable at the Project Site, both in depth and lateral extent, which is typical for alluvial deposits. Structural damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by properly blending, moisture conditioning, and compacting fills, subexcavating and rebuilding cut areas with homogeneous, properly moisture - conditioned fills, designing hardscape/pavements to accommodate expansive soil, and supporting structures on properly designed foundations. The design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to expansive soils. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed Project would include three vault restrooms that would be serviced weekly by a septic removal truck. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required. Therefore, no impact would occur. f. Would the project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? g. Would the project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? h. Would the project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would involve minimal ground disturbance throughout the 380-acre Project Site. Construction of the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead would be constructed in a relatively flat area of the Project Site and any excavated soils would be used to construct the bike courses. The proposed trails would be located on slopes greater than 10 percent in some areas of the Project Site. However, construction of the proposed trails would follow the existing topography and ridges of the site. The proposed trail widths would be 4 to 6 feet wide, and any excess soils would be used to create the trail alignments. Therefore, impacts related to a change in topography or ground surface relief features; earth movement of 10,000 cubic yards or more; and development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10 percent natural grade would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 i. Would the project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? j. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The 380-acre Project Site, like much of the Santa Clarita Valley, is characterized by a canyon with gentle to steep hills and ridges. As discussed in Checklist Question I.a, portions of the Project Site are mapped as areas of Ridgeline Preservation, which preserve ridgelines within City limits for the public health, safety and welfare for the long-term benefit of the community, maintenance of the unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity, and to achieve a higher quality of life for its residents. However, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as shade structures, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not result in the destruction or covering of any unique geologic or physical feature. Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, the Project would not result in the modification of the ridgelines such that it would have a significant impact on any unique geologic features. Soil types within the Project Site are primarily Castaic-Balcom silty clay loam in the eastern Project Site and Saugus loam in the western Project Site. Geologic maps indicate that the Project Site is underlain by young alluvial valley deposits (Holocene to late Pleistocene age), fine-grained Tertiary age formations of sedimentary origin (Tertiary age), and coarse -grained Tertiary age formations of sedimentary origin (Tertiary age).28 The Project Site is mapped as Miocene and Pleistocene -Holocene aged, and is in the Newhall Formation in the western portion of the site and Mint Canyon Formation in the eastern portion. A paleontological resources record search conducted in January 2019 by the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum for the Bouquet Canyon Road Project, which is located approximately 0.9 miles south of the eastern Project Site, indicated that on the first and third ridges east of Haskell Canyon respectively, Castaic Formation localities LACM 7772-7773 produced fossil specimens of sea turtle, Cheloniidae, carnivore, Carnivora, and baleen whale, Mysticeti. As indicated in the records search, shallow excavations in the uppermost layers younger Quaternary Alluvium are unlikely to uncover significant vertebrate fossils; however, deeper excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, as well as any excavations in the exposures of the Saugus Formation or the Castaic Formation may well uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains.29 While fossils have been discovered in nearby locations in the same sedimentary deposits as exist in the Project area, the proposed Project would not require ground disturbance at depths greater than four feet for the footers for the bike courses. Other construction activities, including the construction of the proposed bike courses and trails, would take place within previously disturbed fill sediments (e.g., clearing and grubbing) or at the current topsoil surface and do not require ground disturbance in undisturbed geologic contexts. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource. Therefore, impacts related to unique geologic features or paleontological resources would be less than significant. 28 California Department of Consevation, Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca. aov/cqs/QSD/, accessed March 20, 2024. 29 City of Santa Clarita, 2020, Bouquet Canyon Environmental Impact Report, Appendix E, Geotechnical Report and Paleontological Resources Records Check. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 Vill. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of El ElElreducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Explanation of Checklist Responses This section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix A of this IS/MND.ao GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Emissions Of CO2 and N20 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent GHG, results from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. 30 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project", has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project." In addition, the technical study modeled features that have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative. Moreover, the modeling assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. This represents a conservative scenario because a project's construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 The International Panel on Climate Change defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1. EXISTING SETTING According to California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, prepared by the CARB, December 14, 2023, the State of California created 381.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2021. The 2021 emissions were 12.6 MMTCO2e higher than 2020 but 23.1 MMTCO2e lower than 2019 levels. Both the 2019 to 2020 decrease and the 2020 to 2021 increase in emissions are likely due in part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that were felt globally. The transportation sector showed the largest increase in emissions of 10 MMTCO2e (7.4 percent) compared to 2020, which is most likely from passenger vehicles whose activity and emissions rebounded after COVID-19 shelter in place orders were lifted. a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group's thresholds. As such, the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e annual threshold has been included in this analysis for informational purposes only and determination of significance for GHG emissions is based on determination of consistency with the applicable GHG emission reduction plans. The proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed Project would consist of the development of a bike park and is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, off -road equipment and construction equipment. The proposed Project would not include any utility connections, and thus, energy usage related to electricity and natural gas was not included. However, operation of the Project would occasionally utilize electricity through generators, which was modeled as part of the off -road equipment. The Project -related GHGs annual emissions is provided in Table VIII-1. As shown in Table VIII-1, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate 204 MTCO2e per year, which has been provided in this analysis for informational purposes only. The determination of significance of GHG emissions impacts is provided in analysis under Checklist Question VII I.b, below, which shows the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable measures and strategies in the applicable reduction plans for the proposed Project. For reference purposes only, Table VIII-1 shows that the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be well below the SCAQMD's draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 Table VIII-1 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Mobile Sources' 164 0.01 0.01 166 Area Sourcesz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water and Wastewater4 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 0.13 Solid Wastes 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.46 Refrigeration6 -- -- -- 0.00 Operational Off -Road Equipment' 22.2 <0.01 <0.01 22.3 Construction8 15.03 <0.01 <0.01 15.10 Total GHG Emissions 1 201 0.02 0.01 204 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Exceed Thresholds? No Notes: ' Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 5 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Refrigeration includes GHG emissions from refrigerants in air conditioning units. No refrigeration would be provided as part of Project. Operational Off -Road Equipment was modeled based on a skid steer loader operating 8 hours per day and 12 days per year, a generator operating up to 8 hours per day and 26 days per year, and an off -highway truck making weekly water truck deliveries 1 hour per day and 52 days per year. 3 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; refer to Appendix A. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plans for the proposed Project include the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal 2020, and the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024). The consistency analysis for each of these plans are provided below. Consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction actions and strategies necessary to achieve the AB 1279 target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These actions and strategies build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013) and in the second update to the Scoping Plan (2017). Although a number of these measures are currently established as statewide regulations, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. Table VIII-2 provides an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 proposed Project would be consistent with the reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. As shown below in Table VIII-2, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable proposed action or strategy in the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. Table VIII-2 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping and Scoping Plan Action Plan Actions GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. No Conflict. As shown above in Table VIII-1, almost all of the GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project would be from vehicle trips. AB 1493 controls GHG emissions from vehicles in California. Through adherence with the AB 1493 tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the proposed Project would not conflict with this strategy. Smart Growth / Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels by No Conflict. Senate Bill 375 directs each regional 2030, and 22% below 2019 levels by 2045. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to adopt a SCS/RTP that meet this reduction target. SCAG is the MPO for the Project area. Connect SoCal 2024 was prepared to meet these reduction targets. Table VIII-3 below discusses how the proposed Project would not conflict with Connect SoCal 2024. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this strategy. Light -Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero -Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) 100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all new LDVs sold in California to be zero -emission by the year 2035. The proposed Project would not include any vehicle sales activities. Truck ZEVs 100% of medium -duty (MDV)/HDC sales are ZEV Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 by 2040 (AB 74 University of California Institute of requires all new LDVs sold in California to be Transportation Studies [ITS] report). zero -emission by the year 2045. The proposed Project would not include any truck sales activities. Aviation 10% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045. utilize any aviation fuel. Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of the aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned to hydrogen or batteries. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping and Scoping Plan Action Plan Actions Ocean-going Vessels (OGV) 2020 OGV At -Berth regulation fully implemented, Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not with most OGVs utilizing shore power by 2027. utilize any OGVs. 25% of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric technology by 2045. Port Operations 100% of cargo handling equipment is zero -emission Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not by 2037. 100% of drayage trucks are zero emission impact any operations at any ports. by 2035. Freight and Passenger Rail 100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not ZEV by 2030. impact any freight or passenger rail operations. 100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035. Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily utilize electricity. Oil and Gas Extraction Phase out oil and gas extraction operations by Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not 2045. impact any oil and gas extraction activities. Petroleum Refining CCS on majority of petroleum refining operations by Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not 2030. Production reduced in line with petroleum impact any petroleum refining activities. demand. Electricity Generation Electric sector GHG target of 38 MMTCO2e in 2030 Not Applicable. Senate Bill 1020 requires that and 31 MMTCO2e in 2045. 100 percent of retail sales of electricity be Retail sales load coverage generated by renewable or zero -carbon source of electricity by December 1, 2045. The proposed Project would not include any electrical utility connections. New Residential and Commercial Buildings All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential) Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not and 2029 (commercial). include any electrical utility connections and would not include the installation of any appliances. Existing Residential Buildings 80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not 100% of appliance sales are electric by 2035. include any existing residential buildings. Appliances are replaced at end of life. Existing Commercial Buildings 80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030, and Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not 100% of appliance sales are electric by 2045. include any existing commercial buildings. Appliances are replaced at end of life. Food Products 7.5% of energy demand electrified directly and/or Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not indirectly by 2030; 75% by 2045. include any commercial food production activities. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping and Scoping Plan Action Plan Actions Construction Equipment 25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% No Conflict. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all electrified by 2045. off -road vehicles and equipment to transition to 100 percent zero -emission equipment, where feasible, by 2035. All construction equipment fleets utilized during construction of the proposed Project are required to be registered with CARB and meet CARB's current emission reductions regulations, which are anticipated to be updated to meet Executive Order N-79-20 requirements. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with this strategy. Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper Electrify 0% of boilers by 2030 and 100% of boilers Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not by 2045. Hydrogen for 25% of process heat by include any pulp and paper production activities. 2035 and 100% by 2045. Electrify 100% of other energy demand by 2045. Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement CCS on 40% of operations by 2035 and on all Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not facilities by 2045. include any stone, clay, glass and cement Process emissions reduced through alternative production activities. materials and CCS. Other Industrial Manufacturing 0% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50% by Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not 2045. include any other industrial manufacturing activities. Combined Heat and Power Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not include any existing combined heat and power facilities. Agriculture Energy Use 25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not by 2045. include any commercial agriculture activities. Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation Biomass supply is used to produce conventional Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not and advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen. include any production of fuels for transportation. Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry In 2030s, renewable natural gas (RNG) blended in Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not pipeline. Renewable hydrogen blended in natural include any production of fuels for buildings and gas pipeline at 7% energy (-20% by volume), industry. ramping up between 2030 and 2040. In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve certain industrial clusters. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration W AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping and Scoping Plan Action Plan Actions Non -combustion Methane Emissions Increase landfill and dairy digester methane Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not capture. Some alternative manure management include the operation of any landfill or dairy. deployed for smaller dairies. Moderate adoption of enteric strategies by 2030. Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025. Oil and gas fugitive methane emissions reduced 50% by 2030 and further reductions as infrastructure components retire in line with reduced fossil gas demand. High GWP Potential Emissions Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not electrification increases, mitigating HFC emissions. include the manufacturing of appliances that use low GWP refrigerants. Compensate for Remaining Emissions Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) demonstration Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not projects deployed by 2030. CDR scaled to include any CDR demonstration projects compensate for remaining GHG emissions in 2045 Source: CARB, 2022. Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. It is up to each MPO in the State (SCAG is the MPO for Southern California) to adopt a RTP/SCS to meet the reduction target set by CARB for the Southern California region. Connect SoCal 2020 adopted by SCAG was prepared to meet a 2035 GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels through the implementation of new initiatives of land use, transportation and technology strategies. Table VIII-3 provides an evaluation of applicable goals and strategies to determine the Project's consistency with the reduction strategies outlined in Connect SoCal 2020. Table VIII-3 Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 Strategies Consistency Assessment Connect SoCal Goals Goal 1: Encourage regional Not Applicable. This goal is directed at SCAG and does not apply economic prosperity and global to the proposed Project. This strategy calls on encouraging competitiveness. regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. The proposed Project would not interfere with such policymaking. Goal 2: Improve mobility, Consistent. The Project proposes to construct a bike park in an accessibility, reliability, and travel area that is in close proximity to existing commercial and safety for people and goods. residential uses. The proposed Project would promote the enjoyment and use of alternative modes of travel (i.e., bike riding) and would construct new trails that would connect to the existing multi -use trails, thereby improving public accessibility to the trail system in the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration !7 Strategies Consistency Assessment Goal 3: Enhance the Consistent. The Project proposes to construct a bike park with preservation, security, and approximately 15 miles of maintained bike and multi -use trails that resilience of the regional would connect to the existing trail system. Therefore, the proposed transportation system. Project is consistent with this goal. Goal 4: Increase person and Not Applicable. This strategy calls on SCAG to increase person goods movement and travel and goods movement and travel choices across the transportation choices within the transportation system. The proposed Project would not interfere with this goal. system. Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas Consistent. The Project would result in criteria air pollutant and emissions and improve air GHG emissions during construction and operation. However, quality. emissions would be nominal. Moreover, the proposed Project would encourage biking as an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce VMTs and associated GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this goal. Goal 6: Support healthy and Consistent. The Project would be consistent with this goal by equitable communities. constructing a public bike park that would facilitate athletic activities (i.e., bike riding), which would aid in supporting healthy and equitable communities. Goal 7: Adapt to a changing Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards SCAG and does not climate and support an integrated apply to individual development projects. Nevertheless, the Project regional development pattern and would support this goal by expanding the trail network in the transportation network. Project area. Goal 8: Leverage new Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards SCAG and does not transportation technologies and apply to the proposed Project. This strategy calls on SCAG to use data -driven solutions that result in new transportation technologies and data -driven solutions to more efficient travel. increase efficiency. The proposed Project would not interfere with this goal. Goal 9: Encourage development Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not include the of diverse housing types in areas development of housing. However, the proposed Project would that are supported by multiple develop a bike park in close proximity to existing residential uses, transportation options. which would provide existing residents with an alternative transportation option (i.e., bike riding). Goal 10: Promote conservation Consistent. The Project Site is not currently used for any of natural and agricultural lands agricultural uses. Except for the proposed 15 miles of trails and and restoration of habitats. the two programming areas, the remainder of the Project Site would remain undeveloped. Moreover, disturbed areas of the Project Site would be revegetated upon completion of the Project construction. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this goal. Connect SoCal Strategies Strategy 1: Focus growth near Consistent. The proposed Project would develop a bike park in destinations and mobility options. close proximity to existing commercial and residential uses. The bike park is intended to serve as a recreational destination for residents and would promote biking as an alternative mode of transportation. Strategy 2: Promote diverse Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not include any new housing choices. housing. It should be noted that the Project is being constructed on land designated for open space and would not impede on the development of any potential future housing. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .E Strategies Consistency Assessment Strategy 3: Leverage technology Not Applicable. This strategy is directed to SCAG and innovations. jurisdictions and does not apply to the proposed Project. This strategy aims to promote low emission technologies, improve access to services through technology, and identify ways to incorporate micro power grids into communities. The proposed Project would not interfere with this strategy. Strategy 4: Support Consistent. The proposed Project would not be connected to any implementation of sustainability utilities and would utilize vault restrooms. As such, the Project policies. would result in low water and energy consumption. Strategy 5: Promote a Green Consistent. Development of the proposed bike park within Region. existing open space would not interfere with regional wildlife connectivity or convert agricultural land. Upon completion of Project construction, the Project would revegetate disturbed areas within the Project Site. The proposed Project would also improve public accessibility to park space and encourage biking as an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would support this strategy. Source: SCAG, Connect SoCal, September 2022. As shown above in Table VIII-3, the proposed Project would not conflict with any proposed goal or strategy in Connect SoCal 2020. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with Connect SoCal 2020. Consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 Connect SoCal 2024 was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2024. However, per SB 375, SCAG and CARB are required to work together until CARB staff conclude that the calculations and quantifications provided would yield accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions. Since CARB staff continue to have significant outstanding concerns about the technical methodology utilized in Connect SoCal 2024, the current approved RTP/SCS is Connect SoCal 2020. A consistency evaluation of Connect SoCal 2024 is included in order to provide a comprehensive analysis. Connect SoCal 2024 includes over 90 implementation strategies in order to meet the year 2035 GHG emission reduction targets set for the Southern California region as mandated by SB 375. The implementation strategies are directed toward SCAG and other regional agencies to implement and are not directly applicable to individual development projects. Regardless, the proposed Project, which consists of development of a bike park in the nearby proximity to existing commercial and residential uses would conform to and promote many of these implementation strategies by encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes (i.e., bike riding) and providing access to an equitable and active recreational activity area. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with any proposed goal or strategy and would be consistent with Connect SoCal 2024. Based on the consistency analysis for the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal 2020, and Connect SoCal 2024 provided above, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine El ElEltransport, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, El El 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 El El 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 El El Elpublic use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety El El Elhazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i. Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 62 Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the proposed Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. However, all potentially hazardous materials used during Project construction would be used and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, as well as manufacturers' specifications and instructions, thereby reducing the risk of hazardous materials use. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials, including but not limited to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Acts, SCAQMD rules, and permits. These existing regulations are aimed at limiting the amount of hazardous materials used, accident prevention, protection from exposure to specific chemicals, and the proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less -than -significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Accordingly, Project construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials during construction. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. During operations, the proposed uses would involve the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils for equipment. Similar to construction, operation of the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project's operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. As detailed below in Checklist Question IX.d, the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no underground storage tanks within the Project Site,31 and no oil/gas wells are within the Project Site or adjoining properties.32 The Project Site was not observed to contain subsurface structures or facilities used to process, store, or discharge petroleum or hazardous substances during the field surveys conducted for the Biological Resources Technical Report, the Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, or the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. Additionally, as discussed in Checklist Question IX.a, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, UST Finder, https:Hepa.maps.arcgis.com/apes/Webappviewer/index.htmI? id=b03763d3f2754461adf86fl2l345d7bc, accessed March 11, 2024. 32 California Department of Conservation, Well Finder CaIGEM GIS, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/do-Q-Q wellfinder/, accessed March 6, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the Project Site. The school nearest to the Project Site is Mountainview Elementary School, located approximately 0.9 miles to the west of the western boundary of the Project Site. As such, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Would the project 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? No Impact. As previously discussed, the Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project Site is not listed on any of the following list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: DTSC EnviroStor database of hazardous waste clean- up sites; SWRCB list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; SWRCB GeoTracker database of leaking underground storage tanks sites and cleanup program sites; and SWRCB list of sites with active cease and desist orders (CDO) and cleanup or abatement orders (CAO).33 Therefore, the Project would have no impacts related to listed hazardous material sites. 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 orworking in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, approximately 12.2 miles to the northeast.34 Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to airport -related safety hazards or excessive noise. 33 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Background and History, https:Hcalepa.ca.gov/site clean up/corteselist/background/, accessed February 12, 2024. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed February 12, 2024. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit, https:Hcalepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList- CurrentList.pdf, accessed February 12, 2024. SWRCB, GeoTracker, List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, https:Hgeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/#, accessed February 12, 2024. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(c), List of "active" and CDO and CAO, https:Hcalepa.ca.gov/site clean up/corteselist/secti on-65962-5c/, accessed February 12, 2024. 34 EPA, NEPAssist, https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx, accessed February 12, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 64 g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Emergency response and evacuation for the Project Site is governed by the City's Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, in the event of evacuations, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) directs Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) regarding areas that need to be evacuated. That information is then shared with the C'ty's Emergency Operations Center, and emergency notification is then conveyed to residents.35 Emergency response to accidents associated with hazardous material is generally undertaken by the LACoFD's Health Hazardous Materials Division. Construction activities associated with the Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. During operation, an emergency could require partial or total evacuation of the Project Site and/or sheltering in place for some portions of the Project Site. The City's existing emergency response procedures would not change with implementation of the proposed Project and would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of natural or man-made incidents in the Project area that result in a need to evacuate some or all of the future Project visitors and employees. Existing fire roads within the Project Site could be used. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core programming area would include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks, which would improve emergency vehicle access to the Project Site. Thus, the proposed Project would not preclude the City and County from implementing the Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and Hazardous Waste Management Plan.Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. h. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the wildland urban interface is defined as an area where human made structures, including power lines and other utility structures, are located within or adjacent to areas prone to wildfire events. The hills and mountainous areas of Santa Clarita are considered to be interface areas, and approximately 80 to 90 percent of the Santa Clarita Valley is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ),36 including the Project Site.37 36 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 36 City of Santa Clarita, 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 37 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Web Map, https:Hlacounty.maps.arcgis.com/ apes/webappviewe r/index. htmI?id=d2ea45d15c784adfa601e84b38060c4e, accessed March 12, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 Construction of the proposed Project would bring workers and construction equipment to the Project Site for approximately 6 months. Operation of the proposed Project would generate up to 250 visitors and 100 vehicle trips during special events and up to 180 visitors and 100 vehicles on weekends. The proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures or residences. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City Building Codes, which include showing proof through certification with the LACoFD that new development is located within a designated distance of a water source such as water supply tanks or retention basins for emergency firefighting purposes. Compliance with the Building Code also includes fire prevention strategies such as the provision of access roads, adequate road widths, and clearance of brush around structures located in hillside areas that are considered primary wildland fire risk areas. The City would submit 90 percent Project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. The Fuel Modification Unit approval consists of reviewing aspects such as structure location and type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation and overall site settings.38 Additionally, as previously discussed, the parking lot for the Haskell Core would include space for emergency turnaround for firetrucks. These proposed Project features could improve emergency evacuation in the area. Similar to existing conditions, signage with rules and regulations for the park that state no smoking and no spark emitting equipment would be placed in various areas throughout the mountain bike park. Moreover, the City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. City staff would coordinate a swift and orderly evacuation, directing visitors out through the main access point while keeping the route clear for emergency responders. The City would also work closely with LACoFD for fire -related emergencies, LASD for search and rescue operations, and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) in cases involving enforcement issues. To reduce risk and avoid emergency evacuations whenever possible, the Project Site would be proactively closed during periods of severe weather conditions. City staff would also monitor official weather and fire alerts and post clear signage and online notifications in advance of any closure to keep the public informed and safe. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would require construction and operation within a VHFHSZ. While construction equipment would be equipped with a spark arrester as required by the Los Angeles Fire Code Section 326.12.1, construction activities could still accidentally spark a fire. Additionally, Project operation would bring more visitors to the Project Site than under existing conditions, especially during event days; visitors could be in the park while a nearby wildfire is happening. Thus, the proposed Project could expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire. Therefore, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be required to reduce impacts related to wildland fires to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to commencement of construction activities, a Construction Fire Prevention Plan shall be prepared for the Project to specify the construction phase restrictions and fire safety requirements that would be implemented to reduce risk of ignitions and pre -plans for responding to an unlikely ignition. Prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials onto the Project Site, improvements within the active development area shall be in place, including an approved, temporary roadway surface and fuel modification zones established. These improvements shall also be included in the Construction Fire Prevention Plan, which shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) for review and approval. 38 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Forestry Fuel Modification, https://fire.lacounty.gov/forestry-fuel-modification/ #1566437238201-d272ffef-2b3d, accessed March 12, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Three (3) days prior to a scheduled event at the Project Site with more than 50 visitors (including riders, spectators, staff, and volunteers), the City will coordinate LACoFD to determine the fire danger. If there is a red flag warning issued for the Project area within 24 hours of a scheduled event, the event shall be cancelled in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 14.06.230, Emergency or Temporary Closure of Parks, Public Places, Trails, and Recreational Areas, which states that, in an emergency or when the City Manager determines that the public interest, public health, public morals, maintenance purposes, or public safety demands such action, any park, public place, grounds, trails, or recreation facility, or any part or portion thereof, may be closed to the public, and all persons may be excluded therefrom until such emergency or other reason upon which such determination of the City Manager is based has ceased, at which time the park, public place, grounds, trails, or recreation facility, or part or portion thereof so closed shall be reopened to the public by the City Manager. i. Would the project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Less Than Significant Impact. Hazards associated with overhead transmission lines range from exposure to electrical magnetic fields to live wires and flashovers when a person or equipment gets too close to an overhead line. Surface or subsurface -level natural gas or other fuel lines can pose risks when improper contact is made, resulting in leaks, fire, and/or explosions. The Project Site is currently undeveloped. An existing east -west overhead transmission line traverses the southern portion of the project site. Additionally, a north -south overhead electrical transmission line is located in the eastern portion of the Project Site within Los Angeles County boundaries. Several transmission towers are located within the Project Site, and the proposed trails would traverse near the transmission towers. According to the USEPA, the potential health risks from electrical magnetic fields decrease with limited exposure to them.39 The proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures on the Project Site that would result in prolonged exposure of visitors to electrical magnetic fields, live wires, or flashovers from the transmission towers. Recreational users of the proposed mountain bike park would traverse the various trails throughout the Project Site and would not be exposed to overhead transmission lines for long periods of time. Additionally, the risk of hazards from live wires and flashovers is similar to other transmission towers and power lines in urbanized areas of the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase the risk of exposure to electrical transmission lines to visitors of the bike park. As there are no existing structures on the Project Site requiring natural gas service, there is no natural gas infrastructure located within the Project Site. The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Pipeline Mapping System shows that the nearest natural gas transmission line and hazardous liquid pipeline is located approximately 6 miles west of the Project Site.ao Based on the above, the Project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, and impacts would be less than significant. 39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Electric and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines, https://www.epa.gov/radtown/ electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-li nes#:-:text=lf%20you%20are%20concerned%20about,ti me%20spent%20 arou nd%20the%20sou rce. 40 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Pipeline Mapping System, https://Pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/Public Viewer/, accessed February 12, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste El ElEldischarge requirements? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 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)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or El El Elriver, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water El El Elquality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard El El El or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, El El El flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. [Result in] inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ k. Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ and/or groundwater? I. [Result in] other modification of a wash, El El El creek, or river? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration m Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated m. Impact stormwater management in any of the following ways? i) Potential impact of project construction and project post -construction activity on ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ stormwater runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ stormwater runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ surrounding areas? v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of ElEl El waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ water bodies? vii) Does the Proposed Project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ construction and after project occupancy? Explanation of Checklist Responses The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Hydrology Study prepared for the Project by ENGEO Incorporated, which is included as Appendix F of this IS/MND.a1 41 Note that since the completion of the geotechnical report in October 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project', has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project' and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the Los Angeles RWQCB's region. Biennially, the Los Angeles RWQCB prepares a list of impaired waterbodies and the specific pollutant(s) in the region referred to as the 303(d) list pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Water Act. All waterbodies on the 303(d) list are subject to the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The Project Site is located within and drains into the Santa Clara River Watershed,42 which is not a 303d water body listed for sediment and does not have an approved USEPA TMDL plan for sedimentation. However, since the Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of land, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit (ORDER WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, effective September 1, 2023) and implement a SWPPP. In accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project -specific SWPPP adheres to the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practices Handbook and sets forth BMPs for stormwater and non- stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, storm drain inlets protection, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. The SWPPP would be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB. All construction and grading activities would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulatory documents, including all applicable City ordinances and the City's permit regulating discharges into and from the storm drain system. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Project would be required to receive approval of the SWPPP by the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department. With the implementation of the Project -specific SWPPP, the Project would reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from stormwater runoff. Therefore, construction of the Project would not result in discharge that would violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality. Thus, temporary construction -related impacts on surface water quality would be less than significant. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and is primarily covered in vegetation. The proposed Project would introduce approximately 1,750 square feet of paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Project Site. However, the proposed impervious areas would constitute less than one percent of the surface area within the approximately 380-acre Project Site. Thus, drainage within the Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions. However, if required, the Project would implement BMPs that would minimize the discharge of pollutants into the Santa Clara River Watershed. As part of the Project design, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Haskell Core. The infiltration basins would retain onsite a specified volume of stormwater runoff from a storm event to control stormwater quality. Therefore, Project impacts to surface water quality during operation would be less than significant. Based on the California Department of Water Resources Well Completion Report Map Application, there are no active groundwater wells within the Project Site.43 Additionally, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered due to the shallow depth of excavation needed 42 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Santa Clara River Watershed map, http://www.ladpw.org/ wm d/wate rs h ed/sc/docs/Sa ntaCl a ra River wtrshed.pdf. 43 California Department of Water Resources, Well Completion Report Map Application, https:Hdwr.maps.arcgis.com/ apes/webappviewe r/index. htmI?id=181078580a214c0986e2da28f8623b37, accessed April 4, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 for construction of the culverts and for the bike course footers (maximum depth of four feet). Therefore, impacts related to groundwater quality would be less than significant. Based on the above, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the 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)? k. Would the project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Questions X.a and X.f, there are no active groundwater wells within the Project Site. Water for the proposed Project would be brought in by water trucks, and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and is primarily covered in vegetation. The proposed Project would introduce minimal paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Project Site. Thus, groundwater recharge within the Project Site would generally be the same as existing conditions. Additionally, as the Project Site would result in minimal changes and development, the rate of flow, currents, and the course and direction of groundwater within the Project Site would generally be the same as existing conditions. Therefore, Project impacts related to groundwater supplies and the flow of groundwater would be less than significant. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? m.iv) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 380-acre Project Site is characterized by a canyon with gentle to steep hills with trails. Development of the Project would require grading, excavation, and other construction activities that have the potential to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and disturb existing soils, thereby potentially resulting in soil erosion. However, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as shade structures, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not substantially change the drainage of the site. Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area. As discussed above in Checklist Questions X.a and X.f, in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project would implement a SWPPP. The BMPs identified in the SWPPP would minimize the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the erosion control requirements of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control) and Chapter 17.90 related to the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control plan, and BMPs designed to ensure that illicit discharges of pollutants not authorized by the NPDES permit, including sediment, are effectively prohibited. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. No construction activity would begin prior to receipt of written approval of such plan. Additionally, the Project would install a concrete J-drain with 2 culverts and a concrete v-ditch, which would convey flows directly into the Haskell Canyon creek, similar to the existing condition drainage pattern. The Project's drainage devices would mitigate the increased velocity of drainage and include dissipaters consisting of riprap, as necessary, to prevent erosion. The proposed Project would also include daily maintenance that would consist of compaction of the trails with hand tools and hand watering, with the expectation that trails would be revegetated over time to minimize erosion. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, or cause harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result in flooding on- or off -site? e. Would the project 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? k. Would the project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water? m.i) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: potential impact of project construction and project post -construction activity on stormwater runoff? m.iii) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and is primarily covered in vegetation. The proposed Project would introduce minimal paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as shade structures, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not substantially change the drainage of the site. The proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area. Thus, drainage and runoff within the Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site; change the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water; impact stormwater management during construction and post -construction; or increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities and the proposed Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. Thus, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 72 As previously discussed in Checklist Questions X.a and X.f, construction of the proposed Project components would be subject to the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP would set forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the Project would be required to receive approval of the SWPPP by the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department. Additionally, the Project would install a concrete J-drain, a concrete v-ditch, and two infiltration basins to prevent erosion and control stormwater quality. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. g. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer (FEMA 2024), the Project Site is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Numbers 06037CO81OG and 06037C0830G. The Project Site occurs within Zones X and D. Zone X (500-year floodplains), which has at least a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding and Zone D is described as an area of undetermined flood hazard. Thus, the proposed Project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, and no impact would occur. Within the Santa Clarita Valley, dams are located at the Castaic Reservoir and the Bouquet Reservoir. The Project Site is located approximately 5.8 miles southeast of the Castaic Reservoir. Based on the General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within the Castaic Dam Inundation Zone or any other inundation zones.44 Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Checklist Question Xi, the Project Site is located approximately 5.8 miles southeast of the Castaic Reservoir. Based on the General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within the Castaic Dam Inundation Zone or any other inundation zones.45 Thus, the Project Site would not be susceptible to inundation due to seiches, which are earthquake -induced waves in enclosed bodies of water, that could send large volumes of water on downstream areas. A tsunami is a sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, generated by an underwater seismic disturbance, such as sudden faulting or landslide activity. According to the California Department of Conservation mapping system for tsunami hazard areas, as the City of Santa Clarita is an inland community (approximately 25 miles northeast nearest portion of the Pacific 44 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 45 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 Ocean), the City would not be susceptible to experiencing tsunamis.46 Therefore, no impact would occur. The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi -use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. Mudflow could occur from wildfire or storms. In regard to mudflow from wildfires, the last wildfire near the Project Site was the Buckweed Fire in 2007, which burned 38,000 acres.47 However, there have been no wildfires within or adjacent to the Project Site in at least the past 15 years. Thus, the Project Site would not result in inundation by mudflow as a result of post -fire slope instability. In regard to mudflow from storms, the proposed Project would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as the proposed Project would involve minimal development and would generally follow the existing contours of the slopes for areas at higher elevations. Additionally, the proposed bike courses and trails would be maintained such that erosion would not occur. Therefore, impacts related to mudflow would be less than significant. I. Would the project result in other modification of awash, channel creek, or river? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Checklist Question IV.c, eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the Project may potentially result in impacts to aquatic features that are under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW. However, the final jurisdictional limits can only be determined by the regulatory agencies. These impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures B1O-7 through BIO-9, any potential impacts related to the modification of a wash, channel creek, or river would be less than significant. m.ii) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would construct a bike park with parking and visitor amenities, such as shade structures, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and picnic tables. As discussed in Checklist Question IX.a, construction activities for the proposed Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials, including for vehicle or equipment fueling and maintenance. Additionally, as detailed above in Checklist Question X.a, in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project would implement a site -specific SWPPP that sets forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management. During operation, the proposed Project would involve 46 California Department of Conservation, Tsunami Hazard Area Maps, https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ informationwarehouse/ts evacuation/?extent=-13249590.3641%2C3986280.7635%2C-13132183.0887%2C4038 410.8168%2C102100&utm source=cgs+active&utm content=losangeles, accessed April 4, 2024. 47 City of Santa Clarita, 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 74 the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils for equipment. Similar to construction, operations of the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. As a recreational use, it is not anticipated that vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance would occur onsite, or that any deliveries would be necessary during operation of the bike park. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to stormwater management from potential discharges. m.v) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? m.vi) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is located within and drains into the Santa Clara River Watershed, which is not a 303d water body listed for sediment, does not have an approved USEPA TMDL plan for sedimentation, and does not have beneficial uses of "Cold", "Spawn", and "Migratory". Construction of the Project components would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit, which includes the implementation of a site -specific SWPPP adhering to the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practices Handbook. The SWPPP sets forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the Project would be required to receive approval of the SWPPP by the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department. Moreover, the Project would install a concrete J-drain with 2 culverts and a concrete v-ditch, which would convey flows directly into the Haskell Canyon creek, similar to the existing condition drainage pattern. The Project's drainage devices would mitigate the increased velocity of drainage and include dissipaters consisting of riprap, as necessary, to prevent erosion. Additionally, eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. The Project may result in potential impacts to aquatic features that are under jurisdiction by the RWQCB and CDFW. However, the final jurisdictional limits can only be made by the regulatory agencies. These impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-7 through 131O-9, any potential impacts related to stormwater discharges that could impair beneficial uses or water quality benefits and stormwater management that could harm the biological integrity of waterbodies would be less than significant. m.vii) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: Does the proposed project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? Less Than Significant Impact. As described under Checklist Questions XIX.f and XIX.g, the proposed Project would not require any demolition, and thus would generate a small amount of waste from construction activities, such as vegetation from work area clearing. During operation, the proposed Project would generate a nominal amount of waste from users of the park, workers, City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 and volunteers, with additional waste during event days. All non -hazardous solid waste generated from the Project Site (e.g., plastic and glass bottles and jars, paper, newspaper, metal containers, cardboard) would be recycled per local and state regulations, with a diversion goal of 75 percent, in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. Remaining non -hazardous solid waste would be disposed of at one of the nearby landfills. The City would review building plans and ensure that adequate space is set aside to allow for the collection and storage of recyclable materials on the Project Site prior to issuance of building permits. Accordingly, as the Project would comply with adopted programs and regulations pertaining to solid waste and City waste diversion goals. Therefore, the Project would not result in stormwater management impacts related to solid waste provisions. Impacts would be less than significant. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community El El Elconservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped with dirt access paths/trails, LADWP transmission towers, and vegetation. The proposed Project would develop a bike park that would create new trails as well as connect to existing trails in the area. Thus, the proposed Project would improve connectivity within the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The City's General Plan and Zoning Code govern land use of the western portion of the Project Site within City boundaries while the County's General Plan and Zoning Code govern the land use of the eastern portion of the Project Site within County boundaries. The western portion of the Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of Open Space and is zoned OS in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. As stated in the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010, the OS zone is intended to identify and City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 76 reserve land for passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use. Typical uses include recreation, trails, trailheads, paseos, horticulture, limited agriculture, animal grazing, and habitat preservation. Public parks are permitted uses within the OS zone. The eastern portion of the Project Site is designated as RL10 and zoned A-2-2. According to the Los Angeles County General Plan 2035, the purpose of the RL10 designation is to allow for single family residences, equestrian and animal uses, and agricultural and related activities. Per LACMC Section 22.16.030, the A-2 zone permits a comprehensive range of agricultural uses, as well as low -density single-family residential development, outdoor recreational uses, and public and institutional facilities. Riding and hiking trails may be permitted with a ministerial site plan review. As a mountain bike park with bike and multi -use trails, the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. In addition, although the bike park may be permitted with a ministerial site plan review by the County, the City is not required to comply with land use regulations adopted by the County because of intergovernmental immunity (see, e.g., Lawler v. City of Redding (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 778; Government Code sections 53090 and 53091 [local agencies — except for cities and counties - must comply with building and zoning ordinances]). Therefore, no impact would occur. c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. As described in response to Checklist Question IV.f, the Project Site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with such plans. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with such plan and policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site El El El 0 delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? c. Would the project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ manner? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an existing Mineral Extraction Area or a Mineral Resource Zone, as identified on the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element's Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources).48 According to the City's General Plan, as well as the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CaIGEM) Well Finder database, there are no producing, idle, or abandoned oil or natural gas wells, or any other types of mineral extraction activities within the Project Site.49 Furthermore, the Project Site is governed by the provisions of the OS zone within the City, which does not permit mineral recovery uses. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed above, the Project Site is not located within an existing Mineral Extraction Area or a Mineral Resource Zone. In addition, the Project Site is governed by the provisions of the OS zone within the City, which does not permit mineral recovery uses. Therefore, the Project Site is not a mineral resource recovery site, and no impact would occur. c. Would the project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would primarily use soil, wood planks, stones, gravel, and vegetation to construct the bike park. The proposed Project would also consume energy in the form of petroleum based fuel during construction for construction equipment and vehicles. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including gravel and soils, along with petroleum -based fuels to power construction machinery and vehicles. A highly competitive construction economy encourages the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction, to be cost effective and meet financial goals. The Project would not require any unique construction methods or materials that would consume nonrenewable resources in an unusually intensive manner. Therefore, this Project is not expected to consume nonrenewable resources during construction in a wasteful or inefficient manner. During operation, the proposed Project would commit energy for equipment and maintenance vehicles and water resources for trail maintenance for the long-term operation of the bike park. As previously stated, the Project Site would not be connected to any utilities and would not be supplied with electricity and water. All electricity used onsite would be provided by a generator and water would be delivered to the Project Site by water trucks. The consumption of energy in the form of petroleum - based fuels would be typical of similar mountain bike projects, and would not constitute a wasteful or inefficient method of consuming energy. Additionally, water resources are considered to be renewable through the natural hydrological cycle. Therefore, the Project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner, and impacts would be less than significant. 48 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources) 49 California Department of Conservation, Well Finder CaIGEM GIS, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/do-Q-Q wellfinder/, accessed March 6, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 78 XIII. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project result in: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in El ❑ the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑iC ❑ groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑iC ❑ levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑iC ❑ above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels f. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose El El Elpeople residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Explanation of Checklist Responses This section is based, in part, on the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix G of this IS/MND.so NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. A -weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high so Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the "Blue Cloud Bike Project", has been renamed "Haskell Canyon Bike Project' and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative due to the significant reduction of paving required during construction as well as the reduced Project features. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Noise Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The Day -Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time -of -day corrections require the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 decibels to sound levels during the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. These additions are made to the sound levels at these time periods because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason, the sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly. From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop- off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD. The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground -effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft -site and hard -site conditions. Soft -site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft -site conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard -site conditions. Caltrans research has shown that the use of soft -site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. EXISTING SETTING To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Project Site on March 26, 2024; refer to Table XIII-1, Noise Measurements. Noise within the Project area is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on the nearby roads and from dogs barking at the canine facilities (Cesar Milan's Dog Psychology Center). City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5H Table XIII-1 Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements Measured Noise Level dBA dBA Site Primary Noise Start Time of No. Description Sources Measurement Leq Lmax Located west of the Project Site, approximately 50 feet east of Vehicles on 1 Pettinger Canyon Road centerline Pettinger Canyon 12:33 p.m. 52.6 68.3 and at turnoff to proposed road to Road bike park. Located south of the Project Site at 2 Haskell Canyon Trailhead, Vehicles on 12:51 p.m. 67.3 78.1 approximately 60 feet north of Copper Hill Drive Copper Hill Drive centerline. Located east of the Project Site 3 between the canine facilities, Dogs barking at 1:10 P.M. 47.5 55.3 approximately 20 feet west of Blue canine facilities Cloud Road centerline. Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibels, Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level Source: Vista Environmental; refer to Appendix G. Noise Sensitive Receptors Noise -sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health -related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as natural -setting parks, historic sites, and cemeteries areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise -sensitive land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas that would be disturbed as part of the proposed Project. There are also single-family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas that would be disturbed as part of the proposed Project. a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long-term operations of the proposed Project and compares the noise levels to the City standards. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 Construction -Related Noise Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.080 exempts construction noise from the City noise standards that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby homes and canine facilities. In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria thresholds have been utilized. Although the proposed Project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, is a guidance document from a government agency that has defined what constitutes a significant noise impact from implementing a project. The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise. Using the FTA standards, a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise would exceed 80 dBA at the nearest homes (i.e., a residential land use) and 85 dBA at the canine facilities (i.e., a commercial land use) to the east. The calculated construction noise results are shown below in Table XIII-2. Table XIII-2 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors Construction Phase Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at: Canine Facilities to East Homes to West Homes to South Site Preparation 62 56 55 Grading 64 57 56 Building Construction 63 56 55 Paving' 58 51 50 Architectural Coating 50 43 42 FTA Construction Noise Threshold 85 80 80 Exceed Threshold? No No No ' Note that the paved parking surfaces originally proposed have been replaced with decomposed granite. Therefore, the noise results shown are conservative. Source: Vista Environmental; refer to Appendix G Table XIII-2 shows that the construction -related noise levels for all phases of construction activities would be within the FTA construction noise standards. Therefore, through adherence to allowable construction times provided in Section 11.44.080 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, the construction activities for the proposed Project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 82 Operation -Related Noise The proposed Project would consist of the development and operation of a bike park. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed Project would be from Project - generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors. The noise impacts created from Project -generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors have been analyzed separately below. Roadway Vehicular Noise Impact to Nearby Sensitive Receptors Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. Thus, the proposed Project's potential offsite noise impacts are focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project. Neither the General Plan nor the Santa Clarita Municipal Code defines what constitutes a "substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels". As such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the FTA standards for a moderate impact which indicates that a project contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dB, dependent on the existing roadway noise levels. The proposed Project would generate up to 100 daily vehicle trips on weekends and during special event days. According to the One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR City of Santa Clarita, September 2010, Copper Hill east of McBean is the closest roadway segment with traffic data to the Project Site and it currently has 35,000 daily trips. The proposed Project would contribute up to 0.3 percent of the daily trips on Cooper Hill Drive. In order for Project -generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roadways by 3 dB, the average daily traffic (ADT) would have to double, or by 1.5 dB, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent. As such, the proposed Project's roadway noise impacts would be negligible and would not result in a quantitative increase in roadway noise levels. Therefore, operational roadway noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Onsite Noise Impacts The Project would create operational noise from the usage of the bike trails and parking lots, music associated with events at the bike park, and the operation of off -road equipment that would include monthly use of a mini -excavator or a trail dozer for trail maintenance and a small generator for music events or food trucks. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.040 limits the Project's operational noise at the nearby homes (i.e., a residential zone) to 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime and at the canine facilities (i.e., a commercial and manufacturing zone) to the east to 80 dBA during the daytime and 70 dBA during the nighttime. In order to determine the noise impacts from the operational use of the bike trails and parking lots, and from music associated with events at the bike park, reference noise measurements for similar operations were taken of each source and are shown in Table XIII-3. In order to determine the noise impacts from the off -road equipment, the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model was utilized, modeling a backhoe and small generator. All of the reference noise levels were calculated at the distances to the nearby receptors based on standard geometric spreading of City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 noise of a drop-off rate of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of distance between source and receptor. It should be noted that the calculated noise levels represent a worst -case as the noise calculations do not take account the hilly terrain of the Project Site or the sound reduction provided by the vegetation. Table XIII-3 Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors Reference Noise Measurements' Calculated Noise Levels (dBA Leq) at: Distance Canine Receptor to Reference Noise Facilities to Homes Homes to Noise Source Source (feet) Level (dBA Leq) East to West South Bike Trails 20 40.6 9 2 1 Parking Lotsz 10 51.7 8 6 1 Music/Event 70 74.0 39 44 37 Off -Road 50 75.1 50 43 42 Equipment Generator 50 73.6 32 37 30 Noise Level from All Sources Combined 50 46 43 City Noise Standards3 (day/night) 80/70 65/55 65/55 Exceed City Noise Standards (day/night)? No/No No/No No/No Notes: ' The reference noise measurements printouts are provided in Appendix G. 2 Note that the Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. Therefore, the noise results shown are conservative. 3 From Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code. Source: Noise calculation methodology from Caltrans, 2013 (see Appendix G). Table XIII-3 shows that the proposed Project's worst -case (i.e., during an event and trail maintenance) operational noise from the simultaneous operation of all noise sources on the Project Site would create a noise level as high as 50 dBA Leq at the canine facilities to the east, 46 dBA Leq at the homes to the west, and 43 dBA Leq at the home to the south, which would be within the applicable City's daytime and nighttime noise standards as detailed in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.040. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from onsite noise sources. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The following section analyzes the potential vibration impacts associated with the construction and operations of the proposed Project. Construction -Related Vibration Impacts Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off -road equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the Project. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 84 Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.15.050 limits vibration to what is perceptible at the boundary of the lot where it is created. However, Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.15.050 exempts construction activities from this vibration standard. Since the City construction vibration standards do not provide any limits to the vibration levels that may be created from construction activities, the Caltrans vibration guidance is utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a dozer. A large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structures (800 feet away) would be 0.002 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite structure would be within the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold detailed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operation -Related Vibration Impacts The proposed Project would consist of the operation of a bike park. The ongoing operation of the proposed Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the proposed Project. c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the response to Checklist Question XII I.a above, noise generated during Project construction and operation would be below applicable noise thresholds. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts on noise. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? f. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, approximately 12.2 miles to the northeast.51 Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to airport -related safety hazards or excessive noise. 51 EPA, NEPAssist, https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx, accessed February 12, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the project: Significant Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and El El Elbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of El El Elreplacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X housing elsewhere? Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The Project includes the construction of a bike park with parking and visitor amenities. The proposed Project would not develop any housing or businesses on the Project Site that would generate residents or a substantial number of employment opportunities. Although a limited number of full- and part-time staff and volunteers would be required to maintain the bike park, it is expected that the staff and volunteers would be supplied by the existing regional workforce. Thus, the Project would not result in a direct population growth. The Project would utilize existing unpaved roads to access the Project Site. The Project is not anticipated to increase the population of the Project area as the bike park would generally serve the local community. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require any utility infrastructure; no lighting is proposed and the Project would not require any water or sewer infrastructure as the Project would include vault restrooms. Therefore, the Project would not result in indirect population growth due to the extension of roads or other infrastructure. As such, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project Site does not currently provide housing, and no persons reside onsite. The Project would not construct any housing nor would the Project displace any people or housing. Thus, the Project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IN XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. 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 any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X Explanation of Checklist Responses a.i) Would the project 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 fire protection services? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita contracts with the LACoFD for urban and wildland fire protection services, fire prevention services, emergency medical services, hazardous materials services, and urban search and rescue services. LACoFD provides fire protection and life safety services to over four million residents within its jurisdiction of 60 incorporated cities and all 122 unincorporated areas of the County.52 LACoFD also operates as a unit of the CAL FIRE and has the responsibility of implementing California's Strategic Fire Plan in Los Angeles County and addressing emergency operations, public service, and organizational effectiveness.53 The LACoFD participates in the Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid System based on a mutual aid agreement among emergency responders to provide assistance across jurisdictional boundaries, in cases where an emergency response exceeds capabilities of local resources.54 The nearest station to the Project Site is LACoFD Station 108, located at 28799 Rock 52 Los Angeles County Fire Department, 2021 County of Los Angeles Fire Department Annual Report, 2021 53 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 54 County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Fire Department 2022 Strategic Fire Plan, 2021. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 Canyon Drive approximately 2.2 miles (driving distance) southwest of the proposed Haskell Bike Core and 4.1 miles (driving distance) southwest of the proposed Blue Cloud Trailhead. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a VHFHSZ.55 The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City Building Codes, which includes showing proof through certification with the LACoFD that new development is located within a designated distance of a water source such as water supply tanks or retention basins for emergency firefighting purposes. Compliance with the Building Code also includes fire prevention such as the provision of access roads, adequate road widths, and clearance of brush around structures located in hillside areas that are considered primary wildland fire risk areas. The City would submit 90 percent Project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. The Fuel Modification Unit approval consists of reviewing aspects such as structure location and type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation and overall site settings.56 Additionally, as previously discussed, the parking lot for the Haskell Core would include space for emergency turnaround for firetrucks. These proposed Project features could improve emergency evacuation in the area. Similar to existing conditions, signage with rules and regulations for the park that state no smoking and no spark emitting equipment would be placed in various areas throughout the mountain bike park. Moreover, the City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. City staff would coordinate a swift and orderly evacuation, directing visitors out through the main access point while keeping the route clear for emergency responders. The City would also work closely with LACoFD for fire -related emergencies, LASD for search and rescue operations, and the MRCA in cases involving enforcement issues. To reduce risk and avoid emergency evacuations whenever possible, the Project Site would be proactively closed during periods of severe weather conditions. City staff would also monitor official weather and fire alerts and post clear signage and online notifications in advance of any closure to keep the public informed and safe. The proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures or residences, or increase the population in the City. Thus, adequate fire protection services can be provided to the Project with the existing fire stations and facilities in the area. The Project is not anticipated to affect fire protection demands to the extent that new or physically altered fire facilities would be required. Furthermore, in City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of California State University Ruling (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, the court found that Section 35 of Article XI11 of the California Constitution requires local agencies to provide public safety services, including fire protection, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the City would comply with that provision to ensure that public safety services are provided.57 Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. 66 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, May 2022, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/ html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20-%20Safety%20Element.pdf, accessed February 13, 2024. 56 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Forestry Fuel Modification, https://fire.lacounty.gov/forestry-fuel-modification/ #1566437238201-d272ffef-2b3d, accessed March 12, 2024. 57 City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, 843, 847. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration N a.ii) Would the project 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 police protection services? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita is served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), which covers a service area of 656 square miles. The LASD's Santa Clarita Valley Station is located at 26201 Golden Valley Road and serves the Angeles National Forest, Bouquet Canyon, Canyon Country, Castaic, Gorman, Hasley Canyon, Newhall, Neenach, Sand Canyon, Santa Clarita, Saugus, Six Flags Magic Mountain, Sleepy Valley, Southern Oaks, Stevenson Ranch, Sunset Point, Tesoro del Valle, Valencia, Val Verde, West Hills, Westridge. The Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station serves an estimated resident population of 310,000 persons. The station has been staffed by 205 sworn personnel and 34 civilian employees, but staffing levels and standards vary based on needs, performance level, and service modeling.58 Average response times from the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station for the 2020-2021 fiscal year were 74.5 minutes for routine calls, 13.9 minutes for priority calls, and 6.45 minutes for emergency calls, which would be longer for routine calls and shorter for priority and emergency calls when compared to industry standards.59 The Project Site would continue to be served by the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station, which is approximately 10.1 miles (driving distance) south of the proposed Haskell Core and 10.4 miles (driving distance) south of the proposed Blue Cloud Trailhead. The proposed Project would not include development of residential or commercial uses that would result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Project Site. During operation, the proposed Project would bring more individuals to the Project Site than under existing conditions, which has the potential to result in a minor increase in emergency response, search and rescue, and other sheriff services if any injuries or crime incidents occur as a result of bike park users. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project's minor increase in demand for police protection services would require new police facilities to be constructed. Moreover, as discussed above in Checklist XV.a. i, it is reasonable to conclude that the City would comply with Section 35 of Article XII I of the California Constitution, which requires local agencies to provide sufficient public safety services, including police protection. Therefore, impacts on police protection services would be less than significant. a.iii) Would the project 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 schools? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Project Site that would generate a demand for schools. Therefore, no new or altered school facilities would be required. No impact would occur. 58 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 59 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 a.iv) Would the project 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 parks? Less Than Significant Impact. According to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.010.E.(2), "it is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that a minimum of three (3) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within this City be devoted to neighborhood and community park recreational purposes." The Santa Clarita Municipal Code acknowledges that, in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the City's goal is to provide parks at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents. The Conservation and Open Space Element states that the City offers approximately 1.5 to 2 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents, with 246 acres of developed park space and about 173 acres of passive park land.60 The proposed Project is a mountain bike park development that would provide two activity/programming areas and approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the approximately 380-acre Project Site In addition, the Project would maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. Thus, the proposed Project would improve parkland to resident ratio for the City. Although the proposed Project would require construction and operation that would result in impacts discussed throughout this IS/MND, there would be minimal physical alteration of the majority of the Project Site. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.v) Would the project 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 other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Project Site that would generate a demand for other public facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities. No impact would occur. XVI. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 60 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 2011. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration sU Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of El X El El recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation of Checklist Responses 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The western portion of the Project Site comprises open space with existing multi -use trails. The eastern portion of the Project Site is currently restricted to private use. The proposed Project would construct a mountain bike park with approximately 15 miles of trails and two activity/programming areas with a variety of visitor amenities. The proposed Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. The proposed Project has the potential to increase the use of open space within Haskell Canyon through the operation of the proposed bike park as it is anticipated that more users would visit the area than under existing conditions. However, the bike park and existing and new trails would be maintained daily and monthly by staff, such that substantial physical deterioration of the Project Site would not occur or be accelerated. Moreover, the proposed bike park could decrease the use of other parks in the region with similar features. Thus, the Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed Project consists of the development of the proposed mountain bike park. As such, while the proposed Project would involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that may have the potential to result in an adverse physical effect on the environment, the Project has been evaluated in this IS/MND to determine whether physical impacts to the environment would occur, and mitigation measures have been identified, as appropriate, to reduce any such impacts to a less than significant level. Specifically, the Project involves mitigation measures associated with reducing impacts to the environment, as identified in: Section IV. Biological Resources; Section V. Cultural Resources; Section IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Noise; Section X. Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section XX. Wildfire. Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed as part of this IS/MND would reduce any potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XVII. TRANSPORTATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and El ElElnon-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves El ❑ or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located on land designated as Open Space and Rural Land 10, and is currently vacant and undeveloped except for several LADWP transmission towers and dirt access paths/trails. The Project Site does not include any transit stops or designated pedestrian or bicycle paths.61,62 The Project Site has existing multi -use trails and would propose additional multi -use trails, which would provide for more connectivity in the area. Additionally, the Project Site would not intersect any highways, freeways, or conflict with any intersections or streets. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant. 61 City of Santa Clarita, Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, 2020. 62 City of Santa Clarita, Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Recommendations, 2020. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, dated May 19, 2020, if a project meets at least one of three screening criteria, a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis would not be required. Under the project size screening criterion, projects that generate less than 110 daily trips may be screened from conducting a VMT analysis and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The proposed Project would construct an approximately 380-acre mountain bike park with approximately 15 miles of new trails. In addition, the Project would maintain and connect to approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. Conservatively assuming a worst -case week in the summer with one Summer Series weekday event with 100 vehicles, two weekend peak days with 100 vehicles per day, and four weekdays with 20 vehicles per day, the Project would generate an average of 108.6 daily trips on a worst - case week.63 As such, the Project would generate less than 110 daily trips and is screened from conducting a VMT analysis. Therefore, Project impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be designed to maximize safety by adhering to established design and engineering standards for the proposed programming areas and for the multi -use trails. The proposed Project would designate trails with appropriate signage to protect private properties and park visitors. Moreover, public parks and trails are permitted uses for the Project Site. Therefore, based on the above, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core programming area would include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks. Moreover, existing fire roads within the Project Site could be used for emergency access. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. 63 200 trips (Summer Series Weekday) + 400 trips (2 Weekend Peak Days) + 160 trips (4 Weekday Peak with 40 trips per day) = 760 total trips per week. 760 total trips per week / 7 days per week = 108.5 trips per day City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Less Than Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, Potentially Significant Less Than cultural landscape that is geographically Significant With Significant No Impact defined in terms of the size and scope of the Impact Mitigation Impact landscape, sacred place or object with cultural Incorporated value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local El El El register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying El X El El 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. Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, 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 a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, 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 a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? 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. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above for Checklist Question V.a, and evaluated in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D of this IS/MND), cultural resources located within the study area include one previously recorded historic period domestic site (CA-LAN-3132H) comprising concrete structure pads and domestic debris and one newly recorded historic mining site (BlueCloud-MBI-01 H) consisting of the remnants of the Blue Cloud Dust Mine that operated from around 1952 until 2016. Both sites identified are not City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as associated with a California Native American tribe and do not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. Thus, neither site is considered a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. Additionally, a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was completed for the Project area with negative results. In compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires tribal consultation as part of the CEQA process, the City initiated consultation in April 2024 with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). A record of the City's communication and consultation efforts with the FTBMI are provided in Appendix H of this IS/MND. Based on consultation with the FTBMI, which concluded on April 18, 2025, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-5 would be incorporated to reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less -than - significant -level. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 Document Release: Any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. Mitigation Measure TCR-2 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan: In the event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP will provide details regarding the process for in -field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non -funerary resources. Mitigation Measure TCR-3 Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor: The Project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity during the initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of which it will be disturbed). If cultural resources are not encountered after observing the initial pass of all ground -disturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If cultural resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, Project archaeologist, and the City to ensure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the Project applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by Project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the Project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measure TCR-4 In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery: If 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 retained by the Project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be contacted about any pre -contact and/or post -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Mitigation Measure TCR-5 Human Remains: In the inadvertent discovery of human remains or funerary objects 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 shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑iC Control Board? b. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or, electric power, El El natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements El ❑ and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration :S Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate El El Elcapacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed Project would include vault restrooms that would be serviced weekly. It is anticipated that the waste collected from the vault restrooms would be disposed of at the Saugus or Valencia Water Reclamation Plants, which are operated by Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. Since there are only three vault restrooms proposed for the Project Site, it is anticipated that the reclamation plants would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. Additionally, the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District must comply with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. b. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The Project Site is not currently served by any water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. While the proposed Project would construct a J-drain with 2 culverts and a concrete v-ditch to convey drainage flows in the Haskell Core, the proposed Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to storm water drainage facilities. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require connections to water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Moreover, the proposed Project would not interfere with the existing LADWP transmission towers, and thus, would not require relocation of any electrical facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. The drainage devices that would be installed as part of the Project would drain directly into the Haskell Canyon creek. Thus, the Project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage stormwater facilities or expansion of facilities, and no impact would occur. d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not currently served by the City's water service provider, the Santa Clarita Water Division of the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water). The proposed Project, including the vault restrooms, would not require connections to water distribution facilities. Additionally, due to the nominal amount of water required for Project maintenance, it is expected that SCV Water would have sufficient supplies to serve the Project and that water could be purchased for maintenance purposes. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed. As such, Project impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the most recently available information from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2019, the City of Santa Clarita disposed of approximately 206,278 tons of solid waste at a solid waste facility, 16 tons at the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (a transformation facility), and 812 tons of alternative daily cover.64 Of the 16 facilities that received waste from the City, five facilities that accept both construction and demolition waste and municipal solid waste received more than 1,000 tons of waste, including those within and outside Los Angeles County: Antelope Valley Public Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, Lost Hills Environmental Waste Facility, Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center; and Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill. Based on the latest available remaining permitted disposal capacity information, as provided by the Los Angeles County Countywide Disposal Rate and Assessment of Disposal Capacity 2022 Annual Report, the Antelope Valley Public Landfill has a remaining permitted disposal capacity of 8.5 million tons and Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill has a remaining permitted disposal capacity of 51.7 million tons.ss 64 CalRecycle, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility, Year 2019, Jurisdiction: Los Angeles —Santa Clarita, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/ Disposal ByFacility, accessed March 13, 2024; alternative daily cover refers to cover material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. 66 Los Angeles County, Countywide Disposal Rate and Assessment Capacity 2022 Annual Report, Appendix D, https:Hpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/ShowDoc.aspx?id=17632&hp=yes&type=PDF, accessed March 13, 2024. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed Project would not require any demolition, and thus would generate a small amount of waste from construction activities, such as vegetation from site clearing. During operation, the proposed Project would generate a nominal amount of waste from users of the park, workers, and volunteers, with additional waste during event days.66 It is anticipated that Project -generated waste would continue to be accepted by the same multiple refuse disposal facilities that currently receive the City's municipal solid wastes, including those identified above. Based on the total capacity of 109.5 million tons from the three aforementioned landfills, the Project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's construction and operational waste disposal needs, and impacts would be less than significant. g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. All non -hazardous solid waste generated from the Project Site (e.g., plastic and glass bottles and jars, paper, newspaper, metal containers, cardboard) would be recycled per local and state regulations, with a diversion goal of 75 percent, in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. Remaining non -hazardous solid waste would be disposed of at one of the nearby landfills. The City would review building plans and ensure that adequate space is set aside to allow for the collection and storage of recyclable materials on the Project Site prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. XX. WILDFIRE Less Than If located in or near state responsibility areas Potentially Significant Less Than or lands classified as very high fire hazard Significant With Significant No Impact severity zones would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power El El 0 El or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 66 According to generation rates provided by CalRecycle(hftps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates) , the closest use to the proposed Project would be public/institutional. Public/institutional uses generate approximately 0.007 Ib/sq ft/day. The proposed Project would develop 15 miles of trails that would be a maximum of 6 feet wide. Thus, the proposed Project would generate 0.63 pounds of waste per day (15 miles x 6 feet = 90 square feet; 90 x 0.07 = 0.63 Ibs/sq ft/day). City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration :S Less Than If located in or near state responsibility areas Potentially Significant Less Than or lands classified as very high fire hazard Significant With Significant No Impact severity zones would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Explanation of Checklist Responses a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The eastern portion of the Project Site outside of the City's boundaries has been designated by CALFIRE as a VHFHSZ within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The western portion of the Project Site within the City's boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. As discussed in Checklist Question IX.g, emergency response and evacuation for the Project Site is governed by the City's Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, in the event of evacuations, LACoFD directs LASD regarding areas that need to be evacuated. That information is then shared with the City's Emergency Operations Center, and emergency notification is then conveyed to residents.67 Construction activities associated with the Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. During operation, an emergency could require partial or total evacuation of the Project Site and/or sheltering in place for some portions of the Project Site. The City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. City staff would coordinate a swift and orderly evacuation, directing visitors out through the main access point while keeping the route clear for emergency responders. The City would also work closely with LACoFD for fire -related emergencies, LASD for search and rescue operations, and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) in cases involving enforcement issues. To reduce risk and avoid emergency evacuations whenever possible, the Project Site would be proactively closed during periods of severe weather conditions. City staff would also monitor official weather and fire alerts and post clear signage and online notifications in advance of any closure to keep the public informed and safe. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core would also include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks. Thus, the proposed Project would not preclude the City from implementing the Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would not preclude LACoFD from 67 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 100 implementing their latest Strategic Plan.68 Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed, the eastern portion of the Project Site has been designated as a VHFHSZ within a SRA and the western portion of the Project Site within the City's boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. As discussed in the City's General Plan Safety Element, the Santa Clarita Valley is susceptible to wildland fires because of its hilly terrain, dry weather conditions, and vegetation. Steep slopes allow for the quick spread of flames during fires and late summer and fall months are critical times of the year when the Santa Ana winds deliver hot, dry desert air into the region. Highly flammable plant communities consisting of variable mixtures of woody shrubs and herbaceous species, such as chaparral and sage vegetation, allow fires to spread easily on hillsides and in canyons. The proposed Project would construct a mountain bike park in an area characterized by mountainous and hilly terrain. As previously discussed, the existing slope of the Project Site ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi -use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. Additionally, the Project Site includes highly flammable plant communities, including chaparral and sage. As discussed in Checklist Question IX.h, the proposed Project would require construction and operation within a VHFHSZ. While construction equipment would be equipped with a spark arrester as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.12.1, construction activities could still accidentally spark a fire and could exacerbate wildfire risks. Additionally, Project operation would bring more visitors to the Project Site than under existing conditions, especially during event days; visitors could be in the park while a nearby wildfire is happening. While the Project operations would not exacerbate wildfire risk, the proposed Project could expose visitors to wildfire risks due to the location and condition of the Project Site, as well as to pollutant concentrations from a nearby wildfire. Therefore, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, which includes the establishment of fuel modification zones, would be required to reduce impacts related to wildfire risks to a less -than -significant level. c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed, the eastern portion of the Project Site has been designated as a VHFHSZ within a SRA. The Project Site is not currently served by any water sources, power lines, or other utilities. The proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities. Additionally, the City would submit 90 percent Project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in 68 Los Angeles County Fire Department, 2017-2021 Strategic Plan, https://fire.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/09/LACoFD-Strategic-Plan-2017-2021.pdf, accessed March 19, 2024. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. The Fuel Modification Unit approval consists of reviewing aspects such as structure location and type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation and overall site settings. With approval from the Fuel Modification Unit, impacts related to exacerbating fire risk would be minimized. Lastly, the proposed Project would not interfere with existing LADWP transmission towers, and thus, would not require relocation of any electrical facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the eastern portion of the Project Site has been designated as a VHFHSZ within a SRA and western portion of the Project Site within the City's boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. As discussed in Checklist Question Vll.a.iv, the Project Site is within a landslide zone. The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi -use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. The last wildfire near the Project Site was the Buckweed Fire in 2007, which burned 38,000 acres and resulted in 63 lost structures and 1 injury.69 Thus, the Project Site would not expose people or structures to risks involving flooding or landslides as a result of post -fire slope instability. Additionally, as discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project would not result in substantial changes related to drainage and would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as the proposed Project would involve minimal development and would generally follow the existing contours of the slopes for areas at higher elevations. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to 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 ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ community, 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? 69 City of Santa Clarita, 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 102 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a El ElElproject 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 ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation of Checklist Responses a. Does the project have the potential to 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, 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Checklist Question IV.a, native vegetation communities within the Project Site have a moderate or high potential to support three special -status plant species: club -haired mariposa -lily, slender mariposa -lily, and short -jointed beavertail. Additionally, vegetation communities have a low potential to support three special -status plant species: Nevins barberry, Catalina mariposa lily, and island mountain -mahogany. Mitigation Measure 131O-1 requiring a rare plant survey would reduce impacts related to special -status plants to a less -than -significant level. As discussed in Checklist Question IV.a, the Project Site has a moderate or high potential to support four special -status wildlife species: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Bell's sparrow, coastal whiptail, and coast horned lizard. In addition, the Project Site has a low potential to support nine special -status wildlife species: grasshopper sparrow, California legless lizard, California glossy snake, Crotch's bumble bee, Swainson's hawk, Townsend's big -eared bat, white-tailed kite, spotted bat, and western spadefoot. Additionally, one special -status wildlife species was observed during the field survey: Lawrence's goldfinch. Mitigation Measure 131O-2 through Mitigation Measure 131O-6 would reduce impacts related to special -status wildlife to a less -than -significant level. As discussed in Checklist Section V, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no related impacts would occur. With regard to archaeological resources, there is low sensitivity for significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Site. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is included to require the proper handling and disposition of archaeological resources in the unexpected event that such resources are inadvertently discovered during Project construction. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. In addition, as discussed in Checklist Section XVIII, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-5 would be incorporated to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less - than -significant -level. As discussed in Checklist Question Vll.j, while fossils have been discovered in nearby locations in the same sedimentary deposits as exist in the Project area, the proposed Project would not require ground disturbance at depths greater than four feet for the footers for the bike courses. Other construction activities, including construction of the proposed bike courses and trails, would take place within previously disturbed fill sediments (e.g., clearing and grubbing) or at the current topsoil surface and do not require ground disturbance in undisturbed geologic contexts. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource. Therefore, impacts related to unique geologic features or paleontological resources would be less than significant. Based on the analysis in this IS/MND, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance related to degradation of the quality of the environment, substantial reduction in the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threatening to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduction in the number or restriction of the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or elimination of 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The City has one development project within an approximately 2-mile radius of the Project Site. The project nearest to the Project Site is the Bouquet Canyon Project, which has received entitlement approvals for 375 residential units (1 mile southwest of the Project Site). In contrast with the residential development, the Project proposes a bike park with minimal development. In addition, due to the distance from the one development, the physical and site - specific conditions of the Project Site, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND, the Project would not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable. Additionally, the Project is not expected to induce any growth in the region as the Project would not develop housing and would utilize employees from the Project region. Moreover, as detailed in the preceding sections, the Project would not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. The Project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address environmental factors such as air quality, energy, GHG emissions, transportation, utilities, and other applicable regulations that have been adopted by public agencies. In many cases, including aesthetics, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards, land use, mineral resources, noise, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire, the impacts associated with the Project are either localized to the Project Site or are of such a negligible degree that they would not result in a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable) and the Project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 104 c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Checklist Sections I through XX of this document, the Project has been determined to have no impacts, less -than -significant impacts, and impacts that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and the impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. City of Santa Clarita May 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDICES Lead Agency: Prepared by: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Cl ari to, CA 91355 (661) 284-1414 Contact: Amber Rodriguez I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 Office: (562) 200-7165 MAY 2025 This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS AIR QUALITY,, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS SANTA CLARITA BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK PROJECT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd #302 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by: Vista Environmental 1021 Didrickson Way Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 510 5355 Greg Tonkovich, AICP Project No. 23002 April 17, 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Locations and Study Area.................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Project Description.................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project......................................................................... 3 2.0 Air Pollutants........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors.................................................................................. 6 2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern...................................................................................................... 8 3.0 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Global Warming Potential........................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory...................................................................................... 13 4.0 Air Quality Management....................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Federal - United States Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................... 14 4.2 State - California Air Resources Board.................................................................................... 17 4.3 Regional -Southern California................................................................................................ 18 4.4 Local - City of Santa Clarita...................................................................................................... 21 5.0 Energy Conservation Management........................................................................................ 22 5.1 State......................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Local - City of Santa Clarita...................................................................................................... 24 6.0 Global Climate Change Management..................................................................................... 26 6.1 International ............................................................................................................................ 26 6.2 Federal - United States Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................... 26 6.3 State......................................................................................................................................... 27 6.4 Regional -Southern California................................................................................................ 32 5.5 Local - City of Santa Clarita...................................................................................................... 33 7.0 Atmospheric Setting..............................................................................................................37 7.1 South Coast Air Basin............................................................................................................... 37 7.2 Local Climate............................................................................................................................ 37 7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality..................................................................................................... 38 7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels................................................................................................... 40 8.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions................................................................................. 42 8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters........................................................................................42 8.2 Energy Use Calculations........................................................................................................... 45 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page i City of Santa Clarita TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED 9.0 Thresholds of Significance...................................................................................................... 49 9.1 Regional Air Quality................................................................................................................. 49 9.2 Local Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 49 9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants............................................................................................................ 50 9.4 Odor Impacts............................................................................................................................ 50 9.5 Energy Conservation................................................................................................................ 50 9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................................... 51 10.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................... 52 10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................... 52 10.2 Air Quality Compliance.......................................................................................................... 52 10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non -Attainment Pollution......................................................... 54 10.4 Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................ 58 10.5 Odor Emissions...................................................................................................................... 59 10.6 Energy Consumption.............................................................................................................. 60 10.7 Energy Plan Consistency........................................................................................................ 64 10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................. 65 10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency......................................................................................... 66 11.0 References.............................................................................................................................73 APPENDICES Appendix A — CalEEMod Model Printouts Appendix B— EMFAC2021 Model Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page ii City of Santa Clarita LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1— Proposed Site Plan and Study Area.............................................................................................. 5 LIST OF TABLES Table A — Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs......................... 12 Table B — State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards........................................................................... 14 Table C — National Air Quality Standards Attainment Status — South Coast Air Basin ............................... 16 Table D — California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status — South Coast Air Basin .............. 17 Table E — Monthly Climate Data for Newhall Station................................................................................. 38 Table F — Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary............................................................................... 39 Table G — CalEEMod Land Use Parameters................................................................................................. 42 Table H — Off -Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ........ 46 Table I — On -Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ....... 47 Table J — Off -Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Operation of the Proposed Project .............. 48 Table K—SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance.................................49 Table L— SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance................................................................ 50 Table M — Construction -Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions.................................................................... 55 Table N —Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions.................................................................................... 55 Table O— Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies ............................ 64 Table P — Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions................................................................... 65 Table Q— Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.................................................................................... 66 Table R — Consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020.................................................................................. 70 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page iii City of Santa Clarita ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill Air Basin South Coast Air Basin AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BACT Best Available Control Technology BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFCs chlorofluorocarbons Cfa tetrafluoromethane C2F6 hexafluoroethane CHa Methane CO Carbon monoxide COz Carbon dioxide COze Carbon dioxide equivalent City City of Santa Clarita DPM Diesel particulate matter EPA Environmental Protection Agency °F Fahrenheit FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GHG Greenhouse gas GWP Global warming potential HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons IPCC International Panel on Climate Change kWhr kilowatt-hour LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page iv City of Santa Clarita LST Localized Significant Thresholds MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study MMTCOze Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MWh Megawatt -hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NOX Nitrogen oxides NOz Nitrogen dioxide OPR Office of Planning and Research Pfc Perfluorocarbons PM Particle matter PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPM Parts per million PPB Parts per billion PPT Parts per trillion RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SOX Sulfur oxides TAC Toxic air contaminants UNFCCC United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change VOC Volatile organic compounds Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page v City of Santa Clarita 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives This Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Impact Analysis has been completed to determine the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park project (proposed project). The following is provided in this report: • A description of the proposed project; • A description of the atmospheric setting; • A description of the criteria pollutants and GHGs; • A description of the air quality regulatory framework; • A description of the energy conservation regulatory framework; • A description of the GHG emissions regulatory framework; • A description of the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions thresholds including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds; • An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); • An analysis of the short-term construction related and long-term operational air quality, energy, and GHG emissions impacts; and • An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with all applicable energy and GHG emissions reduction plans and policies. 1.2 Site Locations and Study Area The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Santa Clarita (City). The project site includes nearly 500 acres of open space, including the Haskell Canyon Open Space and the Blue Cloud Open Space areas. The project site is bounded by open space to the north, open space, canine training and boarding facilities and Blue Cloud Road to the east, open space and single-family homes to the south, and open space and Pettinger Canyon Road to the west. The proposed site plan and study area is shown in Figure 1. Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project. There are also single-family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas to be disturbed as part of the project. 1.3 Proposed Project Description The proposed project would consist of developing a mountain bike park consisting of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Blue Cloud Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails (beginner and intermediate), Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 1 City of Santa Clarita approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails (beginner, intermediate, expert, and pro), and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails ((beginner, intermediate, and expert). The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi- use trails. The Haskell Core would include a 56-space parking lot and a parking/emergency turnaround with eight additional parking spaces, two American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and four spaces for food trucks; an event plaza with picnic tables and a flexible stage; beginner, intermediate, and advanced pump tracks; a dual slalom course; progressive jumplines; and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, vault restrooms, bike repair stations, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Several trailheads leading to perimeter, climbing, and multi -use trails would also be located in the Haskell Core. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would include a parking/emergency turnaround with 10 parking spaces and one ADA parking space. This portion of the Project Site would feature a field station with gathering and restoration work spaces for volunteers, designated areas for potential future landscape restoration, and a multi -use trailhead. Visitor amenities that would be provided at the Blue Cloud Trailhead include vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space for riders) with a shade structure. Specifically, the proposed project is anticipated to disturb approximately 20 acres, would require the import of approximately 4,400 cubic yards of material for road and trail base, would include construction of approximately 3,500 square feet of structures, and would pave approximately 123,000 square feet for parking areas, walkways and event plaza areas. 1.4 Executive Summary Standard Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Regulatory Conditions The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the SCAQMD and State of California (State). South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules The SCAQMD rules that are applicable to the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following: • Rule 402 Nuisance — Controls the emissions of odors and other air contaminants; • Rule 403 Fugitive Dust — Controls the emissions of fugitive dust; • Rules 1108 and 1108.1 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt — Controls the VOC content in asphalt; • Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings — Controls the VOC content in paints and solvents; and • Rule 1143 Paint Thinners — Controls the VOC content in paint thinners; State of California Rules The State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are applicable to the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 2 City of Santa Clarita • CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 — In use Off -Road Diesel Vehicles; • CCR Title 13, Section 2025 — On -Road Diesel Truck Fleets; • CCR Title 24 Part 6 — California Building Energy Standards; and • CCR Title 24 Part 11— California Green Building Standards. Summary of Analysis Results The following is a summary of the proposed project's impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines air quality, energy, and GHG emissions checklist questions. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the apDlicable air auality Dlan? Less than significant impact. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the protect region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during protect construction or operation; Less than significant impact. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy; Less than significant impact. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the anvirnnmant7 Less than significant impact. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Less than significant impact. 1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project This analysis found that implementation of the State and SCAQMD air quality, energy, and GHG emissions reductions regulations were adequate to limit criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odors, and Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 3 City of Santa Clarita energy emissions from the proposed project to less than significant levels. No mitigation measures are required for the proposed project with respect to air quality and energy. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 4 City of Santa Clarita HASKELL CANYON Pro -level Upper Mountain ARCHERY RANGE downhill bike trail Expert -level Upper Mountain downhill bike trail r I I I IPROPERTY BOUNDARY ANGELES Trail connection NATIONAL requires coordination FOREST with US Forest Service ty �2 mile - use loop trail "� �{ Cklimb ngt awl-�.. cV t.1 ProgreMsive ountd�Hub' g _ �" connect o:etween f -3 'l ;a _ �.s•- x ,��, g� t: a o- .F y trails from Lo'weir - ` _ LowerlMo�ln Hub Multi use multi- ,- 5t", -'' and Perimeter Trai_r _ directional ri Pemeter Trail § ' (climbing trail for _ Intermediate Mid i � I � w ''- hlo+nta n downhill tra Is ,'�,`,, q. � Haskell trails) i - zp ._ P-' � vet Kt Progress ve -}� Ir. Md Nlunt n �� ti...-'a' �` n•' _ } a� s pestyleve .Fdownhillltrails` _ _ - iumpl nes t ,+ _ a"� f om Saddle Hub F SlopestYle '!,� ; d 9 "i �. .Y °vy4 - DLE return tail T -' f i Lowe Mou tan r n a d -`' - Legend climbing trail . a t s L IiUB Dual slalom 1 $ return Nail isI lomr - f `? ¢p ! ,P� _ O Trail Hub/Overlook Progressive Bike Park Start Mound h ^ skills area}'.s Q } a Trailhead HASKELL �— u pl ne y T _ BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK et a * ' S TRAILHEAD Perimeter Trail :a Pro9 e sv tom: 2 ti CORE e �:.v..iumpl nesr -_.Lt+ Multi -use _ Multi -use l,-, connector trail Climbing/Return Trail oop trail .. _ �:r. above Has core - TR a ��--Multi-use trail Beginner Downhill Bike Trail connection to Haskell g Potential future �. , •c I : n \ Canyon Open Space F trail planning area -il Intermediate Downhill Bike Trail Existing ` Q E r t I singletrack loop to t - - _- wdM Expert Downhill Bike Trail amain �y a` downhill b k P .As 1 - trail .;;..r,;. :'5`. 4 -a.: e r/ _. -. _ \W: - Bikecilmbingtrail ` + Pro Downhill Bike Trail fn and multi -use tra I - Z i ` ;Existing Haskell-=• "connection to Haskell ? k, Proposed Multi -use Trail fEanon Open Space Canyon Open Space tl S goadsy/trails to remain i, i�, Intermediate - O =` ti --- Existing Multi use Trail/Road to rn Upper -man - gdownNil 4, * Remain - _ F, - Note: All proposed trail alignments are Z t i� F s� conceptual and require field verification. p e �- Z_ _....... _ Y 0 HASKELL CANYON o 200 aoo 800 ft OPEN SPACE North SOURCE: Avid Trails. VISTA Figure 1 Proposed Site Plan and Study Area ENVIRONMENTAL 2.0 AIR POLLUTANTS Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non -criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non -criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). A summary of federal and state ambient air quality standards is provided in the Regulatory Framework section. 2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), lead, and particulate matter (PM). The ozone precursors consist of NOx and VOC. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants "criteria" air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health - based and/or environmentally -based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants and ozone precursors. Nitrogen Oxides NOx is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOx are colorless and odorless, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can often be seen as a reddish -brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx reacts with other pollutants to form, ground -level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NOz, which cause respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources. Ozone Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air, instead it is created by a chemical reaction between NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground -level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground -level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground -level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes approximately 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 6 City of Santa Clarita gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations. CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person's ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death. Sulfur Oxides SOX gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, as well as from the refining of gasoline. SOX dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment. Exposure to SOX gases can cause respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma and cause possible allergic sensitization, airway inflammation, and asthma development. Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead -acid battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Particulate Matter PM is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) that are also known as Respirable Particulate Matter are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) that are also known as Fine Particulate Matter have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 7 City of Santa Clarita Volatile Organic Compounds Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of ozone are referred to and regulated as VOCs (also referred to as reactive organic gases). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil -fueled power plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. VOC is not classified as a criteria pollutant, since VOCs by themselves are not a known source of adverse health effects. The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of ozone and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group. 2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the above -listed criteria pollutants, TACs are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs is a term that is defined under the California Clean Air Act and consists of the same substances that are defined as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in the Federal Clean Air Act. There are over 700 hundred different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least 40 different toxic air contaminants. The most important of these TACs, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death. TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust. According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is a subset of PM2.5 because the size of diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller. The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel fueled Engines and Vehicles in October 2000. The plants goals are a 75-percent reduction in DPM by 2010 and an 85-percent reduction by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which includes carbon particles or "soot." Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer -causing substances. California's identification of DPM as a TAC was based on its potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems. Exposure to DPM is a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California's potential airborne cancer risk from combustion sources. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 8 City of Santa Clarita Asbestos Asbestos is listed as a TAC by CARB and as a HAP by the EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestiform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos -containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California, prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, is located as near as 65 miles west of the project site in Santa Barbara County. Due to the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 9 City of Santa Clarita 3.0 GREENHOUSE GASES 3.1 Greenhouse Gases Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Emissions of CO2 and N20 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent GHG, results from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of COz, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. The following provides a description of each of the GHGs and their global warming potential. Water Vapor Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to "hold" more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a "positive feedback loop." The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there is also dynamics that put the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). Carbon Dioxide The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution. CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 201h century. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that concentrations were 379 ppm in 2005, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the IPCC projects that concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources. This could result in an average global temperature rise of at least two degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 10 City of Santa Clarita Methane CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO,. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as COzr N20, and CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil -fuel combustion and biomass burning. Nitrous Oxide Concentrations of N20 also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N20 is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. N20 is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant (i.e., in whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and race cars). Chlorofluorocarbons CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth's surface). CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. Hydrofluorocarbons Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CFsCHzF), and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC-23. HFC-134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC-23 and HFC-134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each. Concentrations of HFC-152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. Perfluorocarbons Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth's surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 11 City of Santa Clarita Sulfur Hexafluoride Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2. Concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. Aerosols Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light. Cloud formation can also be affected by aerosols. Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur is burned. Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning due to the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Particulate matter regulation has been lowering aerosol concentrations in the United States (U.S.); however, global concentrations are likely increasing. 3.2 Global Warming Potential GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2. The GHGs listed by the IPCC and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this section in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (human -made) sources. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). As such, the GWP Of CO2 is equal to 1. The GWP values used in this analysis are based on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which are used in CARB's 2014 Scoping Plan Update and the CalEEMod Model Version 2022.1 and are detailed in Table A. The IPCC has updated the GWP of some gases in their Fifth Assessment Report, however the new values have not yet been incorporated into the CalEEMod model that has been utilized in this analysis. Table A — Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years)' Global Warming Potential (100 Year Horizon)' Atmospheric Abundance Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1 379 ppm Methane (CH4) 9-15 25 1,774 ppb Nitrous Oxide (N20) 114 298 319 ppb HFC-23 270 14,800 18 ppt HFC-134a 14 1,430 35 ppt HFC-152a 1.4 124 3.9 ppt PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 74 ppt PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 2.9 ppt Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 5.6 ppt Notes: ' Defined as the half-life of the gas. 2 Compared to the same quantity of CO2 emissions and is based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 standard, which is utilized in CaIEEMod (Version 2022.1),that is used in this report (CalEEMod user guide: Appendix A). Definitions: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ppt = parts per trillion Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 12 City of Santa Clarita Source: IPCC 2007, EPA 2015 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center', 9,855 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) emissions were created globally in the year 2014. According to the EPA, the breakdown of global GHG emissions by sector consists of: 25 percent from electricity and heat production; 21 percent from industry; 24 percent from agriculture, forestry and other land use activities; 14 percent from transportation; 6 percent from building energy use; and 10 percent from all other sources of energy use2. According to Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2021, prepared by EPA, April 2023, total U.S. GHG emissions in the year 2021 were 6,340.2 MMTCO2e. Total U.S. emissions have decreased by 2.3 percent between 1990 and 2021, which is down from a high of 15.8 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. Emissions increased from 2020 to 2021 by 5.2 percent. There was a decline in 2020 emission due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel and other economic activity. Between 2020 and 2021, the increase in GHG emissions were driven largely by an increase in fossil fuel combustion due to economic activity rebounding after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, prepared by the CARB, December 14, 2023, the State of California created 381.3 MMTCO2e in 2021. The 2021 emissions were 12.6 MMTCO2e higher than 2020 but 23.1 MMTCO2e lower than 2019 levels. Both the 2019 to 2020 decrease and the 2020 to 2021 increase in emissions are likely due in part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that were felt globally. The transportation sector showed the largest increase in emissions of 10 MMTCO2e (7.4 percent) compared to 2020, which is most likely from passenger vehicles whose activity and emissions rebounded after COVID-19 shelter in place orders were lifted. 1 Obtained from: https:Hcdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2014.html 2 Obtained from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 13 City of Santa Clarita 4.0 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT The air quality at the project site is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy -making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below. 4.1 Federal — United States Environmental Protection Agency The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963 with major amendments in 1970, 1977 and 1990, is the overarching legislation covering regulation of air pollution in the U.S. The Clean Air Act has established the mandate for requiring regulation of both mobile and stationary sources of air pollution at the state and federal level. The EPA was created in 1970 in order to consolidate research, monitoring, standard -setting and enforcement authority into a single agency. The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. NAAQS pollutants were identified using medical evidence and are shown below in Table B. Table B — State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards Air Concentration / Averaging Time Pollutant California Federal Primary Standards Standards Most Relevant Effects a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung injury in humans and animals; (b) asthma exacerbation; (c) chronic 0.09 ppm / 1-hour obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation; (d) respiratory infection; (e) increased school absences, and Ozone (03) 0.070 ppm, / 8-hour hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits for 0.07 ppm / 8-hour combined respiratory diseases; (e) increased mortality; (f) possible metabolic effects. Vegetation damage; property damage Carbon Monoxide (CO) 20.0 ppm / 1-hour 35.0 ppm / 1-hour 9.0 ppm / 8-hour 9.0 ppm / 8-hour Visibility reduction (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) possible impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) possible increased risk to fetuses; (f) possible increased risk of pulmonary disease; (g) possible emergency department visits for respiratory diseases overall and visits for asthma. Short-term (a) asthma exacerbations ("asthma attacks") Long-term (a) asthma development; (b) higher risk of all - Nitrogen cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality. Dioxide 0.18 ppm / 1-hour 100 ppb / 1-hour Both short and longterm NO2 exposure is also associated with (NO2) 0.030 ppm / annual 0.053 ppm / annual chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) risk. Potential impacts on cardiovascular health, mortality and cancer, aggravate chronic respiratory disease. Contribution to atmospheric discoloration Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 14 City of Santa Clarita Air Concentration / Averaging Time Pollutant California Federal Primary Standards Standards Most Relevant Effects Respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible Sulfur 0.25 ppm / 1-hour wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical Dioxide 75 ppb / 1-hour activity in persons with asthma. (S02) 0.04 ppm / 24-hour Possible allergic sensitization, airway inflammation, asthma development. Respirable Short -term (a) increase in mortality rates; (b) increase in Particulate 50 µg/m3 / 24-hour 150 µg/m3 / 24- respiratory infections; (c) increase in number and severity Matter 20 µg/m3 / annual hour of asthma attacks; (d) COPD exacerbation; (e) increase in (PMlo) combined respiratory -diseases and number of hospital admissions; (f) increased mortality due to cardiovascular or respiratory diseases; (g) increase in hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions; (h) increase in school absences; (i) increase in lost work days; (j) decrease in respiratory function in children; (k) increase medication use Suspended in children and adults with asthma. Particulate 12 µg/ m3 annual 35 µg/m3 / 24-hour Long-term (a) reduced lung function growth in children; (b) Matter / 12 µg/m3 / annual changes in lung development; (c) development of asthma (PM2.5) in children; (d) increased risk of cardiovascular diseases; (e) increased total mortality from lung cancer; (f) increased risk of premature death. Possible link to metabolic, nervous system, and reproductive and developmental effects for short-term and long-term exposure to PM2.5. No Federal (a) Decrease in lung function; (b) aggravation of asthmatic Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24-hour Standards symptoms; (c) vegetation damage; (d) Degradation of visibility; (e) property damage (a) Learning disabilities; (b) impairment of blood formation Lead 1.5 µg/m / 30-day 3 0.15 µg/m3 /3- and nerve function; (c) cardiovascular effects, including month rolling coronary heart disease and hypertension Possible male reproductive system effects Exposure to lower ambient concentrations above the standard Hydrogen 0.03 ppm / 1-hour No Federal may result in objectionable odor and may be accompanied by Sulfide Standards symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, nasal irritation, cough, and shortness of breath Source: 2022 AQMP, SCAQMD, 2022. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market - based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. The CARB defines attainment as the category given to an area with no violations in the past three years. As indicated below in Table C, the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), within which the proposed project is located, has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non -attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and partial non -attainment for lead. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards for CO, PM10, S02, and NO2. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 15 City of Santa Clarita Table C — National Air Quality Standards Attainment Status — South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Designation' Attainment Date 1979 1-Hour (0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (revised deadline) Ozone 2015 8-Hour (0.07 ppm)d Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038 2008 8-Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (Extreme) 7/20/2032 1997 8-Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024 2006 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019 PM2.5e 2012 Annual (12 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2021 1997 Annual (15 µg/m3) Attainment (final determination 4/5/2015 pending) (attained 2013) PM101 1987 24-Hour (150 µg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance) 7/26/2013 (attained) 2008 3-Months Rolling Nonattainment (Partial) Leads (0.15 µg/m3) (Attainment determination 12/31/2015 requested) 1971 1-Hour (35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 CO 1971 8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 NOzn 2010 1-Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) 1971 Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) 2010 1-Hour (75 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment 1/9/2018 SOz' 1971 24-Hour (0.14 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 Source: SCAQMD, 2022 Notes: a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable. b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration. c) The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard; original attainment date was 11/15/2010; the revised attainment date is 2/6/2023. d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/20115 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/2017; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone implementation rule, effective 4/6/2015; there are continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained. e) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former "moderate" classification; the EPA approved reclassification to "serious", effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/2019; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revised on 1/15/2013, effective 3/18/2013, from 15 to 12 µg/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/2015, effective 4/15/2015; on 7/25/2016 the EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3) and 24-hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3) NAAQS, effective 8/24/2016. f) The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/2006; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; the Basin's Attainment Re -designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was approved by the EPA on 6/26/2103, effective 7/26/2013. g) Partial Nonattainment designation — Los Angeles County portion of the Basin only for near -source monitors; expect to remain in attainment based on current monitoring data; attainment re -designation request pending. h) New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/2010, with attainment designations 1/20/2012; annual NO2 NAAQS retained. i) The 1971 annual and 24-hour S02 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/2010. Despite substantial improvements in air quality over the past few decades, some air monitoring stations in the Air Basin still exceed the NAAQS and frequently record the highest ozone levels in the U.S. In 2020, monitoring stations in the Air Basin exceeded the most current federal standards on a total of 181 days (49 percent of the year), including: 8-hour ozone (157 days over the 2015 ozone NAAQS), 24-hour PM2.5 (39 days), PM10 (3 days), and NO2 (1 day). Nine of the top 10 stations in the nation most frequently exceeding the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2020 were located within the Air Basin, including stations in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties (SCAQMD, 2022). Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 16 City of Santa Clarita PM2.5 levels in the Air Basin have improved significantly in recent years. Since 2015, none of the monitoring stations in the Air Basin have recorded violations of the former 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3). On July 25, 2016 the EPA finalized a determination that the Air Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3) and 24-hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016. However, the Air Basin does not meet the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (12.0 µg/m3), with six monitoring stations having design values above the standard for the 2018-2020 period (SCAQMD, 2022). 4.2 State — California Air Resources Board The CARB, which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CAAQS for criteria pollutants in the Air Basin are shown in Table D. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. Table D — California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status — South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Level' Designation 1-Hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment Ozone 8-Hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment PM10 Annual 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment Lead 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment 1-Hour 20 ppm Attainment CO 8-Hour 9.0 ppm Attainment 1-Hour 0.18 ppm Attainment NOz Annual 0.030 Attainment` 1-Hour 0.25 ppm Attainment SOz 24-Hour 0.04 ppm Attainment Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide` 1-Hour 0.03 ppm Unclassified Notes: a) CA State standards, or CAAQS, for ozone, S02, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded; lead, sulfates and H2S standards are values not to be equaled or exceeded; CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b) CA State designations shown were updated by CARB in 2019, based on the 2016-2018 3-year period; stated designations are based on a 3-year data period after consideration of outliers and exceptional events. c) The CA-60 near road portion of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties has recently been redesignated as an attainment area based on data collected between 2018 and 2020. Source: SCAQMD, 2022 As shown in Table D, the Air Basin has been designated by the CARB as a non -attainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 and. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for lead, CO, NO2, S02 and sulfates, and is unclassified for Hydrogen Sulfide. The CCR air quality emission rules that are applicable to all land development projects in the State include, but are not limited to the following: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 17 City of Santa Clarita Assembly Bill 2588 The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release in California. The data is ranked by high, intermediate, and low categories, which are determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to nearby receptors. CARB Regulation for In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicles On July 26, 2007, the CARB adopted CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in -use off -road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet's average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirement making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less). Currently, no commercial operation in California may add any equipment to their fleet that has a Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2 engine. It should be noted that commercial fleets may continue to use their existing Tier 0, 1 and 2 equipment, if they can demonstrate that the average emissions from their entire fleet emissions meet the NOX emissions targets. CARB Resolution 08-43 for On -Road Diesel Truck Fleets On December 12, 2008 the CARB adopted Resolution 08-43, which limits NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from on -road diesel truck fleets that operate in California. On October 12, 2009 Executive Order R-09-010 was adopted that codified Resolution 08-43 into CCR Title 13, Section 2025. This regulation requires that by the year 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate in California shall meet model year 2010 (Tier 4 Final) or latter emission standards. This regulation also provides a few exemptions including a onetime per year 3-day pass for trucks registered outside of California. All on -road diesel trucks utilized during construction of the proposed project will be required to comply with Resolution 08-43. 4.3 Regional —Southern California The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. The Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) was adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023 and has been submitted to the EPA for final approval, which is anticipated to occur sometime this year. After the 2022 AQMP has been adopted by the EPA, the 2022 AQMP will be incorporated into the SIP. The 2022 AQMP Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 18 City of Santa Clarita establishes actions and strategies to reduce ozone levels to the EPA 2015 ozone standard of 70 ppb by 2037. The 2022 AQMP promotes extensive use of zero -emission technologies across all stationary and mobile sources coupled with rules and regulations, investment strategies, and incentives. Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance with CEQA. In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook), prepared by SCAQMD, with the most current updates found at http://www.agmd.gov/cega/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the projections and programs detailed in the AQMPs. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a proposed project's potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Air Basin, and adverse impacts will be minimized. The SCAQMD rules that are applicable to land development projects in the Air Basin include, but are not limited to, the following: Rule 402 - Nuisance Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Compliance with Rule 402 will reduce local air quality and odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Rule 403- Fugitive Dust Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities and requires that no person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust such that dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line or the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity, if the dust is from the operation of a motorized vehicle. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Available Control Measures, which include but are not limited to the measures below. Compliance with these rules would reduce local air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Utilize either a pad of washed gravel 50 feet long, 100 feet of paved surface, a wheel shaker, or a wheel washing device to remove material from vehicle tires and undercarriages before leaving project site. Do not allow any track out of material to extend more than 25 feet onto a public roadway and remove all track out at the end of each workday. Water all exposed areas on active sites at least three times per day and pre -water all areas prior to clearing and soil moving activities. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 19 City of Santa Clarita • Apply nontoxic chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer specifications to all construction areas that will remain inactive for 10 days or longer. • Pre -water all material to be exported prior to loading, and either cover all loads or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114. • Replant all disturbed area as soon as practical. • Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including wind gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. • Restrict traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less. Rules 1108 and 1108.1— Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Rules 1108 and 1108.1 govern the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt. This rule regulates the VOC contents of asphalt used during construction as well as any on -going maintenance during operations. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1. Rule 1113 —Architectural Coatings Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in sealers, coatings, paints and solvents. This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Rule 1143 — Paint Thinners Rule 1143 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of paint thinners and multi -purpose solvents that are used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1143. Southern California Association of Governments The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024), adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2024 which is based on the regional development and growth forecasts provided in the 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2023 FTIP), adopted October 2022. However, per SB 375, SCAG and CARB are required to work together until CARB staff conclude that the calculations and quantifications provided would yield accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions. Since CARB staff continue to have significant outstanding concerns about the technical methodology utilized in the Connect SoCal 2024, the current approved RTP/SCS is the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020), adopted September 3, 2020, which is based on the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2019 FTIP), adopted September 2018. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 20 City of Santa Clarita Although the Connect SoCal 2020 and 2019 FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects, a key component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the 2022 AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the 2022 AQMP. The Connect SoCal 2020, 2019 FTIP, and 2022 AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans. 4.4 Local — City of Santa Clarita Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Clarita, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision -making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMPs. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy -efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. The City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 21 City of Santa Clarita 5.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT The regulatory setting related to energy conservation is primarily addressed through State and City regulations, which are discussed below. 5.1 State Energy conservation management in the State was initiated by the 1974 Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act that created the California Energy Resource Conservation and Development Commission (currently named California Energy Commission [CEC]), which was originally tasked with certifying new electric generating plants based on the need for the plant and the suitability of the site of the plant. In 1976 the Warren-Alquist Act was expanded to include new restrictions on nuclear generating plants, that effectively resulted in a moratorium of any new nuclear generating plants in the State. The following details specific regulations adopted by the State in order to reduce the consumption of energy. California Code of Regulations Title 20 On November 3, 1976 the CEC adopted the Regulations for Appliance Efficiency Standards Relating to Refrigerators, Refrigerator -Freezers and Freezers and Air Conditioners, which were the first energy - efficiency standards for appliances. The appliance efficiency regulations have been updated several times by the CEC and the most current version is the 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, adopted January 2017, which now includes almost all types of appliances and lamps that use electricity, natural gas as well as plumbing fixtures. The authority for the CEC to control the energy -efficiency of appliances is detailed in CCR Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1609. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 The CEC is also responsible for implementing the CCR Title 24, Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24 Part 6) that were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. In 2008 the State set an energy -use reduction goal of zero -net -energy use of all new homes by 2020 and the CEC was mandated to meet this goal through revisions to the Title 24, Part 6 regulations. The Title 24 standards are updated on a three-year schedule and since 2008 the standards have been incrementally moving to the 2020 goal of the zero -net -energy use. The 2022 Title 24 standards are the current standards that went into effect on January 1, 2023. According to the Title 24 Part 6 Fact Sheet, the CEC estimates that over 30 years the 2022 Title 24 standards will reduce 10 MMTCO2e of GHG emissions, which is equivalent to taking nearly 2.2 million cars off the road for a year. For single-family homes, the CEC estimates that the 2022 Title 24 changes from using natural gas furnaces to electric heat pumps to heat new homes and would reduce net CO2 emissions by 16,230 MTCO2e per year, when compared to the 2019 Title 24 standards, which is equivalent of taking 3,641 gas cars off the road each year. The 2022 Title 24 standards will: (1) Increase onsite renewable energy generation; (2) Increases electric load flexibility to support grid reliability; (3) Reduces emissions from newly constructed buildings; (4) Reduces air pollution for improved public health; and (5) Encourages adoption of environmentally beneficial efficient electric technologies. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 22 City of Santa Clarita California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (CalGreen Code) was developed in response to continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The CalGreen Code is also updated every three years and the current version is the 2022 CalGreen Code that went into effect on January 1, 2023. The CalGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection; storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency. The CalGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, light and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy, graywater systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials, pollutant controls (including moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm water management, building design, insulation, flooring, and framing, among others. Implementation of the CalGreen Code measures reduces energy consumption and vehicle trips and encourages the use of alternative -fuel vehicles, which reduces pollutant emissions. Some of the notable changes in the 2022 CalGreen Code over the prior 2019 CalGreen Code for nonresidential development mandatory requirements include the repeal of designated parking spaces for clean air vehicles and an increase in the number of electric vehicle (EV) ready parking spaces. The 2022 CalGreen Code also added new requirements for installed Level 2 or direct -current fast charger EV charging stations for autos, EV charging readiness for loading docks, enhanced thermal insulation, and acoustical ceilings. Executive Order N-79-20 The California Governor issued Executive Order N-79-20 on September 23, 2020 that requires all new passenger cars and trucks and commercial drayage trucks sold in California to be zero -emissions by the year 2035 and all medium- heavy-duty vehicles (commercial trucks) sold in the State to be zero -emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible. Executive Order N-79-20 also requires all off -road vehicles and equipment to transition to 100 percent zero -emission equipment, where feasible by 2035. Senate Bill 100 Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) was adopted September 2018 and requires 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable or zero -carbon emission sources of electricity by December 1, 2045. SB 100 supersedes the renewable energy requirements set by SB 350, SB 1078, SB 107, and SB X1-2. SB 100 codified the interim renewable energy thresholds from the prior Bills of: 33 percent by 2020, 40 percent by December 31, 2024, 45 percent by December 31, 2027, and 50 percent by December 31, 2030. Executive Order B-48-18 and Assembly Bill 2127 The California Governor issued Executive Order B-48-18 on January 26, 2018 that orders all state entities to work with the private sector to put at least five million zero -emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 EV chargers by 2025. Currently there are approximately 350,000 electric vehicles operating in California, which represents approximately 1.5 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 23 City of Santa Clarita percent of the 24 million vehicles total currently operating in California. Implementation of Executive Order B-48-18 would result in approximately 20 percent of all vehicles in California to be zero emission electric vehicles. Assembly Bill 2127 (AB 2127) was codified into statute on September 13, 2018 and requires that the CEC working with CARB prepare biannual assessments of the statewide EV charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of zero emission vehicle adoption required for the State to meet its goals of putting at least 5 million zero -emission vehicles on California roads by 2030. Assembly Bill 1109 California Assembly Bill 1109 (AB 1109) was adopted October 2007, also known as the Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act, prohibits the manufacturing of lights after January 1, 2010 that contain levels of hazardous substances prohibited by the European Union pursuant to the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. AB 1109 also requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is structured to reduce lighting electrical consumption by: (1) At least 50 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting; and (2) At least 25 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and all outdoor lighting by 2018. AB 1109 would reduce GHG emissions through reducing the amount of electricity required to be generated by fossil fuels in California. Assembly Bill 1493 California Assembly Bill 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill, in reference to its author Fran Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002 and required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2004, CARB approved the "Pavley I" regulations limiting the amount of GHGs that may be released from new passenger automobiles that are being phased in between model years 2009 through 2016. These regulations will reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from 2002 levels by 2016. In June 2009, the EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for light duty vehicles, in September 2009, amendments to the Pavley I regulations were adopted by CARB and implementation of the "Pavley I" regulations started in 2009. The second set of regulations "Pavley 11" was developed in 2010, and is being phased in between model years 2017 through 2025 with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 45 percent by the year 2020 as compared to the 2002 fleet. The Pavley II standards were developed by linking the GHG emissions and formerly separate toxic tailpipe emissions standards previously known as the "LEV III" (third stage of the Low Emission Vehicle standards) into a single regulatory framework. The new rules reduce emissions from gasoline -powered cars as well as promote zero -emissions auto technologies such as electricity and hydrogen, and through increasing the infrastructure for fueling hydrogen vehicles. In 2009, the EPA granted California the authority to implement the GHG standards for passenger cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles and these GHG emissions standards are currently being implemented nationwide. The EPA has performed a midterm evaluation of the longer -term standards for model years 2022-2025, and based on the findings of this midterm evaluation, the EPA proposed The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 that amends the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and GHG emissions standards for light vehicles for model years 2021 through 2026. The SAFE Vehicles Rule was published on April 30, 2020 and made effective on June 29, 2020. 5.2 Local - City of Santa Clarita The applicable energy plan for the proposed project is the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan, June, 2011. The applicable energy -related goals and policies that are from Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan are shown below. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 24 City of Santa Clarita Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Objective CO 8.1: Encourage the following green building and sustainable development practices on private development projects, to the extent reasonable and feasible. Pnliriac Policy CO 8.3.1: Evaluate site plans proposed for new development based on energy efficiency pursuant to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards for New Construction and Neighborhood Development, including the following: a) location efficiency; b) environmental preservation; c) compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods; and d) resource efficiency, including use of recycled materials and water. Policy CO 8.3.2: Promote construction of energy efficient buildings through requirements for LEED certification or through comparable alternative requirements as adopted by local ordinance. Policy CO 8.3.6: Require new development to use passive solar heating and cooling techniques in building design and construction, which may include but are not be limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs, shade trees, and paving materials. Policy CO 8.3.7: Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, through shading of buildings and parking lots. Policy CO 8.3.8: Encourage energy -conserving heating and cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in windows and insulation, in all new construction. Policy CO 8.3.9: Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage a reduction of lighting when businesses are closed to a level required for security. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 25 City of Santa Clarita 6.0 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGEMENT The regulatory setting related to global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies workjointly, as well as individually, to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policy -making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for global climate change regulations are discussed below. 6.1 International In 1988, the United Nations established the IPCC to evaluate the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the U.S. joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions. The parties of the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries, the objective of reducing their collective GHG emissions by five percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the U.S. It should be noted that Japan and Canada opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and the remaining developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not met their Kyoto targets. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and the amendment for the second commitment period from 2013 to 2020 has not yet entered into legal force. The parties to the Kyoto Protocol negotiated the Paris Agreement in December 2015, agreeing to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre -industrial levels. The Paris Agreement has been adopted by 195 nations with 147 ratifying it, including the U.S. by President Obama, who ratified it by Executive Order on September 3, 2016. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and on January 21, 2021 President Biden signed an executive order rejoining the Paris Agreement. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere —CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform —were to be phased out, with the first three by the year 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005. 6.2 Federal — United States Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is responsible for implementing federal policy to address global climate change. The federal government administers a wide array of public -private partnerships to reduce U.S. GHG intensity. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane, and other non-0O2 gases, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. EPA implements several voluntary programs that substantially contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05-1120), argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to regulate GHGs, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory requirements. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2 and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In response to the Consolidations Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110-161), EPA proposed a rule on March 10, 2009 that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources in the Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 26 City of Santa Clarita U.S. On September 22, 2009, the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule was signed and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009. The rule became effective on December 29, 2009. This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual reports to the EPA. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. One is an endangerment finding that finds concentrations of the six GHGs in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The other is a cause or contribute finding, that finds emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These actions did not impose any requirements on industry or other entities, however, since 2009 the EPA has been providing GHG emission standards for vehicles and other stationary sources of GHG emissions that are regulated by the EPA. On September 13, 2013 the EPA Administrator signed 40 CFR Part 60, that limits emissions from new sources to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per mega -watt hour (MWh) for fossil fuel -fired utility boilers and 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh for large natural gas -fired combustion units. On August 3, 2015, the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, emissions guidelines for U.S. to follow in developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel -fired power plants (Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 205, October 23 2015). On October 11, 2017, the EPA issued a formal proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan and on June 19, 2019 the EPA replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule that is anticipated to lower power sector GHG emissions by 11 million tons by the year 2030. On April 30, 2020, the EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration published the Final Rule for the Safer Affordable Fuel -Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). Part One of the Rule revokes California's authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and zero -emission vehicle mandates in California, which results in one emission standard to be used nationally for all passenger cars and light trucks that is set by the EPA. 6.3 State The CARB has the primary responsible for implementing state policy to address global climate change, however there are state regulations related to global climate change that affect a variety of state agencies. CARB, which is a part of CalEPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both the federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. In 2008, CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan that proposes a "comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create newjobs, and enhance public health" (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations; alternative compliance mechanisms; monetary and non -monetary incentives; voluntary actions; market -based mechanisms such as a cap -and -trade system. In 2014, CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB, 2014) that identifies additional strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted the California's 2017 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 27 City of Santa Clarita Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 (CARB, 2017) that provides specific statewide policies and measures to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and the aspirational 2050 GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition, the State has passed the following laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, which are listed below in chronological order, with the most current first. Executive Order B-55-18 and Assembly Bill 1279 The California Governor issued Executive Order B-55-18 in September 2018 that establishes a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045. This executive order directs the CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal as well as ensuring future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve this carbon neutrality goal. Assembly Bill 1279 was passed by the legislature in September 2022 that codifies the carbon neutrality targets provided in Executive Order B- 55-18. The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, adopted by CARB on December 16, 2022, was prepared in order to meet the carbon neutrality goal targets developed in Executive Order B-55-18 and codified in Assembly Bill 1279. Executive Order N-79-20 Executive Order N-79-20 establish targets for when all new vehicles and equipment are zero -emission and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 The Title 24 Part 6 standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. It should be noted that implementation of the Title 24 Part 6 building standards would also reduce GHG emissions since energy use for residential and commercial buildings creates 9.7 percent of the GHG emissions in the State. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 The CalGreen building standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. It should be noted that implementation of the CalGreen Building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since as detailed above under Title 24, Part 6, energy usage from buildings creates 9.7 percent of GHG emissions in the State. Senate Bill 100 SB 100 requires that by December 1, 2045 that 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable or zero -carbon emission sources of electricity and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. Executive Order B-48-18 and Assembly Bill 2127 Executive Order B-48-18 and AB 2127 provides measures to put at least five million zero -emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2025 and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 28 City of Santa Clarita Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 The California Governor issued Executive Order B-30-15 on April 29, 2015 that aims to reduce California's GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This executive order aligns California's GHG reduction targets with those of other international governments, such as the European Union that set the same target for 2030 in October, 2014. This target will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050 that is based on scientifically established levels needed in the U.S.A to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius — the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels. Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (September 8, 2016) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (September 8, 2016) codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as detailed in Executive Order B-30-15. AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions reporting that is broken down to sub -county levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of emissions impacting disadvantaged communities. Executive Order B-29-15 The California Governor issued Executive Order B-29-15 on April 1, 2015 and directed the State Water Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in urban water usage and directed the Department of Water Resources to replace 50 million square feet of lawn with drought tolerant landscaping through an update to the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The ordinance also requires installation of more efficient irrigation systems, promotion of greywater usage and onsite stormwater capture, and limits the turf planted in new residential landscapes to 25 percent of the total area and restricts turf from being planted in median strips or in parkways unless the parkway is next to a parking strip and a flat surface is required to enter and exit vehicles. Executive Order B-29-15 would reduce GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter water. Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374 Senate Bill 939 (SB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means. Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills. Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) was adopted in 2011 and builds upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939 and 1374, and sets a new target of a 75 percent reduction in solid waste generated by the year 2020. Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 in order to support the State's climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established targets for 2020 and 2035 for each MPO within the State. It was up to each MPO to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to meet CARB's 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets. These reduction targets are required to be updated every eight years and the most current targets are detailed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets, which provides GHG emissions reduction targets for SCAG of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 29 City of Santa Clarita The Connect SoCal 2020 (SCAG, 2020) provides a 2035 GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels. The Connect SoCal 2020 include new initiatives of land use, transportation and technology to meet the 2035 new 19 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2035. CARB is also charged with reviewing SCAG's RTP/SCS for consistency with its assigned targets. City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the RTP and associated SCS. However, new provisions of CEQA incentivize, through streamlining and other provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS and categorized as "transit priority projects." Assembly Bill 1109 AB 1109 requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. Executive Order S-1-07 Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State's GHG emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This executive order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early -action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32. In 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the LCFS. The standard was challenged in the courts, but has been in effect since 2011 and was re -approved by the CARB in 2015. The LCFS is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 million metric tons per year by 2020. The LCFS is designed to provide a framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet annually. Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn -derived ethanol and low -sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low - carbon fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles, are also considered as low -carbon fuels. Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines that addresses GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporated GHG language throughout the guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance were provided and no specific mitigation measures were identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 30 City of Santa Clarita • Climate Action Plans and other GHG reduction plans can be used to determine whether a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan. • Local governments are encouraged to quantify the GHG emissions of proposed projects, noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies. OPR does not set or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for GHG impacts assessment. • When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts. • New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. • OPR is clear to state that "to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation." • OPR's emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of such an approach. • Environmental impact reports must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy efficiency potential. Assembly Bill 32 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects that would remove carbon from the atmosphere and utilize best management practices that are technologically feasible and cost effective. In 2007 CARB released the calculated Year 1990 GHG emissions of 431 MMTCOze. The 2020 target of 431 MMTCOze requires the reduction of 78 MMTCOze, or approximately 16 percent from the State's projected 2020 business as usual emissions of 509 MMTCOze (CARB, 2014). Under AB 32, CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 cap by 2020. Early measures CARB took to lower GHG emissions included requiring operators of the largest industrial facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of COz in a calendar year to submit verification of GHG emissions by December 1, 2010. The CARB Board also approved nine discrete early action measures that include regulations affecting landfills, motor vehicle fuels, refrigerants in cars, port operations and other sources, all of which became enforceable on or before January 1, 2010. CARB's Scoping Plan that was adopted in 2009, proposes a variety of measures including: strengthening energy efficiency and building standards; targeted fees on water and energy use; a market -based cap - Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 31 City of Santa Clarita and -trade system; achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix; and a fee regulation to fund the program. The 2014 update to the Scoping Plan identifies strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. The Cap and Trade Program established under the Scoping Plan sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California's GHG emissions, and has established a market for long-term investment in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels since 2012. Assembly Bill 1493 AB 1493 or the Pavley Bill sets tailpipe GHG emissions limits for passenger vehicles in California as well as fuel economy standards and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. 6.4 Regional —Southern California The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. The SCAQMD is also responsible for GHG emissions for projects where it is the lead agency. However, for other projects in the Air Basin where it is not the lead agency, it is limited to providing resources to other lead agencies in order to assist them in determining GHG emission thresholds and GHG reduction measures. In order to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a working group, which is described below. SCAQMD Working Group Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that includes the following tiers: • Tier 1: Applicable CEQA Exemptions (e.g., SB 97, categorical and statutory exemptions). • Tier 2: Consistency with a GHG Reduction Plan (an adopted plan by a local agency). • Tier 3: Quantitative Screening Values. The following quantitative thresholds were proposed: 0 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; or 0 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; 0 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial; 0 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed -use; and 0 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial. • Tier 4: Performance Standards. The following options were proposed as performance standards: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 32 City of Santa Clarita o Option 1: Percent Emission Reduction Target (Provide an undefined percent reduction in GHG emissions over business -as -usual emissions). o Option 2: Early Implementation of Applicable AB32 Scoping Plan Measures (Require a set of AB32 Scoping Plan measures to be implemented). o Option 3: SCAQMD Efficiency Targets. The following targets were proposed: ■ Year 2020 Targets • 4.8 MTCOze per year per service population for project level threshold (land use employment only) • 6.6 MTCOze per year per service population for plan level threshold ■ Year 2035 Targets • 3.0 MTCOze per year per service population for project level threshold. • 4.1 MTCOze per year per service population for plan level threshold • Tier 5: Mitigation Offsets (either alone or in combination with above tiers to achieve target threshold). Southern California Association of Governments As detailed above in Section 4.3, the current applicable RTP/SCS for the project area region is the Connect SoCal 2020 and 2019 FTIP, which have been prepared to meet the GHG emissions reduction targets set by SB 375 for the SCAG region of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels. The Connect SoCal 2020 includes new land use, transportation, and technology strategies to meet the new 19 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2035. Although the Connect SoCal 2020 and 2019 FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects, a key component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the 2022 AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the 2022 AQMP. The Connect SoCal 2020, 2019 FTIP, and 2022 AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans. 5.5 Local — City of Santa Clarita Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Clarita have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision -making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. City of Santa Clarita General Plan The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan has identified the following goals, objectives and policies aimed at GHG reduction in private development projects in the City (City of Santa Clarita 2011). Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 33 City of Santa Clarita Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Objective CO 8.1: Comply with the requirements of State law, including AB 32, SB 375 and implementing regulations, to reach targeted reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Policy CO 8.1.1: Create and adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of the OVOV adoption date of the City's General Plan Update that meets State requirements and includes the following components: a. Plans and programs to reduce GHG emissions to State -mandated targets, including enforceable reduction measures; i. The CAP may establish goals beyond 2020, which are consistent with the applicable laws and regulations referenced in this paragraph and based on current science; ii. The CAP shall include specific and general tools and strategies to reduce the City's current and projected 2020 inventory and to meet the CAPS target for GHG reductions by 2020; iii. The CAP shall consider, among other GHG reduction strategies, the feasibility of development fees; incentive and rebate programs; and, voluntary and mandatory reduction strategies in areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use and transportation. b. Mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress towards the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan; c. Procedures for reporting on progress to officials and the public; d. Procedures for revising the plan as needed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets; and, e. Allocation of funding and staffing for Plan implementation; Policy CO 8.1.2: Participate in the preparation of a regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Plan to meet regional targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, as required by SB 375. Policy CO 8.1.3: Revise codes and ordinances as needed to address energy conservation, including but not limited to the following: a. Strengthen building codes for new construction and renovation to achieve a higher level of energy efficiency, with a goal of exceeding energy efficiency beyond that required by Title 24; b. Adopt a Green Building Program to encourage green building practices and materials, along with appropriate ordinances and incentives; c. Require orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid solar heat gain during hot periods, enhance natural Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 34 City of Santa Clarita ventilation, promote effective use of daylight, and optimize opportunities for on -site solar generation; d. Encourage mitigation of the "heat island" effect through use of cool roofs, light-colored paving, and shading to reduce energy consumption for air conditioning. Policy CO 8.1.4: Provide information and education to the public about energy conservation and local strategies to address climate change. Policy CO 8.1.5: Coordinate various activities within the community and appropriate agencies related to GHG emissions reduction activities. Objective CO 8.3: Encourage the following green building and sustainable development practices on private development projects, to the extent reasonable and feasible. Policy CO 8.3.1: Evaluate site plans proposed for new development based on energy efficiency pursuant to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards for New Construction and Neighborhood Development, including the following: a) location efficiency; b) environmental preservation; c) compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods; and d) resource efficiency, including use of recycled materials and water. Policy CO 8.3.2: Promote construction of energy efficient buildings through requirements for LEED certification or through comparable alternative requirements as adopted by local ordinance. Policy CO 8.3.3: Promote energy efficiency and water conservation upgrades to existing non- residential buildings at the time of major remodel or additions. Policy CO 8.3.4: Encourage new residential development to include on -site solar photovoltaic systems, or pre -wiring, in at least 50% of the residential units, in concert with other significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.3.5: Encourage on -site solar generation of electricity in new retail and office commercial buildings and associated parking lots, carports, and garages, in concert with other significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.3.6: Require new development to use passive solar heating and cooling techniques in building design and construction, which may include but are not be limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs, shade trees, and paving materials. Policy CO 8.3.7: Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, through shading of buildings and parking lots. Policy CO 8.3.8: Encourage energy -conserving heating and cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in windows and insulation, in all new construction. Policy CO 8.3.9: Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage a reduction of lighting when businesses are closed to a level required for security. Santa Clarito Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 35 City of Santo Clarito Policy CO 8.3.10: Provide incentives and technical assistance for installation of energy -efficient improvements in existing and new buildings. Policy CO 8.3.11: Consider allowing carbon off -sets for large development projects, if appropriate, which may include funding off -site projects or purchase of credits for other forms of mitigation, provided that any such mitigation shall be measurable and enforceable. Policy CO 8.3.12: Reduce extensive heat gain from paved surfaces through development standards wherever feasible. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 36 City of Santa Clarita 7.0 ATMOSPHERIC SETTING 7.1 South Coast Air Basin The project site is located within western Los Angeles County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin that includes the non -desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties and all of Orange County. The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. 7.2 Local Climate The climate of the western central portion of Los Angeles County, technically called an interior valley subclimate of the Southern California's Mediterranean -type climate, is characterized by hot dry summers, mild moist winters with infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern. The clouds and fog that form along the area's coastline rarely extend as far inland as central Los Angeles County. When morning clouds and fog form, they typically burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern from an air quality perspective is associated with the warm season airflow across the populated areas of the Air Basin. This airflow brings polluted air into central Los Angeles County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality that may extend to the project site particularly during the summer months. Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they both determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in central Los Angeles County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean to the warm Mojave Desert interior of Southern California. These winds allow for good local mixing, but as discussed above, these coastal winds carry significant amounts of industrial and automobile air pollutants from the densely urbanized western portion of the Air Basin into the interior valleys which become trapped by the mountains that border the eastern edge of the Air Basin. In the summer, strong temperature inversions may occur that limit the vertical depth through which air pollution can be dispersed. Air pollutants concentrate because they cannot rise through the inversion layer and disperse. These inversions are more common and persistent during the summer months. Over time, sunlight produces photochemical reactions within this inversion layer that creates ozone, a particularly harmful air pollutant. Occasionally, strong thermal convections occur which allows the air pollutants to rise high enough to pass over the mountains and ultimately dilute the smog cloud. In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the early morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity. The temperature and precipitation levels for Newhall Station, which is the nearest weather station to the project site with historical data are shown below in Table E. Table E shows that August is typically the warmest month and January is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 37 City of Santa Clarita in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid -latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry. Table E - Monthly Climate Data for Newhall Station Average Maximum Average Minimum Average Total Precipitation Month Temperature (°F) Temperature (°F) (inches) January 61.6 40.3 5.67 February 65.2 42.7 5.20 March 69.5 43.8 3.94 April 76.5 47.9 0.27 May 79.2 51.0 0.21 June 88.1 56.1 0.11 July 92.2 59.7 0.02 August 82.2 59.3 0.00 September 89.4 57.0 0.06 October 79.4 51.0 0.46 November 69.7 44.6 0.39 December 62.0 40.0 1.85 Annual 77.1 49.5 18.19 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6165 7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the Air Basin. Improvements in cleaner technology and strict regulations have reduced ozone levels since its peak in the mid -twentieth century. However, ozone levels have remained unacceptably high over the past decade despite significant reductions. This trend is due to the changes in climate and other weather conditions such as the increase in hot, stagnant days that can lead to the formation of ozone that we have experienced in recent years. (SCAQMD, 2022). SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air -monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley, which covers the Santa Clarita Valley. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is Santa Clarita Monitoring Station (Santa Clarita Station), which is located approximately 7.4 miles south of the project site at 22224 Placerita Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station's distance from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the Santa Clarita Station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the project site. The monitoring data is presented in Table F and shows the most recent three years of monitoring data from CARB. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 38 City of Santa Clarita Table F — Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary Year' Pollutant (Standard) 2020 2021 2022 Ozone: Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.148 0.125 0.129 Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 44 30 28 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.122 0.103 0.114 Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 74 61 66 Days > CAAQs (0.070 ppm) 75 63 68 Nitrogen Dioxide: Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppb) 46.3 56.9 51.5 Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (180 ppb) 0 0 0 Inhalable Particulates (PM10) : Maximum 24-Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 67.8 47.1 36.9 Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0 Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 1 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 21.5 20.3 19.0 Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes No Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM2.5): Maximum 24-Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 43.3 30.1 27.2 Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 4 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 9.0 ND 9.2 Annual > NAAQS and CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No ND No Notes: Exceedances are listed in bold. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ND = no data available. ' Data obtained from Santa Clarita Station. Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Ozone During the last three years, the state 1-hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between 28 and 44 days each year at the Santa Clarita Station. The state 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 63 and 75 days each year over the last three years at the Santa Clarita Station. The federal 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 61 and 74 days each year over the last three years at the Santa Clarita Station. Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NOzr which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of Southern California contribute to the ozone levels experienced at this monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 39 City of Santa Clarita Nitrogen Dioxide The Santa Clarita Station did not record an exceedance of either the federal or state 1-hour NOz standards for the last three years. Particulate Matter The state 24-hour concentration standard for PM10 has been exceeded for only one day in 2020 over the past three years at the Santa Clarita Station. Over the past three years the federal 24-hour standard for PM10 has not been exceeded at the Santa Clarita Station. The annual PM10 concentration at the Santa Clarita Station has exceeded the state standard for two of the last three years and has not exceeded the federal standard for the past three years. The federal 24-hour concentration standard for PM2.5 has been exceeded between 0 and 4 days each year over the past three years at the Santa Clarita Station. The annual PM2.5 concentrations at the Santa Clarita Station has not exceeded either the federal or state standard for the last three years. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend for PM10 or PM2.5 in either maximum particulate concentrations or days of exceedances in the area. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise. 7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels In order to determine the Air Basin -wide risks associated with major airborne carcinogens, the SCAQMD conducted the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) studies. According to the MATES V study (SCAQMD, 2021), the west side of the project site has an estimated cancer risk of 213 per million persons chance of cancer and the east side of the project site has an estimated cancer risk of 208 per million persons chance of cancer from TAC concentrations. In comparison, the average cancer risk for the Air Basin is 455 per million persons. The MATES V study monitored air toxins between May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019, found that cancer risk from air toxics has declined significantly in the Air Basin with a 40 percent decrease in cancer risk since the monitoring for the MATES IV study that occurred between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 and an 84 percent decrease in cancer risk since the monitoring for the MATES II study that occurred between April 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999. The MATES V study also analyzed impacts specific to the communities experiencing environmental injustices (EJ communities) that were evaluated using the Senate Bill 535 definition of disadvantaged communities, which found that between MATES IV and MATES V, the cancer risk from air toxics decreased by 57 percent in EJ communities overall, compared to a 53 percent reduction in non-EJ communities. In order to provide a perspective of risk, it is often estimated that the incidence in cancer over a lifetime for the U.S. population ranges between 1 in 3 to 4 and 1 in 3, or a risk of about 300,000 per million persons. The MATES -III study referenced a Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention, which estimated that of cancers associated with known risk factors, about 30 percent were related to tobacco, about 30 percent were Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 40 City of Santa Clarita related to diet and obesity, and about 2 percent were associated with environmental pollution related exposures that includes hazardous air pollutants. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 41 City of Santa Clarita 8.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS 8.1 CaIEEMod Model Input Parameters The criteria air pollution and GHG emissions impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.21. CaIEEMod is a computer model published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for estimating air pollutant and GHG emissions. The CaIEEMod program uses the EMFAC2021 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the South Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County for employee, vendor and haul truck vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy equipment operations. EMFAC2021 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. The project characteristics in the CaIEEMod model were set to a project location of the South Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County, utility companies of Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas (with 2025 forecast factors) and a project opening year of 2025. Land Use Parameters The proposed project is anticipated to disturb approximately 20 acres, would require the import of approximately 4,400 cubic yards of material for road and trail base, would include construction of approximately 3,500 square feet of structures, and would pave approximately 123,000 square feet for parking areas, walkways, trails, and event plaza areas. The proposed project's land use parameters that were entered into the CaIEEMod model are shown in Table G. Table G — CaIEEMod Land Use Parameters Land Use Subtype in Land Use Lot Building' Landscaped Proposed Land Use CaIEEMod Size' Acreage (sq ft) Area' (sq ft) Bike Park City Park 17 AC 17.18 3,500 149,640 Paved Areas (parking, Other Asphalt Surfaces walkways, trails, event plaza) 2.82 AC 2.82 -- 24,600 Notes: ' AC = Acre. z Lot acreage calculated based on the total area disturbed of 20 acres. ' Building square feet represent area where architectural coatings will be applied ° Landscaped area based on a total of 4 acres of irrigated landscaped area, divided proportionally for each land use. Construction Parameters Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start around October 2024 and be completed by December 2025. The Building Construction phase was reduced from the default timing of 370 working days to 239 working days to match the construction schedule provided by the applicant. All other phases were based on the CaIEEMod default timing. The construction -related GHG emissions were based on a 30-year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The phases of construction activities that have been analyzed are detailed below and include: 1) Site Preparation, 2) Grading, 3) Building construction, 4) Paving, and 5) Application of architectural coatings. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 42 City of Santa Clarita CalEEMod provides the selection of reduction measures to account for project conditions that would result in less emissions than a project without these conditions, however it should be noted that these reduction measures may represent regulatory requirements. This includes the required adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions and was modeled in CalEEMod by selection of the reduction measures of watering all exposed areas three times per day during grading and watering unpaved roads twice daily. In addition, this analysis has utilized the default off -road construction equipment lists from CalEEMod, which provides an overestimation of the off -road equipment emissions created from the project. Site Preparation The site preparation phase would consist of removing any vegetation, tree stumps, and stones onsite prior to grading. The site preparation was modeled as starting in October 2024 and occurring over 10 workdays. The site preparation activities would generate an average of 17.5 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, three onsite truck trips per day with a one -mile length was added to the site preparation phase. The onsite equipment would consist of three rubber -tired dozers, and four of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes. Grading The grading phase was modeled as starting after completion of the site preparation phase and was modeled as occurring over 35 workdays. During the grading phase it is anticipated that 4,400 cubic yards of material will be imported to the project site. The import of material would generate an average of 15.7 haul truck trips per day over the duration of the grading phase. The grading activities would generate an average of 20 automobile trips per day for the workers. In order to account for water truck emissions, three onsite truck trips per day with a one -mile length was added to the grading phase. The onsite equipment would consist of two excavators, one grader, one rubber -tired dozer, two scrapers, and two of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes. Building Construction The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase and was modeled as occurring over 239 workdays (11 months). The building construction phase would generate an average of 10 worker trips and 2 vendor trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, three onsite truck trips per day with a one -mile length was added to the building construction phase. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, three forklifts, one generator, one welder, and three of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes. Pavi ng The paving phase would consist of paving parking areas, walkways, trails, and event plaza area. The paving phase was modeled as occurring after completion of the building construction phase and occurring over 20 workdays. The paving phase would generate 15 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of two pavers, two paving equipment, and two rollers. Architectural Coati The application of architectural coatings was modeled as occurring after completion of the paving phase and occurring over 20 workdays. The architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 5,250 square feet of non-residential interior area, 1,750 square feet of non-residential exterior area, and 7,380 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 43 City of Santa Clarita square feet of paved area. The architectural coating phase would generate an average of 2 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Operational Emissions Modeling The operations -related criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model. The proposed project was analyzed in the CalEEMod model based on the land use parameters provided above and the parameters entered for each operational source is described below. Mobile Sources Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. According to the project applicant, operation of the project would generate up to 40 vehicle trips per weekday and up to 200 vehicle trips per weekend day (a vehicle trip is either to or from project site, so one vehicle visit to the project site would generate two trips), which the trip rate in CalEEMod was set to. No other changes were made to the CalEEMod default mobile source parameters. Area Sources Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment, and architectural coatings. The area source emissions were based on the on -going use of the proposed project in the CalEEMod model. No changes were made to the default area source parameters in the CalEEMod model. Energy Usage Energy usage includes emissions from electricity and natural gas used onsite. Since there will be no utility connections to the proposed project, the operational electricity and natural gas usage was set to zero in the CalEEMod Model. Solid Waste Waste includes the GHG emissions associated with the processing of waste from the proposed project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. The analysis was based on the default CalEEMod waste generation rate of 1.48 tons of solid waste per year from the proposed project. No changes were made to the default solid waste parameters or mitigation measures in the CalEEMod model. Water and Wastewater No water connections will be provided to the proposed project, however water will be trucked in and stored in tanks for trail and parking lot maintenance, dust suppression, and potentially for limited watering of trees. The CalEEMod model calculates the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. The analysis was based on one water truck delivery per week of 3,000 gallons, or 156,000 gallons per year of water use. No changes were made to the default water and wastewater parameters in the CalEEMod model. Off -Road Eauiament and Generators According to the project applicant, operation of the project would include monthly use of a mini -excavator or a dozer for trail maintenance. In addition, a small generator may be used for music events or food Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 44 City of Santa Clarita trucks. In order to account for these equipment, a skid steer loader and a generator were added to the CalEEMod model run, based on the skid steer loader operating 8 hours per day and 12 days per year and the generator operating 8 hours per day and 26 days per year. In order to account for water truck deliveries, one off -highway truck operating one hour per day for 52 days per year (one delivery per week) was also added to the CalEEMod model run. 8.2 Energy Use Calculations The proposed project is anticipated to consume energy during both construction and operation of the proposed project and the parameters utilized to calculate energy use from construction and operation of the proposed project are detailed separately below. Construction -Related Energy Use Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel for both off -road equipment as well as from the transport of workers and materials to and from the project site and the calculations for each source are described below. Off -Road Construction Equipment The off -road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the CalEEMod model's default off -road equipment assumptions detailed above in Section 8.1. For each piece of off -road equipment, the fuel usage was calculated through use of the 2017 Off -road Diesel Emission Factors spreadsheet, prepared by CARB (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel.htm). The Spreadsheet provides the following formula to calculate fuel usage from off -road equipment: Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion Where: Load Factor —Obtained from CalEEMod default values Horsepower — Obtained from CalEEMod default values Total Operational Hours — Calculated by multiplying CalEEMod default daily hours by CalEEMod default number of working days for each phase of construction BSFC — Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower -hour) — If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 Unit Conversion — Converts pounds to gallons = 7.109 Table H shows the off -road construction equipment fuel calculations based on the above formula. Table H shows that the off -road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed project would consume 41,236 gallons of diesel fuel. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 45 City of Santa Clarita Table H — Off -Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Equipment Horse- Load Operating Hours Total Operational Fuel Used Equipment Type Quantity power Factor per Day Hours' (gallons) Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 367 0.40 8 240 1,819 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 0.37 8 320 571 Grading Excavators 2 36 0.38 8 560 440 Grader 1 148 0.41 8 280 877 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 367 0.40 8 280 2,122 Scrapers 2 423 0.48 8 560 5,870 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 84 0.37 8 560 999 Building Construction Crane 1 367 0.29 7 1,673 9,192 Forklifts 3 82 0.20 8 5,736 5,399 Generator Set 1 14 0.74 8 1,912 1,137 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 0.37 7 5,019 8,953 Welder 1 46 0.45 8 1,912 2,271 Paving Pavers 2 81 0.42 8 320 625 Paving Equipment 2 89 0.36 8 320 588 Rollers 2 36 0.38 8 320 251 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 37 0.48 6 120 122 Total Off -Road Equipment Diesel Fuel Used during Construction (gallons) 41,236 Notes: ' Based on: 10 days for Site Preparation, 35 days for Grading; 239 days for Building Construction; 20 days for Paving; and 20 days for Architectural Coating. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (see Appendix A); CARB, 2017. On -Road Construction -Related Vehicle Trips The on -road construction -related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1. The calculated total construction miles was then divided by the fleet average for the South Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County miles per gallon rates for the year 2024 calculated through use of the EMFAC2021 model and the EMFAC2021 model printouts are shown in Appendix B. The worker trips were based on the combined fleet average miles per gallon rates for gasoline powered automobiles, SUVs and pickup trucks and the vendor and haul truck trips were based on the combined T6 and T7 diesel trucks fleet average miles per gallon rate. Table I shows the on -road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 46 City of Santa Clarita Table I — On -Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Types/ Trip Length Total Miles Total Miles Fleet Average Fuel Used Fuel Type Daily Trips (miles) per Day per Phase' Miles per Gallon' (gallons) Site Preparation Worker (Gasoline) 17.5 18.5 324 3,238 25.4 127 Water Trucks (Diesel) 3 1.0 3 30 7.3 4 Grading Worker (Gasoline) 20 18.5 370 12,950 25.4 509 Haul Trucks (Diesel) 15.7 20 314 10,990 7.3 1,496 Water Trucks (Diesel) 3 1.0 3 105 7.3 14 Building Construction Worker (Gasoline) 10 18.5 185 44,215 25.4 1,739 Vendor Truck (Diesel) 2 10.2 20 4,876 7.3 664 Water Trucks (Diesel) 3 1.0 3 717 7.3 98 Paving Worker (Gasoline) 15 18.5 278 5,550 25.4 218 Architectural Coatings Worker (Gasoline) 2 18.5 37 740 25.4 29 Total Gasoline Fuel Used from On -Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 2,623 Total Diesel Fuel Used from On -Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 2,276 Notes: ' Based on: 10 days for Site Preparation, 35 days for Grading; 239 days for Building Construction; 20 days for Paving; and 20 days for Architectural Coating. z From EMFAC 2021 model (see Appendix B). Worker Trips based on entire fleet of gasoline vehicles and Vendor Trips based on only truck fleet of diesel vehicles. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; EMFAC2021. Table I shows that the on -road construction -related vehicle trips would consume 2,623 gallons of gasoline and 2,276 gallons of diesel fuel. As detailed above, Table H shows that the off -road construction equipment would consume 41,236 gallons of diesel fuel. This would result in the total consumption of 2,623 gallons of gasoline and 43,512 gallons of diesel fuel from construction of the proposed project. Operations -Related Energy Use The operation of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel, electricity, and natural gas, and the calculations for each source are described below. Operational Petroleum Fuel Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel for both off -road equipment as well as from vehicle trips to and from the project site and the calculations for each source are described below. Off -Road Equipment According to the project applicant, skip loaders, mini -excavators, and/or a trail dozer would be utilized for monthly maintenance of the trails. In addition, a portable generator would be utilized for events for the operation of a food truck and/or for music events and there would be weekly water truck deliveries to the project site. The off -road equipment utilized during operation of the proposed project was modeled Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 47 City of Santa Clarita based on a skid steer loader, since that is a similar size to a mini excavator or mini dozer, operating 8 hours per day and 12 days per year and a generator operating 8 hours per day and 26 days per year. In addition, an off -highway truck was modeled to account for the weekly water truck deliveries based on 1 hour per day and 52 days per year. The off -road equipment fuel usage was modeled based on the same methodology described above for the off -road construction equipment and the results are shown below in Table J that shows that off -road equipment operational activities would utilize 652 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Table J — Off -Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Operation of the Proposed Project Equipment Horse- Load Operating Hours Total Operational Fuel Used Equipment Type Quantity power Factor per Day Hours' (gallons) Skid Steer Loader 1 71 0.37 8 96 145 Generator 1 14 0.74 8 208 124 Off -Highway Truck 1 376 0.38 1 52 384 Total Off -Road Equipment Diesel Fuel Used during Operations (gallons) 652 Notes: 'Based on 12 days per year for the skid steer loader, 26 days for the generator, and 52 days forth e off -highway truck. Source: CaIEEMod Version 2022.1 (see Appendix A); CARB, 2017. On -Road Operations -Related Vehicle Trips The on -road operations -related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the total annual vehicle miles traveled assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1, which found that operation of the proposed project would generate 469,265 vehicle miles traveled per year. The calculated total operational miles were then divided by 25.4 miles per gallon, which was calculated through use of the EMFAC2021 model and based on the South Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County miles per gallon rates for the year 2024. The EMFAC2021 model printouts are shown in Appendix B. Based on the above calculation methodology, operational vehicle trips generated from the proposed project would consume 18,458 gallons of gasoline per year. Operational Electricitv Use The operations -related electricity usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is detailed above in Section 8.1 that found the operation of the proposed project will not utilize any electricity, other than what was detailed above from the occasional generator use. Operational Natural Gas Use The operations -related natural gas usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is detailed above in Section 8.1 that found the operation of the proposed project will not utilize any natural gas. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 48 City of Santa Clarita 9.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 9.1 Regional Air Quality Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table K. Table K — SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-threshoIds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 9.2 Local Air Quality Project -related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project -related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST Methodology provides Look -Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As detailed above in Section 6.3, the project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. The Look -Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1-acre, 2-acres and 5-acres. Although the proposed project would disturb up to 20 acres, it is unlikely that more than 5 acres would be disturbed in any day. As such, the 5-acre threshold has been utilized in this analysis. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project. As such, the 200 meter thresholds were utilized in order to provide a conservative analysis. Table L below shows the LSTs for NO, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 49 City of Santa Clarita Table L — SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Allowable Emissions (pounds/da Activity NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction 275 4,608 79 26 Operation 275 4,608 19 7 Notes: ' The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Source: Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. 9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to TACs in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact: • If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or • Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater. In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to TACs, the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the HAP should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility -wide health risk assessment (HRA). 9.4 Odor Impacts The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states: "A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals." If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant odor impact. 9.5 Energy Conservation The 2022 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Statutes & Guidelines (2022 CEQA Guidelines) include an Energy Section that analyzes the proposed project's energy consumption in order to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F of the 2022 CEQA Statute and Guidelines, states the following: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 50 City of Santa Clarita The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. Since the Energy Section was recently added, no state or local agencies have adopted specific criteria or thresholds to be utilized in an energy impact analysis. However, Appendix F, Subsection II.0 of the 2022 CEQA Guidelines provides the following criteria for determining significance. 1. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project life cycle including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. 2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirement for additional capacity. 3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. 4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. 5. The effects of the project on energy resources. 6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. If the proposed project creates inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation activities or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, then the proposed project would create a significant energy impact. 9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCOze for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group's thresholds. As such, the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCOze annual threshold has been included in this analysis for informational purposes only and determination of significance for GHG emissions has been based on determination of consistency with the applicable GHG emission reduction plans. The GHG emissions analysis for both construction and operation of the proposed project can be found below in Sections 10.8 and 10.9. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 51 City of Santa Clarita 10.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality, energy, and GHG emissions would occur if the proposed project is determined to: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • 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; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people; • Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy; • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 10.2 Air Quality Compliance The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. The following section discusses the proposed project's consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision -makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 52 City of Santa Clarita (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1 or local thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, a less than significant long-term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. A project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP if it is consistent with the growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in SCAG's RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2020) and FTIP (2019 FTIP). The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. SCAG's forecasts are based on population, employment, and housing data provided in the general plans of local governments, including the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the Los Angeles County (County) General Plan. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with AQMP if it is consistent with City and County General Plans. The western portion of the project site is designated as Open Space (OS) in the City's General Plan and is zoned Open Space (OS). The eastern portion of the project site is designated as Rural Land 10 (RL10) and zoned Heavy Agriculture (A-2-2) in the County's General Plan. The proposed bike park project is an allowed use within the City's OS land use designation and zoning the County's RL10 land use designation and A-2- 2 zone. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the current zoning and land use designations and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. Additionally, the proposed bike park use would not increase population or housing and would generate a minimal number of employees to maintain the park. Thus, the proposed project would not exceed the population, housing, or employment forecasts in the City and County General Plans. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 53 City of Santa Clarita Based on the above, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be a less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non -Attainment Pollution The proposed project would not 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. 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 (http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts- working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-pa per.pdf). In this report the AQMD clearly states (Page D-3): "...the AQMD uses the some significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (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 some 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 some. 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 the Air Basin 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. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include construction of a bike park. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction -related emissions from the proposed project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 8.1. The maximum daily construction -related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project segmented by season and year are shown below in Table M. Table M shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 54 City of Santa Clarita Table M - Construction -Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Season and Year of Construction VOC NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Daily Summer Maximum 2025 1.17 10.6 13.8 0.02 2.57 0.63 Daily Winter Maximum 2024 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35 2025 3.47 10.6 13.7 0.02 2.57 0.63 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35 SCQAMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 SCAQMD Local Thresholds' -- 275 4,608 -- 79 26 Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No Notes: ' The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Operational Emissions The on -going operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project -generated vehicle trips, onsite area source emissions created from the on -going use of the proposed project, and the use of off -road equipment. The operations -related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 8.1. The worst -case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, S02, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the proposed project's long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table N. The CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are provided in Appendix A. Table N - Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Mobile Sources' 0.79 0.88 9.43 0.02 2.14 0.55 Area Sources2 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Usage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Equipment' 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06 Total Emissions 1.20 2.88 11.83 0.03 2.21 0.61 SCQAMD Regional Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 SCAQM Local Operational Thresholds' -- 275 41608 -- 19 7 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: ' Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. z Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. ' Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage. No natural gas would be consumed from operation of the proposed project. ° Off -road equipment was modeled based on a skid steer loader operating up to 8 hours per day and 12 days per year, a generator operating up to 8 hours per day and 26 days per year, and an off -highway truck making weekly water truck deliveries 1 hour per day and 52 days per year during operation of project. s The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Calculated from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 55 City of Santa Clarita The data provided in Table N shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds. Therefore, less than significant regional and local air quality impacts would occur from operation of the proposed project. Friant Ranch Case In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.Sth 502 (also referred to as "Friant Ranch"), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality impacts, an EIR should "make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences." In order to determine compliance with this Case, the Court developed a multi -part test that includes the following: 1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including DPM. This analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant above in Section 4.1 and specifically in Table B. In addition, the specific health risks created from DPM is detailed above in Section 2.2 of this analysis. As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. 2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the project. The ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it states "The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the Project's impact on the days of nonattainment per year." The Friant Ranch Case found that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf) (Brief), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk, it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone -related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 56 City of Santa Clarita On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources — as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. As shown above in Table M, project -related construction activities would generate a maximum of 3.72 pounds per day of VOC and 36.1 pounds per day of NOX. In addition, as shown above in Table N, operation of the proposed project would generate 1.20 pounds per day of VOC and 2.88 pounds per day NOX. The proposed project would not generate anywhere near these levels of 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed project's emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide level. Notwithstanding, this analysis does evaluate the proposed project's localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NO, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed project's onsite emissions to the SCAQMD's applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this analysis, the proposed project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD's LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Protect -Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the state and federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (1993), the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards3. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the proposed project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less -than -significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on -going use of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 3The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 57 City of Santa Clarita 10.4 Sensitive Receptors The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated above in Section 10.3 for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from TAC emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project. There are also single-family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas to be disturbed as part of the project. Construction -Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include construction of a bike park. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant emissions and from TAC emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed above in Section 10.3. The analysis found that the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the local NO, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would create a less than significant construction -related impact to local air quality and no mitigation would be required. Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to DPM emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of "individual cancer risk". "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015). Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off -road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet's usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. As of January 2022, 50 percent or more of all contractor's equipment fleets must by Tier 2 or higher; by January 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors' equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher and by January 2029, 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 58 City of Santa Clarita Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. As such, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operations -Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The on -going operations of the proposed project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emissions from the project -generated vehicular trips and from the potential local criteria pollutant emissions from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local criteria pollutant emissions from onsite operations, and TAC emissions. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Protect -Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed project would occur from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances. The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 found that the operation of the proposed project would not exceed the local NO, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, the on -going operations of the proposed project would result in a less -than -significant operations -related impact to local air quality due to on -site emissions and no mitigation would be required. Operations -Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by the on -going operation of the proposed bike park that would be primarily limited to weekly water truck deliveries, and the occasional use of diesel fuel to operate generators and off -road equipment, a less than significant TAC impact would be created from the on -going operations of the proposed project and no mitigation would be required. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.5 Odor Emissions The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 59 City of Santa Clarita impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual's or group's perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor. Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below. Construction -Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108 that limits VOC content in asphalt and Rule 1113 that limits the VOC content in paints and solvents would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site's boundaries. Through compliance with the applicable regulations that reduce odors and due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Operations -Related Odor Impacts The proposed project would consist of a bike park development. The proposed project would not generate or contain any known sources of odors. Therefore, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on -going operations of the proposed project. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.6 Energy Consumption The proposed project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. A general definition of each of these energy resources are provided below. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 60 City of Santa Clarita Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on -site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands. In 2022, Los Angeles County consumed 68,485 gigawatt-hours per year of electricity4. Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one-third of the State's total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet. In 2022, Los Angeles County consumed 2,820 million therms of natural gas'. Petroleum -based fuels currently account for a majority of the California's transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the State has been working on developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, petroleum -based fuel consumption in California has declined. In 2022, 3,070 million gallons of gasoline and 295 million gallons of diesel was sold in Los Angeles County'. The following section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the proposed project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction Energy The proposed project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms: 1. Petroleum -based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off -site reuse and disposal facilities); 2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and, 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. 4 Obtained from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbvcounty.aspx 5 Obtained from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbvcounty.aspx 6 Obtained from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 61 City of Santa Clarita Construction -Related Electri During construction the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the proposed bike park and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the project site by portable generators that was accounted for in the CalEEMod model. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Construction -Related Natural Gas Construction of the proposed project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Natural gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, thus there would be no demand generated by construction. Development of the proposed project would not require any natural gas connections and no natural gas lines would be moved as part of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no construction -related impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure. Construction -Related Petroleum Fuel Use Petroleum -based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would be utilized by both off -road equipment operating on the project site and on -road automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site and on -road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the project site. The off -road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off -road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown above in Section 8.2, which found that construction of the proposed project would consume 2,623 gallons of gasoline and 43,512 gallons of diesel fuel. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the gasoline and 0.01 percent of the diesel used annually in Los Angeles County. As such, the construction -related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current county -wide petroleum usage rates. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all state and SCAQMD regulations for off -road equipment and on -road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Development of the project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete. However, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Operational Energy The on -going operation of the proposed project would require the use of energy resources limited to generators for food trucks and music and from off -road equipment used for the maintenance of the trails. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 62 City of Santa Clarita Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips. Operations -Related Electricity Operation of the proposed project would project will not utilize any electricity, other than from the occasional generator use that has been analyzed below under off -road equipment. Operations -Related Natural Gas Operation of the proposed project would not utilize any natural gas. Operations -Related Off -Road Eauiament According to the project applicant, skip loaders, mini -excavators, and/or a trail dozer would be utilized for monthly maintenance of the trails. In addition, a portable generator would be utilized for events for the operation of a food truck and/or for music events. The modeling of the operational off -road equipment is detailed above in Section 8.2, which found that the off -road equipment would consume 652 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Operational activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all state and SCAQMD regulations for off -road equipment. As such, operational activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of diesel fuel. Impacts regarding operational off -road equipment energy usage would be less than significant Operations -Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of petroleum -based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.2 the proposed project would consume 18,458 gallons of gasoline per year from vehicle travel. This equates to 0.0005 percent of the gasoline consumed annually in Los Angeles County. As such, the operations -related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates. It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy and the proposed project would be promoting the use of alternative modes of travel (i.e., bicycles). Therefore, impacts with regard transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In conclusion, the proposed project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State and City related to air quality (see section 4.0 above, energy (see section 5.0 above, and GHGs (see section 6.0 above). Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 63 City of Santa Clarita 10.7 Energy Plan Consistency The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the proposed project is the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan, June, 2011. The proposed project's consistency with the applicable energy -related policies in the General Plan are shown in Table O. Table O — Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies Policy No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. CO 8.3.1 Evaluate site plans proposed for new development based on energy efficiency pursuant to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards for New Construction and Neighborhood Development, including the following: a) location efficiency; b) environmental preservation; c) compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods; and d) resource efficiency, including use of recycled materials and water Consistent. All proposed structures will be designed to not utilize any energy. CO 8.3.2 Promote construction of energy efficient buildings Consistent. All proposed structures will be through requirements for LEED certification or designed to not utilize any energy. through comparable alternative requirements as adopted by local ordinance CO 8.3.6 Require new development to use passive solar Consistent. Proposed shade structures vault heating and cooling techniques in building design restrooms will be designed to use passive solar and construction, which may include but are not be heating and cooling techniques. limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs, shade trees, and paving materials CO 8.3.7 Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to Consistent. Where possible, trees will be planted reduce heating and cooling energy loads, through to provide shade to the proposed event and shading of buildings and parking lots. parking areas. CO 8.3.8 Encourage energy -conserving heating and cooling Not Applicable. No heating and cooling systems or systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in appliances will be installed into any of the windows and insulation, in all new construction. proposed project's structures. CO 8.3.9 Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage a Not Applicable. No permanent lighting would be reduction of lighting when businesses are closed to installed as part of the proposed project. a level required for security. Source: City of Santa Clarita, 2011 As shown in Table O, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable energy -related policies from the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 64 City of Santa Clarita Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would consist of the development of a bike park. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, off -road equipment and construction equipment. The proposed project would not include any utility connections, so would not utilize any energy usage as modeled in CalEEMod, however operation of the project would occasionally utilize electricity through generators that was modeled as part of the off -road equipment. The project's GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters detailed above in Section 8.1. A summary of the results is shown below in Table P and the CalEEMod model run is provided in Appendix A. Table P - Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Mobile Sources' 164 0.01 0.01 166 Area Sources' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water and Wastewater' 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 0.13 Solid Wastes 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.46 Refrigeration' -- -- -- 0.00 Operational Off -Road Equipment' 22.2 <0.01 <0.01 22.3 Construction' 15.03 <0.01 <0.01 15.10 Total GHG Emissions 201 0.02 0.01 204 SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000 Exceed Thresholds? No Notes: ' Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. ' Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 'Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. e Refrigeration includes GHG emissions from refrigerants in air conditioning units. No refrigeration would be provided as part of project. Operational Off -Road Equipment was modeled based on a skid steer loader operating 8 hours per day and 12 days per year, a generator operating up to 8 hours per day and 26 days per year, and an off -highway truck making weekly water truck deliveries 1 hour per day and 52 days peryear. 'Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (see Appendix A) The data provided in Table P shows that the proposed project would create 204 MTCO2e per year, which has been provided in this analysis for informational purposes only. The determination of significance of GHG emissions impacts is provided in the following Section 10.9, which shows the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable measures and strategies in the applicable reduction plans for the proposed project. For reference purpose only, Table P shows that the proposed project's GHG emissions would be well below the SCAQMD's draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 65 City of Santa Clarita project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plans for the proposed project include the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, the Connect SoCal 2020, and the Connect SoCal 2024. The project consistency analysis to each of these plans is detailed below. Consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction actions and strategies necessary to achieve the AB 1279 target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These actions and strategies build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013) and in the second update to the Scoping Plan (2017). Although a number of these measures are currently established as statewide regulations, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. Provided in Table Q, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the proposed project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Table Q — Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) and Scoping Plan Action Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Actions GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. No Conflict. As shown above in Table P, almost all of the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be from vehicle trips. AB 1493 controls GHG emissions from vehicles in California. Through adherence with the AB 1493 tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the proposed project would not conflict with this strategy. Smart Growth / Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels No Conflict. Senate Bill 375 directs each regional MPO (SCAG is by 2030, and 22% below 2019 levels by 2045. MPO for project area) to adopt a SCS/RTP that meet this reduction target. The Connect SoCal 2024 was prepared to meet these reduction targets. Table R, below details how the proposed project would not conflict with the Connect SoCal 2024. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this strategy. Light -Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero -Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) 100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all new LDVs sold in California to be zero -emission by the year 2035. The proposed project would not include any vehicle sales activities. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 66 City of Santa Clarita AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) and Scoping Plan Action Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Actions Truck ZEVs 100% of medium -duty (MDV)/HDC sales are ZEV Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all new LDVs by 2040 (AB 74 University of California Institute sold in California to be zero -emission by the year 2045. The of Transportation Studies [ITS] report). proposed project would not include any truck sales activities. Aviation 10% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity Not Applicable. The proposed project would not utilize any (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045. aviation fuel. Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of the aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned to hydrogen or batteries. Ocean-going Vessels (OGV) 2020 OGV At -Berth regulation fully Not Applicable. The proposed project would not utilize any implemented, with most OGVs utilizing shore OGVs. power by 2027. 25% of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric technology by 2045. Port Operations 100% of cargo handling equipment is zero- Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact any emission by 2037. operations at any ports. 100% of drayage trucks are zero emission by 2035. Freight and Passenger Rail 100% of passenger and other locomotive sales Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact any are ZEV by 2030. freight or passenger rail operations. 100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035. Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily utilize electricity. Oil and Gas Extraction Phase out oil and gas extraction operations by Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact any oil 2045. and gas extraction activities. Petroleum Refining CCS on majority of petroleum refining Not Applicable. The proposed project would not impact any operations by 2030. petroleum refining activities. Production reduced in line with petroleum demand. Electricity Generation Electric sector GHG target of 38 MMTCO2e in Not Applicable. Senate Bill 1020 requires that 100 percent of 2030 and 31 MMTCO2e in 2045. retail sales of electricity be generated by renewable or zero - Retail sales load coverage carbon source of electricity by December 1, 2045. The proposed project would not include any electrical utility connections. New Residential and Commercial Buildings All electric appliances beginning 2026 Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any (residential) and 2029 (commercial). electrical utility connections and would not include the installation of any appliances. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 67 City of Santa Clarita AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) and Scoping Plan Action Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Actions Existing Residential Buildings 80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any 100% of appliance sales are electric by 2035. existing residential buildings. Appliances are replaced at end of life. Existing Commercial Buildings 80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030, and Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any 100% of appliance sales are electric by 2045. existing commercial buildings. Appliances are replaced at end of life. Food Products 7.5% of energy demand electrified directly Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any and/or indirectly by 2030; 75% by 2045. commercial food production activities. Construction Equipment 25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and No Conflict. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all off -road 75% electrified by 2045. vehicles and equipment to transition to 100 percent zero - emission equipment, where feasible, by 2035. All construction equipment fleets utilized during construction of the proposed project are required to be registered with CARB and meet CARB's current emission reductions regulations, which are anticipated to be updated to meet Executive Order N-79-20 requirements. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this strategy. Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper Electrify 0% of boilers by 2030 and 100% of Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any boilers by 2045. pulp and paper production activities. Hydrogen for 25% of process heat by 2035 and 100% by 2045. Electrify 100% of other energy demand by 2045. Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement CCS on 40% of operations by 2035 and on all Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any facilities by 2045. stone, clay, glass and cement production activities. Process emissions reduced through alternative materials and CCS. Other Industrial Manufacturing 0% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50% Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any by 2045. other industrial manufacturing activities. Combined Heat and Power Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any existing combined heat and power facilities. Agriculture Energy Use 25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any by 2045. commercial agriculture activities. Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation Biomass supply is used to produce conventional Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any and advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen. production of fuels for transportation. Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 68 City of Santa Clarita AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold) and Scoping Plan Action Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Actions In 2030s, renewable natural gas (RNG) blended Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any in pipeline Renewable hydrogen blended in natural gas pipeline at 7% energy (^20% by volume), ramping up between 2030 and 2040. In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve certain industrial clusters. production of fuels for buildings and industry. Non -combustion Methane Emissions Increase landfill and dairy digester methane Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include the capture. operation of any landfill or dairy. Some alternative manure management deployed for smaller dairies. Moderate adoption of enteric strategies by 2030. Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025. Oil and gas fugitive methane emissions reduced 50% by 2030 and further reductions as infrastructure components retire in line with reduced fossil gas demand. High GWP Potential Emissions Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include the electrification increases, mitigating HFC manufacturing of appliances that use low GWP refrigerants. emissions. Compensate for Remaining Emissions Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) demonstration Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any projects deployed by 2030. CDR demonstration projects CDR scaled to compensate for remaining GHG emissions in 2045 Source: CARB, 2022. As shown above in Table Q, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable proposed action or strategy in the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and potential impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 SIB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. It is up to each MPO in the State (SCAG is the MPO for Southern California) to adopt a RTP/SCS to meet the reduction target set by CARB for the Southern California region. The Connect SoCal 2020 was adopted by SCAG that was prepared to meet a 2035 GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels through the implementation of new land use, transportation and technology strategies. Provided in Table R, Consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020, is an evaluation of applicable goals and strategies to determine how the proposed project would be consistent with or exceed reduction strategies outlined in the Connect SoCal 2020. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 69 City of Santa Clarita Table R — Consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020 Strategies Consistency Assessment Connect SoCal Goals Goal 1: Encourage regional economic Not Applicable. This Goal is directed at SCAG and does not apply to prosperity and global competitiveness. the proposed project. This strategy calls on encouraging regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. The proposed project would not interfere with such policymaking. Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, Consistent. The project proposes to construct a bike park in an area reliability, and travel safety for people and that is in close proximity to existing commercial and residential goods. uses. The proposed project would promote the enjoyment and use of alternative modes of travel (i.e., bike riding) and would construct new trails that would connect to the existing multi -use trails, thereby improving public accessibility to the trail system in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this goal. Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, Consistent. The project proposes to construct a bike park with and resilience of the regional transportation approximately 15 miles of maintained bike and multi -use trails that system. would connect to the existing trail system. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this goal. Goal 4: Increase person and goods Not Applicable. This strategy calls on SCAG to increase person and movement and travel choices within the goods movement and travel choices across the transportation transportation system. system. The proposed project would not interfere with this goal. Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Consistent. The project would result in criteria air pollutant and and improve air quality. GHG emissions during construction and operation. However, emissions would be nominal. Moreover, the proposed project would encourage biking as an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce VMTs and associated GHG emissions. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal. Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable Consistent. The project would be consistent with this goal by communities. constructing a public bike park that would facilitate athletic activities (i.e., bike riding), which would aid in supporting healthy and equitable communities. Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards SCAG and does not support an integrated regional development apply to individual development projects. Nevertheless, the project pattern and transportation network. would support this goal by expanding the trail network in the project area. Goal 8: Leverage new transportation Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards SCAG and does not technologies and data -driven solutions that apply to the proposed project. This strategy calls on SCAG to use result in more efficient travel. new transportation technologies and data -driven solutions to increase efficiency. The proposed project would not interfere with this goal. Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include the housing types in areas that are supported by development of housing. However, the proposed project would multiple transportation options. develop a bike park in close proximity to existing residential uses, which would provide existing residents with an alternative transportation options (i.e., bike riding). Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 70 City of Santa Clarita Strategies Consistency Assessment Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural Consistent. The project site is not currently used for any and agricultural lands and restoration of agricultural uses. Except for the proposed 15 miles of trails and the habitats. two programming areas, the remainder of the project site would remain undeveloped. Moreover, disturbed areas of the project site would be revegetated upon completion of the project construction. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal. Connect SoCal Strategies Strategy 1: Focus growth near destinations Consistent. The proposed project would consist of development of and mobility options. a bike park in close proximity to existing commercial and residential uses. The bike park is intended to serve as a recreational destination for residents and would promote biking as an alternative mode of transportation. Strategy 2: Promote diverse housing choices. Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include any new housing. It should be noted that the project is being constructed on land designated for open space and would not impede on the development of any potential future housing. Strategy 3: Leverage technology innovations. Not Applicable. This strategy is directed to SCAG and jurisdictions and does not apply to the proposed project. This strategy aims to promote low emission technologies, improve access to services through technology, and identify ways to incorporate micro power grids into communities. The proposed project would not interfere with this strategy. Strategy 4: Support implementation of Consistent. The proposed project would not be connected to any sustainability policies. utilities and would utilize vault toilets. As such, the project would result in low water and energy consumption. Strategy 5: Promote a Green Region. Consistent. Development of the proposed bike park within existing open space would not interfere with regional wildlife connectivity or convert agricultural land. Upon completion of project construction, the project would revegetate disturbed areas within the project site. The proposed project would also improve public accessibility to park space and encourage biking as an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would support this strategy. Source: SCAG, 2020 As shown above in Table Q, the proposed project would not conflict with any proposed goal or strategy in the Connect SoCal 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal 2020 plan and potential impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 As detailed above in Section 4.3, the Connect SoCal 2024 was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2024. However, per SIB 375, SCAG and CARB are required to work together until CARB staff conclude that the calculations and quantifications provided would yield accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions. Since CARB staff continue to have significant outstanding concerns about the technical methodology utilized in the Connect SoCal 2024, the current approved RTP/SCS is the Connect SoCal 2020. Consistency with the Connect SoCal 2024 has been included in order to provide a comprehensive consistency analysis. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 71 City of Santa Clarita The Connect SoCal 2024 includes over 90 implementation strategies in order to meet the year 2035 GHG emission reduction targets set for the Southern California region as mandated by SIB 375. The implementation strategies are directed toward SCAG and other regional agencies to implement and are not directly applicable to individual development projects. Regardless, the proposed project, which consists of development of a bike park in the nearby proximity to existing commercial and residential uses would conform to and promote many of these implementation strategies by encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes (i.e., bike riding) and providing access to an equitable and active recreational activity area. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any proposed goal or strategy in the Connect SoCal 2024. The proposed project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal 2024 plan and potential impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 72 City of Santa Clarita 11.0 REFERENCES California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model (ColEEMod) User Guide Version 2022.1, April 2022. California Air Resources Board, 2017 Off -Road Diesel Emission Factor Update for NOx and PM, 2017. California Air Resources Board, California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017. California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, December 14, 2023. California Air Resources Board, California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017. California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014. California Air Resources Board, Resolution 08-43, December 12, 2008. California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel - Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000. California Air Resources Board, Final Staff Report Proposed Update to theSB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, October 2017. California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition. California Department of Conservation, A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California —Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August, 2000. California Energy Commission, 2022 Reference Appendices for the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, August 2022 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan, August 2012. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan, June 2011. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation Under 8- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2020, April 15, 2022 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2, 2022. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, December, 2012. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 73 City of Santa Clarita South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March, 2017. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft — 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan Los Angeles County, May 4, 2012. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 445 Wood -Burning Devices, Amended October 27, 2020. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108 Cutback Asphalt, Amended February 1, 1985. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt, Amended November 4, 1983. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, Amended September 6, 2013. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi -Purpose Solvents, Amended December 3, 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008. South Coast Air Quality Management District, MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast AQMD Final Report, August 2021. Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020), September 3, 2020. Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024), April4, 2024. Southern California Association of Governments, Final 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Guidelines, October 2022. University of California, Davis, Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997. U.S. Geological Survey, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, 2011. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Page 74 City of Santa Clarita APPENDIX A CalEEMod Model Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix A City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park 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. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated 3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated 3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 1/43 3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated 3.11. Architectural Coating (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 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 2/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 3/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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 5.12.1. Unmitigated 4/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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 6/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information -. Project Name Construction Start Date Operational Year Lead Agency Land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) Location County City Air District Air Basin TAZ EDFZ Electric Utility Gas Utility App Version 1.2. Land Use Types Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park 10/1 /2024 2025 Project/site County 2.50 19.6 34.46891648717852,-118.5010731109193 Los Angeles -South Coast Santa Clarita South Coast AQMD South Coast 3606 7 Southern California Edison Southern California Gas 2022.1.1.22 7/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 City Park 17.2 Acre 17.2 0.00 149,640 Other Asphalt 123 1000sgft 2.82 0.00 24,600 Surfaces 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) Daily, Summer (Max) Unmit. 1.17 10.6 13.8 0.02 2.57 0.63 2,615 Daily, Winter (Max) Unmit. 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35 7,990 Average Daily (Max) Unmit. 0.96 6.78 8.84 0.02 1.50 0.41 1,655 Annual (Max) Unmit. 0.17 1.24 1.61 < 0.005 0.27 0.07 274 Exceeds (Daily Max) Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 - Unmit. No No No No No No - Exceeds (Average Daily) Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 - 8/43 149,640 0.11 0.04 0.70 2,629 0.34 0.24 0.10 8,071 0.07 0.03 0.20 1,663 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 275 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Unmit. No No No No No No - 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) L M�� M= Daily - Summer (Max) 2025 1.17 10.6 13.8 0.02 2.57 0.63 2,615 Daily - Winter (Max) 2024 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35 7,990 2025 3.47 10.6 13.7 0.02 2.57 0.63 2,608 Average Daily 2024 0.52 5.08 4.80 0.01 0.99 0.41 1,067 2025 0.96 6.78 8.84 0.02 1.50 0.39 1,655 Annual 2024 0.10 0.93 0.88 < 0.005 0.18 0.07 177 2025 0.17 1.24 1.61 < 0.005 0.27 0.07 274 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) M� M= Daily, Summer (Max) Unmit. 1.20 2.80 11.8 0.03 2.21 0.62 2,899 Daily, Winter (Max) Unmit. 1.19 2.88 10.8 0.03 2.21 0.62 2,798 9/43 0.11 0.04 0.70 2,629 0.34 0.24 0.10 8,071 0.11 0.04 0.02 2,621 0.05 0.03 0.18 1,076 0.07 0.02 0.20 1,663 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 178 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 275 0.20 0.09 8.87 2,940 0.20 0.09 0.23 2,831 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Average Daily (Max) Unmit. 0.57 0.71 4.09 0.01 0.92 0.25 1,125 Annual (Max) Unmit. 0.10 0.13 0.75 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 186 Exceeds (Daily Max) Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 - Unmit. No No No No No No - Exceeds (Average Daily) Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 Unmit. No No No No No No Exceeds (Annual) Threshold Unmit. 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) Daily, Summer (Max) Mobile 0.79 0.80 9.43 0.02 2.14 0.55 2,382 Area 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water - - - - - - 0.79 Waste - - - - - - 0.80 Refrig. 10/43 0.13 0.04 1.64 1,142 0.02 0.01 0.27 189 3,000 No co2E 0.10 0.09 8.87 2,419 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 0.00 0.00 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Off -Road 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06 515 0.02 < 0.005 - 517 Total 1.20 2.80 11.8 0.03 2.21 0.62 2,899 0.20 0.09 8.87 2,940 Daily, Winter (Max) Mobile 0.78 0.88 8.44 0.02 2.14 0.55 2,281 0.10 0.09 0.23 2,310 Area 0.19 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Water - - - - - - 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 Waste - - - - - - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 Refrig. 0.00 0.00 Off -Road 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06 515 0.02 < 0.005 - 517 Total 1.19 2.88 10.8 0.03 2.21 0.62 2,798 0.20 0.09 0.23 2,831 Average Daily Mobile 0.33 0.38 3.74 0.01 0.91 0.23 989 0.04 0.04 1.64 1,004 Area 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Water - - - - - - 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 Waste - - - - - - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 Refrig. 0.00 0.00 Off -Road 0.05 0.33 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 134 0.01 < 0.005 - 135 Total 0.57 0.71 4.09 0.01 0.92 0.25 1,125 0.13 0.04 1.64 1,142 Annual Mobile 0.06 0.07 0.68 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 164 0.01 0.01 0.27 166 Area 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Water - - - - - - 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.13 Waste - - - - - - 0.13 0.01 0.00 - 0.46 Refrig. 0.00 0.00 11 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Off -Road 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.2 < 0.005 Total 0.10 0.13 0.75 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 186 0.02 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off -Road 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 1.47 5,296 0.21 Equipment Dust From - - - - 5.11 2.63 - - Material Movement Onsite truck < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 1.99 0.20 15.6 < 0.005 Average Daily Off -Road 0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 145 0.01 Equipment Dust From - - - - 0.14 0.07 - - Material Movement Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.01 0.43 < 0.005 Annual Off -Road 0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 24.0 < 0.005 Equipment 12/43 < 0.005 - 22.3 0.01 0.27 189 0.04 - 5,314 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 < 0.005 - 146 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 < 0.005 - 24.1 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Dust From - - - - 0.03 0.01 - Material Movement Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.08 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.23 0.05 234 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 6.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) 13/43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 237 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i H4iR C( Off -Road 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 Equipment Dust From - - - - 2.39 Material Movement Onsite truck < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 1.99 Average Daily Off -Road 0.34 3.29 2.89 0.01 0.14 Equipment Dust From - - - - 0.23 Material Movement Onsite truck < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Annual Off -Road 0.06 0.60 0.53 < 0.005 0.03 Equipment Dust From - - - - 0.04 Material Movement Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.09 0.11 1.28 0.00 0.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.44 0.53 0.01 0.31 Average Daily Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.14 0.05 < 0.005 0.03 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 1.33 6,598 0.27 0.05 - 6,621 0.95 - - - - - 0.20 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 0.13 633 0.03 0.01 - 635 0.09 - - - - - 0.02 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.57 0.02 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 105 0.02 - - - - - < 0.005 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 0.06 268 0.01 0.01 0.03 271 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1,108 0.06 0.18 0.07 1,163 0.01 26.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 26.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 106 0.01 0.02 0.11 112 14/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 17.6 3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ...� • AIEL , Aim Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off -Road 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 0.46 2,398 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 1.99 0.20 15.6 Average Daily Off -Road 0.07 0.64 0.74 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 136 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.01 0.88 Annual Off -Road 0.01 0.12 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 22.5 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.15 Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.04 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.03 134 15/43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.5 • F7` 0.10 0.02 - 2,406 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 0.01 < 0.005 - 137 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 135 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 64.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.71 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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) ...� Jim 1M Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Off -Road 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,398 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 1.99 0.20 15.2 Daily, Winter (Max) Off -Road 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,398 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 1.99 0.20 15.3 Average Daily Off -Road 0.67 6.21 7.76 0.01 0.26 0.24 1,426 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 1.12 0.11 9.08 16/43 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 67.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 - 2,406 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.0 0.10 0.02 - 2,406 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1 0.06 0.01 - 1,431 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.56 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Annual Off -Road 0.12 1.13 1.42 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 236 Equipment Onsite truck < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 0.02 1.50 Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.00 0.13 0.03 138 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 63.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.13 0.03 131 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 63.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.08 0.02 79.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 37.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 13.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.25 Hauling 0.00 0.00 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) Onsite 17/43 0.01 < 0.005 - 237 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.58 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 140 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 66.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 133 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 66.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 80.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 39.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off -Road 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32 1,511 0.06 0.01 - 1,517 Equipment Paving 0.37 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Off -Road 0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 83.1 Equipment Paving 0.02 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Off -Road 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 13.8 Equipment Paving < 0.005 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.20 0.05 197 0.01 0.01 0.02 199 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ...� • AIEL , Aim Onsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Off -Road 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 134 Equipment Architectural 3.33 Coatings Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Off -Road 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.32 Equipment Architectural 0.18 Coatings Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Off -Road < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.21 Equipment Architectural 0.03 Coatings Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19/43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • F7` 0.01 < 0.005 - 134 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 7.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Offsite Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.01 26.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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) Daily, Summer (Max) City Park 0.79 0.80 9.43 0.02 2.14 0.55 2,382 0.10 0.09 8.87 2,419 Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces 20 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Total 0.79 0.80 9.43 0.02 2.14 0.55 2,382 0.10 0.09 8.87 2,419 Daily, Winter (Max) City Park 0.78 0.88 8.44 0.02 2.14 0.55 2,281 0.10 0.09 0.23 2,310 Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.78 0.88 8.44 0.02 2.14 0.55 2,281 0.10 0.09 0.23 2,310 Annual City Park 0.06 0.07 0.68 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 164 0.01 0.01 0.27 166 Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.06 0.07 0.68 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 164 0.01 0.01 0.27 166 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) Daily, Summer (Max) City Park - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) City Park - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 21 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Annual City Park - - - - - - 0.00 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.00 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) Daily, Summer (Max) City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 22 / 43 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 CH4 C( 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs Daily, Summer (Max) Consumer 0.17 Products Architectural 0.02 Coatings Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment Total 0.19 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter - - - (Max) Consumer 0.17 - - Products Architectural 0.02 - - Coatings Total 0.19 - - Annual - - - Consumer 0.03 - - Products Architectural < 0.005 - - Coatings Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment Total 0.03 0.00 0.00 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23/43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, Summer (Max) City Park - - - - - - 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 Daily, Winter (Max) City Park - - - - - - 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.80 Annual City Park - - - - - - 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.13 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.13 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) Daily, Summer (Max) City Park - - - - - - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces 24 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Total - - - - - - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 Daily, Winter (Max) City Park - - - - - - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.80 0.08 0.00 - 2.79 Annual City Park - - - - - - 0.13 0.01 0.00 - 0.46 Other Asphalt - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Surfaces Total - - - - - - 0.13 0.01 0.00 - 0.46 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) �E, Daily, Summer (Max) City Park 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) City Park 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 Annual City Park 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 25 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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) Equipment - Daily, Summer (Max) Skid Steer 0.06 0.86 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 245 0.01 < 0.005 - 246 Loaders Generator Sets 0.10 0.79 0.52 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 104 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 104 Off -Highway 0.06 0.34 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 167 0.01 < 0.005 - 167 Trucks Total 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06 515 0.02 < 0.005 - 517 Daily, Winter (Max) Skid Steer 0.06 0.86 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 245 0.01 < 0.005 - 246 Loaders Generator Sets 0.10 0.79 0.52 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 104 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 104 Off -Highway 0.06 0.34 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 167 0.01 < 0.005 - 167 Trucks Total 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06 515 0.02 < 0.005 - 517 Annual Skid Steer < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.34 Loaders Generator Sets < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.23 Off -Highway 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 19.7 Trucks Total 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 22.3 26 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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) Equipment - Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total 27/43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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) Daily, Summer (Max) Total Daily, Winter (Max) Total Annual Total 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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) 28 / 43 Daily, Summer (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequestered Subtotal Removed Subtotal Daily, Winter (Max) Avoided Subtotal Sequestered Subtotal Removed Subtotal Annual Avoided Subtotal Sequestered Subtotal Removed Subtotal 29 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Type Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/1/2024 10/14/2024 5.00 10.0 - Grading Grading 10/15/2024 12/2/2024 5.00 35.0 - Building Construction Building Construction 12/3/2024 10/31/2025 5.00 239 - Paving Paving 11 /3/2025 11 /28/2025 5.00 20.0 - Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/1/2025 12/26/2025 5.00 20.0 - 5.2. Off -Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 oes Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 oes Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 oes 30 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated One -Way Trips per Day dM Site Preparation - - - Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor - 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck 3.00 1.00 HHDT Grading - - - - Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor - 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 15.7 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck 3.00 1.00 HHDT Building Construction - - - - Building Construction Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 2.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck 3.00 1.00 HHDT Paving - - - - Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 31 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT Architectural Coating — — — — Architectural Coating Worker 2.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Control Strategies Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Architectural Coating 0.00 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Site Preparation — Grading 4,400 Paving 0.00 55% 0.00 5,250 1,750 7,380 Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acre 15.0 00 105 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.82 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies -. - .- 11 Water Exposed Area 3 5.7. Construction Paving City Park Other Asphalt Surfaces Area Paved (acres) 0.00 2.82 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 74% 74% % Asphalt 1' 11', kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) 2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational MobileSources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Lan se ype Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday IVMT/Ye; City Park 40.0 200 200 31,291611 2,999 2,999 469,265 Other Asphalt0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 33 / 43 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 0 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment IP.I=Wejm� Snow Days Summer Days M M 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated day/yr day/yr 5,250 Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr)• M City Park 0.00 349 0.0330 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 0.0330 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated EMW .. City Park 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 34 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 1,750 7,380 Value 0.00 1 N20 Nate 0.0040 0.00 0.0040 0.00 156,000 0.00 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated WasteFROM W Q City Park 1.48 — Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated City Park Other commercial A/C R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 and heat pumps City Park Stand-alone retail R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and freezers 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type on -1 M Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Off -Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 376 0.38 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 35 / 43 Equipment Typ 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated iomass Cover lypIM 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated ITree Type 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 36 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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 • Result for•- • • Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.30 Sea Level Rise — Wildfire 21.8 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm meters of inundation depth 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 3/4 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 (MIR005). 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 Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A 37 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 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 Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 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. Exposure Indicators AQ-Ozone 93.6 38 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 AQ-PM 45.4 AQ-DPM 6.24 Drinking Water 85.7 Lead Risk Housing 17.0 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 36.7 Traffic 26.9 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 0.00 Groundwater 2.11 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 7.35 Impaired Water Bodies 12.5 Solid Waste 0.00 Sensitive Population — Asthma 12.6 Cardio-vascular 33.3 Low Birth Weights 35.0 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 32.6 Housing 27.8 Linguistic 28.8 Poverty 36.5 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. • •'Result forProject 39 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Economic — Above Poverty 80.803285 Employed 46.86256897 Median HI 72.73193892 Education — Bachelor's or higher 51.84139612 High school enrollment 18.81175414 Preschool enrollment 17.40023098 Transportation — Auto Access 90.86359553 Active commuting 19.06839471 Social — 2-parent households 97.36943411 Voting 48.71038111 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 69.31861927 Park access 2.194276915 Retail density 84.10111639 Supermarket access 18.11882459 Tree canopy 27.46054151 Housing — Homeownership 96.99730527 Housing habitability 83.11305017 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 39.89477736 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 72.47529834 Uncrowded housing 44.45014757 Health Outcomes — 40 / 43 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 Insured adults 63.64686257 Arthritis 53.0 Asthma ER Admissions 90.0 High Blood Pressure 79.0 Cancer (excluding skin) 27.6 Asthma 65.7 Coronary Heart Disease 63.8 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 59.8 Diagnosed Diabetes 79.4 Life Expectancy at Birth 33.9 Cognitively Disabled 52.2 Physically Disabled 62.2 Heart Attack ER Admissions 36.2 Mental Health Not Good 62.3 Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8 Obesity 59.2 Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Physical Health Not Good 67.2 Stroke 75.8 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 9.5 Current Smoker 60.5 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 81.7 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 81.4 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 71.1 41 / 43 Elderly English Speaking Foreign -born Outdoor Workers Climate Change Adaptive Capacity Impervious Surface Cover Traffic Density Traffic Access Other Indices Hardship Other Decision Support 2016 Voting 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores MW CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 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) Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 68.4 69.6 32.8 62.4 73.8 22.9 23.0 40.8 57.1 Result for Project Census Tract 1 .0 No 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. 42 / 43 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Construction: Construction Phases Operations: Vehicle Data Operations: Off -Road Equipment Construction: Trips and VMT Operations: Water and Waste Water Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Detailed Report, 4/8/2024 No Demolition required. Building construction reduced from 370 days to 239 days Trip Rate set to 40 weekday trips and 200 weekend trips A skid steer loader (12 days per year) and a generator (26 days per year) added to operations 8 hours per day. 1 Off -Hwy truck operating 1 hour per day and 52 days per year also added to account for weekly water deliveries. 10 Worker trips and 2 vendor truck trips per day added to Building Construction and 2 worker trips added to Painting One water truck delivery per week of 3,000 gallons or 156,000 gallons per year 43/43 APPENDIX B EMFAC2021 Model Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B City of Santa Clarita Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory Region Type: Sub -Area Region: Los Angeles (SC) Calendar Year: 2024 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Los Angeles (: 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3312060 130838318 15395682 4512 Los Angeles (: 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 311829 11357947 1373845 469 Los Angeles (: 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1566130 64695889 7373138 2726 Los Angeles (: 2024 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 146992 969261 293984 24 Los Angeles (: 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 941105 35897503 4364748 1858 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3824 129079 54562 15 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Delivery Class � Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3907 134105 55747 15 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Delivery Class E Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11998 410120 171216 46 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2969 164154 42373 18 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Other Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4737 196364 54762 22 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10509 458727 121479 52 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9468 406400 109454 46 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4263 203758 49285 23 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 130 6800 1505 1 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1624 98742 18776 10 Los Angeles (: 2024 T6 Public Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 480 16864 2461 2 Los Angeles (: 2024 T7 Single Concrete/Transi Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 712 48780 6706 8 Los Angeles (: 2024 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1959 113612 18457 19 Los Angeles (: 2024 T7 SWCV Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1156 75005 5315 29 Los Angeles (: 2024 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14354 1100935 208570 179 Worker (Autos) vehicle miles per day 243,758,918 9,588 1,000 gall per day Workers (Autos) Avg Miles per gallon 25.4 9,588,025 gallons per day Diesel Truck vehicle miles per day 3,563,446 485 1,000 gall per day Diesel Truck Fleet Avg Miles per gallon 7.3 485,140 gallons per day APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank. I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Biological Resources Technical Report Prepared for: Haskell Canyon Bike Park Santa Clarita, California April 23, 2025 Prepared by: City of Santa Clarita Michael Baker International 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 500 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel. (661) 284-1414 949-330-4147 Contact: Amber Rodriguez Contact: Stephen Anderson Stephen.Anderson@mbakerintl.com JN 195477 We Moke o Difference Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Background and Purpose..............................................................................................................3 1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Project Site Location.....................................................................................................................4 2.0 Regulatory Setting...............................................................................................................8 2.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants or Wildlife............................................................................8 2.2 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States/State, Including Wetlands.......................................10 2.3 California Environmental Quality Act..........................................................................................11 3.0 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................................12 3.1 Regional Context.........................................................................................................................12 3.2 Climate........................................................................................................................................12 3.3 Soils.............................................................................................................................................12 3.4 Land Uses....................................................................................................................................12 3.5 Watersheds and Hydrology.........................................................................................................14 4.0 Methods...........................................................................................................................15 4.1 Literature Review........................................................................................................................15 4.2 Field Investigations......................................................................................................................16 5.0 Results..............................................................................................................................22 5.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Cover, and Floral Diversity........................................................ 22 5.2 Wildlife Diversity.........................................................................................................................25 5.3 Special-Status/Regulated Resources...........................................................................................26 5.4 Regional Connectivity, Wildlife Movement Corridors, and Habitat Linkages .............................41 5.5 Regional Resource Planning Context...........................................................................................44 6.0 Project Impacts.................................................................................................................45 6.1 Definition of Impacts...................................................................................................................45 6.2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers...............................................................45 6.3 Impacts to Special -Status Plant Species......................................................................................46 6.4 Impacts to Special -Status Wildlife Species..................................................................................47 6.5 Impacts to Critical Habitat...........................................................................................................47 6.6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands................................................................................47 6.7 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity.............................................................48 Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page i N TE RN AT I0NAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.8 Impacts to Regional Resource Planning......................................................................................48 7.0 Significant Impacts............................................................................................................49 7.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance.......................................................................................49 7.2 Federal and State Regulations and Protections..........................................................................50 7.3 Special -Status Plant Species........................................................................................................50 7.4 Sensitive Natural Communities...................................................................................................50 7.5 Special -Status Wildlife Species....................................................................................................51 7.6 Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands.................................................................................................. 51 7.7 Wildlife Corridors and Linkages...................................................................................................52 7.8 Regional Resource Planning/Local Policies and Ordinances.......................................................52 8.0 Mitigation.........................................................................................................................53 8.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts.................................................................................................55 9.0 References........................................................................................................................56 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Surveys and Survey Conditions.................................................................................16 Table 2. Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types.................................................................................. 22 Table 3. Potentially Occurring Special -Status Plant Species........................................................................ 28 Table 4. Potentially Occurring Special -Status Wildlife Species....................................................................32 Table 5. State and Federal Jurisdictional Resources....................................................................................41 Table 6. Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types................................................................46 List of Figures Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Figure 2: Site Vicinity Figure 3: Project Site Figure 4: USDA Soils Figure 5: Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses Figure 6: Critical Habitat List of Appendices Appendix A: Site Photographs Appendix B: Literature Review Results Appendix C: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Appendix D: Species Observed List Appendix E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains the findings of Michael Baker International's biological resources assessment for the proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (project) located in the City of Santa Clarita, California. Michael Baker biologists conducted a field survey/habitat assessment of the project site on February 13 and 14, 2024. The field survey was conducted to characterize existing site conditions and assess the potential for special -status biological resources to occur within the project site that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project.' Any areas with steep or unsafe terrain were not accessed and were examined with binoculars from within the project site. The project site is approximately 380.82 acres in size and comprises mostly natural vegetation communities. Six (6) vegetation communities and land cover types were observed within the project site: black sage scrub, disturbed black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chaparral, non-native grassland, and developed/disturbed. No special -status plant species were observed during the field survey. Based on the results of the literature review and the field survey, Michael Baker determined that the native vegetation communities within the project site have a moderate or high potential to support three (3) special -status plant species: club -haired mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus; California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 4.3), slender mariposa - lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; CRPR 113.2), and short -jointed beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada; CRPR 113.2). All remaining special -status plant species identified by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) either have a low potential to occur or are not expected to occur within the project site based on existing site conditions and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions. Species with a CRPR of 4 or 3 are generally not evaluated for potential significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and generally do not require additional permitting or mitigation for impacts. However, species that can be shown to meet the criteria for endangered, rare, or threatened status under CEQA Section 15380(d) or that can be shown to be regionally rare or unique as defined in CEQA Section 15125(c) must be fully analyzed in a CEQA document. Impacts to any species with a CRPR rank of 1 or 2 would require mitigation. One (1) special -status wildlife species was observed during the field survey: Lawrence's goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; US Fish and Wildlife Service's [USFWS] Bird of Conservation Concern). Based on the results of the literature review and the field survey and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions of the special -status wildlife species identified in the literature review, 1 As used in this report, "special -status" refers to species that are either federally/State-listed, proposed, or candidates; species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank by the California Native Plant Society; species designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; or State/locally rare vegetation communities. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 1 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Michael Baker determined that the project site has a moderate or high potential to support four (4) special -status wildlife species: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; California Department of Fish and Wildlife's [CDFW] Watch List [WL]), Bell's sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli, WL), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigrisstejnegeri, CDFW species of special concern [SSC]), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC). All remaining special -status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB either have a low potential to occur or are not expected to occur within the project site based on existing site conditions and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions. Impacts to these species would require mitigation. Eleven (11) potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the project site. Impacts to these features may potentially occur from the proposed project. The project is not located within any area covered by natural community conservation plan or habitat conservation plan documents, including a multiple species conservation plan or multiple species habitat conservation plan. In addition, the project site is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County. The project is also not located within any USFWS designated critical habitat. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose This report contains the findings of Michael Baker International's biological resources assessment for the proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (project or project site). Michael Baker biologists conducted a field survey/habitat assessment of the project site on February 13 and 14, 2024. The field survey was conducted to characterize existing site conditions and assess the potential for special -status biological resources to occur within the project site, defined as the area within which all project -related disturbances would occur that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. Special attention was given to assessing the suitability of the habitat within the project site and its potential to support special -status biological resources that were identified as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database RareFind 5 (CNDDB 2024a), the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CIRP; CNPS 2024), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database (USFWS 2024a). The submittal of this report is intended to satisfy the biological resource needs of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The City of Santa Clarita is requesting administrative and discretionary action to approve the implementation of a recreational use project in the City of Santa Clarita (City), Los Angeles County (County), California. 1.2 Project Description The project would develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the project site and two activity/programming areas —the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Haskell Canyon Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails, approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails, and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails. The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. The Haskell Core, located on the western portion of the project site, would include an event plaza with picnic tables, pump tracks, a dual slalom course, progressive jumplines, and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core would include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, two vault restrooms, a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Parking for the Haskell Core would be provided within a 40-space parking lot, which would include a parking/emergency turnaround, four American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and unstructured space for four food trucks. The Blue Cloud Trailhead area would also include space for potential future landscape restoration, a multi -use trailhead, a single vault restroom, a bike repair station, Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 3 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L INTRODUCTION and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space for riders with a shade structure). Parking for the Blue Cloud Trailhead would be provided within an unstructured parking area and along Blue Cloud Road. 1.3 Project Site Location The 380.82-acre project site is generally located roughly 6 miles east of Interstate 5 and roughly 5 miles north of State Route 14 in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1, Regional Vicinity). The project site is depicted in Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 15 West on the US Geological Survey (USGS) Mint Canyon, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map and Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 16 West on the USGS Newhall, California 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Figure 2, Site Vicinity). Specifically, the project site is located within the Haskell Canyon Open Space south of the Angeles National Forest, north of Copper Hill Drive, east of City Highline Motorway Fire Road adjacent to Haskell Canyon Wash, and northwest of Blue Cloud Road, which bisects the project site in a northwesterly direction. The project site is primarily located on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2813-010-273, 2813-010-274, 2813-010- 275, 2813-010-276, 2813-010-900, 2813-010-901, 2813-010-902, 2813-025-270, and 3244-031-901 at latitude 34.476908' and longitude-118.499045' (Figure 3, Project Site). Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 4 Lcbcc !r Park KERN COUNTY — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — LO§WN(��LE7S T�6'Ulq-fY Hur\gry Valley State Vehicular RecrekN ion Area \ LIE9RE MOUNTAIN fSAWMILL f A MOUNTAIN N Prc Airp V Palm J SIERRA PEIO*, Acton--""' lo 41 o \0 Z (P SOLE DAD-C`ANyON---1 \�A-\ 7- —SantaCldfrita a' Wilk ----------- 0 \0 'f SANTA SUS A NJ4\ 0'vr F 41A(S o I o Moorpark, Simi �Vallc�, San Fernando r Los Angcics SAN FERNANDO VERDUGD SIMI HILLS VALLEY MOUNTAINS La Cahada D —Fil D ntridge I I Burbank Thousand Oaks I 12 101 10, Agoura Hills Calabasas Glendale Pas 101 MOUNTAINS SANTA MONICA Bev,erly Hills Los nf4eles O 0 3 6 Miles I N T E R N A T I A L Source: Esn, An.GIS Online, USGS, Los Angeles County HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Regional Vicinity Figure 1 ell/r/InO _1<C�— �Y E Y t f Legend 0 Project Site t3b�� I t s an, Lqo 0 rV1 p�tl/ Q _ �� T [anYon l� 39 28 29 Q R � oa eGoa caayom T5 �' ' 15,W� p R'1V - Y sq }a : 32 / 33 �amdl° nn �34 4 s�3' an'Mes �<' , n ya ,v 5 � T4N.R1,SWi' t��o a :., HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT O 0 0.5 1 1 u r o o u n r 1 n u n s Miles Site Vicinity Source: USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Warm Springs Mountain, Green Valley Neu hall, and Mint Canyon, California Figure 2 Legend ® Reference Point 0 Project Site INTERNATIONAL O 0 500 1,000 Feet Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, Los Angeles County HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Project Site Figure 3 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING 2.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants or Wildlife 2.1.1 State of California Endangered Species Act In addition to federal laws, the State of California has its own California Endangered Species Act (CESA), enforced by the CDFW. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), although the provisions of each act are similar. State -listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of CESA. Activities that may result in "take" of individuals (defined in CESA as to "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill") are regulated by the CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of "take" under CESA. Nonetheless, the CDFW has interpreted "take" to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species. The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. The CDFW has also produced a species of special concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection. 2.1.2 California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513) The CDFW administers the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). There are particular sections of the CFGC that are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 makes it unlawful to destroy any birds' nest or any birds' eggs that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey), such as hawks, eagles, and owls, are protected under Section 3503.5, which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with the CDFW may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur in the project site. Section 3511 lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are state fully protected include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In addition, Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 8 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L REGULATORY SETTING or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. 2.1.3 Native Plant Protection Act Sections 1900-1913 of the CFGC were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered plants in the State of California. The act requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. 2.1.4 Federal Endangered Species Act As defined within the federal ESA of 1973, an endangered species is any animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. A threatened species is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. Without a special permit, federal law prohibits the "take" of any individuals or habitat of federally listed species. Under Section 9 of the ESA, take is defined as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The term "harm" has been clarified to include "any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife." ESA enforcement is administered by the USFWS. Under the ESA definition, "Critical Habitat" refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species that were occupied at the time it was listed that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species and that may require special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether the species is still extant in the area. Areas that were not known to be occupied at the time a species was listed can also be designated as Critical Habitat if they contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to that species' conservation and if the occupied areas are inadequate to ensure the species' recovery. If a project may result in take or adverse modification to a species' designated Critical Habitat and the project has a federal nexus, the project proponent may be required to provide suitable mitigation. Projects with a federal nexus may include projects that occur on federal lands, require federal permits [e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 permit], or receive any federal oversight or funding. If there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing funds or permits would be required to consult with the USFWS under the ESA. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 9 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L REGULATORY SETTING Whenever federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, they must consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the federal ESA. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (i.e., funding from the Federal Highway Administration or a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]). 2.1.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Pursuant to the MBTA (16 U.S. Code 703) of 1918, as amended in 1972, federal law prohibits the taking of migratory birds ortheir nests or eggs (16 U.S. Code 703; 50 Code of Federal Regulations 10, 21). The statute states: "Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird... included in the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions..." The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered a "take." This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests. In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras); Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many relatively common species. 2.2 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States/State, Including Wetlands There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland lakes, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged orfill material into waters of the U.S. (WoUS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the state agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) regulates discharges to waters of the State, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; and, the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 10 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 2.3 California Environmental Quality Act REGULATORY SETTING CEQA provides for the protection of the environment within the State of California by establishing state policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by state lead agencies. If a project is determined to be subject to CEQA, the lead agency will be required to conduct an initial study; if the initial study determines that the project may have significant impacts on the environment, the lead agency will subsequently be required to prepare an environmental impact report. A finding of non -significant effects will require either a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration instead of an environmental impact report. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines "endangered" species as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while "rare" species are defined as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 11 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 Regional Context The project site is located within an undeveloped plot of land just south of the Angeles National Forest. The topography of the project site is mountainous with generally moderate to steep slopes throughout. The project site is at an elevation range of approximately 1,450 to 1,920 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The topographic high point is within the southern portion of the project site, along Kathleen Avenue. The topographic low point is at the western end of the project site, along Haskell Canyon Wash. 3.2 Climate The Santa Clara River Watershed, in which the project site is located, is characterized by a year-round Mediterranean climate, or semi -arid climate, with warm, sunny, dry summers and cool, rainy, mild winters. Most of the precipitation occurs between November and March in the form of rain. The climatological cycle of the region results in higher surface water flows in the spring and early summer and lower flows during the dry season. Winter and spring floods generated by storms are not uncommon in wet years and generally occur from December to March. Similarly, during the dry season, infrequent summer storms can cause torrential floods in local streams and usually occur from July through September. 3.3 Soils According to the Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California (US Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2024a), the project site is underlain by four soil map units: Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CmF2); Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (ScF2); Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SsB); and Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (YoC) (refer to Figure 4: USDA Soils). Michael Baker also reviewed the Hydric Soils List for California (USDA 2024b) to preliminarily verify whether the soil map units listed above were classified as a "hydric soil" in the Antelope Valley and Los Angeles areas. According to the list, the soil map units that overlie the project site are not listed as hydric. 3.4 Land Uses On -site land uses consist mainly of recreational mountain biking and hiking. A wide range of existing single- track trails and fire roads are present throughout the project site. Outside of the existing trails, the project site is mainly undeveloped, with some evidence of historical mining activities. The surrounding land use consists mainly of commercial and residential development south of the project site, while undeveloped land associated with the Angeles National Forest and the Castaic Lake State Recreation Area is present north, west, and east of the project site. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 12 Legend ® Reference Point cmF2 Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, SsBSorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent 0 Project Site 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded slopes Fs-- cFz Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent vDc Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes slopes, eroded - O 0 500 1,000 Feet INTERNATIONAL Source: Esn, AmGIS Online, Los Angeles County, USDA HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT USDA Soils Figure 4 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 3.5 Watersheds and Hydrology ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the Lower Bouquet Canyon (HUC 180701020202) portion of the Santa Clara River Watershed (HUC 18070102). The project site occurs approximately 0.06 miles east of Haskell Canyon Wash, which is a tributary to the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara River is a perennial direct tributary to the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Clara River Watershed comprises approximately 1,040,515 acres in Los Angeles County. The watershed is divided into numerous subwatersheds based on flow direction and landscape, all of which ultimately connect to the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara River is not a Designated River under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 14 4.0 METHODS Michael Baker conducted a thorough literature review and records search to determine which special - status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the project site. Subsequently, a general field survey/habitat assessment was conducted to document existing conditions and determine the potential for special -status plant and wildlife species to occur within the project site. No focused surveys for special -status species were conducted. 4.1 Literature Review Prior to conducting the field survey, literature reviews and records searches were conducted for special - status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site, specifically within a 5-mile radius. Previous special -status plant and wildlife species occurrence records within the USGS Warm Springs Mountain, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sleepy Valley, Burnt Peak, Lake Hughes, Del Sur, and Green Valley, California 7.5-minute quadrangle maps were determined through a query of the CNDDB (CNDDB 2024a) and the CIRP (CNPS 2024), and for the project region in IPaC (USFWS n.d.). Current conservation status of species was verified through lists and resources provided by the CDFW, specifically the Special Animals List (CNDDB 2024b), State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CNDDB 2024d), Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CNDDB 2024c), and State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CNDDB 2024e). In addition to the databases and reports referenced above, Michael Baker reviewed available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project site to understand existing site conditions, confirm previous species observations, and note the extent of any disturbances, if present, that have occurred in or around the project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special -status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special -status and common biological resources. On -site and adjoining soils were identified prior to conducting the field survey using the USDA's Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California (USDA 2024a). In addition, local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs were reviewed to assess the ecological changes and disturbances that may have occurred within the project site. Aerial photography was reviewed prior to the field survey to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area using Historic Aerials (Historic Aerials 2024). The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the existing biological resources and evaluate the ability of the project site to support special -status biological resources. Additional occurrence records of those species that have been documented on or within the vicinity of the project site were derived from database queries including the Calflora database (Calflora 2024). Additionally, standard field guides, texts, and sources were used, such as species accounts provided by Birds of the World (Billerman et al. 2020) and the USFWS Critical Habitat Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 15 INTERNATIONAL METHODS Mapper and Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS 2024b). The CNDDB was used, in conjunction with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ArcView software, to identify special -status species occurrence records within the USGS Warm Springs Mountain, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sleepy Valley, Burnt Peak, Lake Hughes, Del Sur, and Green Valley, California 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Refer to Section 9 for a complete list of technical references that were reviewed by Michael Baker. 4.2 Field Investigations Michael Baker biologists John Parent, Anna Jullie, and Stephen Anderson conducted a field survey/habitat assessment on February 13 and 14, 2024, to document the extent and conditions of the vegetation communities occurring within the boundaries of the project site. Vegetation communities preliminarily identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified in the field by walking along established single track and fire roads, and off -trail areas when accessible, and noting conditions within the limits of disturbance. Binoculars were used to observe conditions where access was not possible due to steep slopes or other safety concerns. All plant and wildlife species observed during the field survey, as well as dominant plant species within each vegetation community, were recorded in a field notebook. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, the overall condition of on -site vegetation, and the presence of potentially regulated jurisdictional features (e.g., streams, flood control channels) were noted within the project site. Michael Baker used GIS ArcView software to digitize the mapped vegetation communities and then transferred these data onto an aerial photograph to further document existing conditions and quantify the acreage of each vegetation community. Table 1 summarizes the field surveys. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SURVEYS AND SURVEY CONDITIONS Survey Time Weather Conditions Date Survey Type Surveyors (start -end) (start -end) 02/13/2024 Habitat Assessment JP, AJ 0800-1345 1-2 mph, 20% cc, 467 3-4 mph, 5% cc, 697 02/13/2024 Jurisdictional Delineation AN, MM N/A N/A 02/14/2024 Habitat Assessment JP, AJ, SA 0745-1200 1-2 mph, 20% cc, 477 3-5 mph, 50% cc, 68°F 02/14/2024 Jurisdictional Delineation AN, MM N/A N/A 02/15/2024 Jurisdictional Delineation AN, MM N/A N/A Surveyors: JP —John Parent; AJ — Anna Jullie; SA —Stephen Anderson, AN —April Nakagawa, MM — Megan Minter Weather Conditions: Temperature (F - Fahrenheit), Skies (cc — cloud cover), Wind (mph — miles per hour) Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 16 INTERNATIONAL METHODS 4.2.1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping Vegetation communities occurring within the project site were delineated on a 300-scale (1"=300') aerial photograph during the field survey and later digitized using the GIS ArcView software to quantify the area of each vegetation community in acres. Vegetation communities occurring within the project site were classified in accordance with vegetation descriptions provided in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, Keeler -Wolf, and Evens 2009) and cross referenced with Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). 4.2.2 General Plant Inventory Plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unfamiliar plants were photographed in the field and later identified using taxonomic guides. Plant nomenclature used in this report follows the Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). All plant species observed are included in Appendix D, Species Observed List. Special -status plant species are discussed below in Section 5.3.1. 4.2.3 General Wildlife Inventory Wildlife species detected during the field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other types of signs were recorded in a field notebook. Field guides used to assist with identification of species during the field surveys included The Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2014) for birds, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2018) for herpetofauna, and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of wildlife species in this report (first reference only). To the extent possible, nomenclature of birds follows the most recent annual supplement of the American Ornithological Union's Checklist of North American Birds (Chesser et al. 2023); nomenclature of amphibians and reptiles follows Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding (Crother 2017); and nomenclature of mammals follows the Bats of the United States and Canada (Harvey et al. 2011) and Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Bradley et al. 2014). Amphibian Surveys General surveys for amphibians were conducted in appropriate habitat only during diurnal activity periods. The intent of these surveys was not to extensively search for individual amphibians, but to ascertain the presence of potential amphibian habitat and the location of amphibians within the project site. The discussions in this document of amphibians potentially present within the project site are based on the habitats used by the species and their geographic ranges. Surveys were conducted on foot in suitable habitat types concurrently with all other surveys within the project site. Habitats were examined for Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 17 INTERNATIONAL METHODS diagnostic amphibian sign such as egg masses, larvae, vocalizations, and direct observations. Surface litter, stones, fallen bark, tree branches, and cracks in mud were examined. Observed amphibian species, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes. Reptile Surveys General surveys for reptiles were conducted in appropriate habitat only during diurnal activity periods. The intent of these surveys was not to extensively search for individual reptiles, but to ascertain the presence of potential reptile habitat and the location of reptiles within the project site. The discussions in this document of reptiles potentially present within the project site are based on the habitats used by the species and their geographic ranges. Surveys were conducted on foot in suitable habitat types concurrently with all other surveys within the project site. Habitats were examined for diagnostic reptile sign such as eggs, shed skins, scat, tracks, snake prints, lizard tail drag marks, and direct observations. All areas containing potentially suitable habitat were surveyed. While searching for resting reptiles, surface litter, stones, fallen bark, tree branches, and cracks in mud were examined. Observed reptile species, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes. Avian Surveys General surveys for birds were conducted in appropriate habitat only during diurnal activity periods. The intent of these surveys was not to extensively search for individual birds, but to ascertain the presence of potential bird habitat and the location of birds within the project site. The discussions in this document of birds potentially present within the project site are based on the habitats used by the species and their geographic ranges. Surveys were conducted on foot in suitable habitat types concurrently with all other surveys within the project site. Birds were detected both by direct observations and by vocalizations. All areas containing potentially suitable habitat were surveyed. Bird species observed were recorded in field notes. Special attention was made to identify any bands or markings on avian species. Surveys for the presence of nesting raptors (birds of prey) within and in the vicinity of the project site were conducted simultaneously with other field surveys. Such efforts included directed and incidental observation of raptor nests and owl pellets, and the identification of raptor species flying over the project site. Observed raptor species, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes. Mammal Surveys General surveys for mammals were conducted in appropriate habitat only during diurnal activity periods. The intent of these surveys was not to extensively search for individual mammals, but to ascertain the presence of potential mammal habitat and the location of mammals within the project site. The discussions in this document of mammals potentially present within the project site are based on the habitats used by the species and their geographic ranges. Surveys were conducted on foot in suitable habitat types concurrently with all other surveys within the project site. Many mammals are nocturnal and secretive, making daytime observations difficult. Therefore, the majority of the information on mammals within the project site comes from diagnostic sign. Habitats were examined for diagnostic mammal sign Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 18 INTERNATIONAL METHODS such as scat, burrows, tracks, dens, browsed vegetation or other feeding sign, hair, nests, bones, vocalizations, and direct observations. All areas containing potentially suitable habitat were surveyed. Methods employed while searching for mammals included searching the ground and adjacent vegetation, locating and following mammal trails, surveying muddy banks of small streams and pools, and noting road kill while traveling to and from the project site. Observed or expected mammal species, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes. 4.2.4 Special-Status/Regulated Resources Special -status resources typically require a more in-depth analysis to determine whether a species has the potential to occur within the project site, and what any potential impacts to that species may be. If a special -status species is determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site, then additional surveys and/or coordination with the appropriate resource agencies (CDFW, USFWS, etc.) may be required. The determination is done after surveying the project site and identifying all biological resources within the site, and using the literature review results to determine if a species has the potential to occur within the site based on the existing site conditions and known occurrences of a species in the area. 4.2.5 Special -Status Plant Surveys Special -status plant species surveys are typically done on project sites that have the potential to impact listed plant species, in particular species on the CNPS lists with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 113, 213, 3, and 4 ranking. CRPR 1A consists of plant species that are presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere; CRPR 113 consists of plant that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; and CRPR 2 consists of plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Plants with a CRPR 3 rank require more information to determine their status, while plants with a CRPR 4 rank are determined to have a limited distribution. Based on the results of the literature review and the field surveys, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions of the special -status plant species identified in the literature review, Michael Baker determined that the project site has a moderate or high potential to support three special -status plant species: club -haired mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus; CRPR 4.3), slender mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; CRPR 113.2), and short -jointed beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada; CRPR 113.2). Focused surveys were not conducted for these species due to the field surveys being conducted outside of their typical blooming period(s). 4.2.6 Special -Status Wildlife Surveys As with special -status plant species, some special -status wildlife species require focused surveys to determine if a species is present or absent from the project site. Michael Baker observed one special - status wildlife species during the field survey: Lawrence's goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern [BCC]). Based on the results of the literature review and the field surveys, and a Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 19 INTERNATIONAL METHODS review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions of the special -status wildlife species identified in the literature review, Michael Baker determined that the project site has a moderate or high potential to support four additional special -status wildlife species: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; CDFW Watch List [WL]), Bell's sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli, WL), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC). However, these species do not require focused surveys to be conducted; therefore, special -status species surveys were not conducted for this project. 4.2.7 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Michael Baker certified wetland delineators April Nakagawa and Megan Minter conducted a jurisdictional delineation/field survey of the project site on February 13, 14, and 15, 2024, using the most recent agency - approved methodology, to identify and map the extent of state and federal jurisdictional features (i.e., wetland and non -wetland WoUS, waters of the State, streambed, riparian vegetation) located within the boundaries of the project site. Based on the project's location, potential state and federal wetlands were delineated in accordance with the methods and guidance provided in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (Arid West Regional Supplement; USACE 2008), and the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Water Resources Control Board 2019b). While in the field, jurisdictional features were recorded on an aerial photograph at a scale of 1"=400' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as guidelines. Data points were recorded in the field using a Garmin Global Positioning System Map 64sxto identify specific widths and length of jurisdictional features and the location of any ordinary high-water mark indicators, photograph points, soil pits, and other pertinent site characteristics. These data were then uploaded as a .shp file and confirmed/refined to ensure accuracy and consistency with hard copy notes and aerial mapping completed in the field. Michael Baker then used Esri ArcGIS Pro software to calculate the total acreage of jurisdictional features and prepare final project figures. 4.2.8 Survey Limitations Survey limitations consisted mainly of site access limitations due to property rights and steep terrain. A majority of the project site consists of steep slopes and mountainous terrain, which was unsafe to access. In addition, the field survey was conducted late in winter, which is outside of the typical blooming periods for many plant species found in the area. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 20 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 4.2.9 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement Corridor Assessment METHODS The analysis of wildlife movement corridors associated with the project site and its immediate vicinity is based on information compiled from the literature, analysis of aerial photographs and topographic maps, and direct observations made in the field during survey work. A literature review was conducted that included documents on island biogeography (studies of fragmented and isolated habitat "islands"), reports on wildlife home range sizes and migration patterns, and studies on wildlife dispersal. Wildlife movement studies conducted in Southern California were also reviewed. The relationship of the project site to large open space areas in the immediate vicinity (i.e., Angeles National Forest) was also evaluated in terms of connectivity and habitat linkages. Relative to corridor issues, the discussions in this report are intended to focus on wildlife movement associated with the project site and immediate vicinity. The focus of this study Is to determine if the alteration of current land use on the subject property will have significant impacts on the regional movement of wildlife. This study did not include the use of track plates, camera stations, scent stations, or snares. Instead, notation was made during all site visits of the locations of animal sign to determine the species potentially utilizing the project site. The results of the literature review and site visits were used to draw conclusions about the wildlife potentially utilizing the project site and vicinity. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 21 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Cover, and Floral Diversity Six vegetation communities and land cover types were identified on -site during the habitat assessment field surveys. Vegetation communities and land cover types mapped in the project site are depicted on Figure 5: Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses and described in further detail below. Refer to Appendix D for a complete list of plant species that were observed within the project site during the field surveys. Refer to Table 2 below for a summary of vegetation communities within the project site. TABLE 2. VEGETATION COMM UNITIEs/LAND COVER TYPES Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type Acreage Black Sage Scrub 17.18 Disturbed Black Sage Scrub 2.74 Scrub Oak Woodland 8.23 Chaparral 293.26 Non-native Grassland 50.60 Developed/Disturbed 8.81 Total 380.82 5.1.1 Black Sage Scrub (Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance) Approximately 17.18 acres of black sage scrub (Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance) are located within the project site. This community is dominated by black sage (Salvia mellifera), with other shrub species occurring in lesser quantities. Associated species observed include white sage (Salvia apiana), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica). This vegetation community is concentrated on the western portion of the project site. 5.1.2 Disturbed Black Sage Scrub (disturbed Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance) Approximately 2.74 acres of disturbed black sage scrub (disturbed Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance) are located within the project site. This community has a similar composition of plant species as the undisturbed black sage scrub located within the project site but has a high concentration of non-native species and less dense shrub layer throughout. Non-native species present within this community include big heron bill (Erodium botrys), red brome (Bromus rubens), and cheese weed (Malva parviflora). This Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 22 Legend ® Reference Point Black Sage Scrub 0 Project Site Chaparral ® Developed/Disturbed 500 1,000 Feet INTERNATIONAL Source: Esn, AmGIS Online, Los Angeles County Disturbed Black Sage Scrub Non -Native Grassland Scrub Oak Woodland HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses Figure 5 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS disturbance has likely been brought on by human visitation within the project site. Disturbed black sage scrub on -site consists of a small area along the western border of the project site. 5.1.3 Scrub Oak Woodland (Quercus John-tuckeri Shrubland Alliance) Approximately 8.23 acres of scrub oak woodland (Quercus john-tuckeri Shrubland Alliance) are located within the project site. This community is dominated by Tucker's oak (Quercus John-tuckeri), with other chaparral species occurring in lesser quantities, such as chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and giant wild rye (Elymus condensatus). This vegetation community occurs in somewhat moderate sized patches throughout the project site, and mainly occurs within the valley bottom of the steep sloped hillsides within the project site. 5.1.4 Chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) Approximately 293.26 acres of chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) are located within the project site. This community is dominated by chamise and toyon, with other shrub species occurring in lesser quantities, including black sage and coastal sagebrush. This vegetation community is found throughout the project site and is the site's most dominant vegetation community. 5.1.5 Non-native Grassland Approximately 50.60 acres of non-native grassland are located within the project site. This community is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, including red brome, tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), big heron bill, London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), prickly sowthistle (Sonchus asper), and cheese weed. This vegetation community is located along the flat valley bottom and south -facing hillside within the northwestern portion of the project site. 5.1.6 Developed/Disturbed Approximately 8.81 acres of disturbed/developed land cover are located within the project site. Disturbed/developed areas include areas with preexisting trails for both recreational use and maintenance/utility access throughout the project site, and areas that have had some disturbance in the past and are devoid of vegetation and/or contain evidence of historical development. Evidence of historical development includes graded areas that contain equipment appearing to be related to old mining activities that had occurred in the area. 5.1.7 Floral Diversity A total of 26 plant species were recorded in the project site, including 18 native species (69%) and 8 non- native species (31%). The somewhat low number of plant species represented indicates the lower diversity of vegetation communities and floral richness of the project site. In addition, the survey was conducted outside of the blooming period for many plant species, and all species present on -site may not have been Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 24 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS able to be detected. The project site is mostly dominated by a single vegetation type (chaparral) with other vegetation types occurring in lesser quantities. The more common plant species observed within the project site were identified in the description of the vegetation communities above. The cumulative list of plant species observed on the project site is provided in Appendix D. Special -status plant species are discussed in Section 5.4.1. 5.2 Wildlife Diversity The plant communities discussed above provide wildlife habitat. While a few wildlife species are entirely dependent on a single natural community, the entire mosaic of all the natural communities within the project site and adjoining areas constitutes a functional ecosystem for a variety of wildlife species, both within the project site and as part of the regional ecosystem. Natural vegetation communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. Following are discussions of wildlife populations within the project site, segregated by taxonomic group. This section provides a general discussion of those wildlife species that were observed during the field survey or that are expected to occur based on existing site conditions. The discussion is to be used as a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions during which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. Refer to Appendix D for a complete list of wildlife species observed during the field survey. Due to access being limited to the project site boundaries, and the steep terrain within the project site, the only species recorded during the field survey were those that were detectable from within the project site. Special - status wildlife species occurring or potentially occurring are discussed further in Section 5.4.2. 5.2.1 Invertebrates No directed surveys for common invertebrates were conducted; however, invertebrate species that were observed during all site visits were recorded in field notes. Common invertebrate species observed include honeybee (Apis mellifera), darkling beetle (Eleodes osculans), and cicada (Cicada sp.). Special -status invertebrate species are discussed further in Section 5.4.2. All invertebrate species observed are listed in Appendix D. 5.2.2 Amphibians The potential presence of amphibians varies greatly between habitats within the project site. Terrestrial species may or may not require standing water for reproduction. Terrestrial species avoid desiccation by burrowing underground; within crevices in trees, rocks, and logs; and under stones and surface litter during the day and dry seasons. Due to their secretive nature, terrestrial amphibians are rarely observed, but may be quite abundant if conditions are favorable. Aquatic amphibians are dependent on standing or flowing water for reproduction. Such habitats include freshwater marshes and open water (reservoirs, permanent and temporary pools and ponds, and perennial streams). Many aquatic amphibians will use temporary pools as nesting sites. These pools are temporary in duration and form following winter and Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 25 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS spring rains common to Southern California. The project site has the potential to support amphibians that do not require a permanent water source. No amphibian species were observed during the field surveys. Special -status amphibian species are discussed further in Section 5.4.2. All amphibian species observed are listed in Appendix D. 5.2.3 Reptiles Reptilian diversity and abundance typically vary with habitat type and character. Some species prefer only one or two natural communities; however, most will forage in a variety of communities. Several reptile species prefer open habitats that allow free movement and high visibility. Most species occurring in open habitats rely on the presence of small mammal burrows for cover and escape from predators and extreme weather. The project site has many essential reptilian habitat characteristics and possesses the potential to support several species. One reptile species was observed within the project site: western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). A number of additional species have a potential to occur, including San Diego alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbii) and Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola). Special - status reptile species are discussed in Section 5.4.2. All reptile species observed are listed in Appendix D. 5.2.4 Birds Much of the habitat within the project site provides foraging opportunities for avian species, including California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and common raven (Corvus corax), which were observed during field surveys. The project site supports chaparral, which provides additional foraging opportunities for species such as American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and provides habitat for small mammals, which has the potential to result in a sizeable rodent population. Collectively, the availability of prey and perches would suggest that the project site is being used by a variety of avian species. All avian species observed are included in Appendix D. Special -status avian species are discussed in Section 5.4.2. 5.2.5 Mammals Mammals observed within the project site include coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). A number of other species are expected to be resident within the region and may use the project site to forage or for cover, including mountain lion (Puma concolor). All mammals observed within the project site are listed in Appendix D. Special -status mammal species are discussed in Section 5.4.2. 5.3 Special-Status/Regulated Resources The CNDDB, CIRP, and IPaCwere queried for reported locations of special -status plant and wildlife species as well as special -status natural vegetation communities in the USGS Warm Springs Mountain, Newhall, Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 26 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sleepy Valley, Burnt Peak, Lake Hughes, Del Sur, and Green Valley, California 7.5- minute quadrangles. The field survey was conducted to assess and evaluate the existing condition of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the project site to determine if the existing vegetation communities, at the time of the field survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special -status plant and wildlife species. Additionally, the reported locations of the CNDDB and CIRP species records in relation to the project site were considered. The following categories were used to assign the potential for each species to occur within the project site: • Present: the species was observed or detected within the project site during the field survey. • High: Occurrence records (within 20 years) indicate that the species has been known to occur on or within 1 mile of the project site and the site is within the normal expected range of this species. Intact, suitable habitat preferred by this species occurs within the project site and/or there is viable landscape connectivity to a local known extant population(s) or sighting(s). • Moderate: Occurrence records (within 20 years) indicate that the species has been known to occur within 1 mile of the project site and the site is within the normal expected range of this species. There is suitable habitat within the project site, but the site is ecologically isolated from any local known extant populations or sightings. • Low: Occurrence records (within 20 years) indicate that the species has been known to occur within 5 miles of the project site, but the site is outside of the normal expected range of the species and/or there is poor quality or marginal habitat within the project site. • Not Expected: There are no occurrence records of the species occurring within 5 miles of the project site, there is no suitable habitat within the project site, and/or the project site is outside of the normal expected range for the species. Special -status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Special -status biological resources identified during the literature review as having the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site are presented in Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources, in Appendix E. In addition, potential jurisdictional aquatic features occurring on -site are described in detail below. 5.3.1 Special -Status Plant Species Michael Baker observed no special -status plant species during the field surveys. Based on the results of the literature review and the field survey, existing site conditions, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions, Michael Baker determined that the native vegetation communities within the project site have a moderate or high potential to support three special - status plant species: club -haired mariposa -lily (CRPR 4.3), slender mariposa -lily (CRPR 113.2), and short - jointed beavertail (CRPR 113.2). Michael Baker determined that these vegetation communities also have a Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 27 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L RESULTS low potential to support three special -status plant species: Nevins barberry (Berberis nevinii; FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1), Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae; CRPR 4.2), and island mountain -mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides var. blancheae; CRPR 4.3). All remaining special -status plant species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS are not expected to occur within the project site due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of recent extant occurrences near the project site, and/or the project site is not within the elevation range of those species. Because the field survey occurred outside of the blooming period of these species, special -status plant species were not conducted. Those species that have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site, or that are state or federally listed or regionally significant, are described in more detail below. All special -status plant species reviewed are included in Appendix E. TABLE 3. POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Arenariapaludicola FE Perennial stoloniferous herb. Found on No Not Expected: The project site sandy, openings within marshes and swamps is not within the elevation marsh sandwort SE (freshwater or brackish). Found at elevations range forthis species. ranging from 12 to 558 feet amsl. Blooming 113.1 period is from May to August. G1 S1 Berberisnevinii FE Perennial evergreen shrub. Occurs on sandy No Low: Although suitable or gravelly soils in chaparral, cismontane habitat is present within the Nevin's barberry SE woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub. project site, there are no Found at elevations ranging from 899 to occurrence records within 3 113.1 2,707 feet amsl. Blooming period is March miles of the project site. through June. G1 S1 Calochortus clavatus var. 4.3 Perennial herb (bulb). Occurs on No Moderate: Suitable habitat is clavatus serpentinite, clay, and rocky soils within present within the project G4T3 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal site. In addition, there is a club -haired mariposa -lily scrub, and valley and foothill grassland recent occurrence record S3 habitats. Found at elevations ranging from (Calflora 2024) roughly 1.5 246 to 4,265 feet amsl. Blooming period is miles southeast of the project from May to June. site. Calochortus clavatus var. 113.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Found in No High: Suitable habitat is gracilis chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and present within the project G4T2T3 foothill grassland habitats. Found at site. In addition, there is a slender mariposa -lily elevations ranging from 1,050 to 3,280 feet recent occurrence record S2S3 amsl. Blooming period is March through (CNDDB; Occ. 113) roughly0.4 June (November). miles southwest of the project site. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 28 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Chorizanthe parryi var. FPT Annual herb. Found in sandy soils within No Not Expected: Suitable fernandina coastal scrub habitat and valley and foothill habitat preferred by this SE grassland habitats. Found at elevations species is not present within San Fernando Valley ranging from 492 to 4,003 feet amsl. the project site. spineflower 113.1 Blooming period is from April to July. G2T1 S1 Dodecahemaleptoceras FE Annual herb. Occurs on flood deposited No Not Expected: Suitable terraces and washes in chaparral, coastal habitat preferred by this slender -horned spineflower SE scrub, and alluvial fan sage scrub habitats. species is not present within Found at elevations ranging from 1,181 to the project site. 113.1 2,690 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to June. G1 S1 Nasturtium gambelii FE Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs in No Not Expected: Suitable marshes and swamps (freshwater or habitat preferred by this Gambel's water cress ST brackish) habitats. Found at elevations species is not present within ranging from 16to 1,083feet amsl. Blooming the project site. 113.1 period is from April to October. G1 S1 Opuntia basilaris var. 113.2 Perennial stem succulent. Grows in No Moderate: Suitable habitat brachyclada chaparral, Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean preferred by this species is G5T3 desert scrub, and pinyon and juniper present within the project short -jointed beavertail woodland habitats. Found at elevations site. In addition, the nearest S3 ranging from 1,394 to 5,906 feet amsl. extant occurrence (CNDDB; Blooming period is from April to June. Occ. 108) is roughly 1.3 miles northwest of the project site. Orcuttiacalifornica FE Annual herb. Restricted to vernal pool No Not Expected: Suitable habitats. Found at elevations ranging from habitat preferred by this California Orcutt grass SE 49 to 2,165 feet amsl. Blooming period is species is not present within from April to August. the project site. 113.1 G1 S1 Yucca brevifolia SCT Tree. Found within mesic canyons in No Not Expected: Suitable chaparral, cismontane woodland, habitat preferred by this western Joshua tree broadleafed upland forest, lower montane species is not present within coniferous forest, and riparian woodland. the project site. Found at elevations ranging from 1000 to 7350 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March through June. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 29 N T E R N A T I 0 N A L *Comprehensive PTO table is in Appendix E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources. ** U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) FE Endangered —any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range RESULTS FCE Proposed Endangered - the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the USFWS has formally noticed as being under review by the USFWS for addition to the list of endangered species, or a species for which the Service has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of endangered species. FT Threatened — any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FPT Proposed Threatened — the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the USFWS has formally noticed as being under review by the USFWS for addition to the list of threatened species, or a species for which the Service has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of threatened species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) SE Endangered —any native species orsubspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range dueto one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. SCE State Candidate for Listing as Endangered —the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for addition to the list of endangered species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of endangered species. ST Threatened — any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likelyto become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required underthe California Endangered Species Act. SCT State Candidate for Listing as Threatened —the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for addition to the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of threatened species. FP Fully Protected —any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, or reptile that were determined bythe State of California to be rare or face possible extinction. SSC Species of Special Concern — any species, subspecies, or distinct population of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria: is extirpated from California or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed. is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from anyfactor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. WL Watch List - taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special Concern" but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 4 Plants of limited distribution — Watch List. Threat Ranks .1 Seriously threatened in California (over80% ofoccurrences threatened/high degree any immediacy ofthreat). .2 Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy ofthreat). .3 Not verythreatened in California (lessthan 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known). Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 30 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Natureserve Conservation Status Rank The Global Rank (G#) reflects the overall condition and imperilment of a species throughout its global range. The InfraspecificTaxon Rank (T#) reflects the global situation of just the subspecies or variety. The State Rank (S#) reflects the condition and imperilment of an element throughout its range within California. (G#Q) reflects that the element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it; the calculated G rank is qualified by adding a Q afterthe G#). Adding a ? to a rank expresses uncertainty about the rank. G1/T1 Critically Imperiled —At very high risk of extinction dueto extreme rarity (often 5 orfewer populations), verysteep declines, or other factors. G2/T2 Imperiled— At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3/T3 Vulnerable— At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4/T4 Apparently Secure— Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S1 Critically Imperiled —Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State. S2 Imperiled — Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or State. S3 Vulnerable — Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. 5.3.2 Special -Status Wildlife Species Michael Baker observed one special -status wildlife species during the field survey: Lawrence's goldfinch (BCC). Based on the results of the literature review and the field surveys, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions of the special -status wildlife species identified in the literature review, Michael Baker determined that the project site has a moderate or high potential to support four additional special -status wildlife species: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (WL), Bell's sparrow (WL), coastal whiptail (SSC), and coast horned lizard (SSC). In addition, Michael Baker determined that the project site has a low potential to support nine special -status wildlife species: grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum; SSC), California legless lizard (Anniella spp.; SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; SSC), Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; Candidate State Endangered [CSE]), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; State Threatened [ST]), Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii, SSC), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; Fully Protected [FP]), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum; SSC), and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii; SSC). All remaining special -status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB are not expected to occur within the project site based on existing site conditions and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions. Those species that have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site, or that are state or federally listed or regionally significant, are described in more detail below. The complete list of special -status wildlife species reviewed is attached in Appendix E. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 31 INTERNATIONAL TABLE 4. POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site IES Agelaius tricolor FT Range is limited to the coastal areas of the No Not Expected: Suitable Pacific coast of North America, from foraging and nesting habitats tricolored blackbird SSC Northern California to upper Baja California. preferred by this species are Can be found in a wide variety of habitat not present within the project G1G2 including annual grasslands, wet and dry site. vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands, S2 agricultural fields, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Occasionally forages in riparian scrub habitats along marsh borders. Basic habitat requirements for breeding include open accessible water, protected nesting substrate freshwater marsh dominated by cattails (Typha spp.), willows (Salixspp.), and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), and either flooded or thorny/spiny vegetation and suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey. Aimophilaruficeps WL Yearlong resident that is typically found No High: Suitable foraging and canescens between 2,000 and 6,000 feet amsl, and can nesting habitat is present G5T3 occur in lower elevations during winter within the project site. In southern California rufous- months. Breeds in sparsely vegetated addition, the closest extant crowned sparrow S4 scrubland on hillsides and canyons. Prefers occurrence (CNDDB; Occ. 178) coastal sage scrub dominated by California is roughly0.6 miles east of the sagebrush (Artemisia californica), but can project site. also befound breeding in coastal bluff scrub, low -growing serpentine chaparral, and along the edges of tall chaparral habitats. Anaxyrus californicus FE Occurs in semi -arid regions near washes or No Not Expected: Suitable intermittent streams, including valley- habitats preferred by this arroyo toad SSC foothill grasslands, desert riparian, desert species are not present within washes, and oak woodlands. Breeding the project site. G2G3 habitat consists of shallow streams with a mixture of sandy and gravelly substrate and S2 sandy terraces. Generally, requires mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) and willow (Salix spp.) in the streambed for vegetative canopy for breeding areas and forages for insects primarily under oak (Quercus spp.), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees. Occurs at elevations from near sea level to about 4,600 feet amsl. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 32 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site ArtemisiospizabeHibeHi WL Yearlong resident on the coastal side of No High: Suitable foraging and southern California mountains. Breeds in nesting habitats preferred by Bell's sparrow G5T2T3 coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats this species are present within from February to August. Requires semi- the project site. In addition, S3 open habitats with evenlyspaced shrubs one the nearest extant occurrence to two meters high. Occurs in chaparral (CNDDB; Occ. 57) is roughly dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise 0.6 miles east of the project (Adenostoma fasciculatum). site. Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC This subspecies is found in coastal southern No High: Suitable habitat is California, mostly west of the Peninsular located within the project site, coastal whiptail G5T5 Ranges and south of the Transverse Ranges, and there are known and north into Ventura County. Ranges south occurrences within 0.6 miles S3 into Baja California. Found in a variety of of the project site. ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse vegetation in chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. Associated with rocky areas with little vegetation or sunny microhabitats within shrub or grassland associations. Bombuscrotchii SCE Found from coastal California east to the No Low: Marginally suitable Sierra -Cascade crest and south into Mexico. foraging habitat available on Crotch's bumble bee G2 Primarily occurs in California, including the site; additionally, there are no Mediterranean region, Pacific coast, western occurrences within 3 miles of S2 desert, great valley, and adjacent foothills the project site. through most of southwestern California. Has also been recorded in Baja California, Baja California Sur, and in southwest Nevada. Inhabits open grassland and scrub habitats. Primarily nests underground. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. Branchinecta lynchi FT Endemic to California and only found in No Not Expected: Suitable vernal vernal pools. Vernal pool habitats form in pool habitat preferred by this vernal pool fairy shrimp G3 depressions above an impervious substrate species are not present within layer, or claypan/duripan. This species does the project site. S3 not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water. When the temporary pools dry, offspring persist in suspended development as desiccation - resistant embryos (commonly called cysts) in the pool substrate until the return of winter rains and appropriate temperatures allow some of the cysts to hatch. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 33 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Buteoswainsoni ST Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or No Low (foraging): Potential to cropland containing scattered, large trees or occur within the site as a Swainson's hawk G5 small groves. Breeds in stands with fewtrees transient during migration. in juniper -sage flats, riparian areas, and in S4 oak savannah in the Central Valley. Forages in adjacent grassland or suitable grain or alfalfa fields or livestock pastures. Catostomussantaanae FT Occur in the watersheds draining the San No Not Expected: Suitable habitat Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of preferred by this species are Santa Ana sucker G1 southern California. Streams that Santa Ana not present within the project sucker inhabit are generally perennial site. S1 streams with water ranging in depth from a few inches to several feet and with currents ranging from slight to swift. Coccyzus american us FT Uncommon summer resident where its No Not Expected: Suitable occidentalis breeding distribution is restricted to isolated foraging and nesting habitats SE sites in the Sacramento, Armargosa, Kern, preferred by this species are western yellow -billed cuckoo Santa Ana, and Colorado River valleys. The not present within the project G5T2T3 species requires large patches of multi- site. layered riparian forest, with cottonwoods S1 and willows. The presence of standing or flowing surface water under the riparian canopy is also preferred. Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) groves may also be used, but usually only when cottonwood -willow habitat is unavailable. Danausplexippus FCE Winter roost sites extend along the coast No Not Expected from northern Mendocino to Baja California, (overwintering): Suitable monarch butterfly G4T1T2Q Mexico. Roosts are located in wind- habitat preferred by this protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey species is not present within S2 pine, cypress), with nectar and water the project site. sources nearby. Empidonaxtrailliiextfmus Uncommon summer resident in Southern No Not Expected: Suitable California primarily found in lower elevation foraging and nesting habitats southwestern willow FE riparian habitats occurring along streams or preferred by this species are flycatcher in meadows. The structure of suitable not present within the project SE breeding habitat typically consists of a dense site. mid -story and understory and can also G5T2 include a dense canopy. Nest sites are generally located near surface water or S3 saturated soils. The presence of surface water, swampy conditions, standing or flowing water under the riparian canopy are preferred. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 34 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Gasterosteusaculeatus FE Small, scaleless freshwater fish of up to 2 No Not Expected: Suitable habitat williamsoni inches in length inhabiting slow -moving preferred bythis species is not SE reaches or quiet -water microhabitats in present within the project site. unarmored threespine streams and rivers. Restricted to three areas: stickleback FP the upper Santa Clara River and its tributaries in Los Angeles County, San G5T1 Antonio Creek on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County, and the Shay Creek S1 vicinity (Shay Pond, Sugarloaf Pond, Juniper Springs, Motorcycle Pond, Shay Creek, Wiebe Pond, and Baldwin Lake) in San Bernardino County. Favorable habitats are shaded by dense and abundant vegetation. In open reaches, algal mats or barriers (e.g., sand bars, floating vegetation, low -flow road crossings) provide refuge. Gymnogyps californian us FE Current distribution of California condor is No Not Expected: Suitable considered to be all of the Los Padres foraging and nesting habitats California condor SE National Forest and western half of the preferred by this species are Angeles National Forest (USDA Forest not present within the project FP Service 2000), with some occasionally found site. in the Sequoia National Forest. Nest sites are G1 typically located in chaparral, conifer forest, or oak woodland habitats. Nest sites are in S1 cliff caves in the mountains. Some have nested in large cavities within sequoias (Sequoiadendron giganteum). Haliaeetusleucocephalus SE Locally common yearlong resident of No Not Expected: Suitable Southern California. Typically prefers areas foraging and nesting habitats bald eagle FP near large water bodies such as sea coasts, preferred by this species are coastal estuaries and inland lakes and rivers; not present within the project G5 in many areas, these birds are found within site. two miles of a water source. Most S3 populations, specifically those in northern regions, migrate to southern, milder climates annually. Generally, these birds nest in the canopy of tall, coniferous trees, surrounded by smaller trees. They have been reported nesting on the ground, on cliffs, on cellular phone towers, on electrical poles and in artificial nesting towers. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 35 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types No Moderate: Suitable habitat is including coastal sage scrub, annual located within the project site, coast horned lizard G4 grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian and there are known woodland, and coniferous forest. Its occurrences within 3 miles of S4 elevational range extends upto 4,000 feet in the project site. the Sierra Nevada foothills and up to 6,000 feet in the mountains of Southern California. In inland areas, this species is restricted to areas with pockets of open microhabitat, created by disturbance (e.g., fire, floods, unimproved roads, grazing lands, and fire breaks). The key elements of such habitats are loose, fine soils with a high sandfraction; an abundance of native ants orother insects; and open areas with limited overstory for basking and low, but relatively dense shrubs for refuge. Polioptilacalifornica FT Yearlong resident of sagescrub habitatsthat No Not Expected: Suitable are dominated by California sagebrush. This foraging and nesting habitats coastal California gnatcatcher SSC species generally occurs below 750feet amsl preferred by this species are in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet amsl not present within the project G4G5T3Q inland. Ranges from Ventura County, south site. to San Diego County and northern Baja S2 California and it is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Prefers habitat with more low -growing vegetation. Rana boylii pop. 6 FT Isolated populations are also known from No Not Expected: Suitable habitat the mountains of Los Angeles County. Occurs preferred by the species is not footh ill yellow -legged frog— ST in streams flowing through a variety of present within the project site. south coast DPS vegetation types, including valley -foothill G3T1 hardwood, valley -foothill hardwood -conifer, valley -foothill riparian, yellow pine (Pinus S1 ponderosa), mixed conifer, mixed chaparral, and wet meadows. Rarely occurs in areas with greaterthan 90 percent canopy closure. Breeding and rearing habitat is generally located in gently flowing, low -gradient stream sections with variable substrates predominated by cobble and boulder. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 36 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Special- Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Status Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Rana draytonii FT The species historically occurred in the San No Not Expected: Suitable habitat Gabriel Wilderness Area of the Angeles preferred by the species is not California red -legged frog SSC National Forest; there were no post-1970 present within the projectsite. observations in this area or nearby parts of G2G3 the Angeles National Forest. In 1999, a population (estimated between 15 and 25 S2S3 adults) was located on the Angeles National Forest in the San Francisquito drainage. Breeding sites are in a variety of aquatic habitats including streams, deep pools, backwaters within streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, dune ponds, lagoons, and artificial impoundments (i.e., stock ponds). Breeding adults are often associated with deep (greater than 2 feet) still or slow -moving water and dense shrubby riparian or emergent vegetation. Spea hammondii SSC Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly No Low: Suitable breeding habitat soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed is not located within the western spadefoot FPT woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, project site, and the most chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river recent extant occurrence is G2G3 floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, located within 2.3 miles of the foothills, and mountains. Rain pools that do project site. S3S4 not contain American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), predatory fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding. Estivates in upland habitats adjacent to potential breeding sites in burrows approximating 3 feet in depth. Spinuslawrencei BCC Nests in open oak or other and woodland Yes Present: This species was and chaparral, near water. Nearby observed on -site during the Lawrence'sgoldfinch G3G4 herbaceous habitats are also used for field surveys. feeding. This species can also be found in S4 broadleaved upland forest and pinon and juniper woodlands. This species is closely associated with oaks (Quercus sp.). Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 37 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On -site Potential to Occur Streptocephalus woottoni FE Restricted to deep seasonal vernal pools, No Not Expected: Vernal pool vernal pool like ephemeral ponds, and stock habitat required by the Riverside fairy shrimp G1G2 ponds and other human modified species is not present within depressions. Basins that support Riverside the project site. S1S2 fairy shrimp are typically dry a portion of the year, but usually are filled by late fall, winter, orspring rains, and may persist through May. Endemic to western Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties in tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub. In Riverside County, the species been found in pools formed over the following soils: Murrieta stony clay loams, Las Posas series, Wyman clay loam, and Willows soils. All known habitat lies within annual grasslands, which may be interspersed through chaparral or coastal sage scrub vegetation. Vireobelliipusillus FE Summer resident in Southern California. No Not Expected: Suitable Breeding habitat generally consists of dense, foraging and nesting habitats least Bell's vireo SE low, shrubby vegetation in riparian areas, preferred by this species are and mesquite brushlands, often near water not present within the project G5T2 in and regions. Early successional site. cottonwood -willow riparian groves are S3 preferred for nesting. The most critical structural component of nesting habitat in California is a dense shrub layer that is 2 to 10 feet (0.6 to 3.0 meters) aboveground. The presence of water, including ponded surface water or moist soil conditions, may also be a key component for nesting habitat. *Comprehensive PTO table is in Appendix E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources. 5.3.3 Sensitive Natural Communities Thirteen special -status vegetation communities have been reported in the CNDDB within the USGS Warm Springs Mountain, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sleepy Valley, Burnt Peak, Lake Hughes, Del Sur, and Green Valley, California 7.5-minute quadrangles: California walnut woodland, mainland cherry forest, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, southern California three -spine stickleback stream, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern riparian forest, southern riparian scrub, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, southern willow scrub, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley oak woodland. None of these special -status vegetation communities were identified within the project site during the field surveys. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 38 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS 5.3.4 Critical Habitat Critical habitat for California red -legged frog is located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site. In addition, critical habitat for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis; FT, CRPR 113.1) is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. However, no critical habitat is present within the project site (refer to Figure 6: Critical Habitat). 5.3.5 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the project site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. These features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime based on the results of the Streamflow Duration Assessment Method assessment, are not relatively permanent waters, and do not exhibit a continuous surface connection to a downstream traditional navigable water. Accordingly, these features would not be considered subject to Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, these features will likely be subject to jurisdiction by the CDFW and the Regional Board. Due to the dominance of upland plant species and ephemeral flow regime of all drainages within the project site, it was determined that no potential wetland conditions or wetland features were present within the project site. Therefore, no soil pits were investigated within the project site. Table 5 below shows potential jurisdictional resources present within the project site. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 39 « , 1i R�ryyyppp� 0� .r r , t k r It . _ . a. 04 .m; a Y� Y J TT {ao 1 Hill ter1 ._;±,. H i I I 3� r NA 0 .. Saugust K i Q.oad -7vnyon,Ro�d :i eooro t IV 040 �Cegtra1 Park `� whagRa I .� _ x , •_ o - - „ ncn3o4ad �. ::+ 253.3- 56 e R Y r Canyon Country? ."���� 111 ;: f -, ,96 Santa Cara Riper ,ailil /Il , Michael Baker N T E R N A T I 0 N A L Table 5: State and Federal Jurisdictional Resources RESULTS Acreage within Project Site Regional Board CDFW Cowardin Linear Non - Feature Name Location Lat/Long Type Feet Wetland Wetland Vegetated Riparian WotS Streambed blots 34.478566° Aquatic Feature 1 Riverine 174 0.01 0.04 -118.505720° 34.476463° Aquatic Feature 2 -118.504156° Riverine 1,724 0.14 0.43 34.476294° Aquatic Feature 3 Riverine 288 0.03 0.10 -118.502707° 34.477001° Aquatic Feature 4 Riverine 952 0.04 0.17 -118.496221° 34.472952° Aquatic Feature 5 Riverine 493 0.01 0.03 -118.496707° 34.472277° Aquatic Feature 6 Riverine 258 0.02 0.06 -118.495826° 34.479145° Aquatic Feature 7 Riverine 732 0.03 0.34 -118.494172° 34.479166° Aquatic Feature 8 Riverine 1,891 0.07 0.49 -118.491190° 34.479576° Aquatic Feature 9 Riverine 400 0.01 0.11 -118.491490° 34.479316° Aquatic Feature 10 Riverine 208 0.01 0.07 -118.492216° 34.475834° Aquatic Feature 11 Riverine 450 0.02 0.21 -118.495172° TOTAL 7,570 0.39 2.05 WotS = Waters of the State 5.4 Regional Connectivity, Wildlife Movement Corridors, and Habitat Linkages 5.4.1 Overview Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic material (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Soule 1987; Harris and Gallagher 1989; Bennet 1990). Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. A group of smaller populations (termed "demes") linked together via a system of Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 41 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS corridors is termed a "metapopulation." The long-term health of each deme within the metapopulation is dependent upon its size and the frequency of interchange of individuals (immigration versus emigration). The smaller the deme, the more important immigration becomes, because prolonged inbreeding with the same individuals can reduce genetic variability. Immigrant individuals that move into the deme from adjoining demes mate with individuals and supply that deme with new genes and gene combinations that increases overall genetic diversity. An increase in a population's genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population's health. Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by: (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Noss 1983, Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox 1987). Wildlife movement activities usuallyfall into one of three movement categories: (1) dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions); (2) seasonal migration; and (3) movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies, such as "travel route, "'wildlife corridor," and "wildlife crossing," to refer to areas in which wildlife move from one area to another. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion on wildlife movement in this study, these terms are defined as follows: • Travel Route: A landscape feature (such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another; contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas; and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas. • Wildlife Corridor: A piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape -level corridors (often referred to as "habitat or landscape linkages") can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. • Wildlife Crossing: A small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Crossings typically are man-made and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, and tunnels to provide access across or under roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 42 INTERNATIONAL RESULTS It is important to note that, within a large open space area in which there are few or no man-made or naturally occurring physical constraints to wildlife movement, wildlife corridors as defined above may not yet exist. Given an open space area that is both large enough to maintain viable populations of species and provide a variety of travel routes (canyons, ridgelines, trails, riverbeds, and others), wildlife will use these "local" routes while searching for food, water, shelter, and mates, and will not need to cross into other large open space areas. Based on their size, location, vegetative composition, and availability of food, some of these movement areas (e.g., large drainages and canyons) are used for longer lengths of time and serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-sized mammals. This is especially true if the travel route is within a larger open space area. However, once open space areas become constrained and/or fragmented as a result of urban development or construction of physical obstacles such as roads and highways, remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas can "become" corridors as long as they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water, and do not contain obstacles or distractions (man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement. 5.4.2 Wildlife Movement within the Project Site As described in the previous section, wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: dispersal, seasonal migration, and movements related to home range activities. Although the nature of these movements are species specific, large open spaces will generally support a diverse wildlife community representing all types of movement. Each type of movement may also be represented at a variety of scales from non -migratory movement of amphibians, reptiles, and some birds on a "local" level to many square mile home ranges of large mammals moving at a "regional" level. The location of the project site supports all types of wildlife movement on some scale. Movement on a smaller or "local" scale occurs throughout the surrounding vicinity as well as the project site. Data gathered from biological surveys indicate that the project site contains habitat that supports a variety of species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The home range and average dispersal distance of many of these species may be entirely contained within the project site and immediate vicinity. Populations of animals such as insects, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and a few bird species may find all their resource requirements without moving far or outside of the project site at all. Occasionally, individuals expanding their home range or dispersing from their parental range will attempt to move outside of the project site. Mammals known to occur within the project site either by direct observation or by the presence of sign include the California ground squirrel, coyote, and bobcat. Movement on a larger, "regional" scale is likely to occur to and from the project site due to the availability of resources within the project site and in the surrounding area. The project site is within a large open space area of the San Gabriel Mountains. The undisturbed nature of the area, in addition to the resources provided within the unnamed drainages (e.g., prey, water, and vegetative cover), ridgelines, and dirt roads, facilitate wildlife movement in the form of travel routes (as defined above). Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 43 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 5.5 Regional Resource Planning Context RESULTS The project is not located within any natural community conservation plan (NCCP) or habitat conservation plan (HCP) documents, including a multiple species conservation plan or multiple species habitat conservation plan. In addition, the project site is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 44 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 6.1 Definition of Impacts 6.1.1 Project Description The proposed project includes the creation of multiple mountain bike trails and associated development, including a new roadway and parking lot, staging areas, and restrooms and other associated facilities. 6.1.2 Direct Impacts Direct permanent impacts typically refer to 100 percent permanent loss of a biological resource. It is also often referred to as the "project footprint" and refers to the area where vegetation clearing, grubbing, and mass grading occurs. It may include brush management zones or fuel modification zones. Essentially, wherever the existing vegetation or land cover would be permanently affected, it is considered to be a permanent direct impact. Direct temporary impacts typically refer to short-term removal of a biological resource where the resource is expected to fully recover its function upon completion of the project. Areas subject to temporary disturbance may include slope remediation sites, construction access roads, staging areas, stockpiles, mowing, and dredging. Such sites would not have permanent structures. 6.1.3 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by project implementation on remaining or adjacent biological resources outside the direct construction disturbance zone. Indirect impacts may affect areas within the defined project area but outside the construction disturbance zone, including open space and areas outside the project area, such as downstream effects. Indirect impacts include short-term effects immediately related to construction activities and long-term or chronic effects related to the human occupation of developed areas (i.e., development -related long-term effects). In most cases, indirect effects are not quantified, but in some cases, quantification might be included, such as total dissolved solids released to downstream areas or using a noise contour to quantify indirect impacts to nesting birds. 6.2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers Impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types within the project site are limited to active construction or staging areas and areas of proposed trail alignments. Table 6 below shows the acreage of impacts to each vegetation community and land cover type by the proposed project. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 45 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIMPACTS TABLE 6. IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND COVER TYPES Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type Acreage Black Sage Scrub 3.16 Disturbed Black Sage Scrub 0.35 Scrub Oak Woodland 0.74 Chaparral 18.88 Non-native Grassland 9.97 Developed/Disturbed 2.48 Total 35.58:::::] 6.3 Impacts to Special -Status Plant Species 6.3.1 Direct Impacts Permanent direct impacts to special -status plant species may occur during implementation of the proposed project. As described in Section 5.4.1 above, there is a moderate and high potential for three special -status plant species to occur on the project site: club -haired mariposa -lily (CRPR] 4.3), slender mariposa -lily (CRPR 113.2), and short -jointed beavertail (CRPR 113.2). In addition, Michael Baker determined that the native vegetation communities within the project site have a low potential to support three special -status plant species: Nevins barberry (FE, SE, CRPR 113.1), Catalina mariposa lily (CRPR 4.2), and island mountain -mahogany (CRPR 4.3). Impacts to these species can occur through the loss of counted or estimated individuals, loss of occurrence, loss of occupied habitat, and/or loss of suitable habitat. To determine if the project will directly impact any special -status plant species, a rare plant survey will need to be conducted to document any special -status plants that may potentially occur within the project site. 6.3.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts to special -status plants may be short-term construction -related impacts or long-term development -related impacts. These impacts could include the accumulation of construction -related dust on plants, which may affect their ability to photosynthesize, or the alteration of waterways that may affect plant species that require a source of surface or groundwater to survive. In addition, the introduction of invasive species, pollutants, or hazardous materials may occur during construction and have an indirect impact on any special -status plant species near any active construction zone. As previously mentioned, a rare plant survey will need to be conducted to document any special -status plant species that may be indirectly affected by the proposed project. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 46 I N T E R N A T 10 N AL PROJ ECT I MPACTS 6.4 Impacts to Special -Status Wildlife Species 6.4.1 Direct Impacts Permanent direct impacts to special -status wildlife species may occur during implementation of the proposed project. As mentioned in Section 5.4.2 above, one special -status wildlife species was observed during the field survey: Lawrence's goldfinch (BCC). There is also a moderate and high potential for four special -status wildlife species to occur within the project site: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (WL), Bell's sparrow (WL), coastal whiptail (SSC), and coast horned lizard (SSC). In addition, Michael Baker determined that the project site has a low potential to support nine special -status wildlife species: grasshopper sparrow (SSC), California legless lizard (SSC), California glossy snake (SSC), Crotch's bumble bee (CSE), Swainson's hawk (ST), Townsend's big -eared bat (SSC), white-tailed kite (FP), spotted bat (SSC), and western spadefoot (SSC). Impacts to these species, which include both bird and reptile species, include the loss of individuals, loss of important resources, and/or the loss of suitable habitat. Although most adult birds are mobile and can escape direct injury or mortality by fleeing from a construction site, a displaced animal may be more vulnerable to injury or mortality if its territory has been impacted. Most reptiles are unable to escape direct impacts and may be crushed or entombed by construction equipment. 6.4.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species may occur during implementation of the proposed project. These impacts include construction noise that may temporarily affect a bird attempting to nest in the area, or with an active nest. Construction -related noise has been documented to cause birds to abandon their nests and young, ultimately having an impact on that species' survival. Reptilian species have the potential to nest and burrow underground and ground vibration from construction can cause premature emergence due to vibrations mimicking rain, or burrow abandonment. Increased lighting due to night work may also potentially affect nearby sensitive species or attract predators to that area. 6.5 Impacts to Critical Habitat Critical habitat for California red -legged frog (FT) is located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site. In addition, critical habitat for spreading navarretia (FT, CRPR 113.1) is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. However, no critical habitat is present within the project site. Therefore, impacts to critical habitat are not anticipated and no further discussion is warranted. 6.6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands Impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters may occur as a result of the proposed project. As noted above, the project site is estimated to include approximately 0.39 acre (7,570 linear feet) of non -wetland waters of the State that may potentially be under Regional Board jurisdiction. In addition, there are approximately Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 47 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L P ROJ ECT I M PACTS 2.05 acres (7,570 linear feet) of vegetated streambed potentially under CDFW jurisdiction. However, final jurisdictional limits can only be determined by the respective regulatory agencies. 6.7 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity 6.7.1 Direct Impacts The project site consists mostly of undeveloped land and open space with natural vegetation communities. A small portion of the project site consists of developed/disturbed land that is devoid of vegetation or has current or historical development. The project site is not identified as a wildlife corridor within any NCCP, HCP, or subarea plan. The proposed project consists of the establishment of recreational mountain bike trails and associated development. Although the establishment of these trails and amenities will decrease the amount of native vegetation within the project site, the project is not anticipated to cause any impacts to wildlife movement or connectivity within the project site or to the surrounding area. 6.7.2 Indirect Impacts The project is not anticipated to result in any impacts to wildlife corridors or connectivity within the project site or surrounding area. 6.8 Impacts to Regional Resource Planning The project site is not located within any NCCP, HCP, associated subarea plan, Significant Ecological Areas of Los Angeles County, or any other regional resources planning effort. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to impact any regional resource planning effort. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 48 7.0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 7.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance Impacts to sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat, special -status plant species, special -status wildlife species, wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity, and regional resource planning must be analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that an ironclad definition of "significant" effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) lists impacts that are helpful in defining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Mandatory findings of significance, which require preparation of an environmental impact report, occur when there is substantial evidence that a project could (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The following are the significance thresholds for biological resources provided in the CEQA Appendix G environmental checklist, which states that a project could potentially have a significant effect if it: • Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. • Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. • Has 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. • Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. • Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The evaluation of whether an impact to a particular biological resource is significant must consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context. Substantial impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important resource, such as a population of a rare plant Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 49 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS or animal. Impacts may be important locally because they result in an adverse alteration of existing site conditions but considered not significant because they do not contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that resource regionally. The severity of an impact is the primary determinant of whether that impact can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. 7.2 Federal and State Regulations and Protections Impacts to federally and state -listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species and their habitats or species otherwise protected by state or federal regulations, such as state Fully Protected species or the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, would usually have low thresholds for significance. However, unless a lead agency requires a mandatory finding of significance for impacts to listed species, not all direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to a listed species are necessarily significant. Other federal and state statutes that may need to be considered in the significance determination include the National Environmental Policy Act; the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (for protection of wetlands); the MBTA; Executive Order 11990 (wetlands protection); Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10; Marine Protection, Sanctuary, and Research Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act; and Sections 1601 and 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreements. 7.3 Special -Status Plant Species 7.3.1 Significant Impacts Impact 8/0-1 Project construction may result in direct impacts to special -status plant species considered rare, threatened, or endangered by the CNPS: slender mariposa -lily (CRPR 113.2), Catalina mariposa lily (CRPR 4.2), club -haired mariposa -lily (CRPR 4.3), short -jointed beavertail (CRPR 113.2), Nevins barberry (FE, SE, CRPR 113.1), and island mountain -mahogany (CRPR 4.3). Construction activities related to the establishment of recreational mountain bike trails and the associated development may result in direct mortality of individuals of this species. Without the results of focused special -status plant species surveys, impacts are considered potentially significant. 7.3.2 Less than Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any less than significant impacts to special -status plant species. 7.4 Sensitive Natural Communities 7.4.1 Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impactsto sensitive natural communities because no sensitive natural communities occur within the project site. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 50 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 7.4.2 Less than Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any less than significant impacts to sensitive natural communities because no sensitive natural communities occur within the project site. 7.5 Special -Status Wildlife Species 7.5.1 Significant Impacts Impact 8/0-2 Project construction could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, causing injury or mortality. Nesting birds are protected under the MBTA; therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant. For special -status bird species with potential to nest in the project area, direct impacts could include the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally between February 15 and August 31). These species include southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (WL), Bell's sparrow (WL), and Lawrence's goldfinch (BCC). This impact would be potentially significant because substantial direct impacts to individuals of designated special -status species would occur during a critical period of these species' life cycles and would result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. Impact 8/0-3 Project construction could result in direct impacts to special -status reptiles such as coastal whiptail (SSC) and coast horned lizard (SSC), causing injury or mortality. Impacts could include the loss of burrows, eggs, and adult and juvenile individuals during vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities. This impact would be potentially significant because substantial direct impacts to individuals of designated special -status species would occur during a critical period of these species' life cycles and would result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. 7.5.2 Less than Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any less than significant impacts to special -status wildlife. 7.6 Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands 7.6.1 Significant Impacts Impact 8/0-4 The project may result in impacts to aquatic features that are potentially under jurisdiction by the Regional Board and CDFW. These potential impacts would include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 51 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS construction. These impacts may potentially decrease the amount of jurisdictional waters within the project site and would be considered a significant impact without mitigation. 7.6.2 Less Than Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any less than significant impacts to jurisdictional waters/wetlands. 7.7 Wildlife Corridors and Linkages 7.7.1 Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages. 7.7.2 Less than Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any less than significant impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages. 7.8 Regional Resource Planning/Local Policies and Ordinances 7.8.1 Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to regional resource planning or any local policies or ordinances. 7.8.2 Less than Significant Impacts The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any less than significant impacts to regional resource planning or any local policies or ordinances. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 52 8.0 MITIGATION The purpose of this section is to identify mitigation measures that would reduce the significant impacts to less than significant. Impact B10-1: (Impacts to special -status plant species) B10-1.1: Prior to the construction of the proposed project, a preconstruction survey will be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special -status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. If no special -status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required and there will be no impact to special -status plant species. If populations of special -status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, avoidance and minimization measures will be explored to protect the special -status plant population(s). If avoidance is not possible, consultation with CDFW will be required prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands to be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity would be required to compensate for the loss of habitat occupied by any non -listed special -status plant species found on -site. In the unlikely event a State or federally -listed plant species is present and avoidance is not feasible, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to initiating any on -site project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to special -status plant species to less than significant because they will identify any potential special -status plants that may be impacted by the project site and develop a plan to mitigate impacts or avoid those species if present. Impact B10-2 and B10-3: (Impacts to special -status wildlife species) B10-3.1: Prior to the start of construction, every individual working on the project must attend a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program training session delivered by the project biologist. The biological awareness training would include a description of special -status species and sensitive habitats, species identification characteristics, best management Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 53 INTERNATIONAL MITIGATION practices to be implemented, project -specific avoidance measures that must be followed, and the steps necessary if special -status species are encountered at any time. B1O-3.2: A qualified biologist shall be present during vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special -status reptile species. If any wildlife species are found, the project biologist shall relocate the animal(s) to appropriate habitat off -site. Daily monitoring logs will be prepared to document work activities and any relocations that were conducted. B1O-3.3: All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored in the project area during construction for one or more overnight periods shall be either securely capped prior to storage or thoroughly inspected by the contractor and/or the biological monitor for special -status wildlife species or other animals before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. B1O-3.4: To prevent inadvertent entrapment of special -status wildlife species or other animals during construction, the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager shall ensure all excavated, steep -walled holes or trenches more than 6 inches deep are provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals by the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager. B1O-3.5: If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer will be established around any active nest of migratory birds and a minimum 500-foot no -disturbance buffer will be established around any nesting raptor or CESA/ESA listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor must immediately stop work until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist will monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the project site to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. B1O-3.6: During construction and operation, project materials will not be cast from the project site into nearby habitats; further, project -related trash will be contained and removed to a Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 54 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MITIGATION proper disposal facility. Any excess soil unearthed during construction will be used to create the proposed trail alignments. B1O-3.7: All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the project footprint and inspected by the project biologist to confirm it is free of non-native plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the project site. All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post -construction landscaping activities and erosion control BMPs will be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program will be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post -construction. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to special -status wildlife species to less than significant because they will identify any potential special -status wildlife that may be impacted by the project site and develop a plan to mitigate impacts or avoid those species if present. Impact BIO-4: (Impacts to jurisdictional waters) B1O-4.1: Temporary and/or permanent impacts resulting from the proposed project would require a Water Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) pursuant to the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. The Regional Board also requires that CEQA compliance be obtained prior to obtaining authorization. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by the Regional Board prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and/or preservation of unaffected features on -site; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. impacts. The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from the CDFW would be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. The CDFW also requires that CEQA compliance be obtained prior to issuing the final Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features on -site; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 55 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MITIGATION B1O-4.2: During construction and operation, project materials will not be cast from the project site into nearby habitats; further, project -related debris, excess spoils, and trash will be contained and removed to a proper disposal facility. B1O-4.3: All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the project footprint and inspected by the project biologist to confirm it is free of non-native plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the project site. All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post -construction landscaping activities and erosion control BMPs will be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program will be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post -construction. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional waters/wetlands to less than significant because they will identify any potential waters/wetlands that may be impacted by the project site and develop a plan to mitigate impacts or avoid these resources. 8.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts The proposed project, inclusive of mitigation measures, will mitigate all significant adverse impacts to any special -status plant and wildlife species and jurisdictional areas. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 56 9.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Bennett, A. F. 1990. Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment. Landscape Ecol. 4:109-122. Billerman, S.M., B. K. Keeney, P. G. Rodewald, and T. S. Schulenberg (Editors). 2020. Birds of the World. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home. Bradley, D.R., Ammerman, L.K., Baker, R.J., Bradley, L.C., Cook, J.A., Dowler, R.C., Jones, C., Schmidly, D.J., Stangl Jr., F.B., Van Den Bussche, R.A., and B. Wursig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech University. 327. 1- 27. Calflora. 2024. Online database. https://www.calflora.org/search.html Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, N. A. Mason, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2023. Check -list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. Accessed online at: http://checklist.aou.org/taxa. CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2024a. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [March 1, 2024]. Accessed February 10, 2024. ---. 2024b. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. ---. 2024c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. ---. 2024d. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. ---. 2024e. State and Federally Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNPS (California Native Plant Society), Rare Plant Program. 2024. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Accessed February 10, 2024. https://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Corps (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 57 N T E R N A T I 0 N A L REFERENCES Crother, B. I. (ed.). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding pp. 1-102. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43. Fahrig, L. and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat Patch Connectivity and Population Survival. Ecology. 66:1762-1768. Harris, L. D. and P. B. Gallagher. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement corridors. Pages 11-34 in G. Mackintosh, ed. Preserving communities and corridors. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington D.C. 96 pp. Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 2011. Bats of the United States and Canada. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Historic Aerials. 2024. Online historical aerial viewer. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. MacArthur, R. M. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience. 33:700-706. Reid, F.A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler -Wolf, and Julie Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd edition. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Sibley, D.A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv.Biol. 1:63-71. Soule, M. E. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Sinaur Associates Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts. State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State Stebbins, R.C., McGinnis, S.M. 2018. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 58 N T E R N A T I 0 N A L REFERENCES USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2024a. Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California. USDA, Web Soil Survey. Accessed February 7, 2024 https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. ---. 2024b. State Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List. Accessed February 10, 2024. https://www.nres.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPac). Accessed February 10, 2024. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index. USFWS. 2024b. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System: Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Accessed online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html. Biological Resources Technical Report April 23, 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Page 59 APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix A — Site Photographs Photograph 1: Looking east from the western side of the project site. Photograph 2: Looking east from the western side of the project site Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project A-1 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix A — Site Photographs Photograph 3: Looking north from the western side of the project site. Photograph 4: Looking west from the western side of the project site. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project A-2 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix A — Site Photographs Photograph 5: Looking north near the middle of the project site. Photograph 6: Looking west near the middle of the project site. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Biological Resources Technical Report A-3 Appendix A — Site Photographs Photograph 7: Looking southwest from Blue Cloud Road near the northern end of the project site. Photograph 8: Looking southeast along Blue Cloud near the middle of the project site. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project A-4 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix A — Site Photographs Photograph 9: Looking west along Blue Cloud near the middle of the project site. Photograph 10: Looking northeast from the south end of the project site. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project A-5 Biological Resources Technical Report APPENDIX 6 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife f. California Natural Diversity Database Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Warm Springs Mountain (3411855)<span style ='color:Red'> OR </span>Newhall (3411845)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mint Canyon (3411844)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Agua Dulce (3411843)<span style ='color:Red'> OR </span>Sleepy Valley (3411853)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Burnt Peak (3411865)<span style ='color:Red'> OR </span>Lake Hughes (3411864)<span style ='color:Red'> OR </span>Del Sur (3411863)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Green Valley (3411854)) Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Accipitercooperii ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL Cooper's hawk Agelaius tricolor ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC tricolored blackbird Aimophila ruficeps canescens ABPBX91091 None None G5T3 S4 WL southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Ammodramus savannarum ABPBXA0020 None None G5 S3 SSC grasshopper sparrow Anaxyrus californicus AAABB01230 Endangered None G2G3 S2 SSC arroyo toad Anniella pulchra ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC Northern California legless lizard Anniella spp. ARACC01070 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC California legless lizard Antrozous pallidus AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC pallid bat Arizona a/egans occidentalis ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC California glossy snake Artemisiospiza belli belli ABPBX97021 None None G5T2T3 S3 WL Bell's sparrow Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri ARACJ02143 None None G5T5 S3 SSC coastal whiptail Athene cunicularia ABNSB10010 None None G4 S2 SSC burrowing owl Berberis nevinii PDBER060A0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 Nevin's barberry Bombus crotchii IIHYM24480 None Candidate G2 S2 Crotch bumble bee Endangered Bombus pensylvanicus IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2 American bumble bee Branchinecta lynchi ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3 vernal pool fairy shrimp Buteo regalis ABNKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL ferruginous hawk Buteo swainsoni ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4 Swainson's hawk Commercial Version -- Dated February, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, February 12, 2024 Information Expires 8/2/2024 }lI r,,, Selected Elements by Scientific Name arm California Department of Fish and Wildlife f.. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP California Walnut Woodland CTT71210CA None None G2 S2.1 California Walnut Woodland Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis PMLILOD096 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 1 B.2 slender mariposa -lily Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri PMLILOD122 None None G3T2 S2 1 B.2 Palmer's mariposa -lily Calochortus plummerae PMLILOD150 None None G4 S4 4.2 Plummer's mariposa -lily Calystegia peirsonii PDCON040AO None None G4 S4 4.2 Peirson's morning-glory Catostomus santaanae AFCJCO2190 Threatened None G1 S1 Santa Ana sucker Charadrius montanus ABNNB03100 None None G3 S2 SSC mountain plover Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina PDPGN040J1 None Endangered G2T1 S1 1 B.1 San Fernando Valley spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi PDPGN040J2 None None G3T2 S2 1 B.1 Parry's spineflower Corynorhinus townsendii AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC Townsend's big -eared bat Cryptantha clokeyi PDBOROA3MO None None G3 S3 1 B.2 Clokey's cryptantha Dodecahema leptoceras PDPGNOV010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 slender -horned spineflower Elanus leucurus ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP white-tailed kite Empidonax traillii extimus ABPAE33043 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 southwestern willow flycatcher Emys marmorata ARAAD02030 Proposed None G3G4 S3 SSC western pond turtle Threatened Eremophila alpestris actia ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL California horned lark Euderma maculatum AMACC07010 None None G4 S3 SSC spotted bat Euphydryas editha quino IILEPK405L Endangered None G4G5T1T2 S1S2 quino checkerspot butterfly Falco mexicanus ABNKD06090 None None G5 S4 WL prairie falcon Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni AFCPA03011 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 FP unarmored threespine stickleback Gila orcuttii AFCJB13120 None None G2 S2 SSC arroyo chub Commercial Version -- Dated February, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, February 12, 2024 Information Expires 8/2/2024 }lI r,,, Selected Elements by Scientific Name arm California Department of Fish and Wildlife f.. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Haliaeetus leucocephalus ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP bald eagle Harpagonella palmeri PDBOROH010 None None G4 S3 4.2 Palmer's grapplinghook Helianthus inexpectatus PDAST4N250 None None G1 S1 1 B.1 Newhall sunflower Helminthoglypta fontiphila IMGASC2250 None None G1 S1 Soledad shoulderband Helminthoglypta traskii pacoimensis IMGASC2472 None None G1G2T1 S1 Pacoima shoulderband Helminthoglypta vasquezi IMGASC2660 None None G1 S1 Vasquez shoulderband Lanius ludovicianus ABPBR01030 None None G4 S4 SSC loggerhead shrike Lasiurus cinereus AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4 hoary bat Lepechinia rossii PDLAMOV060 None None G1 S1 1 B.2 Ross' pitcher sage Lepus californicus bennettii AMAEB03051 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit Mainland Cherry Forest CTT81820CA None None G1 S1.1 Mainland Cherry Forest Navarretia fossa/is PDPLMOCO80 Threatened None G2 S2 1 B.1 spreading navarretia Navarretia seti/oba PDPLMOCOSO None None G2 S2 1 B.1 Piute Mountains navarretia Neotamias speciosus speciosus AMAFB02172 None None G4T3T4 S2 Iodgepole chipmunk Onychomys torridus ramona AMAFF06022 None None G5T3 S3 SSC southern grasshopper mouse Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada PDCACOD053 None None G5T3 S3 1 B.2 short -joint beavertail Orcuttia californica PMPOA4G010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 California Orcutt grass Perognathus alticola inexpectatus AMAFD01082 None None G2T1T2 S1S2 SSC Tehachapi pocket mouse Phrynosoma blainvillii ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC coast horned lizard Polioptila californica californica ABPBJ08081 Threatened None G4G5T3Q S2 SSC coastal California gnatcatcher Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum PDAST44000 None None G4 S2 2B.2 white rabbit -tobacco Commercial Version -- Dated February, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, February 12, 2024 Information Expires 8/2/2024 }lI r,,, Selected Elements by Scientific Name arm California Department of Fish and Wildlife f.. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Rana boylii pop. 6 AAABH01056 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1 foothill yellow -legged frog - south coast DPS Rana draytonii AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC California red -legged frog Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub CTT32720CA None None G1 S1.1 Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Senecio aphanactis PDAST81­1060 None None G3 S2 2B.2 chaparral ragwort Sidalcea neomexicana PDMAL110JO None None G4 S2 2B.2 salt spring checkerbloom Southern California Threespine Stickleback Stream CARE2320CA None None GNR SNR Southern California Threespine Stickleback Stream Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest CTT61310CA None None G4 S4 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest CTT61330CA None None G3 S3.2 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Southern Mixed Riparian Forest CTT61340CA None None G2 S2.1 Southern Mixed Riparian Forest Southern Riparian Forest CTT61300CA None None G4 S4 Southern Riparian Forest Southern Riparian Scrub CTT63300CA None None G3 S3.2 Southern Riparian Scrub Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland CTT62400CA None None G4 S4 Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub CTT63320CA None None G3 S2.1 Southern Willow Scrub Spea hammondii AAABF02020 Proposed None G2G3 S3S4 SSC western spadefoot Threatened Streptanthus campestris PDBRA2GOBO None None G3 S3 1 B.3 southern jewelflower Symphyotrichum greatae PDASTE80UO None None G2 S2 1 B.3 Greata's aster Taxidea taxus AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC American badger Thamnophis hammondii ARADB36160 None None G4 S3S4 SSC two -striped gartersnake Valley Need/egrass Grassland CTT42110CA None None G3 S3.1 Valley Needlegrass Grassland Valley Oak Woodland CTT71130CA None None G3 S2.1 Valley Oak Woodland Vireo bellii pusillus ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 least Bell's vireo Commercial Version -- Dated February, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, February 12, 2024 Information Expires 8/2/2024 Selected Elements by Scientific Name arm California Department of Fish and Wildlife f.. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Wildflower Field CTT42300CA None None G2 S2.2 1 VArefl .Crm=2 51 Record Count: 82 Commercial Version -- Dated February, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Monday, February 12, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Information Expires 8/2/2024 4/1/24, 10:56 AM CNPS Rare Plant Inventory I Search Results CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY CNPS Rare Plant Inventory Search Results 41 matches found. Click on scientific name for details Search Criteria: Quad is one of[3411855:3411845:3411844:3411843:3411853:3411865:3411864:3411863:3411854] CA RARE ♦ SCIENTIFIC COMMON BLOOMING FED STATE GLOBAL STATE PLANT CA DATE NAME NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM PERIOD LIST LIST RANK RANK RANK ENDEMIC ADDED PHOTO Androsace California Primulaceae annual herb Mar -Jun None None G5? S3S4 4.2 1994- efonaata ssp. androsace T3T4 01-01 acuta © 2008 Aaron Schusteff Berberisnevinii Nevin's Berberidaceae perennial (Feb)Mar- FE CE G1 S1 113.1 Yes 1980 barberry evergreen Jun 01-01 No Photo shrub Available Cafochortus Catalina Liliaceae perennial (Feb)Mar- None None G3G4 S3S4 4.2 Yes 1974- catafinae mariposa lily bulbiferous Jun 01-01 No Photo herb Available Cafochortus Pleasant Valley Liliaceae perennial May -Jul None None G4T2 S2 113.2 Yes 1980- cfavatusvar. avius mariposa -lily bulbiferous 01-01 No Photo herb Available Cafochortus club -haired Liliaceae perennial (Mar)May- None None G4T3 S3 4.3 Yes 1974- cfavatusvar. mariposa lily bulbiferous Jun 01-01 No Photo clavatus herb Available Cafochortus slender Liliaceae perennial Mar- None None G4T2T3 S2S3 113.2 Yes 1994- cfavatusvar. mariposa -lily bulbiferous Jun(Nov) 01-01 No Photo gracifis herb Available Cafochortus Palmer's Liliaceae perennial Apr -Jul None None G3T2 S2 113.2 Yes 1994- 12aImeri var. mariposa -lily bulbiferous 01-01 No Photo pafineri herb Available Cafochortus Plummer's Liliaceae perennial May -Jul None None G4 S4 4.2 Yes 1994 pfummerae mariposa -lily bulbiferous 01-01 No Photo herb Available Cafystegia Peirson's Convolvulaceae perennial Apr -Jun None None G4 S4 4.2 Yes 1974- peirsonit morning-glory rhizomatous 01-01 No Photo herb Available Cercocarpus island Rosaceae perennial Feb -May None None G5T4 S4 4.3 Yes 1974- betufoidesvar. mountain- evergreen 01-01 No Photo bfancheae mahogany shrub Available https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1 &quad=3411855:3411845:3411844:3411843:3411853:3411865: 3411864:3411863:3411854:&elev=:m:o 1 /4 4/1/24, 10:56 AM CNPS Rare Plant Inventory I Search Results Chorizantheparry_i San Fernando Polygonaceae annual herb Apr -Jul None CE G2T1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974- var. fgmanding Valley 01-01 No Photo spineflower Available Chorizantheparry_i Parry's Polygonaceae annual herb Apr -Jun None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1994- var• parry_i spineflower 01-01 F` © 2012 Keir Morse Cryptantho clokey_i Clokey's Boraginaceae annual herb Apr None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1994- cryptantha 01-01 No Photo Available Deinandra paniculate Asteraceae annual herb (Mar)Apr- None None G4 S4 4.2 2001 paniculata tarplant Nov 01-01 No Photo Available Delphinium parry Mt. Pinos Ranunculaceae perennial May -Jun None None G4T4 S4 4.3 Yes 1974- ssp_purpureum larkspur herb 01-01 No Photo Available Dodecohema slender- Polygonaceae annual herb Apr -Jun FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1980 leptoceras horned 01-01 No Photo spineflower Available Gilia latiflora ssp. Cuyama gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr Jun None None G5?T4 S4 4.3 Yes 1974 -.. cuyamensis 01-01 © 2012 Michael Charters Harpaaonella Palmer's Boraginaceae annual herb Mar -May None None G4 S3 4.2 1980- palmeri grapplinghook 01-01 © 2015 Keir Morse Helianthus Newhall Asteraceae perennial Aug -Oct None None G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 2010 inexpectatus sunflower rhizomatous 08-16 herb © 2012 Anuja Parikh and Nathan Gale Hordeum vernal barley Poaceae annual herb Mar -Jun None None G3G4 S3S4 3.2 1994- intercedens 01-01 No Photo Available Hulsea vestita ssp. San Gabriel Asteraceae perennial May -Jul None None G5T3 S3 4.3 Yes 1994- �. gabrielensis Mountains herb 01-01 sunflower © 2013 Anuja Parikh and Nathan Gale https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1 &quad=3411855:3411845:3411844:3411843:3411853:3411865: 3411864:3411863:3411854:&elev=:m:o 2/4 4/1/24, 10:56 AM CNPS Rare Plant Inventory I Search Results lugfans calif ornica Southern Juglandaceae perennial Mar -Aug None None G4 S4 4.2 Yes 1994- California deciduous 01-01 black walnut tree © 2020 Zoya Akulova luncus acutus ssp. southwestern Juncaceae perennial (Mar)May- None None G5T5 S4 4.2 1988- feopofdit spiny rush rhizomatous Jun 01-01 herb © 2019 Belinda Lo Lepechinia fragrant Lamiaceae perennial Mar -Oct None None G3 S3 4.2 Yes 1974- fragrans pitcher sage shrub 01-01 © 2014 Debra L. Cook Lepechinia rossii Ross' pitcher Lamiaceae perennial May -Sep None None G1 S1 113.2 Yes 2006- sage shrub 10-26 No Photo Available Lifium humbofdtii ocellated Liliaceae perennial Mar- None None G4T4? S4? 4.2 Yes 1980- ssp. oceffatum Humboldt lily bulbiferous Jul(Aug) 01-01 herb © 2008 Thomas Stoughton Lupinus efatus silky lupine Fabaceae perennial Jun -Aug None None G4 S4 4.3 Yes 1974- herb 01-01 No Photo Available Monardeffaexifis Mojave Lamiaceae annual herb Apr -Sep None None G3? S3 4.2 2022- monardella 08-04 No Photo Available Navarretia fossafis spreading Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr -Jun FT None G2 S2 113.1 1980- navarretia 01-01 No Photo Available Navarretiasetifoba Piute Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr -Jul None None G2 S2 113.1 Yes 1974 Mountains 01-01 No Photo navarretia Available Opuntia basifaris short -joint Cactaceae perennial Apr- None None G5T3 S3 113.2 Yes 1980- var. brachycfada beavertail stem Jun(Aug) 01-01 No Photo Available Orcuttia cafifornica California Poaceae annual herb Apr -Aug FE CE G1 S1 113.1 1974 Orcutt grass 01-01 No Photo Available Perideridia pringfei adobe yampah Apiaceae perennial Apr- None None G4 S4 4.3 Yes 1974- herb Jun(Jul) 01-01 No Photo Available Phacefia Mojave Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Apr -Aug None None G4Q S4 4.3 Yes 1994- mohavensis phacelia 01-01 No Photo Available Pseudognaphafium white rabbit- Asteraceae perennial (Jul)Aug- None None G4 S2 213.2 2006- feucocephafum tobacco herb Nov(Dec) 11-03 No Photo Available https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1 &quad=3411855:3411845:3411844:3411843:3411853:3411865: 3411864:3411863:3411854:&elev=:m:o 3/4 4/1/24, 10:56 AM Quercus durata San Gabriel Fagaceae var• aabriefensis oak Senecio aphanactis chaparral Asteraceae ragwort Sidafcea salt spring Malvaceae neomexicana checkerbloom Streptanthus southern campestrts jewelflower CNPS Rare Plant Inventory I Search Results perennial Apr -May None None G4T3 S3 4.2 Yes 2001- evergreen 01-01 No Photo shrub Available annual herb Jan- None None G3 S2 213.2 1994- Apr(May) 01-01 No Photo Available perennial Mar -Jun None None G4 S2 213.2 1994- herb 01-01 No Photo Available Brassicaceae perennial (Apr)May- None None G3 S3 1B.3 1994- herb Jul 01-01 No Photo Available Symphyotrichum Greata'saster Asteraceae perennial Jun -Oct None None G2 S2 1B.3 Yes 1974- greatae rh izom atou s 01-01 herb 12-13 No Photo Available Showing 1 to 41 of 41 entries Suggested Citation: California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2024. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://w\hw.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 1 April 2024]. https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&sl=1 &quad=3411855:3411845:3411844:3411843:3411853:3411865: 3411864:3411863:3411854:&elev=:m:o 4/4 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Los Angeles County, California ko/ Local office Ventura Fish And Wildlife Office t. (805) 644-1766 JEJ (805) 644-3958 u FW8VenturaSection7(@FWS.Gov https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 1/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, CA 93003-7726 https://www.fws.gov/Ventu ra 1 https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 2/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. <Z, For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed speciesi and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 3/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Birds NAME STATUS California Condor Gymnogyps californianus Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178 Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749 Threatened 8 Endangered Endangered Yellow -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Amphibians NAME STATUS https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 4/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources Arroyo (=arroyo Southwestern) Toad Anaxyrus californicus Endangered Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3762 California Red -legged Frog Rana draytonii Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 Fishes NAME Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Threatened STATUS Endangered Wherever found IL No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7002 Insects NAME Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/�Species/9743 Crustaceans NAME Riverside Fairy Shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8148 STATUS Candidate STATUS Endangered https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 5/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS California Orcutt Grass Orcuttia californica Endangered Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4923 Gambel's Watercress Rorippa gambellii Endangered Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4201 Marsh Sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/22-)9 Nevin's Barberry Berberis nevinii Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8025 IN Slender -horned Spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4007 Spreading Navarretia Navarretia fossalis Wherever found There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1334 Endangered Endangered Threatened https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 6/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species. Bald &Golden Eagles There are no documented cases of eagles being present at this location. However, if you believe eagles may be using your site, please reach out to the local Fish and Wildlife Service office. Additional information can be found using the following links: • Eagle Management https://www.fws.gQv//program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf • Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 7/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN),. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions. Migratory birds 440000 Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats' should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: • Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov//program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf • Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 8/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637 4v Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15 beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8 Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA California Gull Larus californicus Breeds Mar 1 to jul 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum Breeds Jan 1 to jul 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 9/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei IPaC: Explore Location resources Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464 Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410 Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656 Wrentit Chamaea fasciata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20 Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 N range in the continental USA and Alaska. Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence( ) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 10/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort ( ) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data ( ) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe oil� \ Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data SPECIES ]AN FEB MAR APR MAY 1UN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Belding's Savannah Sparrow BCC - BCR Bullock's Oriole ++_+ —++_ ++1+ 4-14-1 +14----'—'--- ---+ — — — — —'+— — — — — --++ BCC - BCR California Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 11/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM California Thrasher BCC Rangewide (CON) Lawrence's Goldfinch BCC Rangewide (CON) N uttall's Woodpecker BCC - BCR IPaC: Explore Location resources 1 -A- , • -- I--+ -----��-1-111111 1 h—+ —++— 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1- -- I— I F+ ---- — 4-- — — — — --++ Oak Titmouse —— BCC Rangewide (CON) 111111111/ • • I .-III _11-1--- -111 Wrentit BCC Rangewide (CON) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of SuI �.iC�y!, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 12/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non -BCC -Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 13/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. V44\*Y There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no fish hatcheries at this location. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 14/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: RIVERINE R4SBA R45BC A full description for each wetland code can be found at the ational Wetlands Inventor, website Vol NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on -site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below. ',# kData limitations 1k The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 15/16 2/12/24, 1:04 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. lu https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VVZ2KHXZTRE3FJQ2C2TUP65JDQ/resources 16/16 APPENDIX C USFWS NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventor February 12, 2024 Blue Cloud Bike Park Wetlands Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake ❑ Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other F--' Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine r.7 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper APPENDIX D SPECIES OBSERVED LIST Appendix D —Species Observed List Table D-1: Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Special -Status Rank** Reptiles Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Birds Aeronautes saxatalis white -throated swift Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Cathartes aura turkey vulture Chamaea fasciata wrentit Colaptes auratus northern flicker Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Falco sparverius American kestrel Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Melospiza melodia song sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Phainopepla nitens phainopepla Spinus lawrencei** Lawrence's goldfinch BCC Spin us psaltria lesser goldfinch Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Troglodytes aedon house wren Zonotrichia leucophrys white -crowned sparrow Mammals Canis latrans coyote Lynx rufus bobcat Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher Invertebrates Apis mellifera* honeybee Eleodes osculans darkling beetle Cicada sp. cicada * Non-native species ** Special -Status Rank U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BCC Bird of Conservation Concern — migratory and non -migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent highest conservation priorities. The list is based on an assessment of several factors, including population abundance and trends, threats on breeding and Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project D-1 Biological Resources Techical Report Appendix D —Species Observed List nonbreeding grounds and size of breeding and nonbreeding ranges. Bird species considered for the BCC include: nongame birds gamebirds without hunting seasons subsistence -hunted nongame birds in Alaska ESA candidate, proposed, and recently delisted species Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project D-2 Biological Resources Techical Report Appendix D —Species Observed List Table D-2: Plant Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Cal-IPC Rank** Special -Status Rank*** Acmispon glaber deerweed Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck Astragalus trichopodus Santa Barbara milk vetch Artemisia californica coastal sage brush Atriplex canescens fourwing saltbush Bromus rubens* red brome High Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Moderate Elymus condensatus giant wild rye Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Erodium botrys* big heron bill Gutierrezia californica California matchweed Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Hirschfeldia incana* short -podded mustard Moderate Lonicera subspicata southern honeysuckle Malva parviflora* chesseweed Opuntia sp. cactus sp. Phoradendron leucarpum American mistletoe Quercus john-tuckeri Tucker's oak Salvia apiana white sage Salvia mellifera black sage Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry Schinus molle* Peruvian peppertree Limited Sisymbrium Trio* London rocket Moderate Sonchus asper* prickly sowthistle Stipa lepida foothill needle grass Non-native species ** California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Ratings High These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically. Moderate These species have substantial and apparent —but generally not severe —ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread. Limited These species are invasive, but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project D-3 Biological Resources Techical Report APPENDIX E POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL -STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Accipitercooperii WL Yearlong resident of California. Generally, No Not Expected: Suitable Cooper's hawk G5 found in forested areas up to 3,000 feet foraging and nesting S4 above mean sea level (amsl) in elevation, habitats preferred by this especially near edges and rivers. Prefers species are not present hardwood stands and mature forests, but within the project site. can be found in urban and suburban areas where there are tall trees (25 to 50 feet high) for nesting. Prefers pines, oaks, Douglas -firs, beeches, spruces for nesting. Common in open areas during nesting season. Agelaius tricolor FT Range is limited to the coastal areas of the No Not Expected: Suitable tricolored blackbird SSC Pacific coast of North America, from foraging and nesting G1G2 Northern California to upper Baja habitats preferred by this S2 California. Can be found in a wide variety of species are not present habitat including annual grasslands, wet within the project site. and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands, agricultural fields, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Occasionally forage in riparian scrub habitats along marsh borders. Basic habitat requirements for breeding include open accessible water, protected nesting substrate freshwater marsh dominated by cattails (Typha spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), and either flooded or thorny/spiny vegetation and suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey. Aimophilaruficeps WL Yearlong resident that is typically found No High: Suitable foraging and canescens G5T3 between 3,000 and 6,000 feet amsl. Breed nesting habitat is present southern California rufous- S4 in sparsely vegetated scrubland on hillsides within the project site. In crowned sparrow and canyons. Prefers coastal sage scrub addition, the closest extant dominated by California sagebrush occurrence (CNDDB; Occ. (Artemisia californica), but they can also be 178) is roughly 0.6 mile east found breeding in coastal bluff scrub, low- of the project site. growing serpentine chaparral, and along the edges of tall chaparral habitats. Ammodramussavannarum SSC Yearlong resident along the coast of No Low: Marginally suitable grasshopper sparrow G5 southern California. Occurs in grassland, foraging and nesting S3 upland meadow, pasture, hayfield, and old habitats preferred by this field habitats. Optimal habitat contains species are present within short- to medium -height bunch grasses the project site. interspersed with patches of bare ground, a shallow litter layer, scattered (orbs, and few shrubs. May inhabit thickets, weedy lawns, vegetated landfills, fence rows, open fields, or grasslands. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-1 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Anaxyruscalifornicus FE Occurs in semi -arid regions near washes or No Not Expected: Suitable arroyo toad SSC intermittent streams, including valley- habitats preferred by this G2G3 foothill grasslands, desert riparian, desert species are not present S2 washes, and oak woodlands. Breeding within the project site. habitat consists of shallow streams with a mixture of sandy and gravelly substrate and sandy terraces. Generally, requires mulefat (Baccharissalicifolia) and willow (Salix spp.) in the streambed for vegetative canopy for breeding areas and forages for insects primarily under oak (Quercus spp.), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees. Occurs at elevations from near sea level to about 4,600 feet amsl. Anniella pulchra SSC Occurs from the southern edge of the San No Not Expected: Suitable Northern California legless G3 Joaquin River in northern Contra Costa foraging and nesting lizard S2S3 County south to the Ventura County, south habitats preferred by this of which there is a wide area where the species are not present species of Anniella is or are unknown. within the project site. Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant Additionally, the project is cover. Moisture is essential. Occurs in located outside the known sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, range for this species. chaparral, pine -oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with California sycamores (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), or oaks (Quercus spp.). Leaf litter undertrees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine (Lupinus sp.) and mock heather (Ericameria ericoides) often indicate suitable habitat. Often can be found under surface objects such as rocks, boards, driftwood, and logs. Can also be found by gently raking leaf litter under bushes and trees. Sometimes found in suburban gardens in southern California. Anniella pulchra SSC Resemble small snakes. Rarely found No Low: Suitable soils and California legless lizard G3G4 crawling in the open, except at night. preferred bythis species are S3S4 Typically found under objects or leaves, not present within the often in gardens in southern California. Not project site. commonly seen. Antrozous pallidus SSC Locally common species locally common in No Not Expected: Although pallid bat G4 the Great Basin, Mojave, and Sonoran suitable habitat is present S3 deserts (specifically Sonoran life zone) and within the project site, grasslands throughout the western U.S. there are no recent extant Also occurs in shrublands, woodlands, and occurrences within 5 miles forests from sea level to 8,000 ft amsl. of the project site. Prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices for roosting with access to open habitats for foraging. May also roost in caves, mines, bridges, barns, porches, and bat boxes, and even on the ground under burlap sacks, stone piles, rags, baseboards, and rocks. Arizona elegans SSC Inhabits and scrub, rocky washes, No Low: Suitable soils occidentalis G5T2 grasslands, and chaparral habitats. Appears preferred by this species are California glossy snake S2 to prefer microhabitats of open areas and not present within the areas with soil loose enough for easy project site. burrowing. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-2 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Artemisiospizabellibelli WL This species has a wide, but sparse No High: Suitable foraging and Bell's sparrow G5T2T3 distribution in western Riverside County, nesting habitats preferred S3 specifically within the "Riverside lowlands, by this species are present San Jacinto Foothills, Santa Ana Mountains, within the project site. In and Desert Transition Bioregions. Yearlong addition, the nearest extant resident on the coastal side of southern occurrence (CNDDB; Occ. California mountains. Breeds in coastal 57) is roughly 0.6 mile east sage scrub and chaparral habitats from of the project site. February to August. They require semi - open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs oneto two meters high. Occurs in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). Aspidoscelis tigris SSC This subspecies is found in coastal southern No High: Suitable habitat is stejnegeri G5T5 California, mostly west of the Peninsular located within the project coastal whiptail S3 Ranges and south of the Transverse site, and there are known Ranges, and north into Ventura County. occurrences within 0.60 Ranges south into Baja California. Found in miles of the project site. a variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse vegetation in chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. Associated with rocky areas with little vegetation or sunny microhabitats within shrub or grassland associations. Athene cunicularia SSC Yearlong resident of California. Primarily a No Not Expected: Marginally burrowing owl G4 grassland species, but it persists and even suitable habitat is located S2 thrives in some landscapes highly altered within the project, however by human activity. Occurs in open, annual due to frequent or perennial grasslands, deserts, and anthropogenic scrublands characterized by low -growing disturbances, the species is vegetation. The overriding characteristics not expected. of suitable habitat appear to be burrows for roosting and nesting and relatively short vegetation with only sparse shrubs and taller vegetation. Bombus crotchii SCE Found from coastal California east to the No Low: Marginally suitable Crotch's bumble bee G2 Sierra -Cascade crest and south into foraging habitat available S2 Mexico. Primarily occurs in California, on site, additionally there including the Mediterranean region, Pacific are no occurrences within 3 coast, western desert, great valley, and miles of the project site. adjacent foothills through most of southwestern California. Has also been recorded in Baja California, Baja California Sur, and in southwest Nevada. Inhabits open grassland and scrub habitats. Primarily nests underground. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. Branchinectalynchi FT Endemic to California and only found in No Not Expected: Suitable vernal pool fairy shrimp G3 vernal pools. Vernal pool habitats form in vernal pool habitat S3 depressions above an impervious substrate preferred bythis species are layer, or claypan/duripan. This species does not present within the not occur in riverine, marine, or other project site. permanent bodies of water. When the temporary pools dry, offspring persist in suspended development as desiccation - resistant embryos (commonly called cysts) in the pool substrate until the return of winter rains and appropriate temperatures allow some of the cysts to hatch. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-3 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Buteo regalis WL Endemic to California and only found in No Not Expected: Suitable ferruginous hawk G4 vernal pools. Vernal pool habitats form in habitat is not present within S3S4 depressions above an impervious substrate the project site. layer, or claypan/duripan. This species does not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water. When the temporary pools dry, offspring persist in suspended development as desiccation - resistant embryos (commonly called cysts) in the pool substrate until the return of winter rains and appropriate temperatures allow some of the cysts to hatch. Buteo swainsoni ST Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or No Low (foraging): Potential to Swainson's hawk G5 cropland containing scattered, large trees occur within the site as a S4 or small groves. Breeds in stands with few transient during migration. trees in juniper -sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah in the Central Valley. Forages in adjacent grassland or suitable grain or alfalfa fields or livestock pastures. Catostomussantaanae FT Occur in the watersheds draining the San No Not Expected: Suitable Santa Ana sucker G1 Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of habitat preferred by this S1 southern California. Streams that Santa species are not present Ana Sucker inhabit are generally perennial within the project site. streams with water ranging in depth from a few inches to several feet and with currents ranging from slight to swift. Charadriusmontanus SSC Uncommon winter resident in southern No Not Expected: Suitable mountain plover G3 California, primarily from September to foraging and nesting S2 mid -March, with peak numbers from habitats preferred by this December through February. At all species are not present seasons, mountain plovers are strongly within the project site. associated with short -grass prairie habitats, or their equivalents, that are flat and nearly devoid of vegetation. Overall, it avoids high and dense cover. Within southern California, the largest numbers occur in grasslands and agricultural areas in the interior. Does not nest in California. Coccyzusamericanus FT Uncommon summer resident where its No Not Expected: Suitable occidentalis SE breeding distribution is restricted to foraging and nesting western yellow -billed G5T2T3 isolated sites in the Sacramento, habitats preferred by this cuckoo S1 Armargosa, Kern, Santa Ana, and Colorado species are not present River valleys. The species requires large within the project site. patches of multi -layered riparian forest, with cottonwoods and willows. The presence of standing or flowing surface water under the riparian canopy is also preferred. Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) groves may also be used, but usually only when cottonwood -willow habitat is unavailable. Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Found throughout California, but the No Low (foraging): Suitable Townsend's big -eared bat G4 details of its distribution area not well roosting habitat preferred S2 known. Now considered uncommon in by the species is not present California. Details of its distribution are not within the project site. well known. This species is found in all but subalpine and alpine habitats and may be found at any season throughout its range. Most abundant in mesic habitats. Requires caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human -made structures for roosting. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-4 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Danaus plexippus FCE Winter roost sites extend along the coast No Not Expected: Suitable Monarch butterfly G4T1T2Q from northern Mendocino to Baja habitat preferred by this S2 California, Mexico. Roosts are located in species is not present wind -protected tree groves (eucalyptus, within the project site Monterey pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Elanus leucurus FP Yearlong resident along the coastal ranges No Low (foraging): Suitable white-tailed kite G5 and valleys of California. Occurs in low nesting habitats preferred S3S4 elevation, open grasslands, savannah -like by this species are not habitats, agricultural areas, wetlands, and present within the project oak woodlands. Uses trees with dense site. canopies for cover. Important prey item is the California vole (Microtus californicus). Nests in tall (20 to 50 feet) coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Empidonaxtraiffliextimus Uncommon summer resident in southern No Not Expected: Suitable southwestern willow FE California primarily found in lower foraging and nesting flycatcher SE elevation riparian habitats occurring along habitats preferred by this G5T2 streams or in meadows. The structure of species are not present S3 suitable breeding habitat typically consists within the project site. of a dense mid -story and understory and can also include a dense canopy. Nest sites are generally located near surface water or saturated soils. The presence of surface water, swampy conditions, standing or flowing water under the riparian canopy are preferred. Emysmarmorata FPT Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, No Not Expected: Suitable western pond turtle SSC creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, habitat preferred by this G3G4 with abundant vegetation, either rocky or species is not present S3 muddy bottoms, in woodland, forest, and within the project site. grassland. In streams, prefers pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are required for basking. May enter brackish water and even seawater. Found at elevations from sea level to over 5,900 feet amsl. Eremophila alpestris actia WL Yearlong resident of California. This No Not Expected: Suitable California horned lark G5T4Q subspecies is typically found in coastal foraging and nesting S4 regions. Breed in level or gently sloping habitats preferred by this shortgrass prairie, montane meadows, species are not present "bald" hills, open coastal plains, fallow within the project site. grain fields, and alkali flats. Within southern California, California horned larks breed primarily in open fields, (short) grasslands, and rangelands. Nests on the open ground. Euderma maculatum SSC Found in a small number of localities, No Low: Marginally suitable spotted bat G4 mostly in the foothills, mountains, and foraging habitat preferred S3 desert regions of southern California. by the species present Preferred habitats include and deserts, within the project site grasslands and mixed conifer forests from sea level to 10,000 feet amsl. Forages over water and near the ground. Roosts in rock crevices on cliffs, occasionally found in caves and buildings. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-5 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Euphydryas editha quino FE Occupies a variety of habitat types that No Not Expected: Although quino checkerspot butterfly G4G5T1T2 support California plantain (Plantago marginally suitable foraging S1S2 erecta), the species primary larval host habitat preferred by the plant, including grasslands, coastal sage species present within the scrub, chamise chaparral, red shank project site, today, the chaparral, juniper woodland, and semi- Quino checkerspot desert scrub. Can also be found in desert butterfly is only known from canyons and washes at the lower edge of western Riverside County, chaparral habitats. southern San Diego County, and northern Baja California, Mexico. Falcomexicanus WL The prairie falcon is associated primarily No Not Expected: Suitable prairie falcon G5 with perennial grasslands, savannahs, foraging and nesting S4 rangeland, some agricultural fields during habitats preferred by this the winter season, and desert scrub areas, species are not present all typically dry environments of western within the project site. North American where there are cliffs or bluffs for nest sites. The species requires sheltered cliff ledges for cover and nesting which may range in height from low rock outcrops of 30 feet to vertical, 400 feet high (or more) cliffs and typically overlook some treeless country for hunting. Open terrain is used for foraging. Gasterosteus aculeatus FE Small, scale less freshwater fish of up to 2 No Not Expected: Suitable williamsoni SE inches in length inhabiting slow -moving habitat preferred by this unarmored threespine FP reaches or quiet -water microhabitats in species is not present stickleback G5T1 streams and rivers. Restricted to three within the project site. S1 areas: the upper Santa Clara River and its tributaries in Los Angeles County, San Antonio Creek on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County, and the Shay Creek vicinity (Shay Pond, Sugarloaf Pond, Juniper Springs, Motorcycle Pond, Shay Creek, Wiebe Pond, and Baldwin Lake) in San Bernardino County. Favorable habitats are shaded by dense and abundant vegetation. In open reaches, algal mats or barriers (e.g. sand bars, floating vegetation, low -flow road crossings) provide refuge. Gila orcuttii SSC Warm streams of the Los Angeles Plain, No Not Expected: Suitable arroyo chub G2 which are typically muddy torrents during habitat preferred by the S2 the winter, and clear quiet brooks in the species is not present summer, possibly drying up in places. They within the project site are found both in slow -moving and fast- moving sections, but generally deeper than 16 inches. Gymnogyps californianus FE Current distribution of California condor is No Not Expected: Suitable California condor SE considered to be all of the Los Padres foraging and nesting FP National Forest and western half of the habitats preferred by this G1 Angeles National Forest (USDA Forest species are not present S1 Service 2000), with some occasionally within the project site. found in the Sequoia National Forest. Nest sites are typically located in chaparral, conifer forest, or oak woodland habitats. Nest sites are in cliff caves in the mountains. Some have nested in large cavities within sequoias (Sequoiadendron giganteum). Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-6 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Haliaeetus leucocephalus SE Locally common yearlong resident of No Not Expected: Suitable bald eagle FP southern California. Typically prefer areas foraging and nesting G5 near large water bodies such as sea coasts, habitats preferred by this S3 coastal estuaries and inland lakes and species are not present rivers, in many areas, these birds are found within the project site. within two miles of a water source. Most populations, specifically those in northern regions, migrate to southern, milder climates annually. Generally, these birds nest in the canopy of tall, coniferous trees, surrounded by smaller trees. They have been reported nesting on the ground, on cliffs, on cellular phone towers, on electrical poles and in artificial nesting towers. Laniusludovicianus SSC Yearlong resident of California. Prefers No Not Expected: Suitable loggerhead shrike G4 open habitats with bare ground, scattered foraging and nesting S4 shrubs, and areas with low or sparse habitats preferred by this herbaceous cover including open -canopied species are not present valley foothill hardwood, riparian, pinyon- within the project site. juniper desert riparian, creosote bush scrub, and Joshua tree woodland. Requires suitable perches including trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Nests in branches up to 14 feet above the ground frequently in a shrub with thorns or with tangled branching habitats. Onychomys torridus SSC Common in and desert habitats of the No Not Expected: Suitable ramona G5T3 Mojave and southern Central Valley of habitat preferred by the southern grasshopper S3 California. Known elevation range is species is not present mouse generally below 3,000 feet amsl. Little is within the project site. known about habitat requirements; however, it is commonly found in scrub habitats with friable soils for digging in desert areas. It is believed that alkali desert scrub and desert scrub habitats are preferred, with somewhat lower densities expected in other desert habitats, including succulent shrub, wash, and riparian areas. Also occurs in coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, low sage, and bitterbrush habitats. Perognathusalticola SSC Found in and annual grassland and desert No Not Expected: Suitable inexpectatus G2T1T2 shrub communities, but also in fallow grain habitat preferred by the Tehachapi pocket mouse S1S2 fields and within Russian thistle. This small species is not present mammal burrows for cover and nesting and within the project site. aestivates and hibernates during extreme weather. Forages on open ground and under shrubs. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-7 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types No Moderate: Suitable habitat coast horned lizard G4 including coastal sage scrub, annual is located within the project S4 grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, site, and there are known riparian woodland and coniferous forest. occurrences within 3 miles Its elevational range extends up to 4,000 of the project site. feet in the Sierra Nevada foothills and up to 6,000 feet in the mountains of southern California. In inland areas, this species is restricted to areas with pockets of open microhabitat, created by disturbance (e.g. fire, floods, unimproved roads, grazing lands, and fire breaks). The key elements of such habitats are loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction; an abundance of native ants or other insects; and open areas with limited overstory for basking and low, but relatively dense shrubs for refuge. Polioptilacalifornica FT Yearlong resident of sage scrub habitats No Not Expected: Suitable coastal California SSC that are dominated by California foraging and nesting gnatcatcher G4G5T3Q sagebrush. This species generally occurs habitats preferred by this S2 below 750 feet amsl in coastal regions and species are not present below 1,500 feet amsl inland. Ranges from within the project site. Ventura County, south to San Diego County and northern Baja California and it is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Prefers habitat with more low -growing vegetation. Rana boylii pop. 6 FT Isolated populations are also known from No Not Expected: Suitable foothill yellow -legged frog — ST the mountains of Los Angeles County. habitat preferred by the south coast DPS G3T1 Occur in streams flowing through a variety species is not present S1 of vegetation types, including valley- within the project site foothill hardwood, valley -foothill hardwood -conifer, valley -foothill riparian, yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa), mixed conifer, mixed chaparral, and wet meadows. Rarely occur in areas with greater than 90% canopy closure. Breeding and rearing habitat is generally located in gently flowing, low -gradient stream sections with variable substrates predominated by cobble and boulder. Rana draytonii FT The species historically occurred in the San No Not Expected: Suitable California red -legged frog SSC Gabriel Wilderness Area of the Angeles habitat preferred by the G2G3 National Forest; there were no post-1970 species is not present S2S3 observations in this area or nearby parts of within the project site the Angeles National Forest. In 1999, a population (estimated between 15 and 25 adults) was located on the Angeles National Forest in the San Francisquito drainage. Breeding sites are in a variety of aquatic habitats including streams, deep pools, backwaters within streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, dune ponds, lagoons, and artificial impoundments (i.e., stock ponds). Breeding adults are often associated with deep (greater than 2 feet) still or slow -moving water and dense shrubby riparian or emergent vegetation. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-8 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Spea hammondii SSC Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly No Low: Marginally suitable western spadefoot FPT soils, in a variety of habitats including habitat is located within the G2G3 mixed woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage project site, and there are S3S4 scrub, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, known occurrences within river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali 2.3 miles of the project flats, foothills, and mountains. Rain pools site. which do not contain American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), predatory fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding. Estivates in upland habitats adjacent to potential breeding sites in burrows approximating 3 feet in depth. Spinus lawrencei BCC Nests in open oak or other and woodland Yes Present: This species was Lawrence's goldfinch G3G4 and chaparral, near water. Nearby observed on -site during the S4 herbaceous habitats are also used for field surveys. feeding. This species can also be found in broadleaved upland forest and pinon and juniper woodlands. This species is closely associated with oaks (Quercus sp.). Streptocephalus woottoni FE Restricted to deep seasonal vernal pools, No Not Expected: Vernal pool Riverside fairy shrimp G1G2 vernal pool like ephemeral ponds, and habitat required by the S1S2 stock ponds and other human modified species is not present depressions. Basins that support Riverside within the project site fairy shrimp are typically dry a portion of the year, but usually are filled by late fall, winter, or spring rains, and may persist through May. Endemic to western Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties in tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub. In Riverside County, the species been found in pools formed over the following soils: Murrieta stony clay foams, Las Posas series, Wyman clay loam, and Willows soils. All known habitat lies within annual grasslands, which may be interspersed through chaparral or coastal sage scrub vegetation. Taxidea taxus SSC Occupies a wide variety of habitats No Not Expected: Due to the American badger G5 including dry, open grassland, sagebrush, highlight disturbed nature S3 and woodland habitats. Require dry, of the project site, this friable, often sandy soil to dig burrows for species is not expected to cover, food storage, and giving birth. occur. Occasionally found in riparian zones and open chaparral with less than 50% plant cover. Thamnophis hammondii SSC Occurs in or near permanent fresh water, No Not Expected: Suitable two -striped garter snake G4 often along streams with rocky beds and habitat preferred by the S3S4 riparian growth up to 7,000 feet amsl. species is not present within the project site Vireo bellii pusillus FE Summer resident in southern California. No Not Expected: Suitable least Bell's vireo SE Breeding habitat generally consists of foraging and nesting G5T2 dense, low, shrubby vegetation in riparian habitats preferred by this S3 areas, and mesquite brushlands, often near species are not present water in and regions. Early successional within the project site. cottonwood -willow riparian groves are preferred for nesting. The most critical structural component of nesting habitat in California is a dense shrub layer that is 2 to 10 feet (0.6 to 3.0 meters) above ground. The presence of water, including ponded surface water or moist soil conditions, may also be a key component for nesting habitat. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-9 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Arenaria paludicola FE Perennial stoloniferous herb. Found on No Not Expected: The project marsh sandwort SE sandy, openings within marshes and site is not within the 113.1 swamps (freshwater or brackish). Found at elevation range for this G1 elevations ranging from 12 to 558 feet species. S1 amsl. Blooming period is from May to August. Androsace elongate ssp. 4.2 Annual herb. Occurs in chaparral, No Not Expected: There are no acuta G5?T3T4 cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, occurrence records within 5 California androsace S3S4 meadows and seeps, pinyon and juniper miles of the project site. woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 492 to 4,281 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to June. Berberisnevinii FE Perennial evergreen shrub. Occurs on No Low: Although suitable Nevin'sbarberry SE sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral, habitat is present within the 113.1 cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and project site, there are no G1 riparian scrub. Found at elevations ranging occurrence records within 3 S1 from 899 to 2,707 feet amsl. Blooming miles of the project site. period is (February) March through June. Calochortus catalinae 4.2 Perennial herb (bulb). Habitats include No Low: Although suitable Catalina mariposa -lily G3G4 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal habitat is present within the S3S4 scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Found project site, there are no at elevations ranging from 49 to 2,297 feet occurrence records within 3 amsl. Blooming period is from February to miles of the project site. June. Calochortus clavatus var. 113.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Occurs in lower No Not Expected: Suitable avius G4T2 montane coniferous forest (Josephine silt habitat preferred by this Pleasant Valley mariposa -lily S2 loam and volcanic). Found at elevations species is not present ranging from 1,000 to 5,906 feet amsl. within the project site. Blooming period is May through July. Calochortus clavatus var. 4.3 Perennial herb (bulb). Occurs on No Moderate: Suitable habitat clavatus G4T3 serpentinite, clay, and rocky soils within is present within the project club -haired mariposa -lily S3 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal site, In addition, there is a scrub, and valley and foothill grassland recent occurrence record habitats. Found at elevations ranging from (Calflora 2024) roughly 1.5 246 to 4,265 feet amsl. Blooming period is miles southeast of the from May to June. project site. Calochortus clavatus var. 113.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Found in No High: Suitable habitat is gracilis G4T2T3 chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and present within the project slender mariposa -lily S2S3 foothill grassland habitats. Found at site, In addition, there is a elevations ranging from 1,050 to 3,280 feet recent occurrence record amsl. Blooming period is March through (CNDDB; Occ. 113) roughly June (November). 0.4 miles southwest of the project site Calochortus palmeri var. 113.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Occurs in mesic No Not Expected: The project palmeri G3T2 soils within chaparral, lower montane site is not within the Palmer's mariposa -lily S2 coniferous forest, and meadows and seeps. elevation range for this Grows in elevations ranging from 2,329 to species. 7,841 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to July. Calochortus plummerae 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Occurs on No Not Expected: Although Plummer's mariposa -lily G4 granitic and rocky soils within chaparral, suitable habitat is present S4 cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower within the project site, montane coniferous forest, and there are no recent extant valley/foothill grassland. Grows in occurrences within 5 miles elevations ranging from 328 to 5,577 feet of the project site. amsl. Blooming period is from May to July. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-10 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Calystegia peirsonii 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Habitats No Not Expected: Although Peirson's morning-glory G4 include chaparral, chenopod scrub, suitable habitat is present S4 cismontane woodland, coastalscrub, lower within the project site, montane coniferous forest, and valley and there are no recent extant foothill grassland. Found at elevations occurrences within 5 miles ranging from 98 to 4,921 feet. Blooming of the project site. period is from April to June. Cercocarpus betuloides var. 4.3 Perennial evergreen shrub. Found in No Low: Although suitable blancheae G5T4 closed -cone coniferous forest and habitat is present within the island mountain -mahogany S4 chaparral habitats. Grows in elevation from project site, the closest 98 to 1,970 feet amsl. Blooming period is extant occurrence (CNPS) is from February to May. roughly 4 miles southeast of the project site. Chorizanthe parryi var. FPT Annual herb. Found in sandy soils within No Not Expected: Suitable fernandina SE coastal scrub habitat and valley and foothill habitat preferred by this San Fernando Valley 1B.1 grassland habitats. Found at elevations species is not present spineflower G2T1 ranging from 492 to 4,003 feet amsl. within the project site. S1 Blooming period is from April to July. Chorizanthe parryi var. 1B.1 Annual herb. Occurs on sandy and/or rocky No Not Expected: Although parryi G3T2 soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and suitable habitat is present Parry's spineflower S2 sandy openings within alluvial washes and within the project site, margins. Found at elevations ranging from there are no recent extant 951 to 3,773 feet amsl. Blooming period is occurrences within 5 miles April through June. of the project site. Cryptanthaclokeyi 1B.2 Annual herb. Occurs in Mojavean desert No Not Expected: The project Clokey's cryptantha G3 scrub. Found at elevations ranging from site is not within the S3 2,379 to 4,478 feet amsl. Blooming month elevation range for this is April. species. Deinandra paniculate 4.2 Annual herb. Occurs in coastal scrub, vernal No Not Expected: Suitable paniculate tarplant G4 pools, and valley/foothill grassland habitat preferred by this S4 habitats. Found at elevations ranging from species is not present 82 to 3,084 feet amsl. Blooming period is within the project site. from April to November. Delphinium parryi ssp. 4.3 Perennial herb. Habitats include chaparral, No Not Expected: The project purpureum G4T4 Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and site is not within the Mt. Pinos larkspur S4 juniper woodland. Found at elevations elevation range for this ranging from 3,281 to 8,530 feet amsl. species. Blooming period is from May to June. Dodecahemaleptoceras FE Annual herb. Occurs on flood deposited No Not Expected: Suitable slender -horned spineflower SE terraces and washes in chaparral, coastal habitat preferred by this 1B.1 scrub, and alluvial fan sage scrub habitats. species is not present G1 Found at elevations ranging from 1,181 to within the project site. S1 2,690 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to June. Gilia latiflora ssp. 4.3 Annual herb. Occurs in sandy flats and river No Not Expected: Suitable cuyamensis G5?T4 valleys in pinyon and juniper woodland. habitat preferred by this Cuyama gilia S4 Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 7500 species is not present feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to within the project site. June. Harpagonella palmeri 4.2 Annual herb. Occurs on clay soils within No Not Expected: Although Palmer's grapplinghook G4 open grassy areas within chaparral, coastal suitable habitat is present S3 scrub, and valley and foothill grassland within the project site, habitats. Found at elevations ranging from there are no recent extant 66 to 3,133 feet amsl. Blooming period is occurrences within 5 miles from March to May. of the project site. Helianthus inexpectatus 1B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs in No Not Expected: Suitable Newhall sunflower G1 freshwater, seeps within marshes and habitat preferred by this S1 swamps and riparian woodland habitats. species is not present This species does not have an elevation within the project site. range. Blooming period is from August to October. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-11 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Hordeumintercedens 3.2 Annual herb. Habitat includes coastal No Not Expected: Suitable vernal barley G3G4 dunes, coastal scrub, vernal pools, and habitat preferred by this S3S4 valley/foothill grassland. Grows in species is not present elevations ranging from 16 to 3,281 feet within the project site. amsl. Blooming period is from March to June. Hulsea vestita ssp. 4.3 Perennial herb. Grows on rocky soils in No Not Expected: The project gabrielensis G5T3 lower montane coniferous forest and site is not within the San Gabriel Mountains S3 upper montane coniferous forest. Found at elevation range for this sunflower elevations ranging from 4,921 to 8,202 feet species. amsl. Blooming period is from May to July. Juglanscalifornica 4.2 Perennial deciduous tree. Found in No Not Expected: Although Southern California black G4 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal suitable habitat is present walnut S4 scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. within the project site, this Found at elevations ranging from 164 to species would have been 2,953 feet amsl. Blooming period is from identified during the field March to August. survey if present. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs within No Not Expected: Suitable southwestern spiny rush G5T5 coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and seeps habitat preferred by this S4 (alkaline seeps), and marshes and swamps species is not present (coastal salt). Found at elevations ranging within the project site. from 9 to 2,955 feet amsl. Blooming period is (March) May through June. Lepechinia fragrans 4.2 Perennial shrub. Occurs in chaparral No Not Expected: Although fragrant pitcher sage G3 habitats. Found at elevations ranging from suitable habitat is present S3 66 to 4,298 feet amsl. Blooming period is within the project site, March through October. there are no recent extant occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. Lepechinia rossii 1B.2 Shrub. Occurs in soil derived from fine- No Not Expected: Although Ross' pitcher sage G1 grained, reddish sedimentary rock in suitable habitat is present S1 chaparral. Found at elevations ranging within the project site, from 0 to 7480 feet amsl. Blooming period there are no recent extant is May through September. occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. Lilium humboldtii ssp. 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Found in No Not Expected: Although ocellatum G4T4? openings within chaparral, cismontane suitable habitat is present ocellated Humboldt lily S4? woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane within the project site, coniferous forest, and riparian woodland there are no recent extant habitats. Found at elevations ranging from occurrences within 5 miles 98 to 5,906 feet amsl. Blooming period is of the project site. from March to August. Lupinus elatus 4.3 Perennial herb. Habitats include lower No Not Expected: The project silky lupine G4 montane coniferous forest and upper site is not within the S4 montane coniferous forest. Found at elevation range for this elevations ranging from 4,921 to 9,842 feet species. amsl. Blooming period is from June to August. Monardella exilis 4.2 Annual herb. Occurs in sandy soils within No Not Expected: The project Mojave monardella G3? desert dunes, Mojavean desert scrub, site is not within the S3 Great Basin scrub, chenopod scrub, pinyon elevation range for this and juniper woodland, Joshua tree species. woodland, and lower montane habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 1970 feet to 7940 feet amsl. Blooms April -September. Nasturtium gambelii FE Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs in No Not Expected: Suitable Gambel's water cress ST marshes and swamps (freshwater or habitat preferred by this 1B.1 brackish) habitats. Found at elevations species is not present G1 ranging from 16 to 1,083 feet amsl. within the project site. S1 Blooming period is from April to October. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-12 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Navarretiafossalis FT Annual herb. Habitats include chenopod No Not Expected: Suitable spreading navarretia 113.1 scrub, marshes and swamps (assorted habitat preferred by this G2 shallow freshwater), playas, and vernal species is not present S2 pools. Grows in elevation ranging from 98 within the project site. to 2,149 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to June. Navarretia setiloba 113.1 Annual herb. Found on clay or gravelly loam No Not Expected: Suitable Piute Mountains navarretia G2 soils within cismontane woodland, pinyon habitat preferred by this S2 and juniper woodland, and valley and species is not present foothill grassland habitats. Found at within the project site. elevations ranging from 935 to 6,890 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to June. Opuntia basilaris var. 113.2 Perennial stem succulent. Grows in No Moderate: Suitable habitat brachyclada G5T3 chaparral, Joshua tree woodland, preferred by this species is short -joint beavertail S3 Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and present within the project juniper woodland habitats. Found at site. In addition, the nearest elevations ranging from 1,394 to 5,906 feet extant occurrence (CNDDB; amsl. Blooming period is from April to June. Occ. 108) is roughly 1.3 miles northwest of the project site. Orcuttia californica FE Annual herb. Restricted to vernal pool No Not Expected: Suitable California Orcutt grass SE habitats. Found at elevations ranging from habitat preferred by this 113.1 49 to 2,165 feet amsl. Blooming period is species is not present G1 from April to August. within the project site. S1 Perideridia pringlei 4.3 Perennial herb. Occurs in serpentine and No Not Expected: Although adobe yampah G4 clay soils within grassland hillsides and suitable habitat is present S4 within seasonally wet sites. Also found in within the project site, chaparral, cismontane woodland, pinyon there are no recent extant and juniper woodland, and coastal scrub. occurrences within 5 miles Found at elevations ranging from 245 feet of the project site. to 7645 feet amsl. Blooms April -June. Phaceliamohavensis 4.3 Annual herb. Occurs on sandy or gravelly No Not Expected: Suitable Mojave phacelia G4Q soils within cismontane woodland, lower habitat preferred by this S4 montane coniferous forest, meadows and species is not present seeps, pinyon and juniper woodland. Found within the project site. at elevations ranging from 4,593 to 8,202 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to August. Pseudognaphalium 213.2 Perennial herb. Found on sandy and No Not Expected: Although leucocephalum G4 gravelly soils within chaparral, cismontane suitable habitat is present white rabbit -tobacco S2 woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian within the project site, woodland habitats. Found at elevations there are no recent extant ranging from 0 to 6,890 feet amsl. occurrences within 5 miles Blooming period is from July to December. of the project site. Quercus durata var. 4.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Habitats No Not Expected: Although gabrielensis G4T3 include chaparral and cismontane suitable habitat is present San Gabriel oak S3 woodland habitats. Found at elevations within the project site, ranging from 1,476 to 3,281 feet amsl. there are no recent extant Blooming period is April through May. occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. Senecio aphanactis 213.2 Annual herb. Grows on alkaline soils within No Not Expected: Although chaparral ragwort G3 chaparral, cismontane woodland, and suitable habitat is present S2 coastal scrub habitats. Found at elevations within the project site, ranging from 49 to 2,625 feet amsl. there are no recent extant Blooming period is from January to April. occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. Sidalceaneomexicana 213.2 Perennial herb. Found on alkaline and No Not Expected: Although salt spring checkerbloom G4 mesic soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, suitable habitat is present S2 lower montane coniferous forest, within the project site, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas. Found there are no recent extant at elevations ranging from 49 to 5,020 feet occurrences within 5 miles amsl. Blooming period is from March to of the project site. June. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-13 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site Stroptanthuscampestris 1B.3 Perennial herb. Occurs in open, rocky areas No Not Expected: The project southern jewelflower G3 within chaparral, lower montane site is not within the S3 coniferous forest, and pinyon and juniper elevation range for this woodland. Found at elevations ranging species. from 1985 to 8500 feet amsl. Blooming period is from May to July. Symphyotrichum greatae 1B.3 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Found on No Not Expected: Although Greata's aster G2 mesic soils within broadleaf upland forest, suitable habitat is present S2 chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower within the project site, montane coniferous forest, and riparian there are no recent extant woodland habitats. Found at elevations occurrences within 5 miles ranging from 984 to 6,594 feet amsl. of the project site. Blooming period is June to October. Yucca brevifolia SCT Tree. Found within mesic canyons in No Not Expected: Suitable western Joshua tree chaparral, cismontane woodland, habitat preferred by this broadleafed upland forest, lower montane species is not present coniferous forest, and riparian woodland. within the project site. Found at elevations ranging from 1000 — 7350 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March through June. SPECIAL -STATUS VEGETATION COMMUNITIES CNDDB/Holland (1986) G2 Found at elevations ranging from 490 to No Absent. This vegetation California Walnut Woodland S2.1 2,952 feet amsl in riparian corridors, but community does not occur most stands cover all hillslopes. Southern within the project site. MCV (1995) California black walnut is dominant or co - California Walnut Series dominant in the tree canopy with white NVCS (2009) alder (Alnus rhombifolia), two petaled ash (Fraxinus dipetala), toyon (Heteromeles luglans californica arbutifolia), coast live oak (Quercus Woodland Alliance agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), polished willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), black elderberry (Sambucus nigra), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Trees are less than 50 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is sparse to intermittent. Herbaceous layer is sparse or grassy. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-14 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special -Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On -site Potential to Occur CNDDB/Holland (1986) G1 Found at elevations ranging from 164 to No Absent. This vegetation Mainland Cherry Forest S1.1 4,265 feet amsl on slopes that are often community does not occur steep and north -facing. Soils are derived within the project site. MCV (1995) from bedrock or colluvium. Redheart Hollyleaf Cherry Stands (Ceanothus spinosus), toyon, hollyleaf NVCS (2009) cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), is dominant or co- Heteromeles arbutifolia dominant in the shrub canopy with Shrubland Alliance, Prunus California sagebrush, big pod ceanothus (Ceanothus megacarpus), island mountain - ilicifolia Shrubland Alliance mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides var. blancheae), chaparral clematis (Clematis lasiantha), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California ash (Fraxinus dipetala), chaparral beard tongue (Keckiella antirrhinoides), climbing penstemon (Keckiella cordifolia), inland scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), evergreen buckthorn (Rhamnus ilicifolia), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including California black walnut and coast live oak. Shrubs are less than 50 feet; canopy is open to continuous. Herbaceous layer is sparse to continuous. CNDDB/Holland (1986) G1 Found at elevations ranging from 164 to No Absent. This vegetation Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage S1.1 4,922 feet amsl on intermittently or rarely community does not occur Scrub flooded, low -gradient alluvial deposits within the project site. along streams, washes, and fans. MCV (1995) Scalebroom (Lepidospartumsquamatum) is Scalebroom Series dominant, co -dominant, or conspicuous in NVCS (2009) the shrub canopy with burrobrush (Ambrosia salsola), California sagebrush, Lepidospartum squamatum mulefat, bladderpod (Cleome isomeris), intermittently flooded California cholla (Cylindropuntia Shrubland Alliance californica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), thick leaved yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium), hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), California buckwheat, chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), prickly -pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), sugar bush, skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Emergenttrees ortall shrubs may be present at low cover, including mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), southern California black walnut, California juniper, California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, or black elderberry. Shrubs are less than 7 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous, and two tiered. Herbaceous is layer variable and may be grassy. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-15 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site CNDDB/Holland (1986) GNR Permanent slow -moving streams and rivers No Absent. This vegetation Southern California SNR characterized by freshwater, shallow community does not occur Threespine Stickleback stream edges or braids in dense vegetation. within the project site. Stream Also consists of slow to moderate current with clear water; southern California MCV (1995) threespine stickleback have been found Not Identified perishing in areas with reduced water NVCS (2009) quality. Not Identified CNDDB/Holland (1986) G4 Found at elevations ranging from sea level No Absent. This vegetation Southern Coast Live Oak S4 to 3,937 feet amsl in alluvial terraces, community does not occur Riparian Forest canyon bottoms, stream banks, slopes, and within the project site. flats, Soils are deep, sandy or loamy with MCV (1995) high organic matter. Coast live oak is a Coast Live Oak Series dominant or co -dominant in the tree NVCS (2009) canopy with bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), box elder (Acer negundo), Quercus agrifolia Woodland madrono (Arbutus menziesii), southern Alliance California black walnut, California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, blue oak (Quercus douglasii), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), valley oak, arroyo willow, and California bay. Trees are less than 98 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is sparse to intermittent. Herbaceous layer is sparse or grassy. CNDDB/Holland (1986) G3 Found at elevations ranging from sea level No Absent. This vegetation Southern Cottonwood S3.2 to 7,874 feet amsl on floodplains, along community does not occur Willow Riparian Forest low -gradient rivers, perennial or seasonally within the project site. MCV (1995) intermittent streams, springs, in lower canyons in desert mountains, in alluvial Fremont Cottonwood Series fans, and in valleys with a dependable NVCS (2009) subsurface water supply that varies considerably during the year. Fremont Populus fremontii Forest cottonwood is a dominant or co -dominant Alliance in the tree canopy with box elder, desert baccharis (Baccharis sergiloides), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), northern California black walnut (luglans hindsii), California sycamore, coast live oak, narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Goodding's willow (Salix goodingii), polished willow, arroyo willow, pacific willow (Salix lasiandra ssp. lasiandra), and yellow willow (Salix lutea). Trees and less than 25 meters tall; canopy is continuous to open. Shrub layer is intermittent to open. Herbaceous layer is variable. CNDDB/Holland (1986) G2 Similar to willow riparian forests and No Absent. This vegetation Southern Mixed Riparian S2.1 woodlands in species occurrences. Found community does not occur Forest in and along margins of an intermittent and within the project site. perennial streams. Generally, no single MCV (1995) species dominates the canopy and species N/A composition is dependent on elevation, NVCS (2009) aspect, hydrology, and channel type. N/A Species that are usually present in the canopy include California black walnut, willow, California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Fremont cottonwood, and bigleaf maple. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-16 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Special -Status Habitat Preferences and Distribution Observed Potential to Occur Common Name Rank* Affinities On -site CNDDB/Holland (1986) G4 Riparian zones dominated by larger, No Absent. This vegetation Southern Riparian Forest S4 mature trees consisting of various species community does not occur of willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores. within the project site. MCV (1995) N/A NVCS (2009) N/A CNDDB/Holland (1986) G3 Riparian zones dominated by small trees or No Absent. This vegetation Southern Riparian Scrub S3.2 shrubs, lacking taller riparian trees. community does not occur within the project site. MCV (1995) N/A NVCS (2009) N/A CNDDB/Holland (1986) G4 Found at elevations ranging from sea level No Absent. This vegetation Southern Sycamore Alder S4 to 7,874 feet amsl in gullies, intermittent community does not occur Riparian Woodland streams, springs, seeps, stream banks, and within the project site. terraces adjacent to floodplains that are MCV (1995) subject to high -intensity flooding. Soils are California Sycamore Series rocky or cobbly alluvium with permanent NVCS (2009) moisture at depth. California sycamore is a dominant or co -dominant in the tree Platanus racemosa canopy with white alder, southern Woodland Alliance California black walnut, Fremont cottonwood, coast live oak, valley oak, narrowleaf willow, Gooding's willow, polished willow, arroyo willow, yellow willow, Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus mole), and California bay. CNDDB/Holland (1986) G3 Dense, broadleaved, winter -deciduous No Absent. This vegetation Southern Willow Scrub S2.1 riparian thickets dominated by several community does not occur willow species, with scattered emergent within the project site. MCV (1995) Fremont's cottonwood and California N/A sycamore. Most stands are too dense to NVCS (2009) allow much understory development. N/A Loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. This early seral type required repeated flooding to prevent succession to Southern Cottonwood -Sycamore Riparian Forest. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-17 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table E: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special -Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On -site Potential to Occur CNDDB/Holland (1986) G3 Occurs at elevations ranging from 0 to No Absent. This vegetation Valley Needlegrass S3.1 5,577 feet amsl on all topographic community does not occur Grassland locations. Soils may be deep with high clay within the project site. content, loamy, sandy, or silty derived from MCV (1995) mudstone, sandstone, or serpentine N/A substrates. California melicgrass (Melica NVCS (2009) californica), Torrey melic (Melica N/A torreyana), nodding needle grass (Stipa cernua), foothill needle grass (Stipa lepida) and/or purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra) is dominant or characteristically present in the herbaceous layer with other perennial grasses and herbs including spidergrass (Aristida ternipes), milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), wild oat (Avena spp.), bromes (Bromus spp.), fire reedgrass (Calamagrostis koelerioides), mariposa (Calochortus spp.), morning glory (Calystegia spp.), amole (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), clarkia (Clarkia spp.), common sandaster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), turkey -mullein (Croton setiger), cryptantha (Cryptantha spp.), American wild carrot, (Daucus pusillus), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), erodium (Erodium spp.), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), California fescue (Festuca californica), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), narrow tarplant (Holocarpha virgata), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), June grass (Koeleria macrantha), goldfields (Lasthenia spp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), one sided blue grass (Poa secunda), sanicle (Sanicula spp.), western blue eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), clover (Trifolium spp.) and/or fescue (Vulpia spp.). Emergent trees and shrubs may be present at low cover. Herbs are less than 3 feet; cover is open to continuous. CNDDB/Holland (1986) G3 Occurs at elevations ranging from 0 to No Absent. This vegetation Valley Oak Woodland S3 2,543 feet amsl in valley bottoms community does not occur seasonally saturated soils that may within the project site. MCV (1995) intermittently flood, lower slopes, and Valley Oak Series summit valleys. Soils are alluvial or residual. NVCS (2009) Valley Oak is dominant or co -dominant in the tree canopy with boxelder maple (Acer Quercus lobata Woodland negundo), white alder, Oregon ash, Alliance northern California walnut, English walnut (luglans regia), western sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, coast live oak, blue oak, California black oak, interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), Goodding's black willow, and arroyo willow. Shrubs and lianas may include California pipevine (Aristolochia californica) or California wild grape (Vitis californica). Trees are less than 98 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is open to intermittent. Herbaceous layer may be grassy. * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-18 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . FE Endangered — any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FCE Proposed Endangered - the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the USFWS has formally noticed as being under review by the USFWS for addition to the list of endangered species, or a species for which the Service has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of endangered species. FT Threatened — any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FPT Federally Proposed - Threatened — The classification provided to an animal or plant that is proposed for federal listing as Threatened in the Federal Register under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) SE Endangered —any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. SCE State Candidate for Listing as Endangered —the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for addition to the list of endangered species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of endangered species. ST Threatened — any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required under the California Endangered Species Act. SCT State Candidate Threatened - any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that has been accepted as a candidate species for listing as threatened. The species is temporarily afforded the same protections as a state -listed endangered or threatened species. The Commission must decide at a public meeting whether the species will be removed from candidacy or added to the list of threatened species. FP Fully Protected — any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, or reptile that were determined by the State of California to be rare or face possible extinction. SSC Species of Special Concern — any species, subspecies, or distinct population of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria: - is extirpated from California or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed. is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. WL Watch List -taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special Concern" but no longer merit that status, orwhich do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank 113 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 213 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 4 Plants of limited distribution — Watch List. Threat Ranks .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree any immediacy of threat). .2 Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat). .3 Not very threatened in California (Iessthan20percent ofoccurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known). NatureServe Conservation Status Rank The Global Rank (G#) reflects the overall condition and imperilment of a species throughout its global range. The Infraspecific Taxon Rank (T#) reflects the global situation of just the subspecies or variety. The State Rank (S#) reflects the condition and imperilment of an element throughout its range within California. (G#Q) reflects that the element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it; the calculated G rank is qualified by adding a Q after the G#). Adding a ? to a rank expresses uncertainty about the rank. G1/T1 Critically Imperiled —At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2/T2 Imperiled— At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-19 Biological Resources Technical Report Appendix E — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources G3/T3 Vulnerable— At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4/T4 Apparently Secure— Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5/T5 Secure — Common; widespread and abundant. GNR Unranked —Global rank not yet assessed S1 Critically Imperiled — Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State. S2 Imperiled — Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or State. S3 Vulnerable — Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure — Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. SNR Unranked — National or subnational conservation status not yet assessed. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project E-20 Biological Resources Technical Report APPENDIX C: AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS REPORT I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L April 10, 2025 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Attn: Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, California 91355 We Make a Difference JN 195477 SUBJECT: Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters for the proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project — City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Dear Ms. Rodriguez: Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has prepared this report to document the results of a literature review and formal delineation of state and federal jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, that was conducted for the proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (project or project site) located in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Specifically, the delineation was conducted to identify and document the extent of aquatic features within the project site that potentially fall under the jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). This report summarizes the methodology utilized throughout the course of the delineation, defines the jurisdictional authority of the regulatory agencies, and documents the findings made by Michael Baker. This report presents Michael Baker's determination of jurisdictional boundaries based on the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance approved by the regulatory agencies. However, please note that only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional limits. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is generally located north and east of Interstate 5, north and west of State Route-14 in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1, Regional Vicinity, in Attachment A). The project site is depicted in Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 15 West on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Mint Canyon, California 7.5-minute quadrangle and Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 16 West on the USGS Newhall, California 7.5-minute quadrangle (refer to Figure 2, Project Vicinity, in Attachment A). Specifically, the project site is located within Haskell Canyon Open Space south of the Angeles National Forest, north of Copper Hill Drive, east of City Highline Motorway Fire Road, and northeast of Blue Cloud 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 5001 Santa Ana, CA 92707 MBAKERINTL.COM Office: 949.472.35051 Fax: 949.472.8373 1 mbakerintl.com Drive. The project site is located on the assessor's parcel numbers (APN) shown in Table 1 and at latitude 34.476908' and longitude-118.499045' (refer to Figure 3, Project Site, in Attachment A). Table 1: Assessor's Parcel Numbers Associated with Haskell Canyon Bike Park APN 2813-010-273 2813-010-274 2813-010-275 2813-010-276 2813-010-900 2813-010-901 2813-010-902 2813-025-270 3244-031-901 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the project site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Haskell Canyon Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails, approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails, and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails. The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. The Haskell Core, located on the western portion of the project site, would include an event plaza with picnic tables, pump tracks, a dual slalom course, progressive jumplines, and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core would include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, two vault restrooms, a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Parking for the Haskell Core would be provided within a 40-space parking lot, which would include a parking/emergency turnaround, four American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and unstructured space for four food trucks. The Blue Cloud Trailhead area would include space for potential future landscape restoration, a multi -use trailhead, a single vault restroom, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space for riders with a shade structure). Parking for the Blue Cloud Trailhead would be provided within an unstructured parking area and along Blue Cloud Road. REGULATORY SETTING There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland lakes, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The USACE regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (WoUS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the state agencies, the RWQCB regulates discharges to waters of the State (WoS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, Section Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 2 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act), and State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; and, the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and associated riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to conducting the field delineation, Michael Baker conducted a review of relevant literature and materials to obtain a general understanding of the environmental setting and preliminarily identify features/areas within the project site that may fall under the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies. Refer to the subsections below for a summary of relevant materials, databases, technical reports, and guidance documents that were obtained/reviewed by Michael Baker. In addition, a complete list of references is provided as Attachment G to this report. Santa Clara River Watershed The project site is located within the Lower Bouquet Canyon (HUC 180701020202) portion of the Santa Clara River Watershed (HUC 18070102). The project site occurs approximately 0.06 mile east of Haskell Canyon Wash, which is tributary to the Santa Clara River, a tributary to the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Clara River watershed comprises approximately 1,040,515 acres in Los Angeles County, California. The watershed is divided into numerous subwatersheds based on flow direction and landscape, all of which ultimately connect to the Santa Clara River. Haskell Canyon Wash and the Santa Clara River are not Designated Rivers under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Soils According to the Custom Soil Resources Report for Orange County and Part of Riverside County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2024a), the project site is underlain by four soil map units: Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded; Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded; Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; and Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Michael Baker also reviewed the Hydric Soils List for California (USDA 2024b) to preliminarily verify whether the soil map units listed above was classified as a "hydric soil" in the Antelope Valley and Los Angeles areas. According to the list, the subject soil map units are not listed as hydric. National Wetlands Inventory Based on a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2024), five riverine resources mapped in the NWI coincide with the project site and are shown in Attachment B. Two mapped riverine features on the western portion of the project site flow to the west into Haskell Canyon Wash. These features are described as riverine intermittent streambed seasonally -flooded (R4SBC). One riverine feature is mapped on the eastern portion of the project site. This feature is classified as riverine intermittent streambed temporarily -flooded (R4SBA) and flows to the south off the project site into the Santa Clara River. The headwaters of two riverine features are present in the southwestern portion Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 3 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report of the project site. These two features are classified as R4SBC and flow to the south into Haskell Canyon Wash and the Santa Clara River. Flood Zone Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer (FEMA 2024), the project site is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Numbers 06037CO8I OG and 06037CO830G. The project site occurs within Zones X and D as shown in Attachment C. Zone X is described as an area of minimal flood hazard and Zone D is described as an area of undetermined flood hazard. National Hydro2raphy Dataset Based on a review of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Advanced Viewer (USGS 2024a), thirteen unnamed ephemeral drainages are mapped within the project site, as shown in Attachment D. Features within the eastern portion of the site generally flow to the south off site and into the Santa Clara River downstream. Features within the western portion of the site generally flow to the west and south of site and into Haskell Canyon Wash and the Santa Clara River. FIELD METHODOLOGY Michael Baker wetland delineators April Nakagawa and Megan Minter conducted a jurisdictional delineation/field survey of the project site on February 13, 14, and 15, 2024 using the most recent, agency approved methodology, to identify and map the extent of state and federal jurisdictional features (i.e., wetland and non -wetland WoUS, WoS, streambed, associated riparian vegetation). Based on the project's location, potential state and federal wetlands were delineated in accordance with the methods and guidance provided in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (Arid West Regional Supplement; USACE 2008), and the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Water Resources Control Board 2019b). While in the field, jurisdictional features were recorded on an aerial photograph at a scale of 1" = 400' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as guidelines. Data points were recorded in the field using a Garmin GPS Map 64sx Global Positioning System (GPS) to identify specific widths and length of jurisdictional features and the location of any ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) indicators, photograph points, soil pits, and other pertinent site characteristics. These data were then uploaded as a .slip file and confirmed/refined to ensure accuracy and consistency with hardcopy notes and aerial mapping completed in the field. Michael Baker then used ESRI ArcGIS Pro software to calculate the total acreage of jurisdictional features and prepare final project figures. Stream Duration Assessment Method Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 4 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report For this project location, stream flow duration was determined using the methods outlined in the User Manual for a Beta Streamf ow Duration Assessment Method for the Arid West of the United States, Version L I (SDAM; Mazor et. al, 2023). This document is intended to provide a rapid and repeatable method to distinguish between ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streamflow. The SDAM considers several variables in determining the stream duration of a given reach, including presence and abundance of hydrophytic plant species, presence and abundance of aquatic invertebrates, presence or absence of EPT taxa (comprised of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera), presence or absence of algae, and presence or absence of single indicators (fish and/or algae cover >10%). RESULTS Non -Wetland Features Eleven ephemeral drainage features were identified within the project site during the February 2024 site visit (refer to Attachment E, Site Photographs). Aquatic Feature 1 Aquatic Feature 1 (AF-1) is an earthen ephemeral channel that begins along the south -facing slopes of steep ridges along the northern project boundary. AF-1 generally flows southwest for approximately 400 linear feet before transitioning to overland sheetflow and dissipating into the surrounding grassland. At the time of the survey, AF-1 was completely dry and did not contain flowing or standing water. The bed and banks of AF-1 are vegetated similarly to the surrounding uplands and contain brome grasses (Bromus madritensis, UPL; Bromus diandrus, UPL), fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica, FACU), scrub oak (Quercus sp., UPL), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio, UPL), doveweed (Croton setiger, UPL), barley (Hordeum sp.), red - stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium, UPL), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus, FACU), white sage (Salvia apiana, UPL) wild oats (Avena sp., UPL), and bush mallow (Malacothamnus sp.). An OHWM is present within AF-1 that is approximately one foot wide and defined by vegetation matting, sediment deposition, and a clear line impressed on the bank. The bank -to -bank width of AF-1 is approximately five feet and the banks in the upper- portion of the drainage are two to three feet in height. Aquatic Feature 2 Aquatic Feature 2 (AF-2) is a large earthen ephemeral channel beginning in the center of the project site and flowing from east to west. AF-2 flows for approximately 1,724 linear feet before ending in sheetflow near the western project boundary and dissipates into the surrounding landscape. The bank -to -bank width of AF-2 varies and ranges from 2 to 8 feet in the lower portions, 10 to 20 feet in the middle, and 5 to 8 feet in the upper headwaters. Bank height ranges from 3 to 8 feet. At the time of the field survey, AF-2 was completely dry. Small mammal burrows are present throughout the bed and banks of the drainage. The bed and banks of AF-2 are vegetated with bromic grasses, scrub oak, white sage, mustard, Russian thistle, Menzies' goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii, FACU), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp., UPL), California buckwheat Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 5 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (Eriogonum fasciculatum, UPL), and curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC). Scrub oak is present within the streambed and is much denser in the downstream portion of the streambed than the surrounding uplands. An OHWM is present within AF-2 is varies from one to ten feet. The OHWM is defined by a clear line impressed on the banks, sediment sorting, drainage patterns, and vegetation matting. SDAM Reach 2 was completed within this drainage and confirmed AF-2 exhibits an ephemeral flow regime (data sheets are provided in Attachment F). Aquatic Feature 3 Aquatic Feature 3 (AF-3) is a small ephemeral tributary to AT-2 originating along a dirt access road. AF-3 flows from southeast to northwest for approximately 300 linear feet before the confluence with Aquatic Feature 2. Vegetation within the streambed is similar to AF-2 and includes brome grasses, doveweed, scrub oak, mustard, buckwheat, and elderberry (Sambucus nigra, FACU). At the time of the field survey, AF- 3 was completely dry. Small mammal burrows are present throughout the bed and banks of the drainage. The OHWM is defined by a clear line impressed on the banks, sediment sorting, drainage patterns, and vegetation matting. The bank -to -bank width of AF-3 is 15 feet. Bank height is approximately 2 to 3 feet. Aquatic Feature 4 Aquatic Feature 4 (AF-4) is an ephemeral drainage flowing from northwest to southeast along Blue Cloud Road. This feature flows through a steep, narrow valley for approximately 970 linear feet before dissipating into sheetflow and terminating within the project site. AF-4 is densely vegetated with black sage (Salvia mellifera, UPL), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica, UPL), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum, UPL), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis, UPL), scrub oak, blue wild rye (Elymus glaueus, FACU), and California buckwheat. A 1-foot wide OHWM is present and is defined by a clear line impressed on the banks, sediment deposition, and a change in vegetation. The bank -to -bank width ranges from 5 to 10 feet and the bank height is 2 to 3 feet. Aquatic Feature 5 Aquatic Feature 5 (AF-5) is a short, deeply incised ephemeral drainage flowing from northwest to southeast and into AF-6. AF-5 flows for approximately 493 linear feet and contains an OHWM that is one foot wide and a top of bank that is 2 feet wide. The OHWM is defined by sediment deposits, a clear line impressed on bank, a change in vegetation, and drainage patterns. AF-5 is vegetated with summer mustard, California buckwheat, Russian thistle, wild oats (Avena fatua, UPL), bush mallow, chamise, black sage, scrub oak, California sagebrush, red -stemmed filaree, and brome grasses including downy chess (Bromus tectorum, UPL). Aquatic Feature 6 Aquatic Feature 6 (AF-6) is a short, deeply incised ephemeral drainage flowing from northeast to southwest and offsite to the south. The feature originates in a steep, south -facing narrow canyon and flows for approximately 225 linear feet before exiting the site to the south. The bed of AF-6 is unvegetated while the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 6 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report banks are vegetated with black sage, California buckwheat, mustard, and red -stemmed filaree. The bank - to -bank width of AF-6 is 10 feet and the OHWM width is 3 feet. The OHWM is defined by a change in vegetation, sediment deposition, and a clear line impressed on the bank. Aquatic Feature 7 Aquatic Feature 7 (AF-7) is a steep, deeply incised drainage flowing from northwest to southeast through a narrow valley and eventually into AF-8. AF-7 flows for approximately 708 linear feet within the project site and was completely dry at the time of the survey. AF-7 is densely vegetated with California buckwheat, wild oats, fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens, UPL), brome grasses, black sage, and scrub oak. The drainage contains an OHWM defined by sediment deposition and a change in vegetation. Portions of the drainage are very densely vegetated and the OHWM is obscured. Bank -to -bank width is 20 feet and the OHWM width is 2 feet. The OHWM is defined by sediment deposition and a change in vegetation. Aquatic Feature 8 Aquatic Feature 8 (AF-8) is a large, meandering drainage flowing from northeast to southwest within the project site for approximately 1,872 linear feet before continuing offsite and connecting downstream to Bouquet Creek. Aquatic Features 9 (AF-9) and 10 (AF-10) connect to AF-8 downstream within the project boundary. AF-8 is incised 5 to 10 feet with steep, almost vertical banks. The bank -to -bank width ranges from 6 to 20 feet and the OHWM width ranges from one to three feet. The OHWM is defined by sediment deposition, a change in vegetation, and a clear line impressed on the bank. The bed and banks are densely vegetated with California sagebrush, California buckwheat, chamise, snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae, UPL), brome grasses, summer mustard, black sage, scrub oak, and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia, UPL). SDAM Reach 1 was completed within this drainage and confirmed AF-8 exhibits an ephemeral flow regime (data sheets are provided in Attachment F). Aquatic Feature 9 AF-9 is a short ephemeral drainage flowing north to south and connects downstream to AT-8. AF-9 begins within the project site on a steep, south -facing slope and flows for approximately 280 linear feet before the confluence with AF-8. Additionally, AF-10 connects downstream to AF-9 within the project site. Vegetation within AF-9 is similar to that of AF-8 and includes brome grasses, California buckwheat, summer mustard, scrub oak, California sagebrush, and black sage. An OHWM is present within AF-9 that is approximately 2 feet wide and defined by vegetation matting, change in vegetation, and a clear line impressed on the bank. The bank -to -bank width of AF-9 is approximately 20 feet and the banks are 1-2 feet in height. Aquatic Feature 10 Aquatic Feature 10 (AF-10) is a short ephemeral drainage flowing northwest to southeast and connecting downstream to AF-9. AF-10 begins on a steep, southeast -facing slope and flows for approximately 220 feet Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 7 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report before dissipating into sheetflow. The sheetflow at the bottom of AF-10 flows across a narrow dirt access road and connects downstream to AF-9. AF-10 feature is densely vegetated with scrub oak, Russian thistle, black sage, and toyon along the upper portion of the steep banks. The channel invert is vegetated with California sagebrush, California buckwheat, summer mustard, and tocalote. The OHWM is defined by sediment deposition and a change in vegetation and is 2 feet wide. The bank -to -bank width of AF-10 is 15 feet. Aquatic Feature 11 Aquatic Feature 11 (AF-11) is a wide ephemeral drainage originating from Blue Cloud Road and flowing to the east for approximately 443 linear- feet before continuing off site. AF- I I is densely vegetated with fourwing saltbush, fragrant sumac, scrub oak, white sage, tocalote, blue wild rye, and elderberry. A one to three feet wide OHWM is present within AF-11 and is defined by sediment deposition and a change in vegetation. AF-1 1 widens and flattens moving downstream as it parallels Blue Cloud Road, with the bank - to -bank width varying from 8 feet in the upper portion of the drainage to 40 feet in the lower portion. Wetland Features Due to the dominance of upland plant species and ephemeral flow regime of all drainages within the project site, it was determined that no potential wetland conditions or wetland features were present within the project site. Therefore, no soil pits were investigated within the project site. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Michael Baker conducted a stream duration assessment using the SDAM for two representative aquatic features within the project site. Reach 1 is within AF-8 (downstream end latitude 34.4784830, longitude - 1 18.491448°) and had a mean channel width of 9 meters and a reach length of 200 meters. Reach 2 is within AF-2 (downstream end latitude 34.476644°, longitude -1 18.504810°) and had a mean channel width of 2.1 meters and a reach length of 80 meters. Neither reach exhibited hydrophytic vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, algal cover, or single indicators. Therefore, both Reach 1 and Reach 2 would be considered ephemeral. Refer to Attachment F, SDAM Forms, for a copy of the Beta Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method forms. Non -Jurisdictional Topographic Features Steep, undulating topography is present on the project site that contains numerous steep, narrow valleys in between sharp peaks. Each small valley has the potential to be a jurisdictional feature if signs of flow are present. Each of these valleys were reviewed during the desktop review and visited during the field survey. Most of the steep valleys were determined to be non jurisdictional due to the lack of signs of flow and/or an OHWM. They do not contain a defined bed and bank but rather a steep, vegetated crevice between two peaks. No change in vegetation was observed from adjacent uplands and, in most cases, the ground where a "streambed" would be was so densely vegetated that the ground was not visible. In these cases, no vegetation matting was observed. Since no signs of regular flow were observed and no defined bed and Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 8 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report bank are present within numerous crevices on site, these crevices were determined to be non jurisdictional topographic features. FINDINGS All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. These features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime based on the results of the SDAM assessment, are not relatively permanent waters (RPW), and do not exhibit a continuous surface connection to a downstream traditional navigable water (TNW). Accordingly, these features would not be considered subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the RWQCB reflects that of the State and totals approximately 0.39 acre (7,570 linear feet) of non -wetland WoS. In addition, these aquatic features exhibited a bed and bank and are therefore considered jurisdiction to CDFW under Section 1600 et seq. of CFGC; the onsite portions of these aquatic features comprise approximately 2.05 acres (7,570 linear feet) of jurisdictional vegetated streambed. No associated riparian habitat was observed in association with any of these aquatic features. Refer to Table 2 below and Figures 4 and 5 provided in Attachment A). Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 9 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Table 2: State and Federal Jurisdictional Resources Acreage within Project Site Regional Board CDFW Location Cowardin Linear Non- Feature Name Lat/i.ong Type Feet Wetland Vegetated Wetland Riparian WuS Strcambcd Wos 34.478566' Aquatic Feature 1 Riverine 174 0.01 - 0.04 - -118.505720° 34.476463' Aquatic Feature 2 Riverine 1,724 0.14 - 0.43 - -118.504156° 34.476294' Aquatic Feature 3 Riverine 288 0.03 - 0.10 - -118.502707° 34.47700 P Aquatic Feature 4 Riverine 952 0.04 - 0.17 - -118.496221 ° 34.472952' Aquatic Feature 5 Riverine 493 0.01 - 0.03 - -118.496707° 34.472277' Aquatic Feature 6 Riverine 258 0.02 - 0.06 - -118.495826° 34.479145' Aquatic Feature 7 Riverine 732 0.03 - 0.34 - - 118.494172° 34.479166' Aquatic Feature 8 Riverine 1,891 0.07 - 0.49 - -118.491190° 34.479576' Aquatic Feature 9 Riverine 400 0.01 - 0.11 - -118.491490° 34.479316' Aquatic Feature 10 Riverine 208 0.01 - 0.07 - -118.492216° 34.475834' Aquatic Feature 11 Riverine 450 0.02 - 0.21 - -118.495172° TOTAL 7,570 0.39 - 2.0-5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into WoUS pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Although evidence of an OHWM was noted within all aquatic features within the project site, these features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime, are not RPWs, do not exhibit a continuous surface connection to a downstream TNW, and would not be subject to USACE jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, there is no USACE jurisdiction within the project site and no Section 404 permit is required prior to commencement of construction activities. The RWQCB regulates discharges to surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13263 of the Porter -Cologne Act. Temporary and/or permanent impacts resulting from the proposed project may require a Water Discharge Requirement (WDR) from the RWQCB pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Act prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. The RWQCB also requires that CEQA compliance be obtained prior to obtaining authorization. A RWQCB application fee is required with the application package and is calculated based on the acreage of jurisdictional impacts. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project to Aquatic Resources Delineation Report The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 etseq. of the CFGC. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from CDFW may be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. The CDFW also requires that CEQA compliance be obtained prior to issuing the final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. In addition, a notification fee is required, which is calculated based on project costs within CDFW jurisdictional areas. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 472-3468 or Uri 1. nakagawa(Lm bakerind. com should you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, April Nakagawa Senior Regulatory Specialist Natural Resources & Environmental Services Attachments: A. Project Figures B. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map C. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map D. USGS National Hydrography Dataset Advanced Viewer Map E. Site Photographs F. SDAMData Forms G. References Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 11 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Attachment A Project Figures Lebec r Park KERN COUNTY — ———————————————— \ << I —————————————LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 � HuAgry Valley (� Lv State\Vehicular RecreaV..ion Area �. \ LIEBREI \ MOUNTAIN \ SAWMILL \ MOUNTAIN \ y# Q \ E \ f \ R, SIERRA PE(DA,q ED e \\ O e N�IJI'1�1 n \ © Acton % Y \ O /J L\N y` 1EDAD CANNON —Santa�Clarita Nu a O\� Y saNra SUSa�\2 ` e 2 Ilk, v Moorpark y l SanFernando ii \\ ++ Los Angeles: a SihiP HILLS I I SAN FERNANDO .� VERDUGO MOUNTAINS JLaCanada r u VA11 LLEY © �- " F.lintridge ` Thousand Oaks _ I — Burbank 101��\® /-----� — Agoura Hills 1` Calabasas Glendale v r / / 4 / � 101 SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS r t J r' Beverl)rHiils ' S Los Aw-,cles� O 0 3 6 Miles INTERNATIONAL Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, USGS, Los Angeles County, Kern County, Ventura County Pal HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Regional Vicinity t iyulu I t i r � tfv �. •..r� � ��. ll'I41�1i1 � "'K Irw1 " lrr f''yPy �dTill �ii C►%�� �� "" 2 � �► �/ r 7 ram► � y � - �.. ��► ilia, W-13 Z' J4 aw � ��.. It_ lil���ut..rnm. �1��le �'�JC.�t�i'I•JIA{I!�!l►iL�lJ1l Legend Project Site INTERNATIONAL HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O 0 0.5 1 Miles Site Vicini Source: USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Warm Springs Mountain, Green Valley, Newhall, and Mint Canyon, California. Figure 2 Legend ® Reference Point Project Site INTERNATIONAL © 0 500 1,000 Feet HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Project Site Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, Los Angeles County Figure 3 Legend ® Reference Point Project Site INTERNATIONAL O SDAM Locations A Photograph Point and Direction • • • . Sheetflow = Non -Wetland WoS (0.39 Acres) HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O O 500 1'0 00 Feet Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 4 �' ry a f� I y � i J Y Legend Project Site A Photograph Point and Direction • • • Sheetflow 0 Non -Wetland WoS (0.01 Acres) O INTERNATIONAL Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online *.A {; HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT ,o0 200 !5iiiiiia Feet Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Map Legend Project Site INTERNATIONAL O SDAM Locations A Photograph Point and Direction • • • Sheetflow 0 Non -Wetland WoS (0.17 Acres) HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 0 ° 125 25Feet Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 4b _, 41 s J �.4 s. } M e� � 1( , �t �7x'd Michael Baker 4 T jq� • '{ r+' ., rr 'yam yy t. ram_ 9 ds Aquatic Feature 11 1,7 " `� Blue G�oud R;d: - Legend Project Site A Photograph Point and Direction 0 Non -Wetland WoS (0.06 Acres) O 0 100 200 Feet INTERNATIONAL Source: Fsri, Ar..IS Online HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Map Figure 4d Legend Project Site INTERNATIONAL O SDAM Locations A Photograph Point and Direction • • • Sheetflow 0 Non -Wetland WoS (0.12 Acres) HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O o 150 iii Feet Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 4e Legend ® Reference Point Project Site INTERNATIONAL e Photograph Point and Direction • • • . Sheetflow Vegetated Streambed (2.05 Acres) HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O0 500 1,00 eet California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 5 Legend 0 Project Site INTERNATIONAL Photograph Point and Direction •••� Sheetflow _ Vegetated Streambed (0.04 Acres) HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 0 100 20Feet California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 5a J16,� 1 W;i� a,< . Ae h Aquatic Feature 2 +* 30 y 1A <r 3 5 Anij, tir. FFat,, �r. 0 r k s Legend Project Site 0 Photograph Point and Direction •••� Sheetflow _ Vegetated Streambed (0.53 Acres) O � INTERNATIONAL Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 12ni—.�Feet California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Map Legend Project Site Photograph Point and Direction Vegetated Streambed (0.09 Acres) INTERNATIONAL HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT ©0 100 20Feet California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 5c Legend Project Site Photograph Point and Direction Vegetated Streambed (0.38 Acres) INTERNATIONAL HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT ©0 100 20Feet California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 5d Legend Project Site INTERNATIONAL Photograph Point and Direction •••� Sheetflow _ Vegetated Streambed (1.01 Acres) HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O o 150 300eet California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Map Source: Esri, ArcGIS Online Figure 5e Attachment B USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project February 9, 2024 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife y Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the Wetlands base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper Attachment C FEMA Flood Insurance Ratc Maps AE + + 'Af FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO LJ5ER5 SCALE GOGLMEN,Pt1(1NMl N.BDpYiIIABLEINDIGI,AlFORNIVAT N V PANEL LOCATOR nESARE45W, A—wBFkdn—nUk.t,L.. Ate. eels rLoOV NAMO S. Nd. 1— MEN ,OtM — m� 7 AnNiOLMN4rl kM moo i— OiB awl :YUPN9w:W WLI t 'oils wo — — 1F. a,..,L.QM — ua.rstt Vb gob so %M9 qAn6&At rLIJOn iN5ukWr WGkAM tOS ANGRES COUNTY xxlL 824) etA235O 73 a C3 O CD 22 -mm,m 2.3.3.7 ,f Wmm OW 'osloG wr 1 %0 IONE2.2021 C*af8xpla ClPrilt BtiO]29 AUxalrE Yalitlrtaf ftlrE51 , ' f I o atls Flh _� ' h} iil ♦ It I=16.61 7� _ arEwo IT � �M"°'E br"�E 1tR xnYS FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO U5ER5 SCALE eF�s reeranrtasls-FP3L+n ttaLYOPw murex Rnv :rem vutaurau. - , '�.+� NAn4NAL FLOOD INsukANCF PkCGNAM MLIN`UYtpolp]N UlnILIlU UNIN$MPVPmU 3tIPPJ@IAVU '"` ""'"' ♦= .-I,JV _LP'1iC �.'S1 oaccrPlx,PPanaNl rvLsoaaAiw3Ll n Ulcl nt FaABAa s, �.mo' ��an LOS ANOELESCOUNTY xnr.-;. n+er..F[tucA, N"'�, 7 in h-1.000 fIFei 1'!'�'000 CALIF NGELE ma'rrs � � w.vn 83d n 2350 � , r tAA SPF7A nm, �i,Acr.WH'BFfttP 4+ _ 4 35G S4U 1,OtlU PANFA$, tw+rw.rrur.s...wr,ntu - "'"""`"'""' PANEL LOCATOR . �nx+�mRwlcn mewdlte:,tdawp ....�. afl%ennutlMk Ikgd Nmaay *�gMrnv tun.awnio�:o,i`L�iw.:Pa..�'.a�+ _ "J amae�ed teBMe hol. ebmhaz m�} «••,.n.•••�• •",•• j} ''�'°T _-- N era uxrn.p of oa eua, , �. F¢un CmtlNors 2k Mnual T7 CN,sr npad Hersh :+„. 0 OrLOCE NAM /xeewAP Asduatl Flooc BF.k Gtelo Lote+ GM'r, "i .�. Q naaoewwo ;epNalp--'v-: ... LL UINEA nn�SnFMmirtni Fleen Werbn •', .., .� PAFAS Pnaet UnW.Oenntu-0F3oe0 Nala,c •nn=ir C -- GAdM1tl N.Gkivna Cl S",drmiaygr � ��""r' imwa ]&xar PoecNall Z' SIAlIC1UNE5 ]Fur :�,,. i.'� fPCCCbeNlonsnnry Ln nrrynal cnmrs - ' �� Wrtar Sulacv tlavmmnldrq HyJ�NkrnAAl�Fea6 trn �48'G � Wtr---. Ptolik9aseHne A@k4 Wf'J kFMSANi MJM9ER —a�:. Eme FY of E2ratioilrnafYFB 2.3.3.7 OTIEA - n4 03.,B M18 WIy. Wit NJM�n fEA14AE5 -- Jn�gbl9PnpA(P} —f G3G3i CBB306 wp FE4A%o IIINE2. POPS Attachment D USGS National Hydrography Dataset Advanced Viewer Map 2/9/2024, 12:31:09 PM 4 Swamp Marsh Waterbody - Large Scale Area - Large Scale Estuary Area of Complex Channels Ice Mass Area to be Submerged Lake Pond Baylnlet Playa Bridge Reservoir CanalDitch The National Map Advanced Viewer Dam Weir SeaOcean Flowline - Large Scale — Connector Flume = Special Use Zone Perennial Pipeline Foreshore = Spillway Intermittent — Underground Conduit Hazard Zone StreamRiver Ephemeral Flow Direction Inundation Area Submerged Stream Artificial Path Connector Lock Chamber Wash Canal Ditch CanalDitch - Rapids Water IntakeOutflow Coastline ° Underground Conduit StreamRiver Line - Large Scale ' StreamRiver-Perennial Line StreamRiver- Intermittent Tunnel StreamRiver- Ephemeral Point Event Point � Pipeline • Dam/Weir � Artificial Path o Other 1:9,028 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 mi 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 km USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed December, 2021., USGS TNM — National Hydrography Dataset. Data Refreshed January, 2024. USGS 2021 USGS Attachment E Site Photographs Yd- ♦♦�§�.� erg,® � ,`g,c'.Y� -:A Photograph 1: Downstream view of Aquatic Feature 1, facing S at 34.478566°,-118.505720°. Photograph 3: Upstream view of overland sheetflow at the terminus of Aquatic Feature 2, facing SE at 34.476663°,-118.506046°. Photograph 2: Upstream view of overland sheetflow at the end of Aquatic Feature 1, facing NE at 34.477759°,-118.506088°. Photograph 4: Downstream representative view of Aquatic Feature 2, facing E at 34.476581 °,-118.503421 °. Site Photographs INTER NATIONA L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park I•t�T.�" �y. j ' '� ?fir �� g #+.}1i 3 ,s`� � rfw �i� Photograph 5: Downstream view of the upper portion of Aquatic Feature 2, facing W at 34.476650°,-118.501259°. e Photograph 7: Downstream representative view of Aquatic Feature 4, facing SE at 34.479145°,-118.494172°. j.. Photograph 6: Upstream representative view of Aquatic Feature 3, facing SE at 34.476294°,-118.502707°. Photograph 8: Representative view of lower portion of Aquatic Feature 5, facing downstream, SW at 34.477956°,-118.491962°. Site Photographs INTER NATIONA L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park 477-1 -�l 71' -N 4W SOW Photograph 9: Representative view of upper portion of Aquatic Feature 5, facing downstream, SW at 34.479478', -118.490396'. -.P Photograph 11: Representative view of middle portion of Aquatic Feature 8. Photo facing downstream, SW at 34.479166', -118.491190'. Photograph 10: Representative view of lower portion of Aquatic Feature 8, facing upstream, N at 34.478462', -118.491429'. Photograph 12: Representative view of middle portion of Aquatic Feature 8. Photo facing upstream, NE at 34.479160', -118.491173'. Site Photographs INTER N A T I O N A L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Photograph 13: Upper portion of Aquatic Feature 5. Photo facing downstream, SW at 34.479755°,-118.490155°. r. rr-z!�S- Tom+ � 6� i'3s "�� �►. t;� * �: 'qL y- tom` r t Photograph 15: Upstream representative view of Aquatic Feature 10, facing NW at 34.479316°,-118.492216°. Photograph 14: Representative view of Aquatic Feature 9, facing downstream, S at 34.479576°,-118.491490°. Photograph 16: Upstream representative view of Aquatic Feature 11, facing W at 34.475834°,-118.494183°. Site Photographs I N T E R N A T I O N A L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Photograph 17: View of OHWM of Aquatic Feature 11, facing across the drainage, S at 34.475834°.-118.495172°. Photograph 19: Downstream representative view of Aquatic Feature 4, facing S at 34.477001 °,-118.496221 °. Photograph 18: Upstream view of OHWM of Aquatic Feature 4, facing N at 34.476531 °,-118.496215°. Photograph 20: Downstream representative view of the upper portion of Aquatic Feature 4, facing SE at 34.477893°,-118.497006°. Site Photographs INTER NATIONA L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Photograph 21 : Downstream representative view of the beginning of Aquatic Feature 5, facing SE at 34.472952°,-118.496707°. Photograph 23: Overview of topography in northern portion of site. A typical non -jurisdictional swale is present in the foreground, facing S at 34.482029°,-118.499417°. IM Photograph 22: Downstream representative view of the beginning of Aquatic Feature 5, facing SE at 34.472277°,-118.495826°. Photograph 24: Representative view of typical non -jurisdictional feature containing upland vegetation, facing SW at 34.481024°,-118.498459°. Site Photographs I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park . 'fi .'4't f �.� a, - � d { } - A°• i� a �+,�i IWO Photograph 25: Overview of lower portion of Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing upstream, SE at 34.476595°,-118.504784°. Photograph 27: Overview of middle portion of Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing downstream, W at 34.476463°,-118.504156°. Photograph 26: Overview of middle portion of Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing upstream, E at 34.476471 °,-118.504178°. Photograph 28: Overview of upper portion of Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing downstream, WSW at 34.476525°,-118.503674°. Site Photographs I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Photograph 29: Representative overview of topography in the eastern portion of the site. Photo facing SE at 34.480416°,-118.495103°. Photograph 31: Representative overview of topography in the southern portion of the site. Photo facing SW 34.474005°,-118.500412°. Photograph 30: Representative overview of topography in the western portion of the site. Photo facing SE at 34.476754°,-118.506329°. �.�au�:;sa%swv :f r• : ; -. +FaEar ds_+warreaa,.J.-;..:: �yyy`.;,.�< Photograph 32: Representative overview of topography in the northern portion of the site. Photo facing SW at 34.480491 °,-118.500072°. Site Photographs INTER NATIONA L JN:195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Attachment F SDAM Datasheets Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Beta Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method General site information Project name or number: Haskell Canyon Bike Park Site code or identifier: Assessor(s): Reach 1 April Nakagawa, Megan Minter Waterway name: Aquatic Feature 8 Visit date: Feb 14, 2024 Current weather conditions (check one) Notes on current or recent weather Coordinates at downstream end ❑ Storm/heavy rain conditions (e.g., precipitation in previous (decimal degrees): ❑ Steady rain week): Lat (N): 34.476644 ❑ Intermittent rain ❑ Snowing Long (W):-118.504810 ❑ Cloudy (_ % cover) Clear/Sunny Datum: NAD84 Surrounding land -use within 100 m (check one or two): Describe reach boundaries: ❑ Urban/industrial/residential - Reach extends 200 m upstream from a representative point ❑ Agricultural (farmland, crops, vineyards, pasture) of entire drainage ❑ Developed open -space (e.g., golf course) Reach extends to top of bank on both sides ❑ Forested X Other natural Undeveloped open space ❑ Other: Mean channel width (m) Reach length (m): Enter photo ID, or check if completed 9 m 40x width; min 40 m; max 200 m. Top down: Photo 4 Mid down: Photo 2 200 m Mid up: Photo 3 Bottom up: Photo 1 Disturbed or difficult conditions (check all that apply): Notes on disturbances or difficult site conditions: ❑ Recent flood or debris flow ❑ Stream modifications (e.g., channelization) Site is generally undisturbed open ❑ Diversions space owned by the City of Santa ❑ Discharges Clarita ❑ Drought ❑ Vegetation removal/limitations ❑ Other (explain in notes) None Observed hydrology: Comments on observed hydrology: 0 % of reach with surface flow Stream is dry at time of survey; OHWM is 0 % of reach with sub -surface or surface flow present with sediment deposits, a line on the 0 bank, sediment sorting, and a wrack line # of isolated pools Q Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 1. Hydrophytic plant species Page 2 of 4 Record up to 5 hydrophytic plant species (FACW or OBL in the Arid West regional wetland plant list) within the assessment area: within the channel or up to one half -channel width. Explain in notes it species has an odd distribution (e.g., covers less than 2% of assessment area, long-lived species solely represented by seedlings, or long-lived species solely represented by specimens in decline), or if there is uncertainty about the identification. Enter photo ID, or check if photo is taken. Check if applicable: ❑ No vegetation in assessment area /No hydrophytes in assessment area Odd Photo Species distribution? Notes ID Notes on hydrophytic vegetation: L anct 3. Aquatic invertebrates 2. How many aquatic 3. is there evidence of aquatic stages of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera invertebrates are and Trichoptera)? quantified in a 15-minute Yes / No search? Number of /None individuals ❑ 1 to 19 quantified: ❑ 20 + (Do not count mosquitos) Photo ID: Ephemeroptera larva Plecoptera larva Trichoptera larva Image credit: Digierfracey Tracey Sq2Lby Trace � S-b Notes on aquatic invertebrates: 4. Algal Cover Are algae found on the Not detected Notes on algae cover: Photo ID: streambed? ❑ Yes, < 10% cover No algae observed ❑ Check if all observed ❑ Yes, > 10% (check algae appear to be deposited Yes in single indicator below) from an upstreatn source. 5. Are single indicators observed? Indicator Present Notes Fish ❑ Yes / No, no fish ❑ No, only non-native mosquitofish Algae cover> 10% ❑ Yes / No Photo ID Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Supplemental information E.g., aquatic or semi -aquatic amphibians, snakes, or turtles; iron -oxidizing bacteria and fungi; etc. - Stream is vegetated with upland vegetation within bed and banks - no evidence of aquatic species - moss is present along the banks - no bacteria/fungus is evident Photo log Indicate if any other photos taken during the assessment Photo ID Description Additional notes about the assessment: Channel is incised 4-6 feet through the reach. The banks contain scour and the channel contains leaf litter. Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Classification: Ephemeral 1. Hydrophytic 2. Aquatic 3. EPT 4. Algae 5. Single indicators Classification plant species invertebrates taxa • fish present • algae cover > 10% Absent Absent E hemeral None Absent Present At least intermittent Present Absent Need more information Present At least intermittent Absent Absent Need more information Present At least intermittent Absent Absent Need more information Few (1-19) Present Present At least intermittent None Present At least intermittent Absent Need more information Absent Present At least intermittent Absent Absent Need more information Many (20+) Present Present At least intermittent Present At least intermittent Absent Need more information Absent None Absent Present At least intermittent Present At least intermittent Absent Intermittent Absent Present At least intermittent Few (1-19) Few (1-2) Present At least intermittent Absent Intermittent Absent Present At least intermittent Many (20+) Absent At least intermittent Present Present Intermittent Absent Need more information Absent None Absent Present At least intermittent Present At least intermittent Absent At least intermittent Many (3+) Few (1-19) Present Perennial Many (20+) Absent At least intermittent Present Perennial Shading provided to enhance readability by increasing the contrast between neighboring cells; empty cells indicate the classification will not change with additional information however it is recommended that all five indicators be measured and recorded during every assessment. c. 9 f t 1 � +stiff i fi sD [ SDAM Photograph 1: Downstream most point of SDAM Reach 1 within Aquatic Feature 8. Photo facing upstream, N. SDAM Photograph 3: Mid point of SDAM Reach 1 within Aquatic Feature 8. Photo facing upstream, NE. SDAM Photograph 2: Mid point of SDAM Reach 1 within Aquatic Feature 8. Photo facing downstream, SW. SDAM Photograph 4: End point of SDAM Reach 1 within Aquatic Feature 8. Photo facing downstream, SW. SDAM Photographs I N T E R N A T I O N A L JN: 195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 Beta Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method General site information Project name or number: you Page 1 of 4 Site code or identifier: Reach 2 Assessor(s): April Nakagawa, Megan Minter Waterway name: Aquatic Feature 2 Visit date: Feb 15, 2024 Current weather conditions (check one) Notes on current or recent weather Coordinates at downstream end ❑ Storm/heavy rain conditions (e.g., precipitation in previous (decimal degrees): ❑ Steady rain week): Lat (N): 34.476644 ❑ Intermittent rain ❑ Snowing Long (W):-118.504810 ❑ Cloudy (_ % cover) Datum: NAD84 X Clear/Sunny Surrounding land -use within 100 in (check one or two): Describe reach boundaries: ❑ Urban/industrial/residential Upstream reach extends to a confluence ❑ Agricultural (farmland, crops, vineyards, pasture) Downstream reach is representative of entire drainage ❑ Developed open -space (e.g., golf course) Reach extends to top of bank on both sides ❑ Forested X Other natural Undeveloped open space ❑ Other: Mean channel width (m) Reach length (m): Enter photo ID, or check if completed 2.1 m 40x width; min 40 m; max 200 m. Top down: Photo 8 Mid down: Photo 5 80 m Mid up: Photo 6 Bottom up: Photo 4 Disturbed or difficult conditions (check all that apply): Notes on disturbances or difficult site conditions: ❑ Recent flood or debris flow ❑ Stream modifications (e.g., channelization) Site is generally undisturbed open ❑ Diversions space owned by the City of Santa ❑ Discharges Clarlta ❑ Drought ❑ Vegetation removal/limitations ❑ Other (explain in notes) None Observed hydrology: Comments on observed hydrology: 0 % of reach with surface flow Stream is dry at time of survey; minimal soil 0 % of reach with sub -surface or surface flow cracking observed, vegetation matting 0 observed, OHWM is present # of isolated pools Site sketch: Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 1. Hydrophytic plant species Page 2 of 4 Record up to 5 hydrophytic plant species (FACW or OBL in the Arid West regional wetland plant list) within the assessment area: within the channel or up to one half -channel width. Explain in notes it species has an odd distribution (e.g., covers less than 2% of assessment area, long-lived species solely represented by seedlings, or long-lived species solely represented by specimens in decline), or if there is uncertainty about the identification. Enter photo ID, or check if photo is taken. Check if applicable: ❑ No vegetation in assessment area /No hydrophytes in assessment area Odd Photo Species distribution? Notes ID Notes on hydrophytic vegetation: L anct 3. Aquatic invertebrates 2. How many aquatic 3. is there evidence of aquatic stages of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera invertebrates are and Trichoptera)? quantified in a 15-minute Yes / No search? Number of /None individuals ❑ 1 to 19 quantified: ❑ 20 + (Do not count mosquitos) Photo ID: Ephemeroptera larva Plecoptera larva Trichoptera larva Image credit: Digierfracey Tracey Sq2Lby Trace � S-b Notes on aquatic invertebrates: 4. Algal Cover Are algae found on the Not detected Notes on algae cover: Photo ID: streambed? ❑ Yes, < 10% cover No algae observed ❑ Check if all observed ❑ Yes, > 10% (check algae appear to be deposited Yes in single indicator below) from an upstreatn source. 5. Are single indicators observed? Indicator Present Notes Fish ❑ Yes / No, no fish ❑ No, only non-native mosquitofish Algae cover> 10% ❑ Yes / No Photo ID Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Supplemental information E.g., aquatic or semi -aquatic amphibians, snakes, or turtles; iron -oxidizing bacteria and fungi; etc. Stream is vegetated with upland vegetation within bed and banks Channel is incised 3-5 feet through the reach. Photo log Indicate if any other photos taken during the assessment Photo ID Description Additional notes about the assessment: mid channel width = 4 meters bottom channel width = 4 meters Field form for the beta Arid Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Revision Date December 8, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Classification: Ephemeral 1. Hydrophytic 2. Aquatic 3. EPT 4. Algae 5. Single indicators Classification plant species invertebrates taxa • fish present • algae cover > 10% Absent Absent E hemeral None Absent Present At least intermittent Present Absent Need more information Present At least intermittent Absent Absent Need more information Present At least intermittent Absent Absent Need more information Few (1-19) Present Present At least intermittent None Present At least intermittent Absent Need more information Absent Present At least intermittent Absent Absent Need more information Many (20+) Present Present At least intermittent Present At least intermittent Absent Need more information Absent None Absent Present At least intermittent Present At least intermittent Absent Intermittent Absent Present At least intermittent Few (1-19) Few (1-2) Present At least intermittent Absent Intermittent Absent Present At least intermittent Many (20+) Absent At least intermittent Present Present Intermittent Absent Need more information Absent None Absent Present At least intermittent Present At least intermittent Absent At least intermittent Many (3+) Few (1-19) Present Perennial Many (20+) Absent At least intermittent Present Perennial Shading provided to enhance readability by increasing the contrast between neighboring cells; empty cells indicate the classification will not change with additional information however it is recommended that all five indicators be measured and recorded during every assessment. SDAM Photograph 5: Downstream most point of SDAM Reach 2 within Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing upstream, SE. SDAM Photograph 7: Mid point of SDAM Reach 2 within Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing downstream, W SDAM Photograph 6: Mid point of SDAM Reach 2 within Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing upstream, E. SDAM Photograph 8: End point of SDAM Reach 2 within Aquatic Feature 2. Photo facing downstream, WSW SDAM Photographs I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L JN: 195477 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Attachment G References Attachment G — References Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Federal Register. 2023. Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States "; Conforming, 88 F.R. 61964 (September 8, 2023). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. National Flood Hazard Layer- FIRMette Flood Insurance Rate Map Nos. 06037C0810G and 06037C0830G. Accessed online at: hqVs://msc.ferna.gov/nfhl. Google, Inc. 2024. Google Earth Pro Imagery Version 7.3.6.9750, build date January 12, 2024. Aerial Image dated June 15, 2023. Lichvar, R.W., D.C. Finnegan, M.P. Ericsson, and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark -Indicators and their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of "Waters of the United States" in the Arid Southwestern Channels. ERDC/CRREL TR-06-5. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Lichvar, R.W., and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Mazor, R.D., Topping, B., Nadeau, T.-L., Fritz, K.M., Kelso, J., Harrington, R., Beck, W., McCune, K., Lowman, H., Allen, A., Leidy, R., Robb, J.T., and David, G.C.L. 2023. User Manuel for a Beta Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for the Arid West of the United States. Version 1.1. Document No. EPA-800-5-21001 Munsell Color. 2012. Munsell Soil Color Charts. X-rite. Grand Rapids, Michigan. SWRCB. 2019b. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Effective May 28, 2020. Available online at: https://www.waterboards.ca.aov/water issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE. 2016. Special Public Notice: Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Regulatory Division Regulatory Program. Issued on February 10, 2016. USACE. 2017. Special Public Notice: Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. Issued on March 16, 2017. USACE. 2024. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.6 Available online at https://wetland- plants. sec.usace.army.mil/. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project G-1 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Attachment G — References U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2024a. Custom Soil Resources Report for Antelope Valley Area, California. Accessed online at: https://websoilsui-vey.sc.egov.usda.gov . USDA. 2024b. Hydric Soils List of California. Accessed online at: https://www.nres.usda.i4ov/publications/queby-state.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/wettands/Data/Mapper.html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2024a. National Hydrography Dataset. Accessed online at: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/. USGS. 2024b. Mint Canyon 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Accessed via Google Earth February 2024. USGS. 2024c. Newhall 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Accessed via Google Earth February 2024. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project G-2 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report APPENDIX D: PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 2601 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Michael Baker' Office: 76O.603.6251 1 Fax:858.614.5001 Contact: James T. Daniels, Jr. iames.danielsco mbakerintl.com N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L JN192626 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by: James T. Daniels Jr., MA, RPA Senior Archaeologist and Marcel Young, BA Associate Archaeologist Michael Baker International April 2024 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for City of Santa Clarita Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Prepared by James T. Daniels Jr., MA, RPA and Marcel Young, BA INTERNATIONAL 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project No. 195477 April 2024 Draft National Archaeological Database (NADB) Type of Study: Literature Search, Intensive Pedestrian Survey, Significance Evaluation New Sites: BlueCloud-MBI-01H Updated Sites: CA-LAN-3132H USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Newhall and Mint Canyon Acreage: 500 acres Level of Investigation: CEQA Phase I Keywords: Santa Clarita; CEQA; BlueCloud-MBI-01H; CA-LAN-3132H Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS ManagementSummary........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Project Location and Description..................................................................................................4 1.2 Study Area.....................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Regulatory Framework.................................................................................................................. 9 1.4 Project Personnel........................................................................................................................ 14 2.0 Project Setting........................................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Natural Setting............................................................................................................................ 15 2.2 Cultural Setting........................................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Records Search Results and Archival Research........................................................................ 22 3.1 SCCIC Records Search.................................................................................................................. 22 3.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search..............................................24 3.3 Historical Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Archives Research....................................................24 4.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................28 4.1 Survey Methodology................................................................................................................... 28 5.0 Pedestrian Survey Results....................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Archaeological Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................. 33 6.0 Evaluation Recommendations................................................................................................ 34 7.0 Conclusions and Management Recommendations.................................................................. 36 8.0 Professional Qualifications..................................................................................................... 38 9.0 References..............................................................................................................................39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Blue Cloud Bike Park Project Vicinity Map..................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Blue Cloud Bike Park Project Location Map................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Blue Cloud Bike Park Project Area................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Structures once located within the project area and associated with site CA-LAN-3132H......... 27 Figure 5. Overview of the southwestern portion of the survey area showing dense low-lying vegetation. .................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 6. Small -5 x 8 meter concrete pad associated with CA-LAN-3132H.............................................. 30 Figure 7. Brick fragment with "McClintock" stamped on the surface in Site CA-LAN-3132H....................30 Figure 8. Overview of Blue Cloud Dust Mine(BlueCloud-MBI-01H)...........................................................31 Figure 9. Mining wash plant associated with Blue Cloud Dust Mine site...................................................32 Figure 10. Trailmobile trailer associated with Blue Cloud Dust Mine site..................................................32 Figure11. Water storage tank.................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 12. Blue Cloud Mine refuse and equipment including water trailer, tractor, and truck.................33 INTERNATIONAL Page Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment LIST OF TABLES Table MS-1. Cultural Resources within the Project Area.............................................................................. 3 Table 1. Previous Studies within a Half Mile of the Project Area............................................................... 23 Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources Within a Half Mile of the Project Area ....................................... 24 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Confidential: Records Search Summary and Map APPENDIX B Native American Heritage Commission correspondence APPENDIX C Confidential: Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms APPENDIX D BLM GLO Records INTERNATIONAL Page ii Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment The City of Santa Clarita (City) proposes to construct the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (project), a mountain bike park in the northern portion of the City that would include approximately 15 miles of 4- to 6-foot- wide trails interspersed throughout the project site and two activity/programming areas. Trail types for all skill levels provided would include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails, approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails, and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. The Haskell Bike Park Core, located on the western portion of the project site, would include an event plaza with picnic tables and a flexible stage, pump tracks, a dual slalom course, progressive jumplines, a progressive skills area, event/spectator areas, shade structures, two vault restrooms , a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Parking for the Haskell Bike Park Core would be provided within a 99-space parking lot and a parking/emergency turnaround with eight additional parking spaces, two American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and four spaces for food trucks. The Blue Cloud Trailhead, located near the central portion of the project site, would feature a field station with gathering and restoration workspaces for volunteers, designated areas for potential future landscape restoration, a multi -use trailhead, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space for riders with a shade structure). Parking for the Blue Cloud Trailhead would be provided within a parking/emergency turnaround with 10 parking spaces and one ADA parking space, and along Blue Cloud Road. The project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the CEQA lead agency. This Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment is produced compliant with CEQA standards. In support of the project, Michael Baker International conducted background and archival research, South Central Coastal Information Center records search, Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search, an archaeological field survey, buried site sensitivity analysis, and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) evaluation of one previously recorded historic -period archaeological site and one newly identified site. These efforts were completed to determine whetherthe proposed project could result in significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. Based on the results of the study, the two historic -period archaeological sites have been evaluated as ineligible for the California Register, and therefore are not historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a), nor do they meet the definition of a "unique archeological resource" as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. As such, no further work is recommended for these resources. A finding of less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated under CEQA is appropriate for the project. Refer to the recommended mitigation measures in Chapter 7. TABLE MS-1. CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA California Register Evaluation Historic Property/ Resource Name Description Recommendation Historical Resource CA-LAN-3132H Structure Pads Ineligible No BlueCloud-MBI-01H Mining Site I Ineligible I No INTERNATIONAL Page 3 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment This report presents the results of Michael Baker International's Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (project). The cultural resources assessment was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for which the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency. The cultural resources assessment included background and archival research, a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search, historical society consultation, an archaeological field survey, buried site sensitivity analysis, and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) evaluation of two historic -period archaeological sites. The sites are recommended as ineligible for listing in the California Register. These efforts were completed to determine whether the proposed project could result in significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The 380.82-acre project site is generally located roughly 6 miles east of Interstate 5 and roughly 5 miles north of State Route 14 within the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1). The proposed project area is mapped in Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 15 West on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mint Canyon, California 7.5-minute quadrangle and Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 16 West on the USGS Newhall, California 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 2). Specifically, the project site is located within Haskell Canyon Open Space south of the Angeles National Forest, north of Copper Hill Drive, east of an unnamed Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) dirt access road adjacent to Haskell Canyon Wash, and northwest of Blue Cloud Road. The project site is primarily located on Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2813-010-273, 2813-010-274, 2813-010-275, 2813-010-276, 2813-010- 900, 2813-010-901, 2813-010-902, 2813-025-270, and 3244-031-901. The project proposes to construct the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (project), a mountain bike park in the northern portion of the City that would include approximately 15 miles of 4- to 6-foot-wide trails interspersed throughout the project site and two activity/programming areas. Trail types for all skill levels provided would include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails, approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails, and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. The Haskell Bike Park Core, located on the western portion of the project site, would include an event plaza with picnic tables and a flexible stage, pump tracks, a dual slalom course, progressive jumplines, a progressive skills area, event/spectator areas, shade structures, two vault restrooms, a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Parking for the Haskell Bike Park Core would be provided within a 99- space parking lot and a parking/emergency turnaround with eight additional parking spaces, two American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and four spaces for food trucks. The Blue Cloud Trailhead, located near the central portion of the project site, would feature a field station with gathering and restoration workspaces for volunteers, designated areas for potential future landscape restoration, a multi -use trailhead, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space for riders with a shade structure). Parking for the Blue Cloud Trailhead would be provided within a parking/emergency turnaround with 10 parking spaces and one ADA parking space, and along Blue Cloud Road. INTERNATIONAL Page 4 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 1.2 STUDY AREA The cultural resources study area for the project consists of the proposed trails and amenities for the bike park and a 20-meter radius surrounding them (Figure 3). This was the area covered during the pedestrian survey, less those areas with slopes of 30 degrees or greater, as slopes of 30 degrees or greater pose a hazard for pedestrian surveys and have low probability for archaeological deposits. INTERNATIONAL Page 5 r'Park //� KERN COUNTY — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — LOS ANGELES COUNTY HuAgry Valley L State\Vehicular a�Sandberg Recre' on Area Caswell MOUNTAIN S 4 W IL L' 06 MOUNTAIN pro A _'A SIERRA Pirl'O' 4 prod ot Me Palm Lakeview II Acton Imp CaStalC JUTILLion GIN SOLEDAD CANYON Santa Clarita h Fillmore 7 0 SANTA Su54& 11L7&1Vr4j1V5 Ai# -k ,�'Moorpai Simi Valley\ San Fernando a. 4ft', Xf 1,05 Alig Cie s V SAN FE N.ANDOxt SEMI HILLS ERDUGO��Z, VALLEV MOUNTAINS iLa Cahada —Flintridge Thousand Oaks Burbank Agoura HillsCafg-a2s -Glendale P d 1 NTA MONI( MotJNTAf NS BeverlyHflliiil cf�as AnReles 0 3 I N T E R N A T I D N A L BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA 6 Miles Regional Vicinity Figure 1 At Michael Baker Le end l Blue Cloud Project Area QBlue Cloud Cultural Survey Area I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK 500 1,000 SANTA CLARITA, CA Feet Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Area —,.i,, E,r, Ar,GIS Onl— 2023 Neannep Image,. Santa Glanle, G Ihf,, ie Figure 3 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 1.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state's public agencies (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14[3] Section 15002[i]). CEQA conditions that it is the policy of the state of California to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with historic environmental qualities and preserve for future generations examples of the major periods of California history" (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001[b], [c]). Under the provisions of CEQA, "a project with an effect 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" (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[b]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register. • Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined in PRC Section 5020.1[k]). • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting PRC Section 5024.1(g) requirements. • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[a]). A historical resource consists of "any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which 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.... Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources" (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[a][3]). The CEQA planning process requires considering historical resources and unique archaeological resources (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5; PRC Section 21083.2). If feasible, adverse effects to the significance of historical resources must be avoided or mitigated (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[b][4]). The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters adverselythose physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its eligibility for the California Register. If there is a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the preparation of an environmental impact report may be required (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15065[a]). If the cultural resource in question is an archaeological site, CEQA (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[c][1]) requires that the lead agencyfirst determine if the site is a historical resource as defined in CCR Title 14(3) Section 15064.5(a). If the site qualifies as a historical resource, potential adverse impacts must be considered in the same manner as a historical resource (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 2001a). If the archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but does qualify as a unique archaeological site, then the archaeological site is treated in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15069.5[c][3]). In practice, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource. CEQA defines a "unique archaeological resource" as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be INTERNATIONAL Page 9 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2[g]). If an impact to a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible mitigation measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15126.4[a][1]). Mitigation must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource. Generally, drawings, photographs, and/or displays do not mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by the demolition or the destruction of a historical resource. However, CEQA (PRC Section 21002.1[b]) requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate impacts to a less than significant level (OHP 2001a: 9). 1.3.2 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The California Register helps government agencies identify and evaluate California's historical resources (OHP 2001b: 1) and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register is to be considered during the CEQA process (OHP 2001a: 7). A cultural resource is evaluated under four criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant in accordance with one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of California's history and cultural heritage. Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Age In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a "scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource." Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource (OHP 2006: 3). OHP recommends documenting, and taking into consideration in the planning process, any cultural resource that is 45 years or older (OHP 1995: 2). INTERNATIONAL Page 10 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Period of5ignificance The period of significance for a property is "the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing' (NPS 1997: 42). The period of significance begins with the date of the earliest important land use or activity that is reflected by historic characteristics tangible today. The period closes with the date when events having historical importance ended. The period of significance for an archaeological property is "the broad span of time about which the site or district is likely to provide information" (NPS 1997: 42). Archaeological properties may have more than one period of significance. Integrity The California Register also requires a resource to possess integrity, which is defined as "the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association" (OHP 2006: 2). Archaeologists use the term "integrity" to describe the level of preservation or quality of information contained within a district, site, or excavated assemblage. Integrity is relative to the specific significance that the resource conveys. Although it is possible to correlate the seven aspects of integrity with standard archaeological site characteristics, those aspects are often unclear for evaluating the ability of an archaeological resource to convey significance under Criterion 4. The integrity of archaeological resources is judged according to the site's ability to yield scientific and cultural information that can be used to address important research questions (NPS 1997: 44-49). Eligibility Resources that are significant, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity are considered eligible for listing in the California Register. 1.3.3 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 PRC Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any "vertebrate paleontological site ... or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands." Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. PRC Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. 1.3.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states 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 remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner INTERNATIONAL Page 11 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Native American most likely descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. 1.3.5 City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Municipal Code The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan for the City of Santa Clarita (2011) includes the following goals, objectives, and policies related to cultural resources that would be applicable to the proposed project: Goal CO 5: Protection of historical and culturally significant resources that contribute to community identity and a sense of history. Objective CO 5.1: Protect sites identified as having local, state, or national significance as a cultural or historical resource. Policy CO 5.1.1: For sites identified on the Cultural and Historical Resources Map (Exhibit CO-6), review appropriate documentation prior to issuance of any permits for grading, demolition, alteration, and/or new development, to avoid significant adverse impacts. Such documentation may include cultural resource reports, environmental impact reports, or other information as determined to be adequate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 5.1.2: Review any proposed alterations to cultural and historic sites identified in Table CO-1 or other sites which are so designated, based on the guidelines contained in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Properties (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 68, also known as 36 CFR 68), or other adopted City guidelines. Policy CO 5.1.3: As new information about other potentially significant historic and cultural sites becomes available, update the Cultural and Historical Resources Inventory and apply appropriate measures to all identified sites to protect their historical and cultural integrity. Objective CO 5.3: Encourage conservation and preservation of Native American cultural places, including prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial sites on both public and private lands, throughout all stages of the planning and development process. Policy CO 5.3.1: For any proposed general plan amendment, specific plan, or specific plan amendment, notify and consult with any California Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that have traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction, regarding any potential impacts to Native American resources from the proposed action, pursuant to State guidelines. Policy CO 5.3.2: For any proposed development project that may have a potential impact on Native American cultural resources, provide notification to California Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission that have traditional lands within the City's jurisdiction, and consider the input received prior to a discretionary decision. INTERNATIONAL Page 12 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Policy CO 5.3.3: Review and consider a cultural resources study for any new grading or development in areas identified as having a high potential for Native American resources, and incorporate recommendations into the project approval as appropriate to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. Chapter 17.64 of the City of Santa Clarita's Municipal Code, Historic Preservation, seeks preservation and protection of "public and private historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character or interest, or relocating such resources where necessary for their preservation and for their use, education, and view by the general public." A building, structure, or object may be designated by the Planning Commission "as a historic resource if it possesses sufficient character -defining features and integrity, and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural development of the City, State or Nation; or 2. Is associated with persons significant in the history of the City, State or Nation; or 3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or 4. Has a unique location, singular physical characteristic(s), or is a landscape, view or vista representing an established and familiarvisual feature of a neighborhood, community, orthe City; or 5. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the history or prehistory of the City, State, or Nation." 1.3.6 Native American Heritage Values Federal and state laws mandate that contemporary Native Americans' concerns about potentially ancestral human remains, associated funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony be considered. Consequently, an important element in assessing the significance of the study site has been evaluating the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Potentially relevant to prehistoric archaeological sites is the category termed traditional cultural properties (TCP) in discussions of cultural resource management performed under federal auspices. According to Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), "traditional" in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Cultural resources can include TCPs, such as gathering areas, landmarks, and ethnographic locations, in addition to archaeological districts. Generally, a TCP may consist of a single site, or group of associated archaeological sites (district or traditional cultural landscape), or an area of cultural/ethnographic importance. INTERNATIONAL Page 13 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment In California, the Traditional Tribal Cultural Places Bill of 2004 requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes during the project planning process, specifically before adopting or amending a general plan or a specific plan, or when designating land as open space for protecting Native American cultural places. The intent of this legislation is to encourage consultation and assist in the preservation of Native American places of prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial importance. State Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015, introduced into CEQA the tribal cultural resource (TCR) as a class of cultural resources and additional considerations relating to Native American consultation. As a general concept, a TCR is similar to the federally defined TCP; however, it incorporates consideration of local and state significance and requires mitigation under CEQA. A TCR may be considered significant if it is included in a local or state register of historical resources; is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PCR Section 5024.1; is a geographically defined cultural landscape that meets one or more of these criteria; and/or is a historical resource described in PCR Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource described in PCR Section 21083.2, or is a non -unique archaeological resource if it conforms with PRC Section 21074(a). 1.4 PROJECT PERSONNEL James Daniels, MA, RPA, served as principal investigator and primary author of this report. Marcel Young, BA, and Epifanio Figueroa, BA, conducted the archaeological pedestrian survey. Marc Beherec, PhD, RPA, provided overall project management support and senior technical review. INTERNATIONAL Page 14 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 2.1 NATURAL SETTING California is divided into 11 geomorphic provinces, each defined by unique geologic and geomorphic characteristics. The project area is in the central portion of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, marked by east —west trending mountain ranges and valleys in contrast to the northwest -trending ranges of coastal California (CGS 2002). This geomorphic province extends offshore to include physiogeographic features, such as the northern members of the Channel Islands of Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands (CGS 2002). The Transverse Ranges province crosses several counties and is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada geomorphic provinces to the north, the Mojave Desert geomorphic province to the east, and the Peninsular Ranges and Colorado Desert geomorphic provinces to the south. The geology of the Santa Clarita area was mapped by Campbell et al. (2016) at a scale of 1:100,000 and by Dibblee and Ehrenspeck (1996) at a scale of 1:24,000. Geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as alluvial gravel, sand, and clay of the valley area that date to the Holocene epoch (Qa of Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1996). The Mint Canyon formation consists of terrestrial sedimentary deposits ranging from conglomerate through sandstone to claystone that date to the Miocene epoch (Tmc of Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1996). According to the Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California (US Department of Agriculture 2023), the project site is underlain by four soil map units: Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CmF2); Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (ScF2); Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SsB); and Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (YoC). The project area is within the Venturan-Angeleno Coastal Hills ecoregion, a part of the larger California Coastal Sage and Chaparral ecoregion. The plant and animal species that would have been present during prehistoric times in this ecoregion include a mix of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), blue elderberry (Sambucus Mexicana), bigpod ceanothus (Ceanothus megacarpus), black sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia apiana), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) (Griffith et al. 2016). The vegetation is adapted to a Mediterranean climate, with hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The region's wildlife during late prehistory would have included the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), California quail (Callipepla californica), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). 2.2 CULTURAL SETTING This section provides a brief summary of the prehistoric record and ethnohistoric and historic settings of the project area. INTERNATIONAL Page 15 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 2.2.1 Prehistoric Period The project area is within a segment of California where the prehistoric record is not as well documented as in other regions in the state. There have been a few significant archaeological studies within the Santa Clarita Valley, but they have not fully defined the local culture history of the Santa Clarita Valley and have thus lumped the region into neighboring cultural historical schemes of the Southern California coast (e.g., Glassow et al. 2007; Waugh 1999; ICF 2021). The summary of the prehistoric occupation of the region here follows the general cultural history schema of those previous reports. The prehistoric occupation of Southern California is divided chronologically into four temporal phases or horizons (Moratto 1984). Horizon I, or the Early Man Horizon, began at the first appearance of people in the region (approximately 12,000 years ago) and continued until approximately 5,000 BC. One of the oldest archaeological finds in the region is Daisy Cave, on San Miguel Island, where cultural remains have been radiocarbon dated to between 11,100 BC and 10,950 BC (Moratto 1984). These early occupants of Southern California are believed to have been nomadic large -game hunters whose tool assemblage included percussion -flaked scrapers and knives; large, well -made stemmed, fluted, or leaf -shaped projectile points (e.g., Lake Mojave, Silver Lake); crescentics; heavy core/cobble tools; hammerstones; bifacial cores; and choppers and scraper -planes. Warren (1968) and W. J. Wallace (1955) suggest that the absence of milling tools commonly used for seed preparation indicates that an orientation toward hunting continued throughout this phase. Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition, began around 5,000 BC and continued until approximately 1,500 BC. The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by the widespread use of milling stones (manos and metates) and core tools, with few projectile points or bone or shell artifacts. This horizon represents a diversification of subsistence activities and a more sedentary settlement pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that hunting became less critical and that a reliance on collecting shellfish and vegetal resources increased (Moratto 1984: 159). The inland occupants collected primarily hard seeds and hunted small mammals; projectile points were more common in inland assemblages. A greater emphasis on seed gathering marked the general settlement/subsistence patterns of the Middle Holocene. Coastal and inland sites exhibit shallow midden accumulations, suggesting seasonal camping, and midden accumulation at desert locales dating to this period is generally rare. Based on the distribution of sites assigned to this period, aboriginal groups likely followed a modified, centrally based wandering pattern, with an inferred shift toward enhanced logistical settlement organization (Warren 1968). In this semisedentary pattern, larger groups occupied a base camp for a portion of the year, while smaller groups used satellite camps to exploit seasonally available floral resources such as grass seeds, berries, tubers, and nuts. King suggests that the coastal sites probably represent more permanent occupations than those found in the interior because coastal inhabitants were sustained by more reliable and abundant food resources (King 1967: 66-67). Horizon III, the Intermediate Horizon or Campbell Tradition, began around 1,500 BC and continued until approximately AD 600-800. Horizon III is defined by a shift from the use of milling stones to increased use of mortar and pestle, possibly indicating a greater reliance on acorns as a food source. Projectile points INTERNATIONAL Page 16 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment become more abundant and, together with faunal remains, indicate increased use of both land and sea mammals (Moratto 1984: 159). Horizon IV, the Late Horizon, which began around AD 600-800 and terminated with the arrival of Europeans in the early sixteenth century, is characterized by dense populations; diversified hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, including intensive fishing and hunting for sea mammals; extensive trade networks; use of the bow and arrow; and a general cultural elaboration (Moratto 1984: 159). All regional chronological sequences recognize the introduction of the bow and arrow at about AD 500 by the appearance of small arrow points and arrow -shaft straighteners. Diagnostic artifacts for the Late Horizon include small triangular projectile points, mortars and pestles, steatite ornaments and containers, perforated stones, circular shell fishhooks, numerous and varied bone tools, and bone and shell ornamentation. Elaborate mortuary customs, generous use of bitumen, and the development of extensive trade networks are also characteristic of this period. Pottery, ceramic pipes, cremation urns, rock paintings, and some European trade goods were added to the previous cultural assemblage during the latter half of the late prehistoric occupation of the Southern California coastal region (Meighan 1954). 2.2.2 Ethnographic Setting Native American territorial occupation of the Los Angeles Basin and surrounding areas was traditionally assigned to the Gabrielino, also known as the Tongva, Chumash, and Tataviam Native American groups. The latter occupies the northwest and northern limits of the San Fernando Valley and other surrounding territories (Grant 1978; King and Blackburn 1978). For this study, a short description of Tataviam ethnography is provided. The Tataviam are one of the least understood Native American groups in California. Their original territory has been estimated to lie within Los Angeles, Ventura, and Kern Counties (King and Blackburn 1978). Their language belongs to the Takic branch of the larger Uto-Aztecan linguistic family and, therefore, exhibits phylogenetic (based on natural evolution) relationships to other Takic languages of Southern California, such as those of the Gabrielino of the Los Angeles Basin and the Kitanemuk of the Antelope Valley. The name Tataviam means "people facing the sun." Their territory is thought to include the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River drainage east of Piru Creek, extending north to the southwestern fringes of the Antelope Valley (Fortier 2009; King and Blackburn 1978). Their neighbors included the Kitanemuk and Vanyumetothe north, Chumash communities to the west, Gabrielino territories tothe south, and Serrano communities to the east and southeast (King and Blackburn 1978). At the time of the missionary conquest, in the late eighteenth century, Tataviam villages were numerous. Many of the thousand Tataviam in the Los Angeles region were eventually sent to Mission San Fernando. Of those with a known ethnicity baptized at the mission, 27 percent were Tataviam (Fortier 2009). Some of the most established Tataviam villages during the historic period included Wa'atnga and Coaynga near present-day Piru; Kavwenga at the present-day Cahuenga; Tujunga at Rancho Tujunga; Chaguayanga and Tochonanga near Newhall; Suitcanga near Encino; and Mapipinga at Vazquez Rocks. Mission San Fernando itself was established in the village of Achoicominga. On the eve of colonial contact, circa 1770, evidence suggests that Tataviam economic strategies were like those of the Gabrielino and the other similar groups in the vicinity. The Tataviam collected yucca, acorns, sage seeds, cherry, juniper berries, and other plants within their territory. Men and women hunted rabbits, rats, deer, birds, and antelope. INTERNATIONAL Page 17 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 2.2.3 Historic Setting Spanish/Mexican Period Spanish occupation of California began at San Diego in 1769 when Franciscan missionaries led by Father Junipero Serra and Spanish soldiers established a military fort and chapel on Presidio Hill, which became colonial California's first presidio and first mission. That same year, an expedition headed by Gaspar de Portola traveled north from San Diego to explore Alta California for additional mission sites and search for Monterey Bay, which Spanish mariners had previously encountered. Portola and his party would be the first people of European descent to travel through the project vicinity. Moving northward, the party reached the Santa Clara River near Castaic Junction on August 8. Recording the expedition in journals, Father Juan Crespi described the area as "a very suitable site for a mission, with much good land, many palisades, two very large arroyos of water, and five large [Native American] villages close together." The following day, Portola's party followed the Santa Clara River west toward present-day Fillmore (Perkins 1957; Rawls and Bean 2011). Mission San Gabriel was established in the Los Angeles Basin in 1771. Five years later, a party led by Father Francisco Garces became the second group of Spanish explorers to travel through the Santa Clara River Valley, this time en route to the San Joaquin Valley. The Los Angeles pueblo was established as a civilian settlement on September 4, 1781. On March 31 of the following year, Father Serra founded Mission San Buenaventura, California's ninth mission and the last to be established under Serra's leadership. The coastal site was approximately 60 miles west-northwest of the Los Angeles pueblo. Serra's successor as "president" of the California missions, Father Fermin Lausen, established Mission San Fernando in the northern San Fernando Valley in 1797 (Kimbro et al. 2010; Perkins 1957; Rawls and Bean 2011). Mission San Fernando leaders sought to colonize the Santa Clara River Valley. They intended to missionize the valley's numerous Native American villages and exploit its natural resources to supplement supplies from other regional missions bound for the military garrison at the Presidio of Santa Barbara. Successfully challenging attempts by civilian Francisco Avila to gain control of lands around the headwaters of the Santa Clara River, Mission San Fernando leaders established an asistencia (a smaller sub -mission) in the vicinity of Castaic Junction during the first years of the nineteenth century. The area became known as Rancho San Francisco. As at the missions, asistencia leaders compelled local Native Americans to learn and perform European forms of animal husbandry, construction, and agricultural production. Rancho San Francisco was fenced to control cattle herds, and a dam and irrigation canal were constructed on the eastern portion of the rancho (Perkins 1957). Spanish colonial officials maintained an ultimately tenuous grip on Alta California as the mission system expanded. Although some missions flourished economically, threats from within and without increasingly undermined stability. Indigenous populations declined dramatically because of disease, overwork, and mission campaigns to end native ways of life. Instances of native resistance to Spanish authority multiplied across Alta California. Mariners with allegiances to competing colonial powers and trappers/explorers from the east and north increasingly challenged the authority of officials and priests, whose problems were of little interest to officials in Spain, which was embroiled in European conflicts and declining as a major power. Spain eventually lost control of its colonies in North America, and Mexico achieved independence and made California a territory in 1821 (Perkins 1957; Rawls and Bean 2011). INTERNATIONAL Page 18 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment In the wake of Mexico's independence from Spain, years of political instability, and several failed attempts to secularize California's missions, Governor Jose Figueroa issued a proclamation in 1834, defining the terms of the secularization process that would be instituted over the next two years. Provisions for ensuring that Indians would receive mission lands, however, were of little or no practical benefit to the region's Native Americans. Mission lands were distributed mainly to officials and retired soldiers. Approximately 500 private land grants were made under Mexican rule. Governors Juan Batista Alvarado, Manuel Micheltorena, and Pio Pico made most of these grants after secularization (Rawls and Bean 2011). In 1834, Lieutenant Antonio del Valle was given control of Mission San Fernando. Members of del Valle's family may have made private use of Rancho San Francisco lands as early as 1824. Del Valle had a map of the rancho produced in 1837, and in 1839, he successfully petitioned Governor Alvarado to grant him the 48,612-acre rancho, which gave him control of its former Mission San Fernando asistencia. Under del Valle, the rancho produced cattle and wheat. In 1841, after Don del Valle died, the land was divided among his children and his widow, who subsequently married Don Jose Salazar. In 1842, one of del Valle's sons, Ygnacio del Valle, established the 1,800-acre Rancho Camulos west of the project alignment (Perkins 1957; Triem and Stone 1996). Predating the discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills, which inaugurated the California Gold Rush of 1848, Francisco Lopez first discovered commercially viable quantities of gold in California in 1842, in an area east of the project alignment. While foraging wild onions in Placerita Canyon, east of Newhall, Lopez noticed and gathered several gold nuggets. News of the discovery lured prospectors from Sonora, Mexico, and by the end of 1842, Abel Stearns had sent the first gold extracted from Placerita Canyon mines to the United States Mint in Philadelphia. Over the next several years, Lopez's gold discovery would attract more miners to the upper Santa Clara River region (Kyle et al. 2002; Perkins 1957). American Period At the conclusion of the Mexican -American War in 1848, California was ceded to the United States and granted statehood in 1850. In theory, the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican - American War, protected the property rights of California's Hispanic or Californio population and their prior claims to land. In practice, however, the legal process for vetting land claims set in motion by the Land Commission, established in 1851, combined with the mounting debts of many rancho owners, allowed American and other newcomers to take possession of the abundant rancho lands that had been granted initially to Californios under Mexican rule (Perkins 1957; Rawls and Bean 2011; Guinn 1915). After 1850, transportation developments like the Southern Pacific Railroad transformed the Santa Clara River Valley from an isolated backwater to a major Southern California travel corridor. In 1854, Fort Tejon was established in the highlands northwest of the project area. The fort functioned as a center of military and political power between Visalia and Los Angeles. Its soldiers accompanied travelers to Salt Lake City and also policed the region, which was marked by frequent conflicts among native groups, miners, and Euro-American settlers after 1850. During the 1860s, the fort became part of the vast landholdings of the former Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California, Edward F. Beale. In 1858, Butterfield Overland Mail began operations between Los Angeles and Kern County and established stage stations at Fort Tejon and elsewhere. The road between the Santa Clara River Valley and San Fernando Valley was known as the worst portion of the Butterfield route until Beale received a franchise to develop a toll road. In 1862, Beale INTERNATIONAL Page 19 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment constructed what became known as "Beale's Cut," a pass through the mountains that vastly improved travel (Kyle et al. 2002; Perkins 1957). Surveys for a rail line between Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley and through the project vicinity were conducted as early as the 1850s. Southern Pacific engineers expected this line to be more difficult to build than the original transcontinental railroad through the Sierra Nevada. As developed, the Southern Pacific line required the construction of a 7,000-foot-long tunnel near Beale's Cut, approximately 9 miles southwest of the project area. In 1876, 1,500 Chinese immigrant laborers worked around the clock to complete the tunnel, the total cost of which surpassed $2 million. The railroad line between Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley was completed in 1877, and in 1886, the Southern Pacific began constructing a branch line from Soledad Canyon to Ventura. Stops on the line included Castaic, Del Valle, and Camulos. Helen Hunt Jackson's novel, Ramona; Southern Pacific promotional efforts; and cooperation from the del Valle family helped make Rancho Camulos one of the most frequented railroad tourist destinations in Southern California (Guinn 1915; Perkins 1957; Triem and Stone 1996). In addition to tourism, economic activity in the project vicinity included agriculture and mining. At one time, a mining camp was located at the west end of Soledad Canyon. The town of Newhall took shape after the completion of the Southern Pacific line between the San Joaquin Valley and San Fernando Valley when H. M. Newhall —who had earlier acquired much of Rancho San Francisco —convinced residents to relocate the townsite approximately 3 miles south to another area along the Southern Pacific line. There, Newhall constructed the Southern Hotel, providing the best accommodations for any stop on the Southern Pacific line between Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley (Perkins 1958a, 1958b). The most important developments in the project vicinity during the first two decades of the twentieth century involved transportation improvements to accommodate increased automobile travel. During the 1910s, the County of Los Angeles developed the Tejon-Castaic "Ridge Route" between the San Fernando Valley and San Joaquin Valley. Also, in 1910, the County of Los Angeles constructed the Newhall Tunnel to replace Beale's Cut. By the early 1920s, the tunnel and the Ridge Route facilitated automobile traffic through the area (Perkins 1958b; Blow 1920). West of the project area, one of the worst disasters in California history was unleashed during the 1920s. William Mulholland, who engineered the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Los Angeles Aqueduct to deliver water from Owens Valley, thereby enabling Los Angeles's rapid urban growth, sought to develop a reservoir to supplement the water supply. In 1926, the department constructed a Mulholland -designed dam and reservoir at San Francisquito Canyon on geological foundations that proved catastrophically faulty. In 1928, the dam failed and released a torrent of water that ripped through the Santa Clara River Valley and killed more than 400 people on its path to the Ventura shoreline. The disaster ended Mulholland's career and focused future water planning on the Colorado River (Starr 1990). By the late 1920s, increased traffic on the Golden State Highway (US 99) between the San Joaquin Valley and San Fernando Valley prompted the State Highway Commission to direct the Department of Public Works to begin a series of highway improvements. The first such improvement was the construction of a new highway segment between Castaic and Gorman. The Department of Public Works also eliminated Newhall Tunnel, which had become a severe bottleneck, and replaced it with an open cut that was INTERNATIONAL Page 20 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment between 130 and 185 feet deep. A new bridge was also constructed to replace the one washed out in 1928 by the dam failure at San Francisquito Canyon. The highway improvements eliminated numerous dangerous curves and the Newhall Tunnel bottleneck and shortened the route between the San Joaquin Valley and San Fernando Valley by 14 miles (California Highways and Public Works 1930; E. E. Wallace 1930). Beginning in the 1920s, the small valley known as Val Verde, which is approximately 13 miles west of the project area, became an important site for the Los Angeles -area Black community. At that time, racial discrimination kept Black Angelinos from using public beaches and swimming pools and competing for most higher -wage jobs. In the mid-1920s, Black professionals, led by newspaper publisher Charlotta Bass and insurance businessman Norman O. Houston, organized a so-called "Black Palm Springs" at the Eureka Tract in Val Verde. There, Black professionals purchased land and built summer vacation homes, while many restaurants and inns began serving Black vacationers. In 1939, the County of Los Angeles donated land to develop Val Verde Park, including a clubhouse and swimming pool. The park became an important site of Black community gatherings. Until the civil rights movement secured access to previously segregated leisure and residential spaces, Val Verde provided a space for Black Angelinos to enjoy rural living and leisure without the threat of racial conflict (Worden 1996). During the early 1960s, a new phase of transportation improvements occurred near the project area. The State of California adopted the segment of State Route 126 from the Los Angeles/Ventura county line east to the Golden State Freeway. A new interchange connecting State Route 126 to the Golden State Freeway (US 99) at Castaic Junction was constructed in 1964-1965. This effort was part of converting the Golden State Freeway between the San Joaquin Valley and San Fernando Valley into the eight -lane Interstate 5 (Telford 1963, 1964). With plans to develop the town of Valencia and in hopes of luring visitors to the area, the Newhall Land and Farming Company partnered with Sea World to develop an amusement park on a 70-acre site. Construction on the park began in 1969. On May 29, 1971, Magic Mountain opened to the public, with attractions that included the Gold Rush roller coaster, El Bumpo bumper boat ride, Log Jammer flume ride, Sky Tower, and double -armed ferris wheel. Entertainers such as Barbara Streisand, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Durante, Phyllis Diller, Pat Boone, the Carpenters, Connie Stevens, Mac Davis, and Sonny & Cher performed at the park's 7 UP/Dixi Cola Showcase Theater. Millions of people have visited Magic Mountain since its initial development in the early 1970s (Worden 2012). In the 1970s, numerous residential tracts were developed west of the project area. Valencia, Newhall, and Santa Clarita became commuter suburbs dominated by single-family housing. Suburban tract housing development in these communities, as well as others on the outskirts of the San Fernando Valley in western Los Angeles County and eastern Ventura County, depended on increased water supplies from the State Water Project, which was constructed to convey Northern California water from the Feather River to Southern California via the California Aqueduct. State Water Project water would be pumped up the Tehachapi Mountains, at which point the California Aqueduct would split into east and west branches. There, the state constructed a dam and created Castaic Lake. The first water conveyed through the California Aqueduct reached the new Castaic Lake reservoir in April 1972 (Schwarz 1991). INTERNATIONAL Page 21 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Haskell Canyon and the ProjectArea Haskell Canyon was most likely an important place for Native American populations prior to Spanish contact. Still, little information was available about the canyon until the late 1800s when the canyon was homesteaded by the Haskell family for their cattle ranch. John C. Haskell, a pioneer of 1849, played a significant role in the history of California's cattle ranching. He and his family settled in Haskell Canyon and established the Haskell Ranch in 1890. Over time, he expanded the cattle ranch to cover more than 800 acres. Haskell Canyon was not only home to cattle ranching but also hog ranching. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records indicate that land patents were granted to John Haskell in Sections 1 and 25 of Township 5N and Range 16W, which are both north and south edges of the proposed project area. In 1919, James T. Agajanian, an Armenian immigrant, ventured into the garbage collection and hog -raising business in Saugus, California. The Agajanian family's ranch was situated in Haskell Canyon. The pig pens were located in and east of today's Haskell Canyon Wash near the junction of Haskell Canyon Road and Agajanian Lane, south of the proposed project area. However, this was just one of several hog farms that dotted the canyon. During the 1930s-1950s, these hog farms served as waste recycling centers. Food waste from restaurants and homes was trucked to these farms, allowed to ferment for a couple of years, and then fed to the hogs. One hog farm was located at the entrance of the proposed project area and has been recorded as a historic -period archaeological site. Previous research indicated that this particular farm was likely to have been owned by Ben Kazarian, who, in January 1950, was granted a permit by Los Angeles County to establish a hog ranch on 320 acres in Haskell Canyon. In 1965, Kazarian applied for a renewal to the permit to operate the hog ranch, located "approximately three miles north of the junction of Bouquet Canyon and Haskell Canyon," which would place it in the vicinity of the project area (Valley News 1965, Messick and Hale 2005). 3.1 SCCIC RECORDS SEARCH Michael Baker International staff conducted a records search of the California Historical Resource Information System at the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton on December 6, 2023. The records search covered a half -mile radius around the project area and included archaeological and historical resources, locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies, and a review of the state OHP historic properties directory. The records search summary and map are included as Appendix A (Confidential appendices, bound separately). 3.1.1 Previous Studies The records search results identified nine previous cultural resource studies completed within the records search limits, two of which intersect the proposed project area: LA-10205 Archaeological Investigation for INTERNATIONAL Page 22 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Meadow Peak Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47760 with Final Report and LA-10210 Cultural Resources Survey Report for Antelope -Pardee 500-kV Transmission Project (Table 1). TABLE 1. PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Report No. (LA-00000) Report Title Author, Date LA-o1141 An Evaluation of the Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources Located on Wlodarski, Portions of Tentative Parcel Map 14813 Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles, Ca Robert J., 1982 LA-02447 Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey Seco Canyon Development IV Tartaglia, Project Tentative Tracts: 47447, 37539 and 469o8 Louis J.,1991 LA-04104 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the LADWP Power Plant 1--olive Line 1 Macko, Transmission Line Maintenance Project Los Angeles County, California Michael E., 1993 LA-08893 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street Bonner, Communications, LLC Candidate LA2256A (Carmenita),11703 Carmenita Drive, Wayne H., Whittier, Los Angeles County, CA 2007 LA-09764 Supplemental Archaeological Assessment, Antelope to Pardee Segment 1 (Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project), Variance 5, Los Angeles County, Gust, Sherri, California 2008 LA-o9920 Results of the Class III Cultural Resources Investigation for the Southern Schmidt, California Edison Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) Segment James J., June 1, Angeles National Forest and Adjacent Lands, Los Angeles County, California, A. Schmidt, ARR No. 05-01-01079 and Gwen R. Romani, 2008 LA-10205 Archaeological Investigation for Meadow Peak Project, Vesting Tentative Messick, Tract Map 47760 with Final Report Peter, 2003 LA-10210 Cultural Resources Survey Report for Antelope -Pardee 500-kV Transmission Ahmet, Koral Project and Roger D. Mason, 2006 LA-1 o559 Archaeological Impact Analysis: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 43589, 7.5 Acres Schmidt, in Bouquet Canyon Area, Los Angeles County James J., 2000 Source: South Central Coastal Information Center 3.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources The SCCIC records search results indicated that six previously recorded cultural resources have been identified and recorded within the half -mile radius of the project area, one of which, CA-LAN-3132H, a historic -period site consisting of two structure pad foundations, intersects the project study area. All of the resources identified within the search area were historic -aged resources. No prehistoric -aged sites were identified. INTERNATIONAL Page 23 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment TABLE 2. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Resource Trinomial Number (CA -LAN-#) Description Date, Recorder (P-19-#) 002132 2132H High voltage electric transmission lines, 1992, Cole, McDowell, Shelton; supported on four legs, rocket ship shaped 1993, M. Macko; carrying two 3-line circuits, constructed in 1917 2004, Whitley; 2007, Koji Tsunoda, Jones and Stokes; 2010, J. M. Simon 003131 3131H The site consists of a mid-20th century 2003, Peter Messick; historic refuse dump, a refuse scatter, a 2013, M. Vader and V. Ortiz corral, vegetation growing in linear patterns, a fence line, possible livestock pens, a concrete foundation, a wood platform, a house foundation, and a leveled trailer pad 003132 3132H Concrete floor/foundation, mound, and 2003, Peter Messick scattered refuse 004420 442oH River cobble stacked dry rock wall 2013, M. Vader and V. Ortiz 186912 Approximately, seven -mile -long dirt road 2001, D. W. Vance; 2007, Peebles, David S. and Joanna Huckabee 188492 Angeles National Forest maintained dirt road Source: South Central Coastal Information Center 3.2 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH The California NAHC maintains a confidential Sacred Lands File, which contains sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. Michael Baker International contacted the NAHC on March 1, 2024, for a records search and list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated March 18, 2024, that the search of the Sacred Lands File was completed for the project area with negative results. They also provided a contact list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project area. Michael Baker International did not send out notification letters regarding the project. The City is conducting direct consultation with the tribes pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Correspondence with the NAHC and the list of tribal contacts are provided in Appendix B. 33 HISTORICAL MAPS, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, AND ARCHIVES RESEARCH Michael Baker International consulted historic topographic maps, aerial imagery (NETR Online and LICSB), and BLM GLO records to gather additional information regarding past land use and disturbances and the potential presence of historic -period structures within the project area. Below is a list of sources reviewed: INTERNATIONAL Page 24 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment • Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) • Historicaerials.com • BLM GLO records • Township 5 North Range 15 West, San Bernardino Meridian Plat map (BLM 1880a) • Township 5 North Range 16 West, San Bernardino Meridian Plat map (BLM 1880b) • Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1900a) • San Fernando, Calif. 1:250,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1900b) • Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1903) • Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1929) • Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1933) • San Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1940) • Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1941) • Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1943) • San Fernando, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1945) • Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1952) • Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1960) • Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1995a) • Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1995b) • Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 2012a) • Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 2012b) • Aerial photograph: Flight C-300, Frame 207 (UCSB 1928) • Aerial photograph: Flight C-1001, Frame 280 (UCSB 1930) • Aerial photograph: Flight AJX-1940, Frame 18 (UCSB 1940) • Aerial photograph: Flight TG-2445, Frame 9 (UCSB 1968) • Aerial photograph: Flight TG-7600, Frame 4 (UCSB 1976) 3.3.1 Results The earliest USGS maps —Fernando 1900, San Fernando 1900, and Santa Susana 1903—show the project area as undeveloped. Haskell Canyon is to the west, and Dead man Canyon is to the east, both flanking the project area. Haskell Canyon has a series of dirt roads, while Deadman Canyon has a mapped roadway that connects to Dry Canyon to the southeast. For a wider area context, the project area is situated along the eastern edge of the Pine Mountain and Zaca Lake Forrest Reserve (USGS 1903). The Santa Clara River lies to the south with the Southern Pacific Railroad line adjacent to its natural course. The San Gabriel Mountains are south of the project's footprint, and the project area sits in between the north and south portions of the Angeles National Forest (USGS 1900a, 1900b, 1903). The 1929 Saugus topographic map depicts a power transmission line running north to south through the whole sheet. Along the western margin, a segment of the line intersects the entrance to the project area. Bouquet Canyon Road is depicted as a dirt roadway to the southeast (USGS 1929, 1933). In 1933, two structures were mapped outside the project area to the west and northwest, likely related to the area's cattle and hog ranching. The building directly west of the project area had a road leading to it; however, the area remained undeveloped (USGS 1933, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1945). INTERNATIONAL Page 25 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment The 1952 Newhall map reveals two structures within the project area, most likely associated with ranching activity (USGS 1952). These two structures correspond to the site boundary for CA-LAN-3132H and the historical structure foundations recorded there. These structures are also visible in aerial imagery from 1940, in the approximate location of those shown on the 1952 Newhall topo map (UCSB 1940). The structures do not appear on the 1928 and 1930 aerials of the region (UCSB 1928, 1930). A third structure is visible on a 1947 aerial of the same area, and some additional smaller structures are visible in the area on the 1959 aerial (HistoricAerials.com n.d.). By 1969, the structures appear to have been demolished (HistoricAerials.com n.d.). Figure 4 shows the progression of development and abandonment of the structures once present in the location of CA-LAN-3132H. Archival research has not yielded information on who these structures belonged to, but it is possible they were associated with Ben Kazarian, who ran the pig farm in Haskell Canyon. However, the only land patent available on the BLM GLO records for this particular location was granted to John G. Cox in 1915 (BLM 1915; see Appendix D). A 1952 aerial shows several structures just north of the entrance to the current project area that were likely associated with pig ranching in the area and the site of CA-LAN-3131H. The 1959 aerial shows an expansion of the pig ranching facility. In the 1969 aerial, it appears that by that time, the pig ranch had been abandoned. In the same 1969 aerial, a mining operation is also visible along Blue Cloud Road within the project area. The remnants of that operation are visible in aerial imagery up to the present day. INTERNATIONAL Page 26 Legend Blue Cloud Project Area Q Previously Recorded Sites I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK PROJECT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 0 50 100 Structures once located within the project area Meters and associated with site CA-LAN-3132H. Sun— Esri ArcG IS Online, USGS 75-Minnta topographic quadrangle maps Newhel! and Mint Canyon, California Figure 4 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 4.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY Michael Baker International archaeologists Marcel Young, BA, and Epifanio Figueroa, BA, conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area on February 12-14, 2024. During the pedestrian survey, the study area was walked in transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart where possible. Slopes greater than 30 degrees were visually assessed but were not surveyed. A slope analysis of the project area was conducted to identify those areas with slopes of 30 degrees or more and loaded into Esri's Field Maps app used by the archaeologists. They also revisited the previously recorded site of CA-LAN-3132H that intersects the proposed project area. Visibility throughout the project area is very poor in most areas, except the existing trails, due to vegetation cover (Figure 5). Vegetation observed consists of non-native grass, dove weed, coastal live oak trees, coastal sage scrub brush, white sage, buckwheat, yucca, brittlebrush, Maltese star -thistle and seasonal wildflowers. The landform of the project area consists of rolling hills and their associated valleys where slopes range from gentle (2%-7%) up to severe (20%-45%). Along the mid -west area, there is a large, shallow, semi -flat valley that trends east to west upward at 5%; this is then flanked north and south by hills, with the north margin being at higher elevations. The survey area has a dirt road accessed from the west, which leads to Copper Hill Drive, a main paved road about 1 mile south. Another access point on the east side of the project's footprint is from a main roadway, Bouquet Canyon Road, and Blue Cloud Road, which remains a dirt accessway leading to a locked gate. 0 272°W (T) O 11 N 361814 3815791 ±9ft ♦ 1562ft FIGURE 5. OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE SURVEY AREA SHOWING DENSE LOW-LYING VEGETATION. INTERNATIONAL Page 28 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment The survey area has many inaccessible areas due to vegetative growth and severe slopes, many greater than 30 percent. The strategy of the survey utilized existing pathways and easily accessible ridgelines within the project to inspect the whole project area with photo documentation using the Solocator application on an Whone. Esri's Field Maps and Google Earth were also consulted for navigation and deciding the best access routes for the differing sections of the survey. Several disturbances were noted throughout the project area. Most consistently evident about this landform is that it is highly used by the public, being within a natural space corridor. It has dirt bike trails, pedestrian walking trails, and dirt roads. Other prominent features are several dirt ramps upon finger ridges along many of the trails. There is a fragmented, moderately dispersed modern glass scatter along the mid -west area of the project area. The project area is relatively free of modern refuse beyond this glass scatter. Candy wrappers and modern aluminum cans were sparsely encountered, for example. During the pedestrian survey, archaeologists Marcel Young and Epifanio Figueroa identified one newly recorded mid -twentieth-century mining site, given the temporary designation of BlueCloud-MBI-01H. They also revisited CA-LAN-3132H, a mid -twentieth-century site comprising two structure pad foundations. A set of updated DPR 523 series forms were completed for CA-LAN-3132H and a new set of forms were completed for temporary site number BlueCloud-MBI-01H; both are available in Confidential Appendix C. Below are descriptions of the sites identified and revisited. CA-LAN-3132H Peter Messick of Greenwood and Associates recorded CA-LAN-3132H in 2003 as consisting of two concrete foundation pads and associated domestic debris (Messick and Hale 2005). The pad measured 13 feet north -south by 15 feet and 8 inches east -west and was approximately 9 inches thick. Several bricks were identified on the surface around the concrete pad with maker's marks reading "McClintock." Another smaller concrete floor was noted 7 feet east of the larger concrete pad and measured 8 feet north -south by 5 feet east -west. Two rusted pipes (7/8 inches diameter) were sticking up 3 feet from the pad. A rusted drum barrel with bullet holes was identified 12 feet east of the smaller pad. A 32-inch square rusted metal shower stall floor was also identified west of the larger concrete pad. An earthen mound approximately 75 feet in diameter with half -buried fence posts around it was also identified 130 feet south of the two concrete pads. Other items identified included a refrigerator, oven, corrugated tin roofing, and a small metal trash can. During the current survey, the only remnants of this historic site visible were the smaller of the two concrete pads with the rusted vertical pipes sticking up from it (Figure 6) and a single brick fragment similar to those described by Messick with the word "McClintock" stamped on the surface (Figure 7). A search for McClintock stamped bricks did not reveal any information on where the bricks may have been made. None of the other features identified in the previous site record were located again, possibly due to dense vegetation or possibly due to cleanup efforts along the existing bike trails. INTERNATIONAL Page 29 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 0118°SE (T) * 11 N 362058 3816010 ±13ft • 1546ft FIGURE 6. SMALL -5 X 8 METER CONCRETE PAD ASSOCIATED WITH CA-LAN-3132H. 0148-SE (T) * 11 N 362069 3816007 f 9ft ♦ 1533ft FIGURE 7. BRICK FRAGMENT WITH "MCCLINTOCK"STAMPED ON THE SURFACE IN SITE CA-LAN-3132H. INTERNATIONAL Page 30 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment BLUECLOUD-MBI-01H The remnants of one mid -twentieth-century mining site visible in aerials since 1969 were identified during the survey. The site is in the eastern area of the project area along Blue Cloud Road. The mine consists of a terraced area and has several components (Figure 8), including a wash plant that stands -70 feet high (Figure 9), a Trailmobile dry semi -trailer (Figure 10), a stone hopper with pulverizer, two rubble piles with associated abandoned equipment, a water tank situated for mining operations (Figure 11), a five -course brick retaining wall, a water standpipe with a meter, two concrete pads where structures or equipment may have been, an 1800s wooden carriage donned with a metal water tank, a tractor, a truck, and other refuse (Figure 12). Two utility poles were also identified, one cut and one next to the wash plant with breaker box panels. There are at least two quarry areas associated with mining operations, one in the panhandle area of the project and the other along the northern middle section. The mining site was known as the Blue Cloud Chinchilla Dust Mine and was operated by the Blue Cloud Mineral Co., founded by Walter and Betty Harris as early as 1953. A mining claim was filed in 1966 by Walter and Betty Harris to the BLM for three mining claims in the current project area that intersects Township 5 North, Range 15 West, Section 31. These mining locations are identified on the claim as Blue Cloud West, Blue Cloud Center, and Blue Cloud East (BLM 1966; see Appendix D). The area granted was 116.72 acres. The mine's purpose was to retrieve volcanic tuff that was ground up and used as dry bath powder for pet chinchillas (SCVHistory.com n.d.). After processing at the Blue Cloud Mineral Co.'s mill on Bouquet Canyon Road, the chinchilla dust was packaged by Lixit Corp. in Napa, California (SCVHistory.com n.d.). The Harrises's son, Norman Harris, took over the operation and was the owner of the mining company until his death in 2013. Dr. Harris was a prominent figure in the Newhall area, was a founding/charter member of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society in 1975, and served as its president and on its board of directors for many years. The mine was closed in 2016 (SCVHistory.com 2013). 0 57°NE (T) a 11 N 362461 3815911 ±13ft • 1740ft FIGURE 8.OVERVIEW OF BLUE CLOUD OUST MINE (BLUECLOUD-MBI-01H). INTERNATIONAL Page 31 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment 0 54°NE (T) ©11 N 362540 3815936 ±13ft ♦ 1641ft FIGURE 9. MINING WASH PLANT ASSOCIATED WITH BLUE CLOUD DUST MINE SITE. FIGURE 10. TRAILMOBILE TRAILER ASSOCIATED WITH BLUE CLOUD DUST MINE SITE. I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A l Page 32 Blue Cloud Bike Park _ Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment yf FIGURE 12. BLUE CLOUD MINE REFUSE AND EQUIPMENT INCLUDING WATER TRAILER, TRACTOR, AND TRUCK. 5.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Archaeological sensitivity zones are qualitative and based on the general presence and/or absence of Native American occupation sites, isolated prehistoric Native American artifacts and burials, and historic INTERNATIONAL Page 33 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment archival and archaeological materials exposed during various construction projects. The project area is 3 miles north of the Santa Clara River, which would have provided an important resource procurement locale for prehistoric inhabitants of the area. The project area is composed of Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CmF2); Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (ScF2); Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SsB); and Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (YoC). The majority of the project area is steeply sloped; generally, slopes of greater than 30 degrees have low potential for buried archaeological sites (MnDOT 2002). Topographic maps, aerial photographs, and archival records have indicated that historic -period homesteads and mining operations were established within or near the project area during the early to mid -twentieth century. One historic -period archaeological site (CA-LAN-3132H), comprisingtwo structure pads, and one historic -period mining site (temporary site number: BlueCloud-MBI-01H) have been identified within the project area, but they do not appear to have the potential to be significant resources. Based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results, the archaeological sensitivity for potentially unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the area of potential effect is low, and the potential for significant buried historic period resources is also considered low. The cultural resources located within the study area include one previously recorded historic period domestic site (CA-LAN-3132H) comprising concrete structure pads and domestic debris and one newly recorded historic mining site (BlueCloud-MBI-01H) consisting of the remnants of the Blue Cloud Dust Mine that operated from around 1952 until 2016. Remnants of the mining site include a wash plant, water tanks, trailers, machinery, vehicles, and concrete structure pads. Potential project effects on the cultural resources and their eligibility recommendations are discussed below. CA-LAN-3132H Site CA-LAN-3132H was previously recorded as consisting of two concrete foundations and associated domestic debris and building materials. During the current survey, just one of the concrete pads and one brick was visible. The site is evaluated against the criteria for listing in the California Register below. Criterion 1 While the structures once located within the boundaries of CA-LAN-3132H and visible on historic aerials of the area may have played a role in the development of cattle or pig ranching in the early twentieth century in the Santa Clarita region, the foundation remnants cannot be positively associated with the Haskell, Agajanian, or Kazarian families discussed in Section Historic Setting and who were associated with ranching in the area. Research has not revealed any significant events in national, state, regional, or local history associated with the site. The site is recommended as not eligible for listing under Criterion A. Criterion 2: Archival research indicates that the site location was part of a homestead land grant issued to John G. Cox in 1915; however, the features identified as part of the site post-date it and cannot be directly related to him. No additional records of land ownership were identified during archival research, and the site cannot be directly tied to a specific individual, family, or group. Moreover, the background INTERNATIONAL Page 34 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment research failed to identify any persons who are particularly notable or important to national, state, or local history who are associated with the homesteads in the general vicinity. Therefore, the site is recommended as ineligible for listing under Criterion B. Criterion 3: The site and its currently identified component features consist of a concrete pad and a single brick fragment which are common and ubiquitous domestic remnants. The site does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Thus, the resource is recommended as ineligible under Criterion C. Criterion 4: The information and documentation presented in this report and the associated DPR 523 series form exhaust the site's data potential. The concrete pad and brick appear to be limited to the surface with no additional associated artifacts, and the available archival information does not indicate that the site possesses any further potential to yield information important to the community, state, or nation's prehistory or history. Therefore, the resource is recommended as ineligible under Criterion D. Additionally, much of the material originally recorded at the site in 2003 is no longer visible or present and thus lacks integrity. CA-LAN-3231H is recommended ineligible for listing in the California Register and is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource as defined by PRC Section 21083.2(g). BLUECLOUD-MBI-o1H Site BlueCloud-MBI-01H was recorded during the current study as the ruins of a mining site once owned and operated by the Harris family. Archival research identified that Walter and Betty Harris applied for a mining claim for the area in 1966 (BLM 1966). The site is evaluated against the criteria for listing in the California Register below. Criterion A: While the Blue Cloud Dust Mine and the remaining machinery and mining locations may have contributed to the local economy in the Santa Clarita region in the second half of the twentieth century, research has not revealed any significant events associated with the mine that are important to national, state, regional, or local history. Therefore, the site is recommended as not eligible for listing under Criterion A. Criterion B: Archival research indicates that the site was owned and operated by Norman Harris, son of Walter and Betty Harris. While Dr. Harris was a valued member of the Newhall and Santa Clarita community, being a founding member of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, the Blue Cloud Dust Mine is not considered to be what Dr. Harris is most known for, nor is his association with the site particularly notable or important to national, state, or local history. Therefore, the site is recommended as ineligible for listing under Criterion B. Criterion C: The site and its currently identified component features consist of a wash plant that stands, a Trailmobile dry semi -trailer, two rubble piles with associated abandoned equipment, a water tank situated for mining operations, a five -course brick retaining wall, a water standpipe with a meter, two concrete pads where structures or equipment may have been, an 1800s wooden carriage donned with a metal water tank, a tractor, a truck, and other refuse. The site does not embody the distinctive characteristics INTERNATIONAL Page 35 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Thus, the resource is recommended as ineligible under Criterion C. Criterion D: The information and documentation presented in this report and the associated DPR 523 series form exhaust the site's data potential. The visible ruins of the Blue Cloud Dust Mine site and the available archival information about it do not indicate that the site possesses any further potential to yield information important to the community, state, or nation's prehistory or history. Therefore, the resource is recommended as ineligible under Criterion D. The site is thus recommended ineligible for listing in the California Register and is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a) or a unique archaeological resource as defined by PRC Section 21083.2(g). In summary, both sites identified during this investigation within the study area do not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register, and thus are not considered historical resources. The SCCIC records search, literature review, archival research, and archaeological field survey identified two historic -period archaeological sites within the project area: CA-LAN-3132H and BlueCloud-MBI-01H. Both sites have been evaluated and are recommended ineligible for inclusion in the California Register. No historical resources were identified within the project area. Buried site sensitivity is considered low based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results. The proposed project is thus considered to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated under CEQA. Impacts to unanticipated cultural resources may be avoided or reduced to a less than -significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures: CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Archaeological monitoring shall occur in the project area during all soil -disturbing and grubbing/grading/excavation/trenching activities, which could impact archaeological resources. The monitor will observe construction activities to determine if cultural resources are present below the surface. The Principal Investigator (PI) will submit a request to the City during construction, requesting a modification to the monitoring program when field conditions occur that could reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. Such field conditions may include modern disturbance post-dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered. Ground -disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, geotechnical boring, trenching, grading, excavating, and the demolition of building foundations. Monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological monitor who is working under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738). The archaeological monitor shall observe ground -disturbing activities in all areas with the potential to contain significant cultural deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain and submit monitoring logs at the conclusion of monitoring. If discoveries are made during ground -disturbing activities, additional work may be required in accordance with the terms specified in the cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan. INTERNATIONAL Page 36 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground -disturbing activities on the site, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the City that documents monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist within 60 days of completion of monitoring. This report shall document the daily archaeological monitoring results; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the qualified archaeologist. Final monitoring reports will be submitted to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center. If a federal agency (e.g., the US Army Corps of Engineers) is involved in the project due to a federal nexus, monitoring reports may also be shared with that agency. Any unanticipated archaeological finds and subsequent evaluation or data recovery efforts will be documented in the report. CUL-2: Evaluation of Unanticipated Finds; Phase II Testing In the event an archaeological resource is unearthed during excavation, all excavations shall be halted within 50 feet of the find. Work shall stop immediately, and the discovery shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738), pursuant to the procedures set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II archaeological testing plan. As the lead agency, the City shall make a determination of significance on the basis of the recommendations of the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined not to be significant, then resource -specific work shall be completed, and construction may proceed. If the resource is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, then a resource -specific archaeological resources treatment plan shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 prior to recommencing ground -disturbing activities that may impact the resource. CUL-3: Treatment of Significant Resources Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred treatment for historical resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. In the event that a historical resource is discovered and disturbance to such a resource cannot be avoided, one of the following treatments shall be implemented: avoidance, site capping, creation of conservation easements, or archaeological data recovery. If avoidance, site capping, or creation of a conservation easement is determined infeasible, then a Phase III data recovery excavation will be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 106 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.13, to document the resource's scientifically consequential information. The Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the consulting tribe(s) if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The Phase III study shall consist of the recovery and analysis of a statistically significant sample of the site through archaeological excavation, radiocarbon dating of organic materials or other kinds of dating, cataloging, specialist analysis, and report writing designed to document the resource in perpetuity. During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on -site or at the offices of the qualified archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the INTERNATIONAL Page 37 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment project area for cataloging and analysis during evaluation and analysis will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non -human remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City with evidence of final disposition of the cultural material collection: • Accommodate the process for on -site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting tribe(s). This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed. • A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in Los Angeles County that meets federal standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 79, and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in Los Angeles County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. • If more than one Native American tribe is involved with the project and the tribes cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at an appropriate qualified repository determined by the City. CUL-4: Treatment of Unanticipated Finds of Human Remains If human skeletal remains are found during earth -moving activities, work shall be suspended and the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office shall be notified. Standard guidelines set by California law provide for the treatment of skeletal material of Native American origin (California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.98 et seq.; Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the remains are found to be archaeological, then after the coroner releases the site, the qualified professional archaeologist, in consultation with the most likely descendant, shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 that also incorporates the guidance in "A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated Grave Goods," published by the California Native American Heritage Commission. This report was prepared by Michael Baker International Archaeologist James Daniels. Archaeologists Marcel Young and Epifanio Figueroa conducted the field survey and site recordation. James Daniels, MA, RPA, is a senior archaeologist with cultural resource management experience in California, Nevada, and North Carolina. His experience includes archaeological surveys, evaluations of historic and prehistoric sites for listing in the California and National Registers, site mitigation data recoveries, mitigation monitoring, and preparation of archaeological resource management reports and INTERNATIONAL Page 38 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment cultural resources technical reports. As senior archaeologist, he supports projects needing compliance with CEQA, National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Assembly Bill 52, US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits, and local cultural resource regulations. He assists with environmental impact statements/reports and alternative mitigation measures for clients, including interpretive signage, informative website design, brochures, and ethnographic studies. He also assists in Native American consultation and coordination of Native American monitoring. James provides advanced technical services for clients, including geophysical surveys with ground -penetrating radar, obsidian and ceramic sourcing using portable X-ray fluorescence, photogrammetry, and GIS predictive modeling and data collection using Esri Field Maps. James meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and historic preservation. Marcel Young, BA, has worked in various capacities in cultural resource management since 2013. He is experienced in surveying and conducting recording and evaluations of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites in California. Marcel is versed in conducting fieldwork within frameworks of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, CEQA, and the National Environmental Policy Act. He has participated in projects in several phases of archaeology: Phase I pedestrian, Extended Phase I testing, shovel test surveys, buried site testing, Phase III data recovery, and monitoring. Epifanio Figueroa, BA, has worked in various capacities in cultural resource management since 2001. He has participated in projects in several phases of archaeology: Phase I pedestrian and shovel test surveys, Phase II buried site testing, Phase III data recovery, and Phase IV monitoring. He completes site identification and recordation, digital survey databases using Survey123, artifact cataloguing, geophysical data, figure development, stratigraphy mapping, and report writing pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and California Environmental Quality Act. Blow, Ben. 1920. California Highways. San Francisco, California: H. S. Crocker Company. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office). 1880a. Plat Map. Township 5 North, Range 15 West, San Bernardino Meridian. Accessed March 2024. https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm id=286438&sid=datzrwle.svt#surve vDetailsTabindex=l. ---. 1880b. Plat Map. Township 5 North, Range 16 West, San Bernardino Meridian. Accessed March 2024. https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm id=286542&sid=fp5smh12.glt#surve vDetailsTabindex=l. ---. 1915. John G. Cox Land Patent. Township 5 North, Range 15 West, San Bernardino Meridian. Accessed March 2024. https://glorecords.bIm.gov/details/patent/defauIt.aspx?accession=488493&docClass=SER&sid= u4voklfl.of0#patent DetailsTabindex=l. INTERNATIONAL Page 39 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment ---. 1966. Blue Cloud West Placer Mining Claim. Doc. # 04-66-0297 granted to Walter and Betty Harris. Accessed March 2024. https://glorecords.bIm.gov/details/patent/defauIt.aspx?accession=04-66- 0297&docClass=SER&sid=n3xgyc0p.mOx#patentDeta ilsTabInd ex=1. California Highways and Public Works. 1930. "New Location on the Ridge Route Unsurpassed for Mountain Alignment." In California Highways and Public Works, 9-10. Campbell, R. H., C. J. Willis, P. J. Irvine, and B. J. Swanson. 2016. "Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30 minute by 60-minute quadrangle, California: Version 2.1." California Geological Survey. https:Hngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_109250.htm. CGS (California Geological Society). 2002. "California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36." https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. Dibblee, T. W., and H. E. Ehrenspeck. 1996. "Geologic map of the Mint Canyon quadrangle, Los Angeles County California. Scale 1:24,000." Dibblee Geological Foundation. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc 71700.htm. Fortier, J. 2009. TEA-21 Rural Roadside Inventory: Native American Consultation and Ethnographic Study for Caltrans District 7, Ventura County. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation under contract by Jones & Stokes. Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. "Prehistory of the northern California Bight and the adjacent Transverse Ranges." In California Prehistory: colonization, culture, and complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 191-213. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. Grant, Campbell. 1978. "Eastern Coastal Chumash." In Handbook of North American Indians 8: 509-519. Griffith, Glenn E., James M. Omernik, David W. Smith, Terry D. Cook, Ed Tallyn, Kendra Moseley, and Colleen B. Johnson. 2016. Ecoregions of California. (Reston, VA: U. S. Geological Survey). http://Pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr2016lO21. Guinn, J. M. 1915. A History of California and Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs. Vol. Volume 1. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Record Company. Historicaerials.com. n.d. Historic and contemporary aerial and topographic views of the APE. Online viewer. Accessed February 2024. https://www.historicaerials.com. ICF. 2021. Soledad Canyon Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report. Los Angeles, California: Prepared for the City of Santa Clarita by ICF. Kimbro, Edna, Julia Costello, Tewy Ball, and Sarah Peelo. 2010. "The California Missions: History, Art, and Preservation." California Archaeology 2 (2): 296-298. https:Hdoi.org/10.1179/cal.2010.2.2.296. King, T. F. 1967. "Test Excavations at MRN_375, the Palo Marin Site in Point Reyes National Seashore." In R. E. Schenk Memorial Archives of California Archaeology, 17. Society for California Archaeology, San Francisco, CA. INTERNATIONAL Page 40 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment King, Chester, and Thomas C. Blackburn. 1978. "Tataviam." In Handbook of North American Indians 8: 535- 537. Kyle, Douglas E, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, Mildred Brooke Hoover, and William Abeloe. 2002. Historic spots in California. Stanford University Press. Meighan, Clement W. 1954. "A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10: 215-227. Messick, Peter and Alice Hale. 2005. Archaeological Investigation for Meadow Peek Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47760, Final Report. Prepared for Land Design Consultants by Greenwood and Associates. Mn DOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation). 2002. Mn/Model Final Report Phases 1-3: A Predictive Model of Precontact Archaeological Sites Location for the State of Minnesota. Final Report Phases 1-3, 2002 - MnModel - MnDOT (state.mn.us) Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego, California. NPS (National Park Service). 1997. "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation." National Register Bulletin 15. OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic Preservation. ---. 2001a. "California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources." In Technical Assistance Series No. 1. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. ---. 2001b. "California Register of Historical Resources: Q&A for Local Governments." In Technical Assistance Series No. 4. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. ---. 2006. "California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register)." In Technical Assistance Series No. 6. Sacramento, CA: Department of Parks and Recreation. Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1998. "National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for the Evaluation and Documentation of Traditional Cultural Properties." Washington, DC: US National Park Service. Perkins, Arthur B. 1957. "Rancho San Francisco: A Study of a California Land Grant." The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 39 (2): 99-126. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166251. ---. 1958a. "Mining Camps of the Soledad: Part I." The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 40 (2): 149-173. https:Hdoi.org/10.2307/41169334. ---. 1958b. "Mining Camps of the Soledad: Part II." The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 40 (3): 285-303. https:Hdoi.org/10.2307/41169354. Rawls, James, and Walton Bean. 2011. California: An Interpretive History. 10th edition ed. New York City: McGraw Hill. INTERNATIONAL Page 41 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Schwarz, Joel. 1991. "A water odyssey: the story of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1991." SCVHistory.com. n.d. Blue Cloud Chinchilla Dust Mine: Bouquet Canyon. scvhistory.com. Accessed March 27, 2024. SCVHistory.com LW2981 I Bouquet Canyon I Blue Cloud Chinchilla Dust Mine. ---. 2013. Norman Howard Harris: Engineer & Historical Society Leader, 1941-2013. Scvhistory.com. Accessed March 27, 2024. SCVHistory.com I Obits I Norman Howard Harris, Engineer & Historical Society Leader (1941-2013). Starr, Kevin. 1990. Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920s. New York City: Oxford University Press. Telford, Edward T. 1963. "District VII Progress." In California Highways and Public Works, 20-41. ---. 1964. "District VII Progress: 430 Miles of Freeway Now Open in Los Angeles Region." In California Highways and Public Works, 13-35. Triem, Judy, and Mitch Stone. 1996. "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Rancho Cumulos." Accessed March 6, 2023. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=repl&tvpe=pdf&doi=be04l2e32le58a597lf4968 f62f54041d1813181. UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara). 1928. Aerial photograph: Flight C-300, Frame 207. Electronic document. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/FrameFin der/. ---. 1930 Aerial photograph: Flight C-1001A, Frame A-279 Electronic document. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/Frame Finder/. ---. 1940 Aerial photograph: FlightAJX-1940, Frame 18 Electronic document. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/Frame Finder/. ---. 1968. Aerial photograph: Flight TG-2445, Frame 9. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/Frame Finder/. ---. 1976. Aerial photograph: Flight TG-7600, Frame 4 https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/Frame Finder/. US Department of Agriculture. 2023. Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1900a. Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1900b. San Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1903. Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1929. Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1933. Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. INTERNATIONAL Page 42 Blue Cloud Bike Park Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment ---. 1941. Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1943. Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1952. Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1960. Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1995a. Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1995b. Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 2012a. Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 2012b. Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. ---. 1940. San Fernando, California. 1:24,000. Electronic https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. resource map. Valley News. 1965. "Voice Opposition to Hog Ranch in Haskell Canyon". Access Newspaper Archive. Wallace, E. E. 1930. "The Golden State Highway." In California Highways and Public Works, 10-12, 28-29 Wallace, William J. 1955. "A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11: 214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1968. "Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast." In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin -Williams, 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales. Waugh, Georgie. 1999. A Study in the Prehistory of the Santa Clara River Valley Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-LAN-2233 Los Angeles County, California. Prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Worden, Leon. 1996. "Renaissance for "Black Palm Springs." Santa Clara Valley History.com. https://scvhistory.com/scvhistorv/signal/worden/lwo72496.htm. INTERNATIONAL Page 43 APPENDIX A Confidential (Bound Separately) Michael Baker= Records Search Summary and Map Michael Baker I_\»4L,I0]1:f:� Native American Heritage Commission correspondence We Make a Difference INTERNATIONAL March 1, 2024 Laura Miranda California Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 nahc@nahc.ca.gov Re: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Santa Clarita, California Dear Chairperson Miranda, Michael Baker International is conducting a cultural resources inventory for the proposed Blue Cloud Bike Park Project in Santa Clarita, CA. The cultural resources inventory will be conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed project includes the construction of a mountain bike park in the northern portion of the City that would include approximately 15 miles of four -to six -foot - wide trails. These trails would include design elements such as switchbacks, doubles, step-ups, flat cornering, boardwalks, rock gardens/obstacles, lumber elements, and creative ditches and water bars. The project would also include a dirt jump course with wood ramps and two asphalt pump tracks; bike repair stations and bike racks; 104 parking spaces using current grade on the Haskell Canyon Open Space side of the project site and 42 parking spaces on the Blue Cloud Open Space side of the project site; two concrete vault toilets or portable restrooms; dirt road improvements and gates; a shade structure; two 10,000 gallon water tanks; and other passive recreation park improvements such as benches, picnic tables, trash cans, and tree installations. Michael Baker International conducted a records search with the South -Central Coastal Information Center and did not identify any previously recorded precontact archaeological resources within the project area or a half -mile radius of the APE. I am writing to request a search of the Sacred Lands File and to inquire if you have registered any cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, or areas of heritage sensitivity within this proposed project area. We would also like to request a list of Native American tribes that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area or who may wish to be notified of the investigation. Please submit your response to me via e-mail atjames.daniels@mbakerintl.com. Sincerely, ames T. Daniels, Jr. MA, RP Senior Archaeologist james.daniels@mbakerintl.com Your Requested Information: County — Los Angeles USGS Quad — Newhall and Mint Canyon Township and Range —T05N R15W Sec. 31 and T05N R16W Sec. 36 Attachments: 1. 1:24,000 Scale Location Map of Project Area 2. Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request MBAKERINTL.COM 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 1 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Office:760-476-9193 1 Fax:760-476-9198 1 mbakerintl.com ichael Baker Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Project: County: Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 916-373-3710 916-373-5471 —Fax nahc(anahc.ca. ogv Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Blue Cloud Bike Park Project Los Angeles County Newhall and Mint Canyon USGS Quadrangle Name: 5 N 16W 31 Township: Range: Section(s): 5N 15 W 36 Michael Baker International Company/Firm/Agency: 5050 Avenida Encinas Suite 260 Street Address: Carlsbad, CA 92008 City: Zip: (760) 603-6251 Phone: Fax: Email: james.daniels@mbakerintl.com Project Description: The proposed project includes the construction of a mountain bike park in the northern portion of the City that would include approximately 15 miles of four -to six -foot -wide trails. These trails would include design elements such as switchbacks, doubles, step-ups, flat cornering, boardwalks, rock gardens/obstacles, lumber elements, and creative ditches and water bars. The project would also include a dirt jump course with wood ramps and two asphalt pump tracks; bike repair stations and bike racks; 104 parking spaces using current grade on the Haskell Canyon Open Space side of the project site and 42 parking spaces on the Blue Cloud Open Space side of the project site; two concrete vault toilets or portable restrooms; dirt road improvements and gates; a shade structure; two 10,000 gallon water tanks; and other passive recreation park improvements such as benches, picnic tables, trash cans, and tree installations. v STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor i NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION March 18, 2024 �7V3 -NO" Jaems T. Daniels Michael Baker International CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Via Email to: James. Daniels@mbakerintl.com Ch umash Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments VICE -CHAIRPERSON to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Yokayo Porno,o, Yuki, Buffs McQuilResources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, Nomlaki 21084.2 and 21084.3, Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Los Angeles County SECRETARY To Whom It May Concern: Sara Dutschke Miwok Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above -listed PARLIAMENTARIAN project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or Wayne Nelson mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) ("Public Luiseno agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.") COMMISSIONER Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to Isaac Bojorquez consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies Ohlone-Costanoon of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or COMMISSIONER Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Stanley Rodriguez Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides: Kumeyaay Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the COMMISSIONER Laurena Bolden designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated Serrano California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the COMMISSIONER California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. Reid Milanovich Cahuilla The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for COMMISSIONER notification of projects in the tribe's areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native Vacant American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural EXECUTIVE SECRETARY resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources. Raymond C. Hitchcock The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their Miwok, Nisenan notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard 1 . The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of Suite 100 the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc4nahc.ca.aov NAHC.ca.gov Page 1 Of 2 • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10. 3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, 1 Andrew Green Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment Page 2of2 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Los Angeles County 3/18/2024 ! Name Fed (F) GontaCt Person GontaCt Address Phone;7 Fax;7 Email Address Uunural Attlllatlon GOuntles Non-Fed(N) refio/Venturefio Band of Mission N Cultural Resource Committee, P.O. Box 364 (805) 746-6685 CR@bvbmi.com Chumash Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa s Ojai, CA, 93024 Barbara,Ventura ash Council of Bakersfield N Julio Quair, Chairperson l729 Texas Street (661) 322-0121 i chumashtribe@sbcglobal.net Chumash Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa Bakersfield, CA, 93307 iBarbara,Ventura al Band of the Chumash Nation N Gabe Frausto, Chairman P.O. Box 40653 t (805) 568-8063 fraustogabriel28@gmail.com Chumash Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa Santa Barbara, CA, 93140 Barbara,Ventura ideno Tataviam Band of Mission N Sarah Brunzell, CRM Manager 1019 Second Street (818) 837-0794 CRM@tataviam-nsn.us Tataviam Kern,Los Angeles,Ventura s San Fernando, CA, 91340 ` �Ieno Band of Mission Indians - Kizl- N Christina Swindell Martinez, P.O. Box 393 (844) 390-0787 admin@gabrielenoindians.org Gabrieleno Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Secretary Covina, CA, 91723 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura �Ieno Band of Mission Indians - Kizl- N f Andrew Sales, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 t (844) 390-0787 admin@gabrielenoindians.org Gabrieleno Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Covina, CA, 91723 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura �Ieno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of N Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 t ;(626) 483-3564 (626) 286-1262 GTTribalcouncil@aol.com Gabrieleno Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San n Indians !San Gabriel, CA, 91778 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura lino /Tongva Nation N lSandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., (951) 807-0479 sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com Gabrielino Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San #231 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura Los Angeles, CA, 90012 lino Tongva Indians of California N Christina Conley, Cultural P.O. Box 941078 (626) 407-8761 christina.marsden@alumni.usc.e(Gabrielino Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Council Resource Administrator Simi Valley, CA, 93094 u Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura lino Tongva Indians of California N Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490 ,(562) 761-6417 (562) 761-6417 gtongva@gmail.com Gabrielino Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Council Bellflower, CA, 90707 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura lino-Tongva Tribe N Charles Alvarez, Chairperson l23454 Vanowen Street 4(310) 403-6048 Chavez1956metro@gmail.com Gabrielino Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San `West Hills, CA, 91307 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura lino-Tongva Tribe N Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource P.O. Box 3919 f (909) 262-9351 tongvatcr@gmail.com Gabrielino Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Director Seal Beach, CA, 90740 Bernardino,Santa Barbara,Ventura go Band of Mission Indians F Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road t (951) 755-5259 (951) 572-6004 abrierty@maongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside,San Banning, CA, 92220 Serrano Bernardino,San Diego Last updated 6/19/2022 03/18/2024 11:03 AM 1 of2 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Los Angeles County 3/18/2024 Ingo Band of Mission Indians F Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road i(951) 755-5110 (951) 755-5177 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla Banning, CA, 92220 Serrano fern Chumash Tribal Council N Violet Walker, Chairperson P.O. Box 6533 (760) 549-3532 violetsagewalker@gmail.com Chumash Los Osos, CA, 93412 Fernando Band of Mission Indians N Donna Yocum, Chairperson P.O. Box 221838 t (503) 539-0933 f (503) 574-3308 dyocum@sfbmi.ag Kitanemuk Newhall, CA, 91322 Vanyume Tataviam Manuel Band of Mission Indians F Alexandra McCleary, Senior 26569 Community Center Drive (909) 633-0054 alexandra.mccleary@san man uel-Serrano Manager of Cultural Resources Highland, CA, 92346 nsn.gov Mananemenl (. a Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians F Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 (951) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 Isaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Cahuilla iAnza, CA, 92539 i_ a Ynez Band of Chumash Indians F Wendy Teeter, Cultural _ 1100 Via Juana Road (805) 325-8630 wteeter@chumash.gov Chumash Resources Archaeologist ;Santa Ynez, CA, 93460 t a Ynez Band of Chumash Indians F Kelsie Mendoza, Elders' Council 100 Via Juana Road (805) 325-5537 cmendoza@chumash.gov Chumash Administrative Assistant Santa Ynez, CA, 93460 t_ a Ynez Band of Chumash Indians F Nakia Zavalla, Tribal Historic 100 Via Juana Road nzavalla@chumash.gov Chumash .Preservation Officer .Santa Ynez, CA, 93460 i a Ynez Band of Chumash Indians iF ;Sam Cohen, Government & 1,100 Via Juana Road scohen@chumash.gov Chumash !Legal Affairs Director !!Santa Ynez, CA, 93460 i ! t mo Nation of Mission Indians N -Mark Cochrane, Co -Chairperson P. O. Box 343 (909) 578-2598 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano Patton, CA, 92369 t mo Nation of Mission Indians N Wayne Walker, Co -Chairperson P. O. Box 343 (253) 370-0167 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano Patton, CA, 92369 ,be Band of Luiseno Indians F Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic P.O. Box 487 (951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Preservation Officer San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno ,be Band of Luiseno Indians F Jessica Valdez, Cultural P.O. Box 487 1(951) 663-6261 (951) 654-4198 jvaldez@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Resource Specialist San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa 6/5202: Barbara,Ventura Kern, Los Angeles,San Bernardino,Ventura 5/8202: Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside,San Bernardino 1/16202, Imperial,Los An geles,Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,San Diego Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa 7/6202: Barbara,Ventura Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa 2/27202, Barbara,Ventura Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa 7/6202: Barbara,Ventura Kern, Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa 7/6202: Barbara,Ventura Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside,San Bernardino 10/10202: Kern,Los Angeles, Riverside,San Bernardino 10/10202: Imperial,Los An geles,Orange, Riverside, San 7/14202: Bernardino,San Diego Imperial,Los An geles,Orange, Riverside, San 7/14202: Bernardino,San Diego This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Pu Resources Code. This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Los Angeles Cou Record: PROJ-2024-001551 Report Type: As 52 GIS Counties: Los Angeles NAHC Group: All 03/18/2024 11:03 AM 2 of2 Michael Baker APPENDIX C Confidential (Bound Separately) Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms Michael Baker APPEN Records 4-1003-R. Los Angeles 012059 and 017168. e rr 11nttrb Okatrs of Awrrira, Xo all to w4aw tllest ,presents shall roul (greeting: WHEREAS, a Certificate of the Register of the Land Office at Los Angeles, California, has been deposited in the General Land Of ee, whereby it appears that, pursuant to the Act of Congress of May 20, 1862, "To Secure Homesteads to Actual Settlers on the Public Domain," and the acts supplemental thereto, the claim of John G. Cox has been established and duly consummated, in conformity to law, for the southeast quarter of the north— east quarter and the Lot one of Section six in Township four north and the east half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter, the south half of the southwest quarter of'the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the south half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section thirty-one and the south half of the southwest nuarter of the Gouthwest quarter, the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter the south half of V,e northeast quarter of the south- west quarter of the southwest ouarter and the southwest quarter of the northwest ouarter of the southwest quarter of Section thirty-two in Tom - ship five north all in Range fifteen west of the San Bernardino Meridian, California, containing one hundred sixty-five and eif-l;ty-two-hundredtrs acres, according to the Official Plat of the Survey of the said Land, returned to the GENERAL LAND OFFICE by the Surveyor -General: NOW KNOW YE, That there is, therefore, granted by the UNITED STATES unto the said claimant the tract of Land above described; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of Land, with the appurtenances thereof, unto the said claimant and to the heirs and assigns of the said claimant forever; subject to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may be recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and decisions of courts; and there is reserved from the lands hereby granted, a right of way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I, Woodrow Wilson President of the United States of America, have caused these letters to be made Patent, and the seal of the General Land Office to be hereunto affixed, GIVEN under my hand, at the City of Washington, the THIRTY-FIRST (SEAL) day of AUGUST In the year of our Lord one thousand nlne hundred and FIFTEEN and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and FORTIETH. By the President; V(�'nV��p�,1i- t< )V <�r By "1 K 'r1tJ ia"A asa.M/V Secretary, t , RECORD OF PATENTS: Patent Number __._ I t. '� Form 4-1083 (Afay 1963) Riverside 05891 Zee VAniteb <tateq of A.1wrica To alt to tnijom tbe5e presents sfjall come, Oreetfng: In putsttance of the prot-isions of the NCI-ised Statutes of the United States, Chapter Six, 'Title 'l'hirty-two, and legislation supplemental thereto, there is now deposited in the Nwemt of Land Jlana,;ementofthe United States aCertificate ofthe Lan (I Office at Riverside, California, accompanied by other evidence, whereby it appears that Walter C. Harris and Betty B. Harris did on March 2, 1966, duly enter and pay for that certain mining claim or premises, known as the "Blue Cloud West," "Blue Cloud Center" and "Blue Cloud East" placer mining claims, situate in the Palomas Mining District, Los Angeles County, California, described as follows: San Bernardino Meridian, California. T_. 5 N., R. 15 I7., "Blue Cloud West" Placer Mining Claim, embracing: Sec. 31, Lot 1; "Blue Cloud Center" Placer Mining Claim, embracing: Sec. 31, NWkNEZ; "Blue Cloud East" Placer Mining Claim, embracing: Sec. 31, NEkNEk. The premises herein ;ranted contain 116.72 acres. ll (1 ` /� —66-0297 U.S. GOVERS VENT FRISMING OFFICE: 13'.I-0-GBd.17 Patent Number ---•� --- --- }'arm �—lUni (Nay 15G3) Riverside 05891 Now sxow vr.,'I'hat there is therefore, pursuant to thtt I:ttcs aforesaid. hereby rra llted by the (-sited States unto the said Walter C. Iiarris and Betty B. Harris and to their heirs , the said placer hailing preluivr, hereinhefore de..(•ribed: To HAVE. AND TO nlot,n said unining premises, toget her frit h all the lights, prit•ileges. inurnunities, anti appurtella aces of trhat=oerer nature thereunto belon_in-r, unto the said grantee abot-e nauaed and to their heirs and assigns forever: subject, uerertheless, to the follotcing (•onditions and stipulations: Ftesr. That the grant, hereby made is restriete(1 in it; exterior limits to the bonn(laries of the said Mining premises, and to ally reins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver cinnabar, lead, (if), copper, or other valuable deposits, which nnly hate been discovered within said limits subse- quent to and which there not known to exist on October 26, 1964. Secoxu. That should any rein or lode of quartz or other rock in pl;ice bearing gold, sih-er, cinna- bar, lead, till, Copper, or other valuable deposits, be claimed or known to exist wit hill the above-d( Bribed premises at said last-nanned date, tine same is expres,ly excepted and excluded from these presents. Tnutn. That the premises hereby conveyed shall be held subject to anY rested :and accrued water rights for nnining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reselwoits used in connection with such grater rights as may be recognized and acknowledged by the local laws, customs, and decisions of the courts. And there is reset'red front the lands hereby granted a right-of- way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States. FOURTH. That in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the Legislature of California may provide rules for working the alining claim or premises hereby grunted, involving easements, drainage, and other necessary means to the complete development thereof. FIFTH. There is reserved to the United States all Leasing Act minerals in said Lot 1 of Sec. 31, and the right of the United States, its lessees, permittees, and licensees to enter upon tine said Lot 1, prospect for, drill, mine, treat, store, and remove the same, and to use so much of the surface and subsurface of said Lot 1 as may be necessary for such purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 703). 1, TESTI-MONY «'tn:neor, the undersigned authorized officer of the Bureau of Land 'Management, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of .June 17, 1913 (6.2 Stat. 476), has, in the nvue of the United States, caused these letters to be made Patent, and the Seal of the Bureau to be hereunto affixed. Glt-E- under my hand, in Sacramento, California, the [SEAL] TWENTY-NINTH day of APRIL in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and SIXTY-SIX and of the Independence of the Lint :fates. the one hundred auul NINETIETH. By- �_?____-------' ��`'" - -- - — — ---------------- Chief, Branch of Title and Records Patent Number_o1-667029`►y Sacramento Land Office U.S. GGYERN-F%T PRUTI%G OFFICE:1>!--O-ISMA IS APPENDIX E: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO Mr. Alireza Sazegari Hunsaker & associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 22 Valencia, CA 91355 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated October 25, 2024 ENGEO PROJECT NO, 26461.000.001 Copyright ©2023 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document ENGEO may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. Expect Excellence ENGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Mr. Alireza Sazegari Hunsaker & associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 22 Valencia, CA 91355 Subject: Blue Cloud Bike Park Santa Clarita, California GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Dear Mr. Sazegari: GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS Project No. 26461.000.001 This geotechnical report presents our findings and recommendations for the improvements planned within the Blue Cloud Bike Park located in Santa Clarita, California. The purpose of this report is to summarize subsurface data, characterize general soil and geologic conditions, and provide design -level recommendations for grading, drainage, foundations, flatwork, and near -surface infiltration. Based on our findings and from a geotechnical standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, EN EOlncorporated Jose Cejudo jc/thz/cw/au/jam/ar 1� '. ( �" _! K Julia A. Moriarty, 0,aFESS moj, �Fti w No. 2679 0TECHN\G �P i 9TFOF CAS\F�� 27742 Hancock Parkway • Valencia, CA 91355 • (661) 257-4004 • info@engeo.com www.engeo.com Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................... 1 2.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................ 1 2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.................................................................................................. 1 2.2 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY........................................................................................ 2 2.3 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP......................................................................................2 2.4 FIELD EXPLORATION................................................................................................... 3 2.4.1 Borings.............................................................................................................. 3 2.4.2 Percolation Field Tests....................................................................................... 3 2.5 SURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 3 2.6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................4 2.7 GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................4 2.8 SOIL SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................4 3.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 4 3.1 SEISMIC HAZARDS.......................................................................................................4 3.1.1 Ground Rupture................................................................................................. 4 3.1.2 Ground Shaking................................................................................................. 4 3.1.3 Liquefaction....................................................................................................... 5 3.1.4 Ground Lurching and Lateral Spreading............................................................. 5 3.1.5 Landsliding........................................................................................................ 5 3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL..........................................................................................................5 3.3 COLLAPSIBLE SOIL......................................................................................................6 3.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL....................................................................................6 3.5 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................ 7 3.6 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS................................................................................... 7 4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 8 4.1 DEMOLITION AND GENERAL SITE CLEARING............................................................ 8 4.2 ACCEPTABLE FILL........................................................................................................ 8 4.3 FILL PLACEMENT SPECIFICATIONS............................................................................ 8 4.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE...................................................................................................9 5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 9 5.1 SHALLOW CONTINUOUS AND SPREAD FOOTINGS ................................................... 9 5.2 MAT FOUNDATIONS................................................................................................... 10 5.3 PAD MOISTURE CONDITIONING................................................................................ 10 5.4 CONCRETE SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS.................................................................... 11 5.5 TRENCH BACKFILL..................................................................................................... 11 5.6 MOISTURE VAPOR REDUCTION............................................................................... 11 5.7 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES.................................................................................... 11 6.0 EXTERIOR FLATWORK.................................................................................... 12 ENGEO i of i October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 7.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN............................................................... 12 7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS.............................................................................................. 12 7.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................... 13 7.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION ............................................... 13 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 14 SELECTED REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A- Exploration Logs (ENGEO, 2024) APPENDIX B — Laboratory Test Data (ENGEO, 2024) APPENDIX C — Laboratory Test Data (CERCO Analytical, 2024) ENGEO ii of ii October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 11 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ENGEO prepared this geotechnical report to support the improvements planned within the Blue Cloud Bike Park (Site) located in Santa Clarita, California, as outlined in our proposal dated July 1, 2024. We were authorized to conduct the following general scope of services. • Perform two limited subsurface explorations and collect soil samples • Perform three shallow boring percolation tests • Perform laboratory testing on select soil samples • Prepare a design -level geotechnical report This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Hunsaker & Associates and their consultants and contractors for design of this project. If any changes are made in the character, design, or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Blue Cloud Bike Park is located within mountain ranges in the Angels National Forest in Santa Clarita, as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The Site is accessed off the northern end of Blue Cloud Road and Pettinger Canyon Road in Santa Clarita, California. The existing park Site consists of undeveloped bike paths. The improvements planned within the project Site are to update the two park entrances (Haskell Entrance and Blue Cloud Entrance), including paved access and parking areas, LID basin areas, double vault toilet structures, shade structures, hardscape, and landscape areas. 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Site is located within the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Transverse Ranges are characterized by a complex series of east -west -trending mountain ranges, valleys, and quaternary faults extending from Santa Ynez Mountains and Channel Islands eastward through the San Bernardino Mountains. The Site is at the northeastern end of the Ventura Basin of Southern California and near the northernmost portion of Santa Clarita Valley. The Ventura Basin is a westerly plunging depositional basin produced by tectonic downwarping initiated during the early Miocene epoch, with its axis approximately coinciding with the Santa Clara River. Figure 3 shows regional mapping by Dibblee, which identifies the planned portions of the Site to be improved in the lower canyon areas as underlain by Mint Canyon Formation (Tmc) and Holocene alluvial deposits (Qa). Mint Canyon Formation consists of middle Miocene fine grained sandstone and local pebbly and interbedded siltstone and claystone, and Holocene alluvial deposits (Qa) consist of alluvial gravel, sand, and clay. Bedrock at the Blue Cloud entrance dips at a low angle to the north. The axis of a syncline traverses the Haskell entrance, so bedrock dips gently to the north at the northern end and dips steeply to the south at the southern end. NGEO Expect Excellence �_;ccuer 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 2.2 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The Site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expression of active faults is believed to exist within the Site. Therefore, fault rupture through the Site is not anticipated. However, the Southern California Peninsular Ranges are regions of high seismicity, and it is likely that the Site will experience strong seismic ground shaking in the future. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) (Field et al., 2015) estimates the 30-year probability for a moment magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in Southern California at approximately 93 percent, considering the known active seismic sources in the region. Many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year throughout the region, most of which are concentrated along the San Andreas Fault. Figure 5 shows the approximate location of historic Holocene and Quaternary faults and significant historic earthquake epicenters mapped within the region. Significant earthquakes with moment magnitude 6 or greater have ruptured on the San Andreas Fault, including in the 1812 Wrightwood earthquake (approximate M7.3) and the 1857 Great Fort Tejon earthquake (M7.9). More recently, significant earthquakes in the Southern California region include the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (M6.4), the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (M6.6), the 1992 Landers earthquake (M7.3), and the 1994 Northridge earthquake (M7.3). To determine nearby active faults that are capable of generating strong seismic ground shaking at the Site, the USGS Unified Hazard disaggregation tool was utilized, with the resulting faults listed below in Table 2.2-1. We disaggregated the hazard associated with a 2,475-year event at the anticipated approximate fundamental period of the buildings, of 0.3 second. TABLE 2.2-1: Nearby Active Faults*, Latitude: 34.476845 Longitude:-118.501561 San Gabriel (3) 5.98 7.38 San Gabriel (2) 6.98 7.51 Holser [2] (1) 8.83 7.57 Northridge Hills (1) 12.46 7.64 Santa Susana [2] (2) 13.44 7.15 Santa Susana [2] (1) 13.60 6.36 Santa Susana [1 ] (0) 14.04 7.38 Santa Susana [2] (3) 15.41 7.22 Northridge (1) 16.95 7.55 San Andreas (Mojave, south) (1) 22.21 8.02 *Edition: NSHM Conterminous U.S. 2018 2,3 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) completed a Seismic Hazard Zones Map (SHZ) for the Newhall Quadrangle (CDMG, 1997). According to the SHZ map (Figure 4), the areas of the planned Site improvements is within mapped potential liquefaction zones. Hillside portions of the overall bike park are within an earthquake -induced landslide zone. ENGEO October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 2.4 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration consisted of two hollow -stem auger drilled borings to approximately 9%2 feet, and three shallow borehole percolation tests at approximately 5 feet deep within the Site, as shown in the Site Plan, Figures 2A and 2B. The locations and elevations of our explorations are approximate and were estimated by pacing from features shown in the Site Plan; they should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. We used the field log to develop the report log in Appendix A. The log depicts subsurface conditions at the exploration location for the date of exploration; however, subsurface conditions may vary with time. 41 Borings An ENGEO staff engineer observed the drilling and logged the subsurface conditions at the boring locations shown in Figures 2A and 2B. We retained a truck -mounted CME 75 drill rig and crew to advance two borings using an 8-inch-diameter hollow -stem auger. The borings, 1-131 and 1-132, were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 9%2 feet below existing grade. We obtained soil samples at various intervals in the borings using standard penetration test (SPT) and Modified California driven samplers. The penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound auto -hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the last 1 foot of penetration; the blow counts have not been converted using any correction factors. The boring logs are included in Appendix A. 2.4.2 Percolation Field Tests We performed three percolation tests at the location 1-P1, 1-P2, and 1-P3 shown in Figures 2A and 2B. The test locations and depths were provided by the design team. We performed the testing following procedures in general accordance with the Administrative Manual, Los Angeles County Public Works — Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division - GS200.1, dated June 30, 2021 (Manual). We retained a truck -mounted CME 75 drill rig and crew to advance the three percolation test holes using an 8-inch-diameter hollow -stem auger. We drilled the percolation test holes to a depth of approximately 5 feet below the ground surface and placed a 2-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe with a solid end cap into the hole. We backfilled the annulus with fine gravel and pre-soaked the hole for 20 minutes. We performed the percolation tests by placing water in the pipe and measuring the time for one hour and until a stabilized rate of drop was obtained, as described in the Manual. We did not encounter groundwater during our exploration. The results of the percolation tests are summarized in Section 3.6. ,5 SURFACE CONDITIONS According to topographic mapping provided to us by Hunsaker & Associates, the Haskell Entrance is approximately at Elevation 1,450 feet and slopes down to the west. The Blue Cloud Entrance is approximately at Elevation 1,620 feet and slope down to the east. During our recent Site visit on October 9, 2024, we observed that the Site entrance areas generally consist of unpaved parking, unpaved paths, and dry vegetation. NGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 2.6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our field exploration at Boring 1-131 encountered very stiff silt in the upper 5 feet, followed by hard lean clay and very dense clayey sand to 9Y2 feet below ground surface. Boring 1-132 encountered very stiff lean clay with varying amounts of sand with in the upper 9Y2 feet of the soil profile. 27 GROUNDWATER The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 1997) reported that the area has not yet been mapped for historical high groundwater levels within the vicinity of the Site. Our explorations did not encounter groundwater in the maximum explored depth of approximately 9%2 feet at the time of exploration. Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practice, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made. 2,8 SOIL SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests on select soil samples collected from the soil borings and bulk samples. Lab tests included moisture density, sulfate, sieve analysis, resistance value (R-value), and plasticity index (PI). Select test results are recorded on the boring logs in Appendix A and laboratory results are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking, and seismic -induced liquefaction, ground lurching, and landsliding. In addition, we considered other typical geologic and seismic -related hazards in the region. Based on topographic and Iithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, tsunamis, flooding, and seiches are considered low to negligible at the Site. The following sections present a discussion of main hazards as they apply to the Site. �I Ground Rupture Since there are no known active faults crossing the property and the Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely at the Site. �Ground Shaking A nearby earthquake of moderate to high magnitude could cause considerable ground shaking at the Site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, and combined with the gravity t:NGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report forces of dead and live loads. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not ensure that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well -designed and well -constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1999). 3 ;3 Liquefaction Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sand. The soil layers encountered in the subsurface explorations within the Site generally consisted of stiff to hard lean clay, and silt with interbedded layers of very dense clayey sand layers in the maximum drilled depth of 9%2 feet below existing grade. Groundwater was not encountered within the depth of our borings. For the planned bike park improvements within the alluvial materials, a detailed liquefaction assessment was not performed. However, the impacts associated with potential seismic -induced liquefaction settlements on the planned improvements are considered low. 3.1 A Ground Lurching and Lateral Spreading Ground lurching is a phenomenon that can be caused by seismically generated ground motions in soft or liquefiable soil. Ground lurching effects are typically greater where dissimilar soil units are in contact, such as the alluvium -bedrock contacts at the margins of valleys, or where subsurface soil differ in susceptibility to seismic ground motions. In our opinion, due to the lack of nearby steep downslopes or creek banks bordering the planned improvement areas, the risk of ground lurching at the Site is low. 3 a Landsliding The term landslide describes a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of slopes. Slope movement may occur by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, or flowing. The various typers of landslides can be classified by the mechanics of movement and by the kinds of material involved. Seismic -induced Landsliding is a potential hazard within the hillside portions of the overall bike park Site. For the planned bike park improvements, a detailed landslide assessment was not performed since these two areas are not within mapped zones, as shown in Figure 4. The impacts associated with potential seismic -induced Landsliding on the planned improvements are low within the low-lying valley areas, and both Sites are not included in the Site Hazard map published by the CGS. 3,2 EXPANSIVE SOIL Silt and lean clay were encountered in the upper portion of the borings at the Site. Laboratory testing on soil samples yielded PI values between 10 and 16, which generally correspond to low to medium shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. However, the explorations indicate that the distribution of potentially expansive soil is highly variable at the Site, both in depth and lateral extent, which is typical for alluvial deposits. ENGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report Expansive soil changes in volume with changes in moisture, varying between shrink and swell, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs -on -grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by properly blending, moisture conditioning, and compacting fills, subexcavating and rebuilding cut areas with homogeneous, properly moisture -conditioned fills, designing hardscape/pavements to accommodate expansive soil, and supporting structures on properly designed foundations. 3,3 COLLAPSIBLE SOIL. Collapsible native soil forms where alluvial soil is rapidly deposited in semi -arid to and climates. The collapsible soil remains in a stable state in the partially saturated condition. Hydroconsolidation occurs when collapsible soil is wetted and causes rapid settlement. The wetting -induced settlement can result in movement and potential damage to structures. Collapsible soil is characterized by low -density and low -moisture contents. The other key characteristics of collapsible soil include open structure with high void ratio and high porosity, geologically young deposit, high sensitivity, and low inter -particle bonding strength (Howayek et al., 2011). Los Angeles County (2013) states that as a general rule, sandy soil with in situ dry density of less than 108 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a moisture content of less than 8 percent are considered susceptible to hydrocollapse. Based on our review of the test results of the dry densities and moisture contents determined on the native soil samples collected in Borings 1-131 and 1-132, the soil tested does not meet these criteria, and in our opinion, the risk of hydrocollapse of the native soil at the planned improvement areas is low. 3.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL As part of this study, we obtained representative soil samples and submitted to an accredited analytical lab for determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride. The results are included in Appendix C and summarized in the table below. TABLE 3.4-1: Corrosivity Test Results RV-1 8.25 600 N. D. 110 RV-2 1 7.28 1,500 21 21 N.D. — none detected above the reporting limit The CBC references the American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318-14 for structural concrete requirements. According to ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1, these samples are categorized "SO" sulfate exposure class, and there is no requirement for cement type or water -cement ratio; however, a minimum concrete compressive strength of 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) is specified by the building code. The laboratory testing included determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride. The samples tested had relatively low resistivities, indicating that they are considered "corrosive" to buried metal per NACE Corrosion Basics. If desired to investigate this further, we recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to evaluate if specific corrosion recommendations are advised for the project. t:NGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 3.5 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The 2022 CBC utilizes seismic design criteria established in the ASCE/SEI Standard "Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures," (ASCE 7-16). Although the depth of the borings were less than the required 30 meters for seismic classification for the alluvial materials encountered, we characterized the Site as Site Class D for foundation design. ASCE 7-16 requires a Site -specific ground -motion hazard analysis for Site Class D sites with a mapped Si value greater than or equal to 0.2; however, Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 and Supplement No. 3 provide an exception to this requirement. A Site -specific ground -motion hazard analysis is not required where the value of the parameter SM, determined by Equation 11.4-2 and shown in Table 3.5-1 is increased by 50 percent for developing the mapped Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response, calculating SD,, and evaluating CS in accordance with Chapter 12 of ASCE 7-16. In Table 3.5-1 below, we provide the CBC seismic parameters based on the United States Geological Survey's (USGS') Seismic Design Maps for use in foundation design. TABLE 3.5-1: 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, Latitude: 34.476845 Longitude:-118.501561 Site Class D Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Ss (g) 1.87 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, S, (g) 0.703 Site Coefficient, Fa 1 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.7* MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMs (g) 1.87 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM, (g) 1.195* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Sos (g) 1.246 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, So, (g) 0.796* Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.791 Site Coefficient, FpGA 1.1 MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.87 Long period transition -period, TL (sec) 12 *The parameters above should only be used for calculation of Ts, determination of Seismic Design taking the exceptions under Items 1 and 2 of ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8. https://ascelibrarV.org/doi/epdf/10.1061/9780784414248.sup3). Category, and, when (Supplement Number 3 We recommend that we collaborate with the Structural Engineer -of -Record to further evaluate the effects of taking the exception on the structural design and identify the need for performing additional field exploration, or a Site -specific ground -motion hazard analysis. We can prepare a proposal for these services, if requested. 16 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS The results of our borehole percolation tests are summarized in Table 3.6-1, which includes the raw field -measured percolation rate measured using the methods provided by the LA County Administrative Manual GS200.1, as well as the infiltration rate calculated using Porchet's method. We have not applied any reduction factors to the measurements. NGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report TABLE 3.6-1: Borehole Percolation Test Result 1-P1 20 0.2 1-P2 45 0.6 1-P3 24 0.3 The percolation rates reported above are based on the conditions at the location, depth, and time of the field test. Actual infiltration rates can be affected by changes in subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, test methodology, time of year, and the rate and depth at which water is applied. Appropriate engineering judgment and design factors should be applied to the use of these test data for stormwater infiltration. 4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 41 DEMOLITION AND GENERAL SITE CLEARING Excavations below design grades should be cleaned to a firm undisturbed soil surface determined by the geotechnical engineer. This surface should then be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to backfill with compacted engineered fill, as needed. The requirements for backfill materials and placement operations are the same as for engineered fill. Loose or uncontrolled backfilling of depressions resulting from demolition should not be allowed. 4,2 ACCEPTABLE FILL On -site soil, gravel, and excess soil spoils generated from the Site are suitable for use as engineered fill provided, they are processed to remove debris, particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension, and concentrations of organic material exceeding 3 percent by weight. Pavement or concrete materials, if any, can be reused as engineered fill if desired. These materials should be broken down to less than 3 inches in greatest dimension, but not pulverized, and should be blended with soil materials. If desired to reuse as aggregate base (AB) under pavements or hardscape, it should be separated and broken down to meet AB specifications. 4,3 FILL PLACEMENT SPECIFICATIONS Once a suitable firm base is achieved, the exposed non -yielding surface should be scarified to an approximate depth of 10 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to provide adequate bonding with the initial lift of engineered fill. Engineered fill should be placed according to the following fill specifications, depending upon location and material. TABLE 4.3-1: Engineered Fill Compaction Recommendations General Fill and Soil Trench Backfill ASTM D1557 At least 2 percentage points At least 90 percent above optimum moisture Landscape Area Fill At least 3 percentage points (non-structural) ASTM D1557 above optimum moisture At least 85 percent Pavement Subgrade and AB ASTM D1557 At least Optimum Moisture At least 95 percent ............................................................................................... 6NGE0 October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) CalTrans __ At least 95 percent (Wet Density) * Relative compaction - in -place density of material expressed as a percentage of the maximum density per ASTM D1557, or HMA batch plant provided curve. 4.4 SURFACE DRAINAGE We recommend that the Site be positively graded to provide for rapid removal of surface water. Ponding of water should not be allowed near building foundations, pavements, exterior flatwork, or retaining walls. To satisfy minimum LA County requirements, paved surface (concrete) should provide a slope gradient of at least %2 percent away from exterior building walls to allow surface water to drain positively away from the structures. Landscape mounds and hardscape features should be designed so they do not interfere with these requirements. As necessary, sufficient area drains should be provided around the buildings to remove excess surface water rapidly. 5 FOUNDATION FR O ai lDATIOai lFR E O II III I E NDATI O N S Two single -story double vault restroom buildings are planned, one at each park Site entrance. Provided the Site is graded as recommended in this report, the buildings may be supported on conventional reinforced mats or shallow footings with slab -on -grade. Shallow footings should be tied together with grade beams. Site walls, shade structures, and other ancillary structures may be supported on shallow continuous and spread footings or drilled pier -and -grade -beam foundations. Foundation design parameters for shallow footings, conventional mat foundations, and drilled piers are presented below. Provided our report recommendations are followed and given the proposed construction, we estimate total and differential foundation settlements to be less than approximately 1 and % inches, respectively. 5.1 SHALLOW CONTINUOUS AND SPREAD FOOTINGS For buildings, structures, or Site walls situated at least 5 feet from tops of slopes/walls or water features, the following minimum dimensions can be used in design of reinforced footings. TABLE 5.1-1: Minimum Footing Dimensions Continuous 18 12 Isolated 24 18 * below lowest adjacent pad grade For footings situated less than 5 feet from the top of a slope, the footings should be embedded, as necessary, to achieve at least 5 horizontal feet to the nearest free slope face. If footings are situated less than 5 feet from nearby tops of walls or water features, or if footings are located parallel to utility trenches, the footings should be deepened, as needed, to extend below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) plane projected downwards from the bottom edge of the footing to the bottom of the wall or trench. t:NGEO Expect Excellence October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report A maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead -plus -live loads can be incorporated into the design for footings bearing on engineered fill or firm, non -yielding native. This value may be increased by one-third for the short-term effects of wind or seismic loading. The friction factor for sliding resistance may be assumed as 0.35 and passive pressures acting on footing foundations may be assumed as 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) starting at a depth of at least 1 foot below pad grade or that depth necessary to achieve a horizontal distance of 5 feet between the outer base edge of the footing and the nearest free face/retaining wall, whichever is deeper. The passive pressure value may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading conditions. During construction, footing trenches should be cleared of loose materials and debris. In addition, soil exposed in footing excavations should not be allowed to desiccate prior to placing concrete. ENGEO's field representative should observe and approve the footing excavations prior to concrete placement. .2 MAT FOUNDATIONS If desired, a conventionally reinforced structural mat can be used to support the proposed double vault restrooms. The following design parameters and recommendations should be incorporated. W Effective PI of 20 • Cantilever distance or unsupported radius of 5 feet • Maximum beam spacing of 15 feet • Subgrade modulus of 180 psi/in Mat foundations may be designed with an average allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf for dead -plus -live loads. At concentrated loading locations, the allowable bearing pressure can be increased to 1,500 psf. The allowable bearing pressures can be increased by one-third for all loads including wind or seismic. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by frictional resistance between the foundation concrete and the bearing soil and by passive earth pressure acting against the side of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 can be used between concrete and the subgrade. Passive resistance should be evaluated using a triangular pressure distribution modeled as an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf. The passive pressure value may be increased by one-third for the short-term effects of wind or seismic loading. 15,3 PAD MOISTURE CONDITIONING Immediately prior to mat foundation construction, the pad subgrade should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content of at least 3 percentage points above optimum and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing steel reinforcement and should not be allowed to dry prior to concrete placement. ENGEOPage 110 October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 5.4 CONCRETE SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS For footings with a concrete floor slab, we recommend the concrete floor slabs be at least 6 inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced 18 inches on center each way as a minimum. The structural engineer should provide final design thickness and additional reinforcement for anticipated structural loads. The concrete slab should be underlain by at least 6 inches of compacted %-inch clean crushed rock over processed subgrade. The crushed rock should have 100 percent passing the %-inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve. .5 TRENCH BACKFILL Trenches (utility and plumbing) should be backfilled and compacted in accordance with the Fill Placement Specifications presented in this report. 5.6 MOISTURE VAPOR REDUCTION When buildings are constructed with concrete slab -on -grade and structural mats, water vapor from beneath the slab will migrate through the slab and into the building. This water vapor can be reduced but not stopped. Vapor transmission can negatively affect floor coverings and lead to increased moisture within a building. When water vapor migrating through the slab would be undesirable, we recommend one or more of the following to reduce, but not stop, water vapor transmission upward through the slab/mat. Install a moisture vapor retarder system directly beneath the slab/mat that is sealed at all seams and pipe penetrations and connected to all footings. Vapor retarders shall conform to Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E1745 "Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs." & Use a concrete water -cement ratio for slabs -on -grade of no more than 0.50. 41 Provide inspection and testing during concrete placement to check that the proper concrete and water -cement ratio are used. 41 Moist cure slabs for a minimum of 3 days or use other equivalent curing specified by the structural engineer. The structural engineer should be consulted as to the use of a layer of clean sand or pea gravel (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) placed on top of the vapor retarder membrane to assist in concrete curing. 7 LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES Lightweight structures (such as overhead shade and canopy structures, smaller ancillary landscape features, walls, and overhead lighting) may be supported on spread footings or drilled piers. Conventional footings should be designed according to Section 5.1. Soil design criteria for drilled piers are provided below. • Maximum Allowable Skin Friction: 400 psf, ignoring the upper 2 feet in the load computation • Minimum Pier Diameter: 12 inches • Minimum Pier Depth: 5 feet ENGEO'gage 111 October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures acting on footing/pier foundations and shear keyways. An equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf may be used to evaluate passive resistance provided that the upper 1 foot of footing/pier embedment is ignored and the area in front of the footing/pier is level for a distance of at least 5 feet at the elevation passive resistance is initiated. For piers, passive resistance may be applied over two pier diameters. The project structural engineer should design and detail reinforcing steel based on the anticipated structural loads. During construction, drilled piers should be cleared of loose materials and debris. In addition, soil exposed in excavations should not be allowed to desiccate prior to placing concrete. ENGEO's field representative should observe and approve the excavations prior to concrete placement. 6.0 EXTERIOR FLATWORK We understand that planned improvements may consist of pedestrian hardscape and walking paths. The different surfaces that are discussed below should be installed following manufacturer guidelines. Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks/walkways, steps, and outdoor courtyards not exposed to vehicle traffic. Typical walkways, sidewalks, and steps should be constructed structurally independent of other foundation systems( i.e., steel should not be used to tie exterior flatwork or steps to adjacent foundations). This allows flatwork/slab movement to occur with a minimum of foundation distress. We recommend a minimum section of 4 inches of concrete over prepared subgrade. To improve slab performance, the slab could be reinforced with rebar or welded wire mesh or underlain by 4 inches of compacted aggregate base. In addition, the flatwork edges could be thickened to at least 8 inches to help control moisture variations in the subgrade. Construct control and construction joints in accordance with ACI and Portland Cement Association guidelines to help control the location of, but not eliminate, minor cracking of concrete hardscape. During construction, care must be exercised in attaining a high moisture condition of the subgrade soil before concrete placement and adjacent subgrade soil materials should not be allowed to become desiccated prior to completion of landscaping. 7.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN We obtained bulk samples of the surface soil from the planned drive isle and parking areas, and performed R-value tests to provide data for pavement designs. The results of the tests are included in Appendix B and indicate R-values of 8 and 18 for the Haskell entrance (west) and 20 for the Blue Cloud entrance (east). 71 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS We developed the following recommended pavement sections using Topic 633 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (including the asphalt factor of safety), presented in the tables below. ENGEOPage 112 October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report TABLE 8.1-1: Haskell Entrance - Recommended HMA Concrete Pavement Sections 4 8 3 6.5 5 8 3 9.5 6 8 3.5 12 7 8 4 15 TABLE 8.1-2: Blue Cloud Entrance - Recommended HMA Concrete Pavement Sections 4 20 3 6 5 20 3 7.5 6 20 3.5 9.5 7 20 4 12 The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indexes based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies. The minimum pavement section(s) should be confirmed by the civil engineer and local jurisdiction (such as, City or County). Pavement materials and construction should comply with the specifications and requirements of the Standard Specifications by Caltrans, the local jurisdiction, and our compaction recommendations. T 2 RIGID PAVEMENTS We recommend the following minimum design sections for rigid pavements. 41 Use a minimum section of 6 inches of Portland Cement concrete over 8 inches of Caltrans Class 2 AB 41 Concrete pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi 41 Provide minimum control joint spacing in accordance with Portland Cement Association guidelines Final design of rigid pavement sections and accompanying reinforcement should be performed based on estimated traffic loads and frequencies. T. a SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION Compact finish subgrade and aggregate base in accordance with Section 4.3. Aggregate base should meet the requirements for %-inch maximum Class 2 AB in accordance with Section 26-1.0213 of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications. t:NGEO Expect Excellence Page 113 October 25, 2024 Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.2 with the Blue Cloud Bike Park Site. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance. We strive to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices currently employed in the area; there is no warranty, express or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damage inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services. This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation. We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data and assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the Site. If unexpected conditions are encountered, ENGEO must be notified immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary. Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, or soil volume change factors. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the proper regulatory officials must be notified immediately. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes to ENGEO's documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO's scope of services does not include on -site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any and all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any and all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies, or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. ENGEOPage 114 October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence Hunsaker & Associates Blue Cloud Bike Park 26461.000.001 Geotechnical Report SELECTED REFERENCES ACI. 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and (ACI 318-14). 2014. ASCE. 2016. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16. 2016. Bryant, W. and Hart, E. 2007. Special Publication 42, "Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California." Interim Revision 2007, California Department of Conservation. California Building Code. 2022. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1997. Seismic Hazard Zone report for the Newhall 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 04. Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2008. Geologic Map of the Newhall Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-322, scale 1:24,000. Field, et al. 2015. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Version 3 (UCERF3). 2015. Hunsaker & Associates. 2024. 60% Plans, Blue Cloud Bike Park, Santa Clarita, California. March 7, 2024. Howayek, A.E., Huang, P.T., Bisnett, R., Santagata, M.C. 2011. Identification and Behavior of Collapsible Soils, Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2011/12, Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Los Angeles County Public Works. 2021. Administrative Manual, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division, Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration. GS200.1. June 30, 2021. SEAOC. 1996. Seismic Design Recommendations. ENGEO October 25, 2024 Expect Excellence 11 -,.w. -7W FIGURES FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map FIGURES 2A AND 213: Site Plan FIGURE 3: Geologic Map FIGURE 4: Seismic Hazard Zone Map FIGURE 5: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map f — r a � 4 'A I SITE - 20"1 (t HASKELL ENTRANCE BLUE CLOUD ENTRANCE _ o r� \ �. r �. i /18 � a � t j ! it j i rl< Rrl x' nth v lei I Dr o LoQ ?u x E a 1 % f_ tV\Jjl , r c d, ni < 0 1,000 2,000 ` FEET 3 RCCFRACP Crll IP(`F FNr pn mr PRPI WnPl n Tnpn MAP S1er SITE �` Sale Santa Clarita 14 O a' MDu NO SCALE �J Can. d o EI�GEO VICINITY MAP PROJECT N0. : 26461.000.001 FIGU/R�E N0. BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK SCALE: AS SHOWN I Expect Excellence SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY:JAM PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\-26000 TO 27999\26461\26461.000.001 BLUE CLOUD BIKE\GEOTECHNICAL\GEX\26461000001_BLUECLOUDBIKEPARK — GEX.APRX - AYOUT: 01. VICINITY 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH COPYRIGHT C 2024 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. 71 .t t'fl ,-rr •'f r r% rf fi' �--'1t _ � _�__'_ _ �_ - •\I - t I `}IdI 1414 /'7 +t 'a _.. + r1 P",y/�' m� _�.`\ t � � `r'1 5 ` r I' t; ` --- --`�•`�\ ,•i��- - 11�■t - �c•� �5,� _.4 \ 5 t`� 1 %.; t��.� i iy `• '� �-4•�- _ ~;..\,y, •`\`y ___ 1460.9 X 1465FS —it { r ¢ � i _,-ram"y �- �, . , c � � �� % �'L��/� - }�,11 ��1�, ,y `'�'• � � 5y� � , ,`+ � i �;, ;' � � .., "'+, .� 14 5r5.5 ,� � �� - � I � � r{„ �• `� --- r - _ - 4.��\ \� ,, ate_ --� �� � �' � �. 1446.—r��' X. ''. '` ) % � I 1 t _--",,,.�� `� `j� ,III I i � I r ! I r r/ � \'` yi. .. j :? 8 ' . s �' i •�\ �. �+, `.�� '�ar,.!- +-" "' `, 1 a ,. Q ��. \ 1 i� ii i,l / Y: �,I , '�r �rl�� V 15 •, •.`.!7e 5' �A•�`i "'>_, l' _ •,t,l h 4"54.3 i ? ,' i I 7 •r i err \ I i f I (f f J , 1 , ��.1 1 4��"� a, .',nr •, il+ ,`� '°ice ` 1' c. F^" r F — — �:... I ,` i ` _ ! .--• t i f iy � ,,ti, I I i I ' , � i 1 �+' ,'f + , � 1 yy ,4ts � ,7�:.,,,1 �'—`-::i1 . jjj f � tir,. + _ (, `�� � rl • i .. `j } � . I J 1 - 'FS _ 1 r - t �1r 56 - � �i r• q III - - t �, i I 1y � � iI � ±' ,� � �' 4 �' } : \ �� � lY • �' �� I�I --4$ �fj' �I• �,) �y,,tt, ti v =� T ��r Q� ti w o,*&MAL4 x, •t 4 z, t'-\--i� 1t. •5'4 '-t� \,�I \'six ,I{i 'fly /.-- \ \ t ,y,ve W't4� \\ \( >> Y-- EXPLANATION •,. _:. ,. - # ' � , i{ � t \, .. �, •,t`.4 _ `J ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 0 50 100 A.`\+ w Boring (ENGEO, 2024) � \�� � . FEET ,, ` Percolation Test (ENGEO, 2024) R-Value (ENGEO, 2024) BASEMAP SOURCE: GOGGLE EARTH MAPPING SERVICE 2024, AND HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES LOS ANGELES, 2024 ENGE0 SITE PLAN PROJECT N0. : Zg461.000.001 fFlc�uRE pia BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK - HASKELL ENTRANCE SCALE: AS SHOWN LA Expect Excellence SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY: JAM ..T- ,.., ,,,.. �r,.,��,.,... ,��.�� ... .....,.��.•..•.��.•. �, ��.. ...., ,,, ,,� ..,,,.,,,,.��..�...��,,.,,�.,���..�.,,•..•, ..,.,.,.,., ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: 02A. SITE PLAN 8.5 X11 LANDSCAPE USER: NCLOUGH COPYRIGHT @ 2024 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. j �....,1 f 160 CJQQ 61 \6. TrI 16 -- x �. 1606. 'TC ,FS`,t, NN i - \A, % EXPLANATION ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE —,51 6 "5D •�� % / Boring (ENGEO, 2024) 1 I 'FAA Percolation Test ENGEO, 2024 R-Value (ENGEO, 2024) ,BASEMAP SOURCE: GOGGLE -_EARTH MAPPING SIR RYICE ,2024 AND HU S''OGIATES LO—SA NG_EL'ES-2024� t PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. GEO SITE PLAN 2sas� 000.00� ^ ^ BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK - BLUE CLOUD ENTRANCE SCALE: AS SHOWN L B SANTACLARITA, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY: JAM VVV ,.T..n ,,,.. �.,.�...... ... . ........... ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: 2B. SITE PLAN 8.5 X 11 LANDSCAPE USER: NCLOUGH ocka 2*,7 5 -Tmc ?r 17 L V J 2� Ci �7 2' -� -Ar ry }lGIs F Z:— 51 m (I &I Lz N z Oil/ 17 Tme LLENTRANCE BLUE CLOUD ENTRANCE) 51 EXPLANATION Surficial Sediments Gravel and sand of major JP aystream channels QTS Saugus Formation E a Alluvial gravel, sand and Te Castaic Formation clay of valley areas 7 Landslide debris A FQ7 Mint Canyon Formation . 11-e Older Dissected Surficial Sediments - JA Low terrace remnants of alluvial fir °1t gravel and sand Alluvial fan and high terrace deposits of gravel and sand . . . . . . MAP SYMBOLS - NEWHALL ------- C---- FORMATION CONTACT MEMBER CONTACT ONTACT BETWEEN Oa dashed where inferred or indefinete between units of a forrnation SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS iomtsd any FA U LT: Dashed where indefinite or inferred, dotted where concealed. E 1 1 1 queried where existence is doubtful. Parallel arrows indicate inferred 25, Z elaftve lateral movement. Relative vertical movement is shown by U/D (U=upthrown side, D=;Iownthfown side) Shorrarrow indicates of fault plane. Sawfeeth are on upper plate of low angle thrust faux + 15 FOLD: SFr I ANTICLINE SYNCLINE + arrow on axial trace of told indicates direction of plunge.' dotted where concealed by surficial sediments 1,000 2,000 v'o 0 18 2C eraopp,c foi.t— —g—s flow barx" STRIKE AND DIP OF so -- 75 InCllned nlined overturned STRATIFIED ROCKS,inclined approormte vermw FEET ...... —ol sandst� Cmg)�syste Shale AbsndmeC OVA"foly o T —A.,bed ml or gas wefts. basted 0# —ft; may indude — as appwxnately m Places cm?v~ w abarda"d waft bAbtzl'AAP SOURCE: DIBBLEE, 19 GEOLOGIC MAP PROJECT NO. : 26461.000.001 FIGURE NO. 2 BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK SCALE: AS "ENGEO :3 Ll Expect Excellence SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY.NWCTCHECKED BY:JAM PATH: G: \DRAFTING \PROJECTS \26000 TO 27999\26461\26461.000.001 BLUE CLOUD BIKE\GEOTECHNICAL\GEX\26461000001—BLUECLOUDBIKEPARK — GEX.APRX .AYOUT: 03. GEOLOGIC 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH -L HASKELL ENTRANEEf BLUE CLOUD ENTRANCE SITE a �1r l 2jf 31 v10' Jl \�- PROJECT SITE Earthquake -Induced Landslide Zones u Areas Where The Previous Occurrence Of Landslide R Movement, Or Local Topographic, Geological, Geotechnical And Subsurface Water Conditions Indicate A Potential For rr Permanent Ground Displacements Such That Mitigation As j A Defined In Public Resources Code Section 2693(C) Would Be Required. `��I e CbA Liquefaction Zones 3 Areas Where The Historical Occurrence Of Liquefaction, Or 0 1,000 2,000 Local Geological, Geotechnical And Groundwater Conditions Indicate A Potential For Permanent Ground Displacements FEET Such That Mitigation As Defined In Public Resources Code a BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI MAPPING SERVICE Section 2693(C) Would Be Required CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 'EivSEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP PRoJEcr No. zsas1.000.00i FIGURE N0. GEU BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK SCALE: AS SHOWN 11 Ex,= SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY:NWC JCHLCKIED BY:JAM PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_26000 TO 27999\26461\26461.000.001 BLUE CLOUD BIKE \GEOTECHNICAL\GEX\26461000001_BLUECLOUDBIKEPARK — GEX.APRX ,P,AINA1 FIAIIRF PRwTFn IN CAI AR _ • ° • EXPLANATION Project Site `� •� / E ( : 94� •`` ` COYOTI HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS c e�__ • • ,r,.- • o f '9� 9�9 • Magnitude 5-6 y2 r/ ` i w • Magnitude 6-7 i+Jf SAN LUIS 2 F • ' Magnitude 7+ cp ti �OBISPO 9�0 ° • l �OUNTY s ` �-C RN"COUNTY�� � ��`� \ m� C �� Historic Blind Thrust Fault Zone v: �• • a yyK•51.:• o�'G .' QUATERNARY FAULTS 2020 •` •`•� , \ yy; ' • : qa vT�P rBased on time of most recent surface ` \ • - • _ oo�- FNWp p� deformation •v9 �toGyq _ �`` '� • P �jo• '•• : GP\ ;,R `R N / `pkhgT ���. ` — Constrained 'l ocation ), Well ,.,.,_ �"•' • �•;<<s \ ___ Historical(<150Years),Moderately �'. ` • • ` Constrained Location ��"•�-� •elq Historical (<150 Years), Inferred �01 •RLocation �•0A q N tiFSAN ENE AZI T -� �q<<F• BEW4RDINO Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years), ` SANTA OG P R T � CO Y oo Well Constrained Location ps BARBARA t�"�. ��.. • o glgMps OU�IT•it-�a•••�,• '+ AL Mo 4�•` SAN qN0 • sooT \toc ModerattelyLatest Quaternary Constrained 10L0ocations) SAN%A YNf egsF<rN PNE MOUNT c9BCIEARWATER , ...��� fq3 .. ylo _ �y Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years), • 2 F AIN 'piF. YNEZ SITEp�y9�P • Inferred Location i r Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years), •SA TA YNEZ SAN dosE Inferred Location • MIS50N RIDGE ARROYO PARIDA VENTURACON LSER _ ••4� - �t FkpN Late Quaternary (<13QDOO Years), CAYETANO • l �" �•- o qz � yy Moderately Constrained Location RE Ps B°OAK RIDGE 's T f LOSANGELES =... '~. j•� -i Late Quaternary (<130,000 Years), • . • •MTN ' p�S _ • q sNsq 3G�QUNTY �EGHORma� •� Inferred Location - PITAS ' F IN •' ., �P TA ROsA n� ^RrOGq +� pgeRr ,� •• • Middle And Late Quaternary Santa sMI - sA� �yrels _ • :.\ *- <750,000Years , Well Constrained Barbara OAK RIDGE'''` \ WATERMAN CANYON ( ) . / • FRp� SIERRA //Ifi `r• _ '� GA ••'� �P Location Channel pO i D i•MAORE UCAMCN sqv sqN `•`' • Middle And Late Quaternary • ���. HOOD MON • ✓qr, gN0•.Egs SAN ANpRegs --- (<750,000Years), Moderately • NOLL� • do \ Constrained Location • MA ueu COAST oN�OP yam•.• """"•• o ,•• Middle And Late Quaternary s ham. '' �y • Ri,;� (<750,000 Years), Inferred Location VENTURA 80UNT NTY ANA• 9T• •.'.Tif 9Undifferentiated efe6 •CAP!oUAT MllionYears), Well Constrained • • • '20 Location .: -- iyo •�''�•' Fzoti �i UndifferentiatedQuaternary(<1.6 v2 oo • COU - Million Years), Moderately 0 QFo • RIVERSIDE 4k Constrained Location po • • _'N NTY ✓ Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6 Santa sq� ms ORANGE COUNTY • • Million Years), Inferred Location Cruz s 2 Class B (Various Age), Well • rq qti - Constrained Location Basin c o lFMFNT �G? Class B (Various Age), Moderately 0 7.5 15 rSANTA os Constrained Location � MILES BARBARA sy F �s'qo L saRr Class B (Various Age), Inferred COUNTY SANTA SARBXRA COUNTY L& ANd1a%C OUNTY Po Fs ti SAN ��F d Location - - AMEN-GEPA,M�v= REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY MAP PROJECT NG. : 26461.000.401 e TE PAHKs. ESR�. TOM�oM, GAAN�H. SAFECRAPM cEOTecRrva�acies INC. MEnmASA uses euaEnu of USEAE.MisE�ws, COUN CAuFORNIA 6TATTE PAARKSESPI TOMrOMGARMIN. 9AFEGRAPH. FAQ. aeruH uses. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT EPA, NPs, uscws urvO �t:ivGEO� BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK sca�E: AssHowNs LIL—QUAJEeaWAGEBSEDAeN—NTICNALELEvniONDATASET(NED)ATaoMEERRESO— DO S- _ —QJANE DATABASE Expect I SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA V DRAWN 9v:Nwc CHECKED ev�AN, 11 -,.w. -7W APPENDIX A KEY TO BORING LOGS EXPLORATION LOGS (ENGEO, 2024) KEY TO BORING LOGS MAJOR TYPES DESCRIPTION w a W GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS WITH .... :� GW - Well graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures o W MORE THAN HALF LITTLE OR NO FINES GP - Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures N COARSE FRACTION o a z IS LARGER THAN GM - Silty gravels, gravel -sand and silt mixtures = NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE GRAVELS WITH OVER o w 12 %FINESCn GC -Clayey gravels, gravel -sand and clay mixtures 00 g SANDS SW - Well graded sands, or gravelly sand mixtures MORE THAN HALF CLEAN SANDS WITH a COARSE FRACTION LITTLE OR NO FINES SP -Poorly graded sands or gravelly sand mixtures w IS SMALLER THAN j SM - Silty sand, sand -silt mixtures of a o NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE o LL SANDS WITH OVER " = 12 % FINES SC - Clayey sand, sand -clay mixtures ilt ML - Inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity 0 ¢ SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMITS 50%OR LESS CL - Inorganic clay with low to medium plasticity LU === --- W �' �' OL - Low plasticity organic silts and clays m o P -_ o�< z MH - Inorganic silt with high plasticity Z o LL 6 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50°% CH - Inorganic clay with high plasticity F0= W a ;;',% OH - Highly plastic organic silts and clays HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT - Peat and other highly organic soils GRAIN SIZES U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE SIZE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4 " 3" 12" SILTS SAND GRAVEL AND COBBLES BOULDERS CLAYS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT APPROXIMATE SHEAR SANDS AND GRAVELS (S.P.T.)' SILTS AND CLAYS STRENGTH (PSF)z VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT 0-250 LOOSE 4-10 SOFT 250-500 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 MEDIUM STIFF 500-1,000 DENSE 30-50 STIFF 1,000-2,000 VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2,000-4,000 HARD > 4,000 MOISTURE CONDITION DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch MOIST Damp but no visible water WET Visible freewater LINE TYPES Solid - Layer Break SAMPLER SYMBOLS — — — — — — Dashed -Gradational or approximate layer break Modified California (3-inch O.D.) Sampler California (2.5-inch O.D.) Sampler S.P.T. Split Spoon (2-inch O.D.) Sampler GROUND -WATER SYMBOLS Shelby Tube � Groundwater level during drilling 1 Stabilized groundwater level Continuous Core Bag Samples NOTES ® Grab Samples 1. Standard Penetration Tests (S.P.T.) number of blows for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. (1-3/8-inch I.D.) sampler, No Recovery assuming 60% hammer efficiency 2. Approximate shear strength measured in field at time of drilling in units of GEOpounds per square foot —Expect Excellence— ENGEO SOIL BORING 1-131 Expect E,� ',e LATITUDE: 34.476006 LONGITUDE: -118.496294 DATE DRILLED: 10/09/2024 LOGGED BY / REVIEWED BY: BJC / THZ Blue Cloud Bike Park HOLE DEPTH: 9.5 ft DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Santa Clarita, California 26461.000.001 HOLE DIAMETER: Bin DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 1607 ft (WGS84) HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Auto Trip a U J d N Q C �N .�... C U aT C U) a a Visual Classification and Remarks £ 11 N ° 'f.: _ E C a) > Z LL U) O O 0- ` N > OU _L� f�d o c 0 a. Q SILT (ML), light gray, very stiff, dry, medium plasticity, fine-grained sand, trace subrounded fine gravel 1605 19 36-26-10 73.1 9.4 5 1� WWI 41 13.6 115.5 3969 7939 >4.5 LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, hard, moist, medium plasticity, trace fine-grained sand, trace subrounded fine gravel 1600 decrease in subrounded fine gravel, Fe staining 20 92 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAYEY SAND (SC), light gray, very dense, moist, fine-grained sand j 50/5 10 End of boring at 9'Y2 feet below ground surface. No groundwater encountered at the time of drilling. ENGEO SOIL BORING 1-132 Expect E,� ',e LATITUDE: 34.476121 LONGITUDE:-118.505945 DATE DRILLED: 10/09/2024 LOGGED BY / REVIEWED BY: BJC / THZ Blue Cloud Bike Park HOLE DEPTH: 9.5 ft DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Martini Drilling Santa Clarita, California 26461.000.001 HOLE DIAMETER: Bin DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 1488 ft (WGS84) HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Auto Trip a U D ° N m .-, .�... C J U c C U) d a a) Visual Classification and Remarks L J f0 > N £ f/1 ° U ..T� C N _ > Q U E YO E C N > d @ j U Z J N C L,L N (n (n 0-`O lL N Ur` > N f�' O_ f� '� o c o a. Q SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff, dry, medium plasticity, fine- to medium -grained sand 1485 26 35-19-16 59 7.7 ................................................................. LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), brown, stiff, dry, medium 5 plasticity, fine- to medium -grained sand 23 71 10.2 ................................................................. SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, stiff, dry to moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained sand 11 70 9.0 96.5 1480 34 >4.5 10 End of boring at 9'/z feet below ground surface. No groundwater encountered at the time of drilling. 11 -,.w. -7W APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST DATA (ENGEO, 2024) 100 90 80 70 60 it W Z 50 LL Z 40 111 30 W 0- 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. SAMPLE ID: 1-B1@2-3.5 DEPTH (ft): 2-3.5 LOCATION: 1-B1 I % GRAVEL I % SAND I % FINES % +75mm SOIL DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC: PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) See Exploration Logs ATTERBERG LIMITS COEFFICIENTS D., D. = D50 D, D, D, CLASSIFICATION REMARKS Soak time = 180 min Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve 111V JF1cl.II lI.G IIVII Ai11�Vlu GUI CLIENT: Hunsaker & Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/21 /2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com 100 90 80 70 60 it W Z 50 LL Z 40 111 30 W 0- 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. SAMPLE ID: 1-B1@6-7.5 DEPTH (ft): 6-7.5 LOCATION: 1-B1 I % GRAVEL I % SAND I % FINES % +75mm SOIL DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC: PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) See Exploration Logs ATTERBERG LIMITS COEFFICIENTS D., D. = D50 D, D, D, CLASSIFICATION REMARKS Soak time 180 min Largest particle size �! No. 4 Sieve 111V JF1cl.II lI.G IIVII Ai11�Vlu GUI CLIENT: Hunsaker & Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/21 /2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com 100 90 80 70 60 it W Z 50 LL Z 40 111 30 W 0- 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. SAMPLE ID: 1-B2@2-3.5 DEPTH (ft): 2-3.5 LOCATION: 1-B2 I % GRAVEL I % SAND I % FINES % +75mm SOIL DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC: PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) See Exploration Logs ATTERBERG LIMITS COEFFICIENTS D., D. = D50 D, D, D, CLASSIFICATION REMARKS Soak time = 180 min Largest particle size �! No. 4 Sieve iiu aucUiivauui 1JVviu cul CLIENT: Hunsaker & Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/21 /2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com 100 90 80 70 60 it W Z 50 LL Z 40 111 30 W 0- 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. SAMPLE ID: 1-B2@5-5.5 DEPTH (ft): 5-5.5 LOCATION: 1-B2 I % GRAVEL I % SAND I % FINES % +75mm SOIL DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC: PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) See Exploration Logs ATTERBERG LIMITS COEFFICIENTS D., D. = D50 D, D, D, CLASSIFICATION REMARKS Soak time 180 min Dry sample weight = 0: Largest particle size �! No. 4 Sieve 111V JF1cl.II lI.G IIVII Ai11�Vlu GUI CLIENT: Hunsaker & Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/21 /2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com 100 90 80 70 60 it W Z 50 LL Z 40 111 30 W 0- 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. SAMPLE ID: 1-B2@6-7.5 DEPTH (ft): 6-7.5 LOCATION: 1-B2 I % GRAVEL I % SAND I % FINES % +75mm SOIL DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC: PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) See Exploration Logs ATTERBERG LIMITS COEFFICIENTS D., D. = D50 D, D, D, CLASSIFICATION REMARKS Soak time 180 min Largest particle size �! No. 4 Sieve iiu aucUiivauui 1JVviu cul CLIENT: Hunsaker & Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/21 /2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com Dashed Line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 70 / / / 60 / / / 50 / / X W / / 0 / Z F- L) i= 30 / Cn J / a 20 / 10 _ CL ML ML or OL MH or OH 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 66 7n 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 LIQUID LIMIT ID DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTIONSAMPLE MATERIAL ♦ 1-131 2-3.5 See Exploration Logs 36 26 10 ♦ 1-132 2-3.5 See Exploration Logs 35 19 16 ♦ 1-131 PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method ♦ 1-132 PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method ENGEO CLIENT: Hunsaker &Associates PROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence - PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/21/2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (925) 866-9000 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com UNCONFINED• -' •REPORT.. Compressive Stress vs. Axial Strain Curve(s) 9000 Q 8000 W 7000 a L u'6000 > NIP* c 5000 - a) L 4000 0 0 U 3000 0 a) 2000 a L 0 1000 40, 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Axial Strain (%) 1-B1 @ 5-5.5- BEFORE TEST 1-B1@5-5.5' Test Moisture Content (%) 13.77=, Dry Density (pcf) 115.5i Saturation (%) 79.6 Void Ratio Diameter (in) 0.47 2.400 F Height (in) 5.730 4'+ Height -To -Diameter Ratio 2.39�``t TEST DATA `A Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) 7939 Undrained Shear Strength (psf) 3969 Strain Rate (in/min) 0.050 Specific Gravity (ASSUMED) 2.720 Strain at Failure(%) 1.92 Test Remarks SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION 1-131@5-5.5' See Exploration Logs PROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Test Date: 10/21/2024 PROJECT NO: 26461,000,001 PH001 Tested By: K. Paul CLIENT: Hunsaker & Associates ENGEO Reviewed By: K. Lecce Expect Excellence LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T (925) 866-9000 1 www.engeo.com N Q w u7 u7 w a a z O in— Q a x w 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 R-VALU EXPANSION PRESSURE 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 UJ 50 Q 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CLIENT: Hunsaker and Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/15/2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com N Q w u7 u7 w a a z O in — a a X w 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 R-VALUE EXPANSI PRESSU 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 UJ 50 Q 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CLIENT: Hunsaker and Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/15/2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com N Q w u7 u7 w a a z O in — a a x w 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 R-VAL EXPAN! PRESS' 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 UJ 50 Q 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CLIENT: Hunsaker and Associates ENGEOPROJECT NAME: Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Expect Excellence PROJECT NO: 26461.000.001 PH001 PROJECT LOCATION: Santa Clarita, CA REPORT DATE: 10/16/2024 TESTED BY: K. Paul REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce 27742 Hancock Parkway I Valencia, CA 91355 1 T: (661) 257-4004 1 F: (888) 279-2698 1 www.engeo.com 11 -,.w. -7W APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST DATA (CERCO, 2024) 21 October, 2024 Job No. 2410041 Cust. No. 1.3174 Ms. Tania Zakaria ENGEO Inc. 27742 Hancock Parkway Valencia, CA 91355 Subject: Project No.: 26309.000.001 Project Name: Blue Cloud Bike Park Corrosivity Analysis — ASTM Test Methods Dear Ms. Zakaria: CERCO �� F a n a I y t i c a I 1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A Concord, CA 94520-1006 925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775 www.cercoanalytical.com Pursuant to your request, CERCO Analytical has analyzed the soil samples submitted on October 15, 2024. Based on the analytical results, this brief corrosivity evaluation is enclosed for your consideration. Based upon the resistivity measurements, both samples are classified as "corrosive". All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion. The chloride ion concentrations are none detected and 21 mg/kg and are determined to be insufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mortar coating. The sulfate ion concentrations are 21 mg/kg and 110 mg/kg and are determined to be insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar -coated steel at these locations. The pH of the soils are 8.25 and 7.28, which does not present corrosion problems for buried iron, steel, mortar -coated steel and reinforced concrete structures. The redox potentials are 120-mV and 190-mV. Both samples are indicative of potentially "moderately corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic soil conditions. This corrosivity evaluation is based on general corrosion engineering standards and is non-specific in nature. For specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations or consultation, please call JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. at (925) 927-6630. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, CERCO ANArLY'TICAL, INC. ' J. arby Howard, Jr., P.E. President JDH/jdI Enclosure Client: ENGEO, Incorporated Client's Project No.: 26309.000.001 Client's Project Name: Blue Cloud Bike Park Date Sampled: 9-Oct-24 Date Received: 15-Oct-24 Matrix: Soil Authorization: Chain of Custody Job/Samnle No. Samnle i_D. Redox Conductivity (mV) nTT (nmhnclrm}* Resistivity (100% Saturation) Sulfide F CE RCO • a n a I y t i c a I 1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A Concord, CA 94520-1006 925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775 www.cercoanalytical.com Date of Report: 21-Oct-2024 Chloride Sulfate (mn/Irn}* (mallrfr}* 2410041-001 RV-1 @ I' 190 8.25 - 600 - N.D. 110 2410041-002 RV-2 @ 1' 120 7.28 - 1,500 - 21 21 Method: ASTM D1498 ASTM D4972 ASTM D 1125M ASTM G57 ASTM D4658M ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 Reporting Limit: - - - - - 15 15 Date Analyzed: 16-Oct-2024 16-Oct-2024 - 17-Oct-2024 - 16-Oct-2024 16-Oct-2024 * Results Reported on "As Received" Basis tit, A N.D. - None Detected Mu Clauson Chemist Quality Control Summary - All laboratory quality control parameters were found to be within established limits Page No. 1 ENGEO Expect Excellence APPENDIX F: HYDROLOGY STUDY Hydrology Study for Blue Cloud Bike Park City of Santa Clarita Hunsaker Project No: 0317-001-001 November 15, 2024 Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 270 Santa Clarita, CA, 91355-2196 Prepared by: Eumir Ruanto, PE/QSD �QRC Hunsaker and Associates, LA Inc. fESSIp 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 ��K!!�y F a Valencia, CA 91355 Telephone: (661) 294-2211 Fax: (661) 294-9890 * �' No. 40695 Under the supervision of: �lq CI V1�- � �F CAl-�F� Jason H. Fukumitsu Date TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................1 1.1 Report Summary 1.2 Project Description 2. METHODOLOGY.........................................................................3 3. DESIGN CRITERIA......................................................................4 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................5 5. REFERENCES.............................................................................6 6. APPENDICES A. Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (Existing Condition) 1. Existing Capital Storm Hydrologic Summary Table 2. TC Calculation 3. Capital Storm Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (LAR04) Result and Hydrograph B. Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (Proposed Condition) 1. Proposed Capital Storm Hydrologic Summary Table 2. TC Calculation 3. Capital Storm Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (LAR04) Result and Hydrograph C. Hydrologic Reference Graphs & Table 1. 50-Year, 24-Hour Isohyet (LACDPW) 2. Los Angeles County Proportion Impervious Data Table D. Reference Plans: 1. FEMA FIRM Panel 06037C0810G, Effective June 02, 2021 2. Haskell Canyon 341-ML2 E. Technical Memorandum F. Hydrology Maps: 1. Existing Condition Hydrology Map 2. Proposed Condition Hydrology Map 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Summary The purpose of this report is to present the hydrology design and analysis for Blue Cloud Bike Park. The report analyzes existing and proposed development conditions for the Design 2-year clear storm which will serve as the criteria for the design of onsite storm drain drainage devices; the rest of other storm frequencies are also provided as references namely: 50-yr burned & bulked, Clear Frequencies (50, 25, 10, 5 and LID 851h Percentile). A 24-Hour storm analysis based upon the Los Angeles County Rational and Modified Rational Methods of Hydrology was used for clear, burned, and burned and bulked conditions for the project watershed. This report is divided into several sections. Section 1 contains the introduction; Section 2 discusses the methodology used in the hydrologic analysis; Section 3 summarizes the design criteria used; Section 4 includes the conclusions and recommendations of this report; Section 5 includes the references, and Section 6 includes the compilation of the calculations and other data/information supporting the analysis. 1.2 Proiect Description The proposed project is located in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County and consists of approximately 5 acres of proposed disturbed grading area and an additional of about 5 acres of other activity areas within the adjacent natural terrain. The total property site is about 380 acres within its boundaries, see vicinity map below for reference. At present, the entire property site is undeveloped and is being used as recreational hiking area with dirt trails. The proposed project site is a small development located on the west end of the property, within the Haskell Canyon Open Space, and just east of the Haskell Canyon. The watershed tributary to the project site is about 128 acres, draining overland from east to west, and directly discharging into the Haskell Canyon creek. The watersheds natural terrain has elevations ranging from high of 1957 to low of 1448. The proposed Blue Cloud development is a bike park development consisting of beginner and intermediate pump tracks, roadway/driveway access coming from City Highline Motorway Fire Road, picnic area, parking lot, bike trails and other related bike activity areas, and a small bathroom area located near the east site boundary and adjacent to Blue Cloud Road, serving the existing dirt parking area. The proposed condition drainage watershed follows the existing condition drainage pattern, draining overland from east to west. A concrete J-drain with 2 culvert crossings will convey the drainage flow from the east and north, while a concrete v-ditch will convey the flow from the south. Both of these drainage devices drain directly into the Haskell Canyon creek. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE THOMS GUIDE 44[1% 0-7 2 2. METHODOLOGY The project site has a single tributary watershed of about 128 acres. The watershed is delineated based on the proposed site grading and existing topography from the tributary undeveloped areas. The proposed drainage watershed generally follows the natural drainage course. The watershed is then delineated into subareas of less than 40 acres for the hydrology analysis. Two hydrologic methods were used for the drainage analysis - the Rational Method and the Modified Rational Methods included in the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. The time of concentration (T,.) for each subarea was computed using the Los Angeles County approved Time of Concentration calculator (HydroCalc Calculator). The calculator evaluates several hydrologic parameters such as soil type, land use, imperviousness, storm frequency, length and slope of each reach to calculate a time of concentration. This data was used with the Los Angeles County approved LAR04 software application to determine peak flow rates for the design storm event. Using the times of concentration for each subarea, the Modified Rational Method was then used to calculate the various storm frequencies, 24-Hour peak runoff flow for each subarea. In addition, the undeveloped tributary areas were further analyzed using a burned coefficient to calculate peak burned runoff rates for the 50-yr burned and bulked storm frequency. No burned coefficients were used for proposed developed areas. The project's land use and imperviousness were determined from the Land Use and Proportion Impervious Data provided in the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. Soil types and rainfall corresponding to each subarea were obtained from the isohyetal map (see Appendices). The project site is located in a single debris potential area within the Santa Clara Basin: DPA- 8. Debris volumes were calculated for each undeveloped subarea based on the debris production rates. The project is located within the Santa Clara River Watershed and its undeveloped areas were analyzed for the debris potential, as well as peak burned and bulked runoff rates. Bulking effects occur when debris is considered with the peak burned flows. Within the Santa Clara Watershed, DPA- 8, the burned and bulked peak runoff rates were calculated by multiplying the peak burned runoff rates by the appropriate bulking factor. A summary of the project's burned and bulk flows, and debris volumes can be found in Hydrologic Summary Tables. 3 3. DESIGN CRITERIA Los Angeles County requires that several design criteria be followed when using the Rational and Modified Rational Method of Hydrology to determine capital flood flow. The 50-year, 24-hour rainfall isohyet used in the hydrologic calculations were obtained from the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual's Hydrologic Maps, it is 5.5". The soil number within the project site were also determined from the hydrologic map as 099. The project used 1% imperviousness for existing natural or undeveloped areas, and 2% for developed regional parks and recreation areas, as listed on the Proportion Impervious Data table. The project falls into a single debris potential area in the Santa Clara Basin, DPA-8. The respective debris and bulking factors are 35,500 Cy / mil and 1.360, respectively. The design criteria used is summarized below: Hydrology Method: Los Angeles County Flood Control District Rational Method and Modified Rational Method. Hydrology Modeling Software LAR04 Design Storm: 2-year clear storm frequency 50-Year Isohyet: 5.5" Soil Types: 099 Land Use and Imperviousness: Natural or undeveloped areas (1%) Developed regional parks and recreation areas (2%) Debris Potential Zone: DPA-8 (35,500 Cy / mi2); area < 0.1 mil Peak Bulking Rate: 1.360; DPA-8 (area < 0.1 mil) 11 4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The table below summarizes the conditions at the outlet area, pre- and post -development: Outlet Summary OUTLET Pre -Development Post -Development Delta Area Ac Q2 cfs Area Ac) Q2 (cfs) Area (Ac)cfs Q2 128.2 36.0 128.2 35.3 0 -0.7 Based upon the hydrologic analysis performed, the 2-year storm post -developed condition has resulted in an overall decrease of 0.7 cfs compared to its pre -development condition, therefore will not pose any adverse impact on downstream offsite properties. The design storm of 2-year frequency, as the level of flood protection and drainage devices design criteria, was chosen per City of Santa Clarita's (client) request (see Appendix E: Technical Memorandum). However, this report provided other storm frequencies, as references. In addition, (1) the onsite Low Impact development (LID) analysis will be provided under separate report; (2) the analysis and design of the access road/driveway and culvert crossings within the Haskell Canyon will also be provided under separate permit. Finally, the proposed development will include drainage devices and infrastructures to sufficiently mitigate onsite impacts such as increased velocity --- will provide energy dissipaters consisting of riprap, as necessary, to prevent erosion. Preliminary layouts of the drainage devices are shown on the Proposed Conditions Map. Other detailed calculations and maps can be found in the Appendices. 5 5. REFERENCES Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual, January 2006 ii. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Sedimentation Manual, March 2006 6. APPENDICES A. Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (Existing Condition) 1. Capital Storm Hydrologic Summary Table 2. TC Calculations 3. Storm Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (LAR04) Result and Hydrograph 2-yr Clear (DESIGN STORM) JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 2-Yr Depth in 2-Yr Tc (min) Qz (cfs) Earea (ac) EQz (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 2.1285 25 12.1 38.3 12.1 2A 35.8 0.01 98 2.1285 30 9.8 74.1 21.0 3A 8.7 0.01 98 2.1285 20 3.2 82.8 23.8 4A 38.8 0.01 98 2.1285 30 10.6 121.6 34.0 5A 6.6 0.01 98 2.1285 19 2.6 128.2 36.0 50-yr BB JUNCTION Area Soil 50-Yr 50-Yr Q50b Q50bb DPV Earea EQ50b EQ50bb EDPV Subarea Node (ac) Imp Type Depth Tc (cfs) (cfs) (cy) (ac) (cfs) (cfs) (cy) in min 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 5.5 9 80.7 109.8 2,124 38.3 80.7 2A 35.8 0.01 98 5.5 12 64.8 88.1 1,986 74.1 138.7 2A 74.1 138.7 187.2 3,850 3A 8.7 0.01 98 5.5 8 19.4 26.4 483 82.8 153.8 3A 82.8 153.8 206.8 4,108 4A 38.8 0.01 98 5.5 14 64.6 87.9 2,152 121.6 217.1 4A 121.6 217.1 286.6 4,940 5A 6.6 0.01 98 5.5 7 15.8 21.4 366 128.2 225.4 5A I i 1 128.2 225.4 1 296.8 1 5,108 50-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 50-Yr Depth in 50-Yr Tc min Qso (cfs) Earea (ac) EQso (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 5.5 9 78.4 38.3 78.4 2A 35.8 0.01 98 5.5 12 62.7 74.1 134.2 3A 8.7 0.01 98 5.5 8 18.9 82.8 148.7 4A 38.8 0.01 98 5.5 14 62.5 121.6 209.8 5A 6.6 0.01 98 5.5 7 15.3 128.2 217.6 25-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 25-Yr Depth in 25-Yr Tc min Qzs (cfs) Earea (ac) EQzs (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 4.829 10 62.3 38.3 62.3 2A 35.8 0.01 98 4.829 13 49.9 74.1 106.5 3A 8.7 0.01 98 4.829 9 14.9 82.8 118.4 4A 38.8 0.01 98 4.829 16 48.2 121.6 164.8 5A 6.6 0.01 98 4.829 8 11.9 128.2 172.2 10-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 10-Yr Depth in 10-Yr Tc min Q,o (cfs) Earea (ac) EQ,o (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 3.927 12 44.5 38.3 44.5 2A 35.8 0.01 98 3.927 16 35.4 74.1 76.6 3A 8.7 0.01 98 3.927 10 11.3 82.8 85.8 4A 38.8 0.01 98 3.927 19 34.6 121.6 119.5 5A 6.6 0.01 98 3.927 10 8.6 128.2 125.5 5-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type;[; 5-Yr Depth in 5-Yr Tc (min) Qs (cfs) Earea (ac) EQs (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 3.212 15 29.6 38.3 29.6 2A 35.8 0.01 98 3.212 20 22.9 74.1 50.4 3A 8.7 0.01 98 3.212 13 7.3 82.8 56.6 4A 38.8 0.01 98 3.212 24 22.1 121.6 78.3 5A 6.6 0.01 98 3.212 12 5.8 128.2 82.5 85th Percentile JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type LID Depth LID Tc (min) QLID (cfs) Earea (ac) EQLID (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 98 0.85 30 8.8 38.3 8.8 2A 35.8 0.01 98 0.85 30 8.2 74.1 16.1 3A 8.7 0.01 98 0.85 30 2.0 82.8 18.0 4A 38.8 0.01 98 0.85 30 8.9 121.6 26.4 5A 6.6 0.01 98 0.85 30 1.5 128.2 27.7 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.596 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4842 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4884 Time of Concentration (min) 25.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.1487 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.1487 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.998 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 43472.5092 12 10 8 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 1984.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.137 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5471 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4578 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4622 Time of Concentration (min) 30.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.0528 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.0528 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.9231 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 40208.846 10 8 6 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 3A Area (ac) 8.7 Flow Path Length (ft) 1267.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.262 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.6619 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5198 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.5236 Time of Concentration (min) 20.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0153 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0153 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2289 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9969.706 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 a 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 3A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 2601.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5471 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4578 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4622 Time of Concentration (min) 30.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.8114 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.8114 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.0004 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 43578.3024 Hydrograph (BLUE: 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 6.6 Flow Path Length (ft) 994.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.157 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.6781 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5285 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.5322 Time of Concentration (min) 19.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.3819 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.3819 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.174 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 7577.9166 2.5 2.0 1.5 Z a LL 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.4894 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8094 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8103 Time of Concentration (min) 9.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 77.255 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 77.255 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 4.1839 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 182251.6223 80 70 60 50 40 2 LL 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 1984.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.137 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.1745 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7898 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7909 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 61.5675 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 61.5675 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.9071 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 170193.9051 70 60 50 40 3 a 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 3A Area (ac) 8.7 Flow Path Length (ft) 1267.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.262 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6311 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.815 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8159 Time of Concentration (min) 8.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 18.6751 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 18.6751 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.9506 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 41408.7232 20 15 Z 10 a Hydrograph (BLUE: 3A) 0 L 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 2601.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.0226 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7803 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7815 Time of Concentration (min) 14.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 61.3276 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 61.3276 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 4.2323 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 184357.4058 70 60 50 40 3 a 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 6.6 Flow Path Length (ft) 994.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.157 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.8015 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8215 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8222 Time of Concentration (min) 7.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 15.203 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 15.203 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.7212 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 31417.2034 16 14 12 10 U O LL 6 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.0801 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7839 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.785 Time of Concentration (min) 10.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 62.541 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 62.541 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.3935 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 147822.3506 70 60 50 40 3 a 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 1984.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.137 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.8388 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7633 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7646 Time of Concentration (min) 13.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 50.3332 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 50.3332 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.1674 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 137971.8965 60 54 40 Z 30 a LL 24 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 3A Area (ac) 8.7 Flow Path Length (ft) 1267.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.262 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.1857 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7905 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7916 Time of Concentration (min) 9.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 15.0515 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 15.0515 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.7711 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 33588.6407 16 14 12 10 U O LL 6- 4- 2- 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 3A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 2601.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.6678 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7467 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7482 Time of Concentration (min) 16.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 48.4174 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 48.4174 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.4294 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 149384.5901 50 40 30 3 a 20 im 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 6.6 Flow Path Length (ft) 994.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.157 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.3101 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7982 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7992 Time of Concentration (min) 8.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 12.1853 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 12.1853 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.5852 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 25489.3607 14 12 10 8 U O LL 6 4 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.5526 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7355 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7372 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 43.8361 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 43.8361 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.4579 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 107068.1453 45 40 35 30 ( 25 70 20 15 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 1984.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.137 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.3563 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7055 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7075 Time of Concentration (min) 16.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 34.3512 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 34.3512 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.2906 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 99780.235 35 30 25 20 3 a 15 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 3A Area (ac) 8.7 Flow Path Length (ft) 1267.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.262 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.6915 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.749 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7505 Time of Concentration (min) 10.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.0446 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.0446 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.5588 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 24339.8255 12 10 8 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 3A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 2601.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.251 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6873 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6894 Time of Concentration (min) 19.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 33.4654 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 33.4654 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.479 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 107983.7584 35 30 25 20 3 a 15 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 6.6 Flow Path Length (ft) 994.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.157 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.6915 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.749 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7505 Time of Concentration (min) 10.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.3787 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.3787 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.4239 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 18464.6952 9 8 7 c�- 5 O LL 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.1435 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6687 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.671 Time of Concentration (min) 15.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 29.3872 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 29.3872 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.8165 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 79124.9286 30 25 20 Z 15 a LL 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 1984.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.137 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.9989 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6435 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6461 Time of Concentration (min) 20.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 23.1033 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 23.1033 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.6951 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 73837.929 25 20 15 Z a LL 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 3A Area (ac) 8.7 Flow Path Length (ft) 1267.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.262 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.223 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6825 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6846 Time of Concentration (min) 13.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.285 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.285 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.4129 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 17986.1744 8 7- 6- 5- 0 3 4 O LL 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 3A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 2601.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.9168 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6184 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6212 Time of Concentration (min) 24.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 22.0991 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 22.0991 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.8316 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 79784.2178 25 20 15 Z a LL 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 6.6 Flow Path Length (ft) 994.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.157 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.2699 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6906 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6927 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.8057 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.8057 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3134 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 13651.4641 6 5 4 3 3 O LL 2 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.1085 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 133.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.4488 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.4488 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2906 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12660.4458 0.45 0.4a 0.35 0.30 ct� 0.25 t 3 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 1984.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.137 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.0969 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 169.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3748 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3748 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2717 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11835.9243 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 a LL 0.15 0.10 0.0 0.00 0 200 440 Hydrograph (BLUE: 2A) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name Subarea ID Area (ac) Flow Path Length (ft) Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) Percent Impervious Soil Type Design Storm Frequency Fire Factor LID Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) Peak Intensity (in/hr) Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) Time of Concentration (min) Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0 LL 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 204 400 BLUE 3A 8.7 1267.0 0.262 0.85 0.01 99 85th percentile storm 0 True 0.85 0.1171 0.1 0.108 113.0 0.1101 0.1101 0.066 2875.6711 Hydrograph (BLUE: 3A) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.8 Flow Path Length (ft) 2601.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.0906 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 195.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3798 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3798 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2945 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12829.594 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 a LL 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 200 460 Hydrograph (BLUE: 4A) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/EX BLUE Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 6.6 Flow Path Length (ft) 994.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.157 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.1207 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 106.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.086 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.086 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0501 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 2181.4969 0.O9 0.08 0.07 0.06 C 0.05 U L0 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 Hydrograph (BLUE: 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50B INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 50-YR DESIGN BURN STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 80.74 38.3 80.74 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 299 9 A28 .01 1 2A 35.8 64.79 74.1 138.65 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 299 12 A28 .01 1 3A 8.7 19.40 82.8 153.79 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 299 8 A28 .01 1 4A 38.8 64.64 121.6 217.10 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 299 14 A28 .01 1 5A 6.6 15.75 128.2 225.37 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 299 7 A28 .01 Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50B INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 50-YR DESIGN BURN, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 2.84 200 2.95 300 3.10 400 3.27 500 3.51 600 3.77 700 4.09 800 4.56 900 5.23 1000 6.55 1050 13.24 1100 24.36 1110 31.38 1120 40.68 1130 50.74 1131 51.96 1132 53.20 1133 54.64 1134 56.16 1135 57.77 1136 59.28 1137 60.84 1138 62.52 1139 64.46 1140 66.45 1141 68.93 1142 71.75 1143 74.95 1144 78.30 1145 82.28 1146 86.88 1147 92.13 1148 97.34 1149 106.01 1150 119.09 1151 136.43 1152 156.21 1153 178.08 1154 197.68 1155 212.76 1156 221.14 1157 225.37 1158 224.92 1159 219.82 1160 211.29 1161 201.29 1162 188.25 1163 171.18 1164 150.55 1165 129.12 1166 108.53 1167 89.60 1168 74.29 1169 63.60 1170 56.45 1171 50.93 1172 46.54 1173 42.83 1174 39.75 1175 37.13 1176 34.79 1177 32.68 1178 30.86 1179 29.21 1180 27.60 1181 26.17 1182 24.95 1183 23.81 1184 22.79 1185 21.79 1186 20.87 1187 19.96 1188 19.09 1189 18.23 1190 17.48 1191 16.75 1192 16.06 1193 15.39 1194 14.80 1195 14.27 1196 13.69 1197 13.11 1198 12.66 1199 12.22 1200 11.72 1201 11.31 1202 10.84 1203 10.38 1204 10.01 1205 9.63 1206 9.27 1207 8.97 1208 8.59 1209 8.21 1210 7.88 1211 7.57 1212 7.30 1213 7.08 1214 6.88 1215 6.73 1216 6.60 1217 6.49 1218 6.40 1219 6.31 1220 6.22 1221 6.15 1222 6.08 1223 6.00 1224 5.94 1225 5.88 1226 5.83 1227 5.78 1228 5.74 1229 5.70 1230 5.66 1231 5.62 1232 5.57 1233 5.52 1234 5.49 1235 5.45 1236 5.42 1237 5.40 1238 5.36 1239 5.33 1240 5.28 1241 5.25 1242 5.22 1243 5.17 1244 5.14 1245 5.11 1246 5.09 1247 5.07 1248 5.04 1249 4.99 1250 4.98 1251 4.94 1252 4.92 1253 4.89 1254 4.86 1255 4.83 1256 4.82 1257 4.78 1258 4.75 1259 4.74 1260 4.70 1261 4.68 1262 4.66 1263 4.63 1264 4.61 1265 4.59 1266 4.56 1267 4.55 1268 4.53 1269 4.52 1270 4.50 1271 4.48 1272 4.46 1273 4.44 1274 4.41 1275 4.38 1276 4.37 1277 4.36 1278 4.35 1279 4.33 1280 4.32 1281 4.31 1282 4.30 1283 4.26 1284 4.24 1285 4.23 1286 4.22 1287 4.20 1288 4.20 1289 4.18 1290 4.17 1291 4.14 1292 4.11 1293 4.08 1294 4.06 1295 4.04 1296 4.04 1297 4.03 1298 4.01 1299 3.99 1300 3.98 1310 3.84 1320 3.76 1330 3.63 1340 3.49 1350 3.41 1360 3.38 1370 3.27 1380 3.20 1390 3.12 1400 3.06 1420 2.96 1440 2.84 1460 2.69 1500 2.69 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 17.67(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 50-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 78.37 38.3 78.37 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 99 9 A28 .01 1 2A 35.8 62.72 74.1 134.17 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 99 12 A28 .01 1 3A 8.7 18.85 82.8 148.73 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 99 8 A28 .01 1 4A 38.8 62.46 121.6 209.84 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 99 14 A28 .01 1 5A 6.6 15.32 128.2 217.64 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 7 A28 .01 Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 50-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 1.75 200 1.82 300 1.91 400 2.02 500 2.16 600 2.31 700 2.51 800 2.79 900 3.19 1000 4.08 1050 10.43 1100 21.22 1110 27.90 1120 36.90 1130 46.64 1131 47.81 1132 49.00 1133 50.40 1134 51.87 1135 53.43 1136 54.91 1137 56.43 1138 58.05 1139 59.93 1140 61.86 1141 64.28 1142 67.00 1143 70.12 1144 73.38 1145 77.26 1146 81.74 1147 86.86 1148 91.96 1149 100.41 1150 113.13 1151 130.06 1152 149.41 1153 170.85 1154 190.11 1155 205.01 1156 213.34 1157 217.64 1158 217.28 1159 212.50 1160 204.23 1161 194.53 1162 181.86 1163 165.24 1164 145.12 1165 124.18 1166 104.07 1167 85.53 1168 70.51 1169 59.96 1170 52.91 1171 47.46 1172 43.16 1173 39.52 1174 36.48 1175 33.93 1176 31.64 1177 29.57 1178 27.77 1179 26.18 1180 24.63 1181 23.23 1182 22.04 1183 20.90 1184 19.93 1185 18.97 1186 18.08 1187 17.20 1188 16.36 1189 15.52 1190 14.79 1191 14.08 1192 13.41 1193 12.76 1194 12.19 1195 11.67 1196 11.11 1197 10.53 1198 10.11 1199 9.68 1200 9.21 1201 8.82 1202 8.37 1203 7.93 1204 7.57 1205 7.20 1206 6.85 1207 6.56 1208 6.20 1209 5.85 1210 5.53 1211 5.23 1212 4.97 1213 4.75 1214 4.57 1215 4.42 1216 4.29 1217 4.18 1218 4.08 1219 4.00 1220 3.93 1221 3.87 1222 3.81 1223 3.75 1224 3.70 1225 3.66 1226 3.62 1227 3.58 1228 3.55 1229 3.52 1230 3.49 1231 3.46 1232 3.43 1233 3.40 1234 3.38 1235 3.35 1236 3.33 1237 3.32 1238 3.29 1239 3.27 1240 3.25 1241 3.22 1242 3.21 1243 3.18 1244 3.16 1245 3.14 1246 3.13 1247 3.11 1248 3.09 1249 3.07 1250 3.06 1251 3.04 1252 3.02 1253 3.00 1254 2.99 1255 2.97 1256 2.96 1257 2.94 1258 2.92 1259 2.91 1260 2.89 1261 2.88 1262 2.86 1263 2.85 1264 2.83 1265 2.82 1266 2.80 1267 2.80 1268 2.79 1269 2.78 1270 2.76 1271 2.75 1272 2.74 1273 2.73 1274 2.71 1275 2.69 1276 2.69 1277 2.68 1278 2.67 1279 2.66 1280 2.65 1281 2.65 1282 2.64 1283 2.62 1284 2.61 1285 2.60 1286 2.59 1287 2.58 1288 2.58 1289 2.57 1290 2.56 1291 2.55 1292 2.53 1293 2.51 1294 2.50 1295 2.49 1296 2.49 1297 2.48 1298 2.47 1299 2.46 1300 2.45 1310 2.37 1320 2.31 1330 2.24 1340 2.16 1350 2.10 1360 2.08 1370 2.02 1380 1.98 1390 1.93 1400 1.89 1420 1.83 1440 1.76 1460 1.66 1500 1.66 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 14.17(Ac.Ft) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A25 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 25-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 62.27 38.3 62.27 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 99 10 A24 .01 1 2A 35.8 49.85 74.1 106.48 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 99 13 A24 .01 1 3A 8.7 14.88 82.8 118.43 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 99 9 A24 .01 1 4A 38.8 48.24 121.6 164.79 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 99 16 A24 .01 1 5A 6.6 11.93 128.2 172.16 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 8 A24 .01 Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A25 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 25-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 1.50 200 1.56 300 1.64 400 1.73 500 1.85 600 1.98 700 2.15 800 2.39 900 2.73 1000 3.30 1050 5.71 1100 14.01 1110 19.39 1120 27.21 1130 35.72 1131 36.65 1132 37.62 1133 38.68 1134 39.84 1135 41.08 1136 42.38 1137 43.73 1138 45.12 1139 46.51 1140 48.04 1141 49.81 1142 51.78 1143 54.16 1144 56.68 1145 59.70 1146 63.21 1147 67.19 1148 71.36 1149 77.74 1150 87.23 1151 99.84 1152 114.60 1153 130.68 1154 145.56 1155 157.51 1156 166.09 1157 170.64 1158 172.16 1159 170.51 1160 166.15 1161 159.69 1162 152.31 1163 142.84 1164 131.44 1165 118.12 1166 102.88 1167 87.32 1168 72.89 1169 60.29 1170 50.12 1171 42.92 1172 37.95 1173 34.08 1174 30.94 1175 28.13 1176 25.80 1177 23.74 1178 21.88 1179 20.30 1180 18.87 1181 17.65 1182 16.49 1183 15.43 1184 14.43 1185 13.56 1186 12.81 1187 11.99 1188 11.22 1189 10.48 1190 9.72 1191 9.11 1192 8.55 1193 8.04 1194 7.50 1195 7.00 1196 6.50 1197 6.05 1198 5.67 1199 5.35 1200 5.07 1201 4.83 1202 4.63 1203 4.46 1204 4.31 1205 4.18 1206 4.07 1207 3.96 1208 3.87 1209 3.79 1210 3.71 1211 3.65 1212 3.59 1213 3.54 1214 3.49 1215 3.44 1216 3.40 1217 3.36 1218 3.33 1219 3.30 1220 3.26 1221 3.22 1222 3.20 1223 3.17 1224 3.14 1225 3.12 1226 3.09 1227 3.07 1228 3.04 1229 3.02 1230 2.99 1231 2.97 1232 2.95 1233 2.93 1234 2.91 1235 2.88 1236 2.86 1237 2.84 1238 2.83 1239 2.80 1240 2.79 1241 2.77 1242 2.76 1243 2.74 1244 2.71 1245 2.69 1246 2.68 1247 2.66 1248 2.65 1249 2.63 1250 2.62 1251 2.60 1252 2.60 1253 2.58 1254 2.57 1255 2.56 1256 2.55 1257 2.53 1258 2.52 1259 2.51 1260 2.50 1261 2.49 1262 2.47 1263 2.46 1264 2.45 1265 2.45 1266 2.43 1267 2.42 1268 2.41 1269 2.40 1270 2.39 1271 2.37 1272 2.36 1273 2.34 1274 2.34 1275 2.33 1276 2.32 1277 2.31 1278 2.30 1279 2.29 1280 2.28 1281 2.27 1282 2.26 1283 2.25 1284 2.24 1285 2.23 1286 2.22 1287 2.21 1288 2.20 1289 2.19 1290 2.18 1291 2.18 1292 2.17 1293 2.16 1294 2.15 1295 2.15 1296 2.14 1297 2.13 1298 2.12 1299 2.11 1300 2.11 1310 2.03 1320 1.96 1330 1.92 1340 1.89 1350 1.82 1360 1.77 1370 1.73 1380 1.69 1390 1.67 1400 1.64 1420 1.56 1440 1.52 1460 1.42 1500 1.42 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 11.19(Ac.Ft) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A10 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 10-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 44.52 38.3 44.52 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 99 12 A20 .01 1 2A 35.8 35.42 74.1 76.57 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 99 16 A20 .01 1 3A 8.7 11.34 82.8 85.79 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 99 10 A20 .01 1 4A 38.8 34.63 121.6 119.50 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 99 19 A20 .01 1 5A 6.6 8.60 128.2 125.50 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 10 A20 .01 Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A10 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 10-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 1.25 200 1.30 300 1.37 400 1.44 500 1.54 600 1.65 700 1.80 800 1.99 900 2.28 1000 2.75 1050 3.35 1100 7.30 1110 11.17 1120 17.35 1130 24.38 1131 25.05 1132 25.78 1133 26.55 1134 27.37 1135 28.28 1136 29.23 1137 30.32 1138 31.53 1139 32.80 1140 34.10 1141 35.45 1142 36.88 1143 38.51 1144 40.23 1145 42.23 1146 44.62 1147 47.34 1148 50.35 1149 54.89 1150 61.32 1151 69.86 1152 79.89 1153 91.05 1154 101.50 1155 110.11 1156 116.61 1157 121.43 1158 124.71 1159 125.50 1160 124.35 1161 121.38 1162 117.32 1163 112.48 1164 107.67 1165 102.24 1166 95.89 1167 88.39 1168 79.51 1169 69.42 1170 59.07 1171 49.36 1172 40.80 1173 33.69 1174 28.50 1175 24.83 1176 22.00 1177 19.58 1178 17.46 1179 15.73 1180 14.25 1181 12.91 1182 11.68 1183 10.60 1184 9.68 1185 8.82 1186 8.03 1187 7.29 1188 6.67 1189 6.12 1190 5.65 1191 5.28 1192 4.97 1193 4.70 1194 4.47 1195 4.28 1196 4.12 1197 3.97 1198 3.85 1199 3.74 1200 3.64 1201 3.55 1202 3.48 1203 3.41 1204 3.35 1205 3.29 1206 3.23 1207 3.19 1208 3.14 1209 3.09 1210 3.05 1211 3.02 1212 2.98 1213 2.94 1214 2.91 1215 2.88 1216 2.85 1217 2.81 1218 2.78 1219 2.75 1220 2.73 1221 2.70 1222 2.68 1223 2.66 1224 2.64 1225 2.62 1226 2.60 1227 2.58 1228 2.56 1229 2.54 1230 2.52 1231 2.51 1232 2.49 1233 2.47 1234 2.46 1235 2.44 1236 2.43 1237 2.41 1238 2.40 1239 2.38 1240 2.37 1241 2.35 1242 2.33 1243 2.32 1244 2.30 1245 2.27 1246 2.26 1247 2.25 1248 2.23 1249 2.22 1250 2.21 1251 2.19 1252 2.18 1253 2.17 1254 2.16 1255 2.15 1256 2.14 1257 2.13 1258 2.11 1259 2.10 1260 2.09 1261 2.08 1262 2.07 1263 2.07 1264 2.06 1265 2.04 1266 2.04 1267 2.03 1268 2.02 1269 2.01 1270 2.00 1271 1.99 1272 1.99 1273 1.97 1274 1.96 1275 1.96 1276 1.95 1277 1.94 1278 1.93 1279 1.92 1280 1.91 1281 1.90 1282 1.90 1283 1.89 1284 1.88 1285 1.87 1286 1.87 1287 1.85 1288 1.85 1289 1.84 1290 1.83 1291 1.83 1292 1.82 1293 1.82 1294 1.81 1295 1.81 1296 1.80 1297 1.79 1298 1.78 1299 1.78 1300 1.77 1310 1.70 1320 1.65 1330 1.61 1340 1.56 1350 1.53 1360 1.48 1370 1.44 1380 1.42 1390 1.39 1400 1.36 1420 1.31 1440 1.27 1460 1.18 1500 1.18 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 8.50(Ac.Ft) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A5 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 5-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 29.60 38.3 29.60 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 99 15 A16 .01 1 2A 35.8 22.93 74.1 50.43 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 99 20 A16 .01 1 3A 8.7 7.30 82.8 56.58 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 99 13 A16 .01 1 4A 38.8 22.12 121.6 78.25 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 99 24 A16 .01 1 5A 6.6 5.82 128.2 82.46 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 12 A16 .01 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: AS INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 5-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 1.00 200 1.04 300 1.09 400 1.15 500 1.23 600 1.32 700 1.44 800 1.59 900 1.82 1000 2.20 1050 2.68 1100 3.41 1110 4.24 1120 7.33 1130 12.58 1131 13.13 1132 13.68 1133 14.29 1134 14.91 1135 15.59 1136 16.29 1137 17.02 1138 17.81 1139 18.69 1140 19.63 1141 20.70 1142 21.86 1143 23.10 1144 24.44 1145 25.85 1146 27.42 1147 29.21 1148 31.13 1149 33.95 1150 37.77 1151 42.88 1152 49.04 1153 55.95 1154 62.55 1155 68.30 1156 72.87 1157 76.51 1158 79.34 1159 81.32 1160 82.46 1161 82.22 1162 81.29 1163 79.53 1164 77.14 1165 74.30 1166 71.60 1167 68.64 1168 65.49 1169 62.11 1170 58.24 1171 53.72 1172 48.68 1173 43.32 1174 37.46 1175 31.55 1176 26.11 1177 21.29 1178 17.16 1179 14.02 1180 11.84 1181 10.13 1182 8.66 1183 7.45 1184 6.63 1185 5.98 1186 5.46 1187 5.04 1188 4.69 1189 4.40 1190 4.15 1191 3.96 1192 3.80 1193 3.65 1194 3.52 1195 3.40 1196 3.30 1197 3.20 1198 3.12 1199 3.04 1200 2.97 1201 2.91 1202 2.86 1203 2.80 1204 2.75 1205 2.70 1206 2.66 1207 2.62 1208 2.59 1209 2.55 1210 2.52 1211 2.49 1212 2.46 1213 2.43 1214 2.40 1215 2.37 1216 2.34 1217 2.32 1218 2.29 1219 2.26 1220 2.24 1221 2.22 1222 2.20 1223 2.18 1224 2.16 1225 2.14 1226 2.12 1227 2.11 1228 2.09 1229 2.07 1230 2.06 1231 2.04 1232 2.02 1233 2.01 1234 1.99 1235 1.98 1236 1.97 1237 1.95 1238 1.94 1239 1.92 1240 1.91 1241 1.89 1242 1.88 1243 1.87 1244 1.86 1245 1.85 1246 1.84 1247 1.84 1248 1.83 1249 1.81 1250 1.80 1251 1.79 1252 1.78 1253 1.77 1254 1.75 1255 1.74 1256 1.73 1257 1.72 1258 1.71 1259 1.70 1260 1.70 1261 1.69 1262 1.68 1263 1.68 1264 1.67 1265 1.66 1266 1.66 1267 1.64 1268 1.63 1269 1.62 1270 1.61 1271 1.60 1272 1.59 1273 1.58 1274 1.58 1275 1.57 1276 1.57 1277 1.57 1278 1.56 1279 1.56 1280 1.55 1281 1.54 1282 1.53 1283 1.52 1284 1.52 1285 1.51 1286 1.50 1287 1.50 1288 1.50 1289 1.49 1290 1.48 1291 1.47 1292 1.47 1293 1.46 1294 1.46 1295 1.45 1296 1.45 1297 1.44 1298 1.44 1299 1.43 1300 1.43 1310 1.38 1320 1.34 1330 1.29 1340 1.26 1350 1.23 1360 1.20 1370 1.16 1380 1.12 1390 1.09 1400 1.08 1420 1.06 1440 1.02 1460 .95 1500 .95 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 6.10(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A2 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 2-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 12.11 38.3 12.11 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 99 25 All .01 1 2A 35.8 9.76 74.1 21.01 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 99 30 All .01 1 3A 8.7 3.24 82.8 23.78 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 99 20 All .01 1 4A 38.8 10.58 121.6 33.99 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 99 30 All .01 1 5A 6.6 2.55 128.2 36.02 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 19 All .01 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A2 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 2-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 .69 200 .71 300 .75 400 .79 500 .84 600 .91 700 .99 800 1.09 900 1.25 1000 1.50 1050 1.83 1100 2.34 1110 2.50 1120 2.78 1130 3.17 1131 3.21 1132 3.26 1133 3.30 1134 3.36 1135 3.44 1136 3.52 1137 3.62 1138 3.72 1139 3.87 1140 4.05 1141 4.34 1142 4.69 1143 5.12 1144 5.63 1145 6.21 1146 6.90 1147 7.71 1148 8.61 1149 9.85 1150 11.47 1151 13.71 1152 16.47 1153 19.62 1154 22.76 1155 25.58 1156 27.88 1157 29.76 1158 31.36 1159 32.74 1160 33.92 1161 34.85 1162 35.53 1163 35.89 1164 36.02 1165 35.93 1166 35.67 1167 35.27 1168 34.53 1169 33.67 1170 32.65 1171 31.45 1172 30.15 1173 29.01 1174 27.86 1175 26.74 1176 25.64 1177 24.51 1178 23.30 1179 21.97 1180 20.22 1181 18.03 1182 15.55 1183 13.04 1184 10.85 1185 9.09 1186 7.69 1187 6.61 1188 5.77 1189 5.13 1190 4.62 1191 4.21 1192 3.87 1193 3.59 1194 3.35 1195 3.15 1196 2.99 1197 2.84 1198 2.71 1199 2.59 1200 2.49 1201 2.40 1202 2.32 1203 2.26 1204 2.19 1205 2.13 1206 2.08 1207 2.04 1208 1.99 1209 1.95 1210 1.91 1211 1.88 1212 1.85 1213 1.82 1214 1.79 1215 1.76 1216 1.74 1217 1.72 1218 1.69 1219 1.67 1220 1.65 1221 1.63 1222 1.61 1223 1.59 1224 1.58 1225 1.56 1226 1.54 1227 1.53 1228 1.51 1229 1.50 1230 1.48 1231 1.47 1232 1.46 1233 1.45 1234 1.43 1235 1.42 1236 1.41 1237 1.40 1238 1.39 1239 1.38 1240 1.37 1241 1.36 1242 1.35 1243 1.34 1244 1.33 1245 1.32 1246 1.31 1247 1.30 1248 1.29 1249 1.28 1250 1.27 1251 1.27 1252 1.26 1253 1.25 1254 1.24 1255 1.24 1256 1.23 1257 1.22 1258 1.21 1259 1.21 1260 1.20 1261 1.19 1262 1.19 1263 1.18 1264 1.17 1265 1.17 1266 1.16 1267 1.15 1268 1.15 1269 1.14 1270 1.14 1271 1.13 1272 1.13 1273 1.12 1274 1.11 1275 1.11 1276 1.11 1277 1.10 1278 1.10 1279 1.09 1280 1.09 1281 1.08 1282 1.08 1283 1.07 1284 1.07 1285 1.06 1286 1.06 1287 1.05 1288 1.05 1289 1.04 1290 1.04 1291 1.04 1292 1.03 1293 1.03 1294 1.02 1295 1.02 1296 1.01 1297 1.01 1298 1.01 1299 1.01 1300 1.00 1310 .96 1320 .94 1330 .91 1340 .88 1350 .85 1360 .83 1370 .81 1380 .80 1390 .78 1400 .76 1420 .73 1440 .71 1460 .65 1500 .65 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 3.54(Ac.Ft) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: LID INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 85TH PERCENTILE CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 8.77 38.3 8.77 2 1198. .03800 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 2A 35.8 8.19 74.1 16.13 2 288. .03500 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 3A 8.7 1.99 82.8 17.98 2 154. .03900 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 4A 38.8 8.88 121.6 26.36 2 485. .04900 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 5A 6.6 1.51 128.2 27.72 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: LID INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, EXIST 85TH PERCENTILE CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 5A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .60 100 .62 200 .65 300 .68 400 .72 500 .77 600 .82 700 .90 800 .99 900 1.14 1000 1.37 1050 1.66 1100 2.13 1110 2.26 1120 2.48 1130 2.84 1131 2.88 1132 2.92 1133 2.96 1134 3.00 1135 3.04 1136 3.09 1137 3.13 1138 3.18 1139 3.23 1140 3.29 1141 3.35 1142 3.41 1143 3.51 1144 3.66 1145 3.91 1146 4.26 1147 4.75 1148 5.35 1149 6.17 1150 7.28 1151 8.89 1152 10.91 1153 13.32 1154 15.88 1155 18.28 1156 20.22 1157 21.82 1158 23.13 1159 24.28 1160 25.29 1161 26.16 1162 26.84 1163 27.31 1164 27.60 1165 27.71 1166 27.72 1167 27.63 1168 27.42 1169 27.08 1170 26.65 1171 26.17 1172 25.63 1173 25.01 1174 24.31 1175 23.53 1176 22.63 1177 21.64 1178 20.58 1179 19.31 1180 17.68 1181 15.66 1182 13.58 1183 11.70 1184 10.22 1185 9.04 1186 8.12 1187 7.38 1188 6.72 1189 6.12 1190 5.56 1191 5.04 1192 4.59 1193 4.19 1194 3.84 1195 3.54 1196 3.29 1197 3.08 1198 2.89 1199 2.73 1200 2.59 1201 2.47 1202 2.36 1203 2.27 1204 2.18 1205 2.11 1206 2.04 1207 1.98 1208 1.93 1209 1.88 1210 1.84 1211 1.80 1212 1.76 1213 1.73 1214 1.69 1215 1.66 1216 1.64 1217 1.61 1218 1.59 1219 1.56 1220 1.54 1221 1.52 1222 1.50 1223 1.48 1224 1.47 1225 1.45 1226 1.43 1227 1.42 1228 1.40 1229 1.39 1230 1.37 1231 1.36 1232 1.35 1233 1.34 1234 1.33 1235 1.32 1236 1.31 1237 1.30 1238 1.28 1239 1.27 1240 1.26 1241 1.25 1242 1.24 1243 1.23 1244 1.22 1245 1.21 1246 1.20 1247 1.20 1248 1.19 1249 1.18 1250 1.17 1251 1.16 1252 1.16 1253 1.15 1254 1.14 1255 1.14 1256 1.13 1257 1.12 1258 1.12 1259 1.11 1260 1.10 1261 1.10 1262 1.09 1263 1.09 1264 1.08 1265 1.07 1266 1.07 1267 1.06 1268 1.05 1269 1.05 1270 1.05 1271 1.04 1272 1.04 1273 1.03 1274 1.03 1275 1.02 1276 1.02 1277 1.01 1278 1.01 1279 1.00 1280 1.00 1281 .99 1282 .99 1283 .98 1284 .98 1285 .97 1286 .97 1287 .96 1288 .96 1289 .96 1290 .95 1291 .95 1292 .95 1293 .94 1294 .94 1295 .94 1296 .93 1297 .93 1298 .92 1299 .92 1300 .92 1310 .89 1320 .86 1330 .83 1340 .80 1350 .78 1360 .76 1370 .74 1380 .72 1390 .70 1400 .70 1420 .66 1440 .63 1460 .60 1500 .59 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 3.07(Ac.Ft) B. Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (Proposed Condition) 1. Capital Storm Hydrologic Summary Table 2. TC Calculations 3. Storm Modified Rational Method of Hydrology (LAR04) Result and Hydrograph 2-yr Clear (DESIGN STORM) JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 2-Yr Depth (in) 2-Yr Tc (min) Qz (cfs) Earea (ac) EQz (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 99 2.1285 25 12.1 38.3 12.1 2A 35.3 0.01 99 2.1285 30 9.6 73.6 21.0 4A 38.4 0.01 99 2.1285 30 10.5 112 31.0 5A 4.1 0.01 99 2.1285 17 1.7 116.1 32.1 6B 7.9 0.01 99 2.1285 30 2.2 7.9 2.2 7B 4.2 0.02 99 2.1285 30 1.2 12.1 3.3 8AB 128.2 35.3 50-yr BB JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 25/50-Yr Depth (in) 25/50-Yr Tc (min) Q50/Q50b (cfs) Q50bb (cfs) DPV (cy) Earea (ac) EQ50b (cfs) EQ50bb (cfs) EDPV (cy) 1 A 38.3 0.01 299 5.5 9 80.7 109.8 2,124 38.3 80.7 2A 35.3 0.01 299 5.5 12 63.9 86.9 1,958 73.6 138.6 2A 73.6 138.6 187.1 3,824 4A 38.4 0.01 299 5.5 14 64.0 87.0 2,130 112 200.8 4A 112 200.8 266.0 4,725 5A 4.1 0.01 299 5.5 7 9.8 13.3 227 116.1 205.7 5A 116.1 205.7 272.0 4,807 6B 7.9 0.01 299 5.5 11 15.0 20.4 438 7.9 15.0 7B 4.2 0.02 99 5.5 11 7.8 12.1 22.8 8AB 128.2 226.5 296.0 4,944 50-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 50-Yr Depth (in) 50-Yr Tc (min) Q50 (cfs) Earea (ac) EQ50 (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 99 5.5 9 78.4 38.3 78.4 2A 35.3 0.01 99 5.5 12 61.8 73.6 134.2 4A 38.4 0.01 99 5.5 14 61.8 112 194.1 5A 4.1 1 0.01 99 5.5 7 9.5 116.1 198.8 6B 7.9 0.01 99 5.5 11 14.6 7.9 14.6 7B 4.2 0.02 99 5.5 11 7.8 12.1 22.3 8AB 128.2 219.2 25-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 25-Yr Depth (in) 25-Yr Tc (min) Q25 (cfs) Earea (ac) EQ25 (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 99 4.829 10 62.3 38.3 62.3 2A 35.3 0.01 99 4.829 13 49.2 73.6 106.6 4A 38.4 0.01 99 4.829 15 49.5 112 153.8 5A 4.1 0.01 99 4.829 7 8.0 116.1 157.2 6B 7.9 0.01 99 4.829 12 11.5 7.9 11.5 7B 4.2 0.02 99 4.829 12 6.1 12.1 17.7 8AB 128.2 173.7 10-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 10-Yr Depth (in) 10-Yr Tc (min) Q,o (cfs) Earea (ac) EQ,o (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 99 3.927 12 44.5 38.3 44.5 2A 35.3 0.01 99 3.927 16 34.9 73.6 76.6 4A 38.4 0.01 99 3.927 19 34.3 112 109.9 5A 4.1 1 0.01 99 3.927 9 5.6 116.1 112.9 6B 7.9 0.01 99 3.927 15 8.1 7.9 8.1 7B 4.2 0.02 99 3.927 15 4.3 12.1 12.5 8AB 128.2 124.7 5-yr Clear JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type 5-Yr Depth (in) 5-Yr Tc (min) Q5 (cfs) Earea (ac) EQ5 (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 99 3.212 15 29.6 38.3 29.6 2A 35.3 0.01 99 3.212 19 23.4 73.6 51.0 4A 38.4 0.01 99 3.212 23 22.5 112 72.9 5A 4.1 0.01 99 3.212 11 3.8 116.1 75.3 6B 7.9 0.01 99 3.212 18 5.4 7.9 5.4 7B 4.2 0.02 99 3.212 18 2.9 12.1 8.3 8AB 128.2 83.2 85th Percentile JUNCTION Subarea Node Area (ac) Imp Soil Type LID Depth (in) LID Tc (min) QLID (cfs) Earea (ac) EQLID (cfs) 1 A 38.3 0.01 99 0.85 30 8.8 38.3 8.8 2A 35.3 0.01 99 0.85 30 8.1 73.6 16.2 4A 38.4 0.01 99 0.85 30 8.8 112 24.4 5A 4.1 0.01 99 0.85 30 0.9 116.1 25.2 6B 7.9 0.01 99 0.85 30 1.8 7.9 1.8 7B 4.2 0.02 99 0.85 30 1.0 12.1 2.8 8AB 128.2 27.8 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.596 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4842 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4884 Time of Concentration (min) 25.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.1487 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.1487 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.998 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 43472.5092 12 10 8 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1919.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.141 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5471 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4578 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4622 Time of Concentration (min) 30.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.9263 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.9263 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.9102 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 39647.27 9 8 7 c�- 5 O LL 2 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.4 Flow Path Length (ft) 2544.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.165 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5471 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4578 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4622 Time of Concentration (min) 30.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.7102 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.7102 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.9901 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 43129.0416 10 8 6 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 4.1 Flow Path Length (ft) 893.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.169 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.7145 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5482 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.5517 Time of Concentration (min) 17.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.6161 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.6161 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1085 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 4726.7084 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Z 1.0 70 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 6B Area (ac) 7.9 Flow Path Length (ft) 1944.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.185 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5471 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4578 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4622 Time of Concentration (min) 30.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.9977 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.9977 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2037 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 8872.9018 2.0 1.5 Z 1.0 a 0.5 0.0 L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 6B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 7B Area (ac) 4.2 Flow Path Length (ft) 1223.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.043 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.02 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 2-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (2-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 2.1285 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5471 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4578 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.4666 Time of Concentration (min) 30.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.0722 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.0722 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1139 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 4962.1654 1.2 1.0 0.8 Z 0.6 a LL 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 7B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.4894 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8094 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8103 Time of Concentration (min) 9.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 77.255 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 77.255 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 4.1839 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 182251.6223 80 70 60 50 40 2 LL 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1919.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.141 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.1745 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7898 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7909 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 60.7077 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 60.7077 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.8525 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 167816.8952 70 60 50 40 3 a 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.4 Flow Path Length (ft) 2544.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.165 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.0226 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7803 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7815 Time of Concentration (min) 14.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 60.6953 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 60.6953 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 4.1886 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 182456.814 70 60 50 40 3 a 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 4.1 Flow Path Length (ft) 893.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.169 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.8015 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8215 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8222 Time of Concentration (min) 7.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.4443 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 9.4443 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.448 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 19516.7476 10 8 6 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 6B Area (ac) 7.9 Flow Path Length (ft) 1944.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.185 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.2653 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7954 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7965 Time of Concentration (min) 11.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 14.2535 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 14.2535 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.8624 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 37566.2691 16 14 12 10 U O LL 6 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 6B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 7B Area (ac) 4.2 Flow Path Length (ft) 1223.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.043 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.02 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 50-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.2653 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7954 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7975 Time of Concentration (min) 11.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.5878 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.5878 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.4712 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 20526.2049 8 7- 6- 5- 0 3 4 O LL 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 7B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.0801 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7839 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.785 Time of Concentration (min) 10.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 62.541 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 62.541 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.3935 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 147822.3506 70 60 50 40 3 a 30 20 10 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1919.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.141 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.8388 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7633 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7646 Time of Concentration (min) 13.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 49.6302 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 49.6302 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.1232 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 136044.9147 50 40 30 3 a LL 20 im 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.4 Flow Path Length (ft) 2544.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.165 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.7191 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7517 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7531 Time of Concentration (min) 15.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 49.7194 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 49.7194 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 3.395 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 147886.1806 50 40 30 3 a LL 20 im 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 4.1 Flow Path Length (ft) 893.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.169 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.4597 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8075 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8085 Time of Concentration (min) 7.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.1531 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.1531 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3637 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 15841.1973 9 a 7 c�- 5 O LL 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 5A) 200 400 600 Sao 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 6B Area (ac) 7.9 Flow Path Length (ft) 1944.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.185 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.9092 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7701 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7714 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.6349 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 11.6349 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.6993 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 30460.3247 12 10 8 U O LL 2 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 6B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 7B Area (ac) 4.2 Flow Path Length (ft) 1223.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.043 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.02 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 25-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.829 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.9092 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7701 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7727 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 6.196 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 6.196 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3832 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 16694.2891 7 6 5 4 3 O 7 3 2 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 7B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.5526 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7355 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7372 Time of Concentration (min) 12.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 43.8361 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 43.8361 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.4579 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 107068.1453 45 40 35 30 ( 25 70 20 15 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1919.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.141 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.3563 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7055 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7075 Time of Concentration (min) 16.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 33.8715 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 33.8715 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.2586 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 98386.6563 35 30 25 20 3 a 15 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.4 Flow Path Length (ft) 2544.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.165 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.251 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6873 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6894 Time of Concentration (min) 19.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 33.1204 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 33.1204 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 2.4534 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 106870.5238 35 30 25 20 3 a 15 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 4.1 Flow Path Length (ft) 893.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.169 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.7774 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7573 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7587 Time of Concentration (min) 9.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.5292 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.5292 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2634 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11475.3719 6 5 4 3 3 O LL 2 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 6B Area (ac) 7.9 Flow Path Length (ft) 1944.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.185 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.398 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7128 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7146 Time of Concentration (min) 15.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.8928 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.8928 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.5058 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 22032.9596 8 7- 6- 5- 0 3 4 O LL 2 1 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 6B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 7B Area (ac) 4.2 Flow Path Length (ft) 1223.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.043 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.02 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 10-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (10-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.927 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.398 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.7128 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7165 Time of Concentration (min) 15.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.2072 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.2072 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2786 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12135.1904 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 ct� 2.5 t 3 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 7B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.1435 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6687 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.671 Time of Concentration (min) 15.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 29.3872 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 29.3872 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.8165 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 79124.9286 30 25 20 Z 15 a LL 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1919.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.141 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.0232 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6479 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6504 Time of Concentration (min) 19.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 23.4928 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 23.4928 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.6724 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 72849.2627 25 20 15 Z a LL 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 2A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.4 Flow Path Length (ft) 2544.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.165 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.9354 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6241 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6268 Time of Concentration (min) 23.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 22.5147 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 22.5147 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.8139 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 79013.9634 25 20 15 Z a LL 10 5 0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 4A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 5A Area (ac) 4.1 Flow Path Length (ft) 893.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.169 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.3229 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6998 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7018 Time of Concentration (min) 11.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.8064 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.8064 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1948 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 8485.8931 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 5A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 6B Area (ac) 7.9 Flow Path Length (ft) 1944.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.185 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.0496 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6524 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6549 Time of Concentration (min) 18.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.4303 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.4303 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3744 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 16309.0646 6 5 4 3 3 O LL 2 0L 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 6B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 7B Area (ac) 4.2 Flow Path Length (ft) 1223.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.043 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.5 Percent Impervious 0.02 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 5-yr Fire Factor 0 LID False Output Results Modeled (5-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 3.212 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 1.0496 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6524 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6574 Time of Concentration (min) 18.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8979 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8979 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2072 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9024.5655 3.0 2.5 2.0 Z 1.5 a LL 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 7B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 1A Area (ac) 38.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1583.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.239 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.1085 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 133.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.4488 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.4488 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2906 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12660.4458 0.45 0.4a 0.35 0.30 ct� 0.25 t 3 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 1A) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 2A Area (ac) 35.3 Flow Path Length (ft) 1919.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.141 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.098 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 165.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3738 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3738 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2679 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11670.3867 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 a LL 0.15 0.10 0.0 0.00 0 200 440 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 2A) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 4A Area (ac) 38.4 Flow Path Length (ft) 2544.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.165 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.0913 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 192.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3787 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3787 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2915 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12697.1049 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 a LL 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 200 460 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 4A) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name Subarea ID Area (ac) Flow Path Length (ft) Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) Percent Impervious Soil Type Design Storm Frequency Fire Factor LID Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) Peak Intensity (in/hr) Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) Time of Concentration (min) Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0 LL 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 204 400 BLUE PR 5A 4.1 893.0 0.169 0.85 0.01 99 85th percentile storm 0 True 0.85 0.1252 0.1 0.108 98.0 0.0555 0.0555 0.0311 1355.1417 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 5A) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name BLUE PR Subarea ID 6B Area (ac) 7.9 Flow Path Length (ft) 1944.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.185 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Percent Impervious 0.01 Soil Type 99 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.85 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.1001 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.108 Time of Concentration (min) 158.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0854 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0854 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.06 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 2611.6991 0.O9 0.08 0.07 0.06 C 0.05 U 70 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 6B) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: C:/Users/eumirr/Documents/BLUE PR Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3 Input Parameters Project Name Subarea ID Area (ac) Flow Path Length (ft) Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) Percent Impervious Soil Type Design Storm Frequency Fire Factor LID Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) Peak Intensity (in/hr) Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) Time of Concentration (min) Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0 LL 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 204 460 BLUE PR 7B 4.2 1223.0 0.043 0.85 0.02 99 85th percentile storm 0 True 0.85 0.1042 0.1 0.116 145.0 0.0508 0.0508 0.0342 1491.2643 Hydrograph (BLUE PR 7B) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A2 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 2-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 12.11 38.3 12.11 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 99 25 All .01 1 2A 35.3 9.62 73.6 21.00 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 99 30 All .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 20.90 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 99 All .00 1 4A 38.4 10.47 112.0 30.98 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 99 30 All .01 1 5A 4.1 1.71 116.1 32.13 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 17 All .01 1 6B 7.9 2.15 7.9 2.15 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 All .01 1 7B 4.2 1.16 12.1 3.31 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 All .02 1 BAB 12.1 3.31 128.2 35.26 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 All .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A2 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 2-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 .69 200 .71 300 .76 400 .80 500 .85 600 .91 700 .99 800 1.10 900 1.26 1000 1.52 1050 1.86 1100 2.38 1110 2.55 1120 2.83 1130 3.25 1131 3.30 1132 3.35 1133 3.39 1134 3.47 1135 3.54 1136 3.61 1137 3.69 1138 3.80 1139 4.00 1140 4.25 1141 4.64 1142 5.10 1143 5.61 1144 6.18 1145 6.83 1146 7.60 1147 8.47 1148 9.40 1149 10.89 1150 12.77 1151 15.08 1152 17.72 1153 20.58 1154 23.13 1155 25.40 1156 27.37 1157 29.07 1158 30.60 1159 31.92 1160 33.10 1161 34.01 1162 34.66 1163 35.07 1164 35.26 1165 35.25 1166 34.95 1167 34.49 1168 33.93 1169 33.25 1170 32.50 1171 31.85 1172 31.11 1173 30.29 1174 29.40 1175 28.39 1176 27.26 1177 25.97 1178 24.61 1179 22.76 1180 20.49 1181 17.64 1182 14.59 1183 11.75 1184 9.36 1185 7.53 1186 6.20 1187 5.26 1188 4.58 1189 4.08 1190 3.70 1191 3.40 1192 3.16 1193 2.97 1194 2.81 1195 2.68 1196 2.56 1197 2.46 1198 2.37 1199 2.29 1200 2.22 1201 2.16 1202 2.11 1203 2.06 1204 2.02 1205 1.98 1206 1.94 1207 1.90 1208 1.87 1209 1.84 1210 1.81 1211 1.78 1212 1.76 1213 1.73 1214 1.71 1215 1.69 1216 1.67 1217 1.65 1218 1.63 1219 1.61 1220 1.60 1221 1.58 1222 1.56 1223 1.54 1224 1.53 1225 1.51 1226 1.49 1227 1.48 1228 1.47 1229 1.46 1230 1.45 1231 1.44 1232 1.42 1233 1.42 1234 1.40 1235 1.39 1236 1.38 1237 1.37 1238 1.36 1239 1.35 1240 1.34 1241 1.33 1242 1.32 1243 1.31 1244 1.30 1245 1.30 1246 1.29 1247 1.28 1248 1.27 1249 1.26 1250 1.25 1251 1.24 1252 1.23 1253 1.23 1254 1.23 1255 1.22 1256 1.21 1257 1.20 1258 1.19 1259 1.18 1260 1.18 1261 1.17 1262 1.17 1263 1.16 1264 1.16 1265 1.15 1266 1.14 1267 1.14 1268 1.13 1269 1.13 1270 1.12 1271 1.12 1272 1.11 1273 1.11 1274 1.10 1275 1.09 1276 1.09 1277 1.09 1278 1.08 1279 1.08 1280 1.08 1281 1.07 1282 1.07 1283 1.06 1284 1.05 1285 1.05 1286 1.04 1287 1.04 1288 1.04 1289 1.03 1290 1.03 1291 1.03 1292 1.02 1293 1.02 1294 1.01 1295 1.01 1296 1.01 1297 1.01 1298 1.00 1299 1.00 1300 .99 1310 .96 1320 .93 1330 .90 1340 .87 1350 .85 1360 .82 1370 .81 1380 .79 1390 .78 1400 .75 1420 .72 1440 .71 1460 .62 1500 .60 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 3.50(Ac.Ft) Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50B INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 50-YR DESIGN BURN STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 80.74 38.3 80.74 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 299 9 A28 .01 1 2A 35.3 63.89 73.6 138.59 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 299 12 A28 .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 137.97 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 299 99 A28 .00 1 4A 38.4 63.97 112.0 200.76 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 299 14 A28 .01 1 5A 4.1 9.78 116.1 205.70 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 299 7 A28 .01 1 6B 7.9 15.02 7.9 15.02 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 299 11 A28 .01 1 7B 4.2 7.75 12.1 22.77 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 11 A28 .02 1 BAB 12.1 22.77 128.2 226.54 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 A28 .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50B INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 50-YR DESIGN BURN, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 2.80 200 2.92 300 3.07 400 3.24 500 3.47 600 3.73 700 4.06 800 4.52 900 5.18 1000 6.51 1050 13.32 1100 24.30 1110 31.34 1120 40.33 1130 51.01 1131 52.11 1132 53.31 1133 54.80 1134 56.29 1135 57.86 1136 59.30 1137 60.83 1138 62.48 1139 64.40 1140 66.34 1141 68.94 1142 71.93 1143 75.50 1144 79.07 1145 83.37 1146 88.09 1147 93.32 1148 98.42 1149 108.21 1150 121.84 1151 139.27 1152 159.43 1153 181.67 1154 199.67 1155 213.61 1156 221.97 1157 226.45 1158 226.54 1159 222.59 1160 213.50 1161 202.18 1162 187.60 1163 168.05 1164 144.50 1165 122.85 1166 102.93 1167 84.12 1168 69.26 1169 59.97 1170 54.29 1171 49.55 1172 45.88 1173 42.37 1174 39.32 1175 37.13 1176 34.95 1177 32.85 1178 30.92 1179 29.14 1180 27.52 1181 26.02 1182 24.77 1183 23.60 1184 22.45 1185 21.36 1186 20.49 1187 19.59 1188 18.66 1189 17.82 1190 17.14 1191 16.34 1192 15.64 1193 15.05 1194 14.44 1195 13.85 1196 13.31 1197 12.72 1198 12.18 1199 11.76 1200 11.26 1201 10.80 1202 10.38 1203 9.94 1204 9.55 1205 9.21 1206 8.82 1207 8.52 1208 8.10 1209 7.75 1210 7.43 1211 7.16 1212 6.93 1213 6.74 1214 6.58 1215 6.45 1216 6.35 1217 6.26 1218 6.18 1219 6.10 1220 6.02 1221 5.95 1222 5.90 1223 5.82 1224 5.77 1225 5.73 1226 5.69 1227 5.64 1228 5.60 1229 5.58 1230 5.53 1231 5.48 1232 5.43 1233 5.40 1234 5.37 1235 5.34 1236 5.31 1237 5.29 1238 5.24 1239 5.21 1240 5.16 1241 5.14 1242 5.11 1243 5.06 1244 5.04 1245 5.01 1246 5.00 1247 4.96 1248 4.92 1249 4.89 1250 4.87 1251 4.85 1252 4.81 1253 4.79 1254 4.77 1255 4.73 1256 4.72 1257 4.68 1258 4.66 1259 4.64 1260 4.62 1261 4.59 1262 4.56 1263 4.55 1264 4.51 1265 4.50 1266 4.47 1267 4.46 1268 4.45 1269 4.44 1270 4.42 1271 4.40 1272 4.38 1273 4.36 1274 4.31 1275 4.29 1276 4.29 1277 4.29 1278 4.27 1279 4.26 1280 4.25 1281 4.23 1282 4.21 1283 4.18 1284 4.16 1285 4.16 1286 4.15 1287 4.14 1288 4.14 1289 4.11 1290 4.09 1291 4.05 1292 4.02 1293 4.00 1294 3.98 1295 3.97 1296 3.97 1297 3.96 1298 3.93 1299 3.91 1300 3.89 1310 3.78 1320 3.70 1330 3.56 1340 3.43 1350 3.36 1360 3.34 1370 3.21 1380 3.16 1390 3.07 1400 3.02 1420 2.92 1440 2.80 1460 2.48 1500 2.48 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 17.51(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 50-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 78.37 38.3 78.37 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 99 9 A28 .01 1 2A 35.3 61.84 73.6 134.15 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 99 12 A28 .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 133.56 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 99 A28 .00 1 4A 38.4 61.82 112.0 194.08 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 99 14 A28 .01 1 5A 4.1 9.52 116.1 198.83 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 7 A28 .01 1 6B 7.9 14.55 7.9 14.55 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 11 A28 .01 1 7B 4.2 7.75 12.1 22.30 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 11 A28 .02 1 BAB 12.1 22.30 128.2 219.22 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 A28 .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A50 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 50-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 1.76 200 1.83 300 1.92 400 2.02 500 2.17 600 2.32 700 2.52 800 2.81 900 3.21 1000 4.11 1050 10.65 1100 21.28 1110 28.06 1120 36.74 1130 46.79 1131 47.92 1132 49.16 1133 50.73 1134 52.18 1135 53.71 1136 55.12 1137 56.61 1138 58.21 1139 60.08 1140 61.97 1141 64.48 1142 67.22 1143 70.35 1144 73.75 1145 78.29 1146 83.14 1147 88.27 1148 93.28 1149 102.86 1150 116.19 1151 133.05 1152 152.57 1153 174.71 1154 192.52 1155 206.12 1156 214.30 1157 218.89 1158 219.22 1159 215.48 1160 206.65 1161 195.70 1162 181.53 1163 162.33 1164 139.15 1165 118.33 1166 98.74 1167 80.09 1168 65.64 1169 56.75 1170 51.12 1171 46.23 1172 42.88 1173 39.62 1174 36.60 1175 33.98 1176 31.77 1177 29.69 1178 27.80 1179 26.06 1180 24.49 1181 23.04 1182 21.83 1183 20.69 1184 19.57 1185 18.51 1186 17.66 1187 16.80 1188 15.90 1189 15.09 1190 14.43 1191 13.66 1192 12.98 1193 12.41 1194 11.82 1195 11.25 1196 10.73 1197 10.15 1198 9.63 1199 9.22 1200 8.74 1201 8.29 1202 7.89 1203 7.46 1204 7.09 1205 6.76 1206 6.39 1207 6.10 1208 5.70 1209 5.36 1210 5.06 1211 4.80 1212 4.58 1213 4.41 1214 4.27 1215 4.15 1216 4.06 1217 3.98 1218 3.91 1219 3.84 1220 3.78 1221 3.73 1222 3.69 1223 3.64 1224 3.60 1225 3.57 1226 3.54 1227 3.51 1228 3.48 1229 3.46 1230 3.43 1231 3.40 1232 3.37 1233 3.35 1234 3.34 1235 3.31 1236 3.29 1237 3.28 1238 3.25 1239 3.23 1240 3.20 1241 3.19 1242 3.17 1243 3.14 1244 3.12 1245 3.11 1246 3.10 1247 3.08 1248 3.06 1249 3.03 1250 3.02 1251 3.01 1252 2.99 1253 2.97 1254 2.96 1255 2.94 1256 2.93 1257 2.90 1258 2.89 1259 2.88 1260 2.87 1261 2.85 1262 2.83 1263 2.82 1264 2.80 1265 2.79 1266 2.78 1267 2.77 1268 2.77 1269 2.76 1270 2.74 1271 2.73 1272 2.72 1273 2.71 1274 2.68 1275 2.67 1276 2.67 1277 2.67 1278 2.65 1279 2.65 1280 2.64 1281 2.63 1282 2.62 1283 2.60 1284 2.59 1285 2.59 1286 2.58 1287 2.57 1288 2.57 1289 2.55 1290 2.54 1291 2.52 1292 2.50 1293 2.49 1294 2.48 1295 2.47 1296 2.47 1297 2.46 1298 2.45 1299 2.43 1300 2.43 1310 2.36 1320 2.31 1330 2.22 1340 2.14 1350 2.10 1360 2.08 1370 2.01 1380 1.98 1390 1.92 1400 1.89 1420 1.83 1440 1.76 1460 1.53 1500 1.53 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 14.13(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A25 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 25-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 62.27 38.3 62.27 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 99 10 A24 .01 1 2A 35.3 49.15 73.6 106.63 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 99 13 A24 .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 105.91 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 99 A24 .00 1 4A 38.4 49.54 112.0 153.75 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 99 15 A24 .01 1 5A 4.1 7.96 116.1 157.24 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 7 A24 .01 1 6B 7.9 11.52 7.9 11.52 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 12 A24 .01 1 7B 4.2 6.14 12.1 17.66 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 12 A24 .02 1 BAB 12.1 17.66 128.2 173.67 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 A24 .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A25 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 25-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 1.50 200 1.57 300 1.65 400 1.74 500 1.85 600 1.99 700 2.16 800 2.41 900 2.75 1000 3.32 1050 5.83 1100 14.17 1110 19.72 1120 27.35 1130 35.77 1131 36.77 1132 37.73 1133 38.75 1134 39.91 1135 41.09 1136 42.35 1137 43.66 1138 45.07 1139 46.91 1140 48.47 1141 50.36 1142 52.49 1143 54.88 1144 57.39 1145 60.63 1146 64.18 1147 68.12 1148 72.21 1149 80.14 1150 91.12 1151 104.55 1152 119.28 1153 135.46 1154 149.93 1155 161.64 1156 168.72 1157 172.47 1158 173.67 1159 172.29 1160 168.50 1161 161.94 1162 153.61 1163 142.60 1164 128.35 1165 111.46 1166 94.74 1167 78.50 1168 64.00 1169 53.17 1170 45.84 1171 40.61 1172 37.41 1173 33.94 1174 30.71 1175 27.83 1176 25.32 1177 23.16 1178 21.30 1179 19.66 1180 18.25 1181 16.91 1182 15.79 1183 14.72 1184 13.73 1185 12.88 1186 11.93 1187 11.16 1188 10.36 1189 9.62 1190 8.99 1191 8.44 1192 7.88 1193 7.38 1194 6.78 1195 6.31 1196 5.86 1197 5.46 1198 5.10 1199 4.80 1200 4.56 1201 4.37 1202 4.24 1203 4.11 1204 4.01 1205 3.90 1206 3.82 1207 3.74 1208 3.67 1209 3.61 1210 3.56 1211 3.51 1212 3.47 1213 3.43 1214 3.38 1215 3.35 1216 3.32 1217 3.29 1218 3.26 1219 3.21 1220 3.18 1221 3.16 1222 3.14 1223 3.11 1224 3.08 1225 3.05 1226 3.03 1227 3.01 1228 2.99 1229 2.97 1230 2.94 1231 2.93 1232 2.90 1233 2.88 1234 2.85 1235 2.83 1236 2.82 1237 2.80 1238 2.79 1239 2.77 1240 2.76 1241 2.74 1242 2.72 1243 2.69 1244 2.67 1245 2.66 1246 2.65 1247 2.63 1248 2.61 1249 2.60 1250 2.59 1251 2.58 1252 2.56 1253 2.55 1254 2.54 1255 2.53 1256 2.53 1257 2.51 1258 2.50 1259 2.49 1260 2.48 1261 2.47 1262 2.45 1263 2.44 1264 2.43 1265 2.42 1266 2.40 1267 2.39 1268 2.38 1269 2.38 1270 2.35 1271 2.34 1272 2.33 1273 2.32 1274 2.32 1275 2.31 1276 2.29 1277 2.29 1278 2.28 1279 2.27 1280 2.26 1281 2.24 1282 2.25 1283 2.23 1284 2.22 1285 2.21 1286 2.20 1287 2.18 1288 2.18 1289 2.17 1290 2.17 1291 2.16 1292 2.15 1293 2.15 1294 2.14 1295 2.13 1296 2.11 1297 2.11 1298 2.10 1299 2.10 1300 2.10 1310 2.02 1320 1.95 1330 1.92 1340 1.88 1350 1.81 1360 1.76 1370 1.72 1380 1.68 1390 1.67 1400 1.63 1420 1.56 1440 1.51 1460 1.31 1500 1.31 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 11.15(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A10 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 10-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 44.52 38.3 44.52 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 99 12 A20 .01 1 2A 35.3 34.92 73.6 76.60 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 99 16 A20 .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 76.32 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 99 A20 .00 1 4A 38.4 34.27 112.0 109.94 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 99 19 A20 .01 1 5A 4.1 5.64 116.1 112.87 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 9 A20 .01 1 6B 7.9 8.13 7.9 8.13 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 15 A20 .01 1 7B 4.2 4.33 12.1 12.46 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 15 A20 .02 1 BAB 12.1 12.46 128.2 124.72 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 A20 .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A10 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 10-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 1.25 200 1.31 300 1.37 400 1.44 500 1.54 600 1.66 700 1.81 800 2.00 900 2.29 1000 2.77 1050 3.40 1100 7.47 1110 11.43 1120 17.56 1130 24.44 1131 25.11 1132 25.86 1133 26.64 1134 27.47 1135 28.41 1136 29.31 1137 30.38 1138 31.54 1139 32.71 1140 33.93 1141 35.25 1142 36.65 1143 38.20 1144 39.78 1145 41.83 1146 44.09 1147 46.96 1148 50.71 1149 55.85 1150 62.47 1151 70.82 1152 80.56 1153 92.16 1154 102.44 1155 110.68 1156 116.83 1157 121.32 1158 123.76 1159 124.72 1160 123.90 1161 121.77 1162 118.78 1163 115.46 1164 110.24 1165 103.90 1166 96.03 1167 86.80 1168 76.39 1169 66.24 1170 56.49 1171 47.35 1172 39.49 1173 34.34 1174 29.25 1175 25.17 1176 21.85 1177 19.14 1178 16.92 1179 15.05 1180 13.49 1181 12.09 1182 10.86 1183 9.73 1184 8.76 1185 7.89 1186 7.12 1187 6.41 1188 5.78 1189 5.28 1190 4.91 1191 4.63 1192 4.40 1193 4.20 1194 4.04 1195 3.91 1196 3.79 1197 3.69 1198 3.60 1199 3.51 1200 3.45 1201 3.38 1202 3.32 1203 3.27 1204 3.21 1205 3.16 1206 3.11 1207 3.07 1208 3.04 1209 3.00 1210 2.97 1211 2.94 1212 2.90 1213 2.87 1214 2.84 1215 2.80 1216 2.77 1217 2.74 1218 2.71 1219 2.69 1220 2.67 1221 2.65 1222 2.63 1223 2.61 1224 2.59 1225 2.58 1226 2.56 1227 2.54 1228 2.52 1229 2.50 1230 2.48 1231 2.47 1232 2.46 1233 2.44 1234 2.43 1235 2.41 1236 2.39 1237 2.38 1238 2.37 1239 2.35 1240 2.33 1241 2.31 1242 2.30 1243 2.27 1244 2.25 1245 2.24 1246 2.23 1247 2.21 1248 2.21 1249 2.19 1250 2.18 1251 2.17 1252 2.16 1253 2.15 1254 2.14 1255 2.12 1256 2.11 1257 2.10 1258 2.09 1259 2.08 1260 2.08 1261 2.06 1262 2.05 1263 2.05 1264 2.04 1265 2.03 1266 2.02 1267 2.01 1268 2.00 1269 1.99 1270 1.98 1271 1.98 1272 1.96 1273 1.95 1274 1.95 1275 1.94 1276 1.93 1277 1.92 1278 1.91 1279 1.90 1280 1.90 1281 1.89 1282 1.88 1283 1.88 1284 1.87 1285 1.85 1286 1.84 1287 1.83 1288 1.83 1289 1.83 1290 1.82 1291 1.82 1292 1.81 1293 1.81 1294 1.80 1295 1.79 1296 1.78 1297 1.77 1298 1.77 1299 1.76 1300 1.75 1310 1.69 1320 1.64 1330 1.60 1340 1.56 1350 1.52 1360 1.47 1370 1.43 1380 1.42 1390 1.39 1400 1.35 1420 1.30 1440 1.26 1460 1.09 1500 1.09 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 8.45(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: A5 INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 5-YR CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 29.60 38.3 29.60 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 99 15 A16 .01 1 2A 35.3 23.36 73.6 51.04 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 99 19 A16 .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 50.86 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 99 A16 .00 1 4A 38.4 22.52 112.0 72.94 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 99 23 A16 .01 1 5A 4.1 3.81 116.1 75.29 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 11 A16 .01 1 6B 7.9 5.42 7.9 5.42 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 18 A16 .01 1 7B 4.2 2.89 12.1 8.31 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 18 A16 .02 1 BAB 12.1 8.31 128.2 83.20 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 A16 .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: AS INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 5-YR CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 1.00 200 1.04 300 1.10 400 1.16 500 1.24 600 1.33 700 1.44 800 1.60 900 1.83 1000 2.22 1050 2.71 1100 3.45 1110 4.42 1120 7.94 1130 13.09 1131 13.65 1132 14.15 1133 14.79 1134 15.42 1135 16.07 1136 16.79 1137 17.56 1138 18.39 1139 19.29 1140 20.22 1141 21.30 1142 22.42 1143 23.64 1144 24.86 1145 26.30 1146 27.85 1147 29.62 1148 31.50 1149 34.61 1150 38.43 1151 43.19 1152 49.29 1153 57.35 1154 63.74 1155 68.87 1156 73.46 1157 77.78 1158 81.00 1159 82.80 1160 83.20 1161 82.83 1162 81.84 1163 80.23 1164 78.28 1165 76.18 1166 73.78 1167 70.41 1168 66.58 1169 62.20 1170 57.16 1171 51.52 1172 45.71 1173 39.64 1174 34.30 1175 28.76 1176 23.22 1177 18.32 1178 14.50 1179 11.80 1180 9.76 1181 8.17 1182 6.93 1183 6.03 1184 5.40 1185 4.92 1186 4.56 1187 4.26 1188 4.03 1189 3.82 1190 3.66 1191 3.52 1192 3.40 1193 3.29 1194 3.20 1195 3.11 1196 3.03 1197 2.96 1198 2.90 1199 2.85 1200 2.80 1201 2.75 1202 2.71 1203 2.67 1204 2.62 1205 2.59 1206 2.55 1207 2.52 1208 2.49 1209 2.46 1210 2.43 1211 2.40 1212 2.37 1213 2.34 1214 2.32 1215 2.30 1216 2.27 1217 2.25 1218 2.22 1219 2.20 1220 2.19 1221 2.17 1222 2.15 1223 2.13 1224 2.11 1225 2.09 1226 2.07 1227 2.06 1228 2.04 1229 2.03 1230 2.01 1231 1.99 1232 1.98 1233 1.97 1234 1.96 1235 1.94 1236 1.93 1237 1.91 1238 1.89 1239 1.88 1240 1.87 1241 1.86 1242 1.85 1243 1.84 1244 1.84 1245 1.83 1246 1.82 1247 1.81 1248 1.80 1249 1.78 1250 1.77 1251 1.75 1252 1.74 1253 1.73 1254 1.72 1255 1.71 1256 1.71 1257 1.70 1258 1.69 1259 1.69 1260 1.68 1261 1.67 1262 1.66 1263 1.65 1264 1.64 1265 1.63 1266 1.62 1267 1.61 1268 1.60 1269 1.59 1270 1.58 1271 1.58 1272 1.58 1273 1.57 1274 1.57 1275 1.57 1276 1.55 1277 1.55 1278 1.54 1279 1.54 1280 1.52 1281 1.52 1282 1.51 1283 1.51 1284 1.50 1285 1.50 1286 1.49 1287 1.48 1288 1.48 1289 1.47 1290 1.46 1291 1.46 1292 1.46 1293 1.45 1294 1.45 1295 1.44 1296 1.43 1297 1.43 1298 1.42 1299 1.42 1300 1.41 1310 1.39 1320 1.33 1330 1.27 1340 1.26 1350 1.23 1360 1.19 1370 1.15 1380 1.11 1390 1.09 1400 1.08 1420 1.05 1440 1.01 1460 .87 1500 .87 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 6.05(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: LID INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units PAGE 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROG F0601M MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: C:\civild\scr_soilx_34.dat BLUE CLOUD, PROP 85TH PERCENTILE CLEAR STORM DAY 4 SUBAREA SUBAREA TOTAL TOTAL CONV CONV CONV CONV CONV CONTROL SOIL RAIN PCT LOCATION AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) AREA(Ac) Q(CFS) TYPE LNGTH(Ft) SLOPE SIZE(Ft) Z Q(CFS) NAME TC ZONE IMPV 1 1A 38.3 8.77 38.3 8.77 2 1132. .04000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 2A 35.3 8.08 73.6 16.15 5 530. .03600 20.00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 3A .0 .00 73.6 16.09 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 99 A 4 .00 1 4A 38.4 8.79 112.0 24.42 5 507. .03400 20.00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 5A 4.1 .94 116.1 25.21 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 6B 7.9 1.81 7.9 1.81 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .01 1 7B 4.2 .97 12.1 2.78 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 30 A 4 .02 1 BAB 12.1 2.78 128.2 27.80 0 0. .00000 .00 .00 0. 99 0 A 4 .00 T Program Package Serial Number: 2061 11/13/24 FILE: LID INPUT DATA: English Units RAINFALL SOIL FILE: English (In) OUTPUT DATA: English Units LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY - STORM YEAR = 50 SOIL DATA FILE: BLUE CLOUD, PROP 85TH PERCENTILE CLEAR, OUTLET HYD HYDROGRAPH AT 1 8A STORM DAY 4 REDUCTION FACTOR = 1.000 TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q TIME Q 0 .00 100 .62 200 .65 300 .68 400 .73 500 .77 600 .83 700 .90 800 .99 900 1.15 1000 1.38 1050 1.69 1100 2.16 1110 2.30 1120 2.55 1130 2.94 1131 2.98 1132 3.02 1133 3.06 1134 3.11 1135 3.15 1136 3.20 1137 3.25 1138 3.30 1139 3.36 1140 3.42 1141 3.49 1142 3.56 1143 3.74 1144 4.00 1145 4.42 1146 4.97 1147 5.62 1148 6.32 1149 7.47 1150 8.95 1151 10.83 1152 13.02 1153 15.43 1154 17.60 1155 19.54 1156 21.13 1157 22.52 1158 23.70 1159 24.78 1160 25.71 1161 26.49 1162 27.09 1163 27.49 1164 27.72 1165 27.80 1166 27.80 1167 27.67 1168 27.40 1169 27.05 1170 26.61 1171 26.12 1172 25.52 1173 24.88 1174 24.14 1175 23.31 1176 22.34 1177 21.31 1178 20.21 1179 18.66 1180 16.74 1181 14.46 1182 12.41 1183 10.57 1184 9.16 1185 8.05 1186 7.16 1187 6.38 1188 5.67 1189 5.04 1190 4.49 1191 4.03 1192 3.64 1193 3.33 1194 3.07 1195 2.86 1196 2.68 1197 2.53 1198 2.40 1199 2.30 1200 2.21 1201 2.12 1202 2.05 1203 1.99 1204 1.94 1205 1.88 1206 1.84 1207 1.80 1208 1.76 1209 1.73 1210 1.70 1211 1.67 1212 1.64 1213 1.62 1214 1.59 1215 1.57 1216 1.54 1217 1.53 1218 1.51 1219 1.49 1220 1.47 1221 1.45 1222 1.44 1223 1.43 1224 1.41 1225 1.40 1226 1.38 1227 1.37 1228 1.35 1229 1.34 1230 1.33 1231 1.32 1232 1.31 1233 1.30 1234 1.29 1235 1.28 1236 1.27 1237 1.26 1238 1.25 1239 1.23 1240 1.23 1241 1.22 1242 1.21 1243 1.20 1244 1.19 1245 1.18 1246 1.18 1247 1.17 1248 1.16 1249 1.15 1250 1.15 1251 1.14 1252 1.13 1253 1.13 1254 1.12 1255 1.12 1256 1.11 1257 1.10 1258 1.10 1259 1.09 1260 1.09 1261 1.08 1262 1.07 1263 1.06 1264 1.05 1265 1.05 1266 1.05 1267 1.05 1268 1.04 1269 1.04 1270 1.03 1271 1.02 1272 1.02 1273 1.01 1274 1.01 1275 1.01 1276 1.00 1277 1.00 1278 .99 1279 .99 1280 .98 1281 .97 1282 .97 1283 .96 1284 .96 1285 .96 1286 .96 1287 .96 1288 .95 1289 .95 1290 .94 1291 .94 1292 .93 1293 .93 1294 .93 1295 .92 1296 .92 1297 .91 1298 .91 1299 .91 1300 .90 1310 .88 1320 .85 1330 .82 1340 .79 1350 .77 1360 .75 1370 .74 1380 .71 1390 .70 1400 .70 1420 .66 1440 .63 1460 .57 1500 .54 TOTAL VOLUME THIS HYDROGRAPH = 3.03(Ac.Ft) PAGE 2 PROG F0601M C. Hydrologic Reference Graphs & Table 50-Year, 24-Hour Isohyet (LACDPW) 2. Los Angeles County Proportion Impervious Data Table 3. Los Angeles County Debris Production Rates for Santa Clara Basin 4. Los Angeles County Peak Bulking Factors for Santa Clara Basin 34° 30' 00" WARM SPRINGS MOUNTAIN 1-111.53 N �:)ARECLASA01SIFICATION ARE 7.2 INCHES OF W*—E / \,., RAINFALL OAT MOUNTAIN 1-111.35 34° 22' 30" 1 0 1 2 Miles 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.878 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.714 N E W H A L L 1-H1.44 50-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOHYET tn x z 0 U F z �PN�e�s coy a PU6UC WORKS o�� �m G sir . We ,W' ,, DPA- 6 DEBRIS AREA 14° 30' 00" GREEN VALLEY 1-111.55 ' 110 h L E S N A T T 0 A L F O R E S T - 109 �1� y' DPA— 8 103 03 099 009 0 a° Blue Cloud Bike -. Park 1 0 099 093 PPA 9a� 020 099 �•m• 020 -099 097 DPA - 8 s •a �a 099 099 V .._ 097 DPA -8 - 099 DPA 8 4.6 1 N � 099 r 1 1 � 1 1 1 •��_ . 1 1 SAN FERNANDO 1-111.36 34° 22' 30" N 016 SOIL, 0 1 2 Miles P G CLASSIFICATION AREA 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.878 °y yea 7*2mcHKs ,i 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.714RAMFALpu6uC wORAn MINT CANYON 1-111.45 DEBT y DPA - 6 APKA .DIAL 50-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOHYET Proportion Impervious Data Code Land Use Description % Impervious 1111 High -Density Single Family Residential 42 1112 Low -Density Single Family Residential 21 1121 Mixed Multi -Family Residential 74 1122 Duplexes, Triplexes and 2-or 3-Unit Condominiums and Townhouses 55 1123 Low -Rise Apartments, Condominiums, and Townhouses 86 1124 Medium -Rise Apartments and Condominiums 86 1125 High -Rise Apartments and Condominiums 90 1131 Trailer Parks and Mobile Home Courts, High -Density 91 1132 Mobile Home Courts and Subdivisions, Low -Density 42 1140 IMixed Residential 59 1151 Rural Residential, High -Density 15 1152 Rural Residential, Low -Density 10 1211 Low- and Medium -Rise Major Office Use 91 1212 High -Rise Major Office Use 91 1213 ISkyscrapers 91 1221 Regional Shopping Center 95 1222 Retail Centers (Non -Strip With Contiguous Interconnected Off -Street 96 1223 Modern Strip Development 96 1224 Older Strip Development 97 1231 lCommercial Storage 90 1232 Commercial Recreation 90 1233 Hotels and Motels 96 1234 Attended Pay Public Parking Facilities 91 1241 Government Offices 91 1242 jPolice and Sheriff Stations 91 1243 Fire Stations 91 1244 Major Medical Health Care Facilities 74 1245 Religious Facilities 82 1246 Other Public Facilities 91 1247 Non -Attended Public Parking Facilities 91 1251 Correctional Facilities 91 1252 Special Care Facilities 74 1253 Other Special Use Facilities 86 1261 Pre-Schools/Day Care Centers 68 1262 jElementary Schools 82 1263 Junior or Intermediate High Schools 82 1264 Senior High Schools 82 1265 Colleges and Universities 47 1266 Trade Schools and Professional Training Facilities 91 1271 113ase (Built-up Area) 65 1271.01 Base High -Density Single Family Residential 42 1271.02 113ase Duplexes, Triplexes and 2-or 3-Unit Condominiums and T 55 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX D Code Land Use Description % Impervious 1271.03 Base Government Offices 91 1271.04 Base Fire Stations 91 1271.05 Base Non -Attended Public Parking Facilities 91 1271.06 Base Air Field 45 1271.07 Base Petroleum Refining and Processing 91 1271.08 Base Mineral Extraction - Oil and Gas 10 1271.09 lBase Harbor Facilities 91 1271.10 Base Navigation Aids 47 1271.11 Base Developed Local Parks and Recreation 10 1271.12 Base Vacant Undifferentiated 1 1272 Vacant Area 2 1273 lAir Field 45 1274 Former Base (Built-up Area) 65 1275 Former Base Vacant Area 2 1276 Former Base Air Field 91 1311 Manufacturing, Assembly, and Industrial Services 91 1312 Motion Picture and Television Studio Lots 82 1313 lPacking Houses and Grain Elevators 96 1314 Research and Development 91 1321 Manufacturing 91 1322 Petroleum Refining and Processing 91 1323 Open Storage 66 1324 Major Metal Processing 91 1325 Chemical Processing 91 1331 Mineral Extraction - Other Than Oil and Gas 10 1332 Mineral Extraction - Oil and Gas 10 1340 Wholesaling and Warehousing 91 1411 Airports 91 1411.01 Airstrip 10 1412 Railroads 15 1412.01 Railroads -Attended Pay Public Parking Facilities 91 1412.02 Railroads -Non -Attended Public Parking Facilities 91 1412.03 Railroads -Manufacturing, Assembly, and Industrial Services 91 1412.04 Railroads -Petroleum Refining and Processing 91 1412.05 Railroads -Open Storage 66 1412.06 Railroads -Truck Terminals 91 1413 Freeways and Major Roads 91 1414 Park -and -Ride Lots 91 1415 Bus Terminals and Yards 91 1416 Truck Terminals 91 1417 Harbor Facilities 91 1418 Navigation Aids 47 1420 Communication Facilities 82 1420.01 Communication Facilities -Antenna 2 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX D Code Land Use Description % Impervious 1431 Electrical Power Facilities 47 1431.01 Electrical Power Facilities-Powerlines (Urban) 2 1431.02 Electrical Power Facilities-Powerlines (Rural) 1 1432 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 15 1433 Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities 96 1434 lWater Storage Facilities 91 1435 INatural Gas and Petroleum Facilities 91 1435.01 Natural Gas and Petroleum Facilities -Manufacturing, Assembly, and In 91 1435.02 Natural Gas and Petroleum Facilities -Petroleum Refining and Processing 91 1435.03 Natural Gas and Petroleum Facilities -Mineral Extraction — Oil and Gas 10 1435.04 Natural Gas and Petroleum Facilities -Vacant Undifferentiated 1 1436 Water Transfer Facilities 96 1437 Improved Flood Waterways and Structures 100 1440 Maintenance Yards 91 1450 Mixed Transportation 90 1460 Mixed Transportation and Utility 91 1460.01 Mixed Utility and Transportation -Improved Flood Waterways and Structures 100 1460.02 Mixed Utility and Transportation -Railroads 15 1460.03 Mixed Utility and Transportation -Freeways and Major Roads 91 1500 Mixed Commercial and Industrial 91 1600 Mixed Urban 89 1700 jUnder Construction (Use appropriate value) 91 1810 Golf Courses 3 1821 Developed Local Parks and Recreation 10 1831 Developed Regional Parks and Recreation 2 1832 Undeveloped Regional Parks and Recreation 1 1840 Cemeteries 10 1850 Wildlife Preserves and Sanctuaries 2 1850.01 Wildlife -Commercial Recreation 90 1850.02 Wildlife -Other Special Use Facilities 86 1850.03 Wildlife -Developed Local Parks and Recreation 10 1860 Specimen Gardens and Arboreta 15 1870 Beach Parks 10 1880 Other Open Space and Recreation 10 2110 Irrigated Cropland and Improved Pasture Land 2 2120 Non -Irrigated Cropland and Improved Pasture Land 2 2200 Orchards and Vineyards 2 2300 Nurseries 15 2400 Dairy, Intensive Livestock, and Associated Facilities 42 2500 Poultry Operations 62 2600 Other Agriculture 42 2700 Horse Ranches 42 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX D 0 3100 Vacant Undifferentiated 1 3200 Abandoned Orchards and Vineyards 2 3300 Vacant With Limited Improvements (Use appropriate value) 42 3400 Beaches Vacant 1 4100 Water, Undifferentiated 100 4200 Harbor Water Facilities 100 4300 Marina Water Facilities 100 4400 Water Within a Military Installation 100 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX D m 0 m z O z D m z 0 X W 00 MEN OMEN�mmiminn own 111111111111110111100 1 • , . Ii.. for Santa Clara : j 111u. 1 i■■■n ■ IC:�II�■p■� ■II�Y � U " •1,n, 1 ■1 f � ��� ��1■■A1�9 1 �� ■�i n■■>t■■i� 1 I n of w■ u■ ■■ � A Reference Plans 1. FEMA FIRM Panel 06037C0810G, Effective June 02, 2021 2. Haskell Canyon 341-ML2 National Flood Hazard Layer FI RMette *FEMA 11890'42"W 34o28'52"N I.V,VVV 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 SPECIAL FLOOD Wit h BFE or Depth ZoneAE, AO, AH, VE, AR 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 Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard z.—x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NOSCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zonex Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zoned GENERAL - — - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee, Dike, or Floodwall e zo.z Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation a - - - Coastal Transect —sle— Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary — --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available AN No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped QThe 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 11/7/2024 at 7:41 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 overtime. 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. Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 E. Technical Memorandum T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m Date: November 11'h, 2024 To: JEFF MORRISON, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RONIL SANTA ANA, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA From: Alireza Sazegari Hunsaker & Associates Los Angeles, Inc. Cc: Jason H. Fukumitsu, PE (H&A), Tim Garrett (Avid Trails) Re: Blue Cloud Mountain Bike Park, City of Sant Clarita Design Criteria for Drainage and protection system Against flooding — 2-Year Storm Event 1. Introduction Per the client's request, City of Santa Clarita, this memorandum outlines the design criteria for the drainage and flood protection system to address a 2-year storm event for Blue Cloud Mountain Bike Park. This system is aimed at managing stormwater effectively for the chosen option. 2. Design Criteria Overview The drainage and flood protection system will be designed to accommodate rainfall and stormwater runoff expected during a 2-year return period storm event. A 2-year storm event is defined by the probability of occurring once every two years or having a 50% probability of occurring in any given year. This criterion was chosen per client's request for the project and will protect the site against low intensity storm events. 3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis • Rainfall Intensity: Based on local meteorological data, the rainfall intensity for a 2-year storm event will be utilized. This data is sourced from Los Angeles County Hydrology Map. • Runoff Coefficients: Land use, soil type, and slope data specific to the site will determine the runoff coefficients. For impervious surfaces, higher coefficients will be applied to reflect increased runoff. • Design Flow Calculations: Flow rates will be calculated using the Modified Rational Method or an appropriate hydrologic model that considers the 2-year rainfall intensity. 4. Drainage System Design Parameters • Drainage Devices Capacity: All conveyance systems (Drainage devices, pipes, culverts) will be sized to handle peak flows from the 2-year storm event. • Inlet Structures: Inlets will be designed to capture surface runoff efficiently to prevent ponding and local flooding based on a 2-year event. 5. Flood Protection Measures All protective structures will include a minimum 6 inch of freeboard height to account for uncertainties and prevent overflowing during the 2-year storm event. 6. Maintenance and Monitoring Regular maintenance, including inspections and cleaning of drainage inlets, pipes, and basins, need to be planned to ensure system functionality. 7. Conclusion The outlined criteria provide a comprehensive approach to managing drainage and minimizing flood risk for a 2-year storm event. This design aims to meet client's (City of Santa Clarita) request and will provide reliable protection against low storm impacts. Attachments: • Email from City's Project Manager, Mr. Jeff Morrison, requesting the 2- year storm event be used for design criteria. 2 From: Jeff Morrison <JMORRISON@santa-clarita.com> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:13 PM To: Alireza Sazegari Cc: Tim Garrett; Jay Hoeschler Subject: RE: Final Plans Ronil reviewed the plans and talked with Ali, he said we can design to the minimum, so let's proceed with the 2 year option. Thank you. Jeff Morrison Open Space and Trails Administrator City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 286-4041 Email: JMORRISONa-santa-clarita.com Web: www.santa-clarita.com From: Alireza Sazegari <ASazegari@hunsaker.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 11:03 AM To: Jeff Morrison <JMORRISON@santa-clarita.com> Cc: Tim Garrett <tim@avidtrails.com>; Jay Hoeschler <iav@avidtrails.com> Subject: RE: Final Plans CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Sorry guys for the late response. We are working on the plans and currently trying to get them out by mid -November. I know earlier I we will try to aim for first week of November but there was more work than expected after we ran the hydrology. On the bright side we figured out a way around it and are working on it. Regarding the meeting I'm open tomorrow before 11 and after 2. Thank you, Alireza Sazegari Sr. Project Manager E-mail: ASazegarikhunsaker.com Hunsaker & Associates, Los Angeles, Inc 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355 Main: 661.294.2211 Ext.215 Direct: 661.705.2215 Cell: 661.202.5410 Fax: 661.294.9890 WA Think before you print From: Jeff Morrison <JMORRISON@santa-clarita.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 8:53 AM To: Jay Hoeschler <iay@avidtrails.com> Cc: Tim Garrett <tim@avidtrails.com>; Alireza Sazegari <ASazegari@hunsaker.com> Subject: RE: Final Plans Hello, Where we at on those plans and specs? Thank you. Jeff Morrison Open Space and Trails Administrator City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 286-4041 Email: JMORRISONa-santa-clarita.com Web: www.santa-clarita.com From: Jay Hoeschler <iav@avidtrails.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 12:31 PM To: Jeff Morrison <JMORRISON@santa-clarita.com> Cc: Tim Garrett <tim@avidtrails.com>; Alireza Sazegari <ASazegari@hunsaker.com> Subject: Re: Final Plans CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Jeff, When we last checked with Hunsaker, Ali suggested final package will be first week of November, as they just got the geo report late last week. Ali, can you verify final delivery? Thanks, Jay. On Oct 28, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Jeff Morrison <JMORRISON@santa-clarita.com> wrote: How we doing? Last week, hope its going to be a happy Halloween.... Let me know. Thank you. Jeff Morrison Open Space and Trails Administrator City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 286-4041 Email: JMORRISONa-santa-clarita.com Web: www.santa-clarita.com Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. F. Hydrology Maps 1. Existing Condition Hydrology Map 2. Proposed Condition Hydrology Map REFERENCE STORM FREOUENCES „ I ` Ng N �0 "d.P 9; M11", VICINITY MAP y Q�'� ,,, k i ��& �Kl 0 ' I �O \ � � Imo_- // / 1 / �� '➢,� / // � � \ �_�J,l� �� ��;'� Tc - 25 E%1511NG CONDITION: FA=r-128.2 AC � � ZU38.0 CFS ;.o \✓�' \� / � ' ' I O � °J \ ` - 0 Jr I o� o , b q 5— .� 3A Tc - 30 �, 0 9, w LEGBD DRAINAGE DESIGN CRIiERW 2-YR DESIGN STORM: 28 ",I AC T„E �T Tc = 11 „.a..� .„ „.=0U,,.e. _ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AV BOu„ Nsecenaes ocurEs BLUE CLOUD MOUNTAIN BIKE PARK EXISTING CONDITIONS w rrcvrsm„s „. wwawro�«rmDROLOGGY STUDY MA Barr or S�EE m•mmmmmom®�mmm� m�®®o®m•mmm Omen®e®mm m ©mm®mmmmmmenmm� ®en®©m®m•®� BC®®o®©m® ®�®�� � memmm�mmammm ©mm®emommm omm®�mmm ommmamommm am®�amomm� ammmm®®m®m om®memo®®m m•mmmo®m•�fat� �mmsM�O'a9® �®���m�m��mm 0m®momm•m®m i �iIVI�II ' I���I'IIIII I�I Q1 o EXISTING CONDITION: Fit 128.2 AC 9qe-PROPOS36.0 CFS :✓" s o woo �� ` ED CONDI710N - BAB &1-128.2 AC ff,1s 35 3 CFS ,� �—�= Az '\ 1 6B T 0 1 Ci �� To 1 �0 .1 LEMD �55- - aaaa.,..a a zsiio ouxoary VICINffY MAP a n 35a Ac Ll 0 ��i�//��i��y!/���99��L���� ��" �����r7►�ri r � i 1�,�i��� I l ��111\\!\1\P«�»11111�� �� 1 � I � I �L: 5Z8 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA: 2-YR DESIGN STORM 28.4 AC Tc - 11 . APPENDIX G: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS SANTA CLARITA BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK PROJECT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Prepared by: Vista Environmental 1021 Didrickson Way Laguna Beach, California 92651 949 510 5355 Greg Tonkovich, INCE Project No. 23002 April 3, 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Location and Study Area..................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Project Description.................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project......................................................................... 3 2.0 Noise Fundamentals................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Noise Descriptors....................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Tone Noise................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Noise Propagation...................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Ground Absorption.................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Ground -Borne Vibration Fundamentals................................................................................... 7 3.1Vibration Descriptors.................................................................................................................7 3.2 Vibration Perception.................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Vibration Propagation................................................................................................................ 7 4.0 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Federal Regulations................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 State Regulations....................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Local Regulations..................................................................................................................... 10 5.0 Existing Noise Conditions....................................................................................................... 13 5.1 Noise Measurement Equipment.............................................................................................. 13 5.2 Noise Measurement Results.................................................................................................... 13 6.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions................................................................................. 16 6.1 Construction Noise................................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Vibration.................................................................................................................................. 17 7.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................... 18 7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance.............................................................................................. 18 7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards................................................................. 18 7.3 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration.................................................................... 21 7.4 Aircraft Noise........................................................................................................................... 21 8.0 References.............................................................................................................................23 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page i City of Santa Clarita TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED APPENDICES Appendix A — Field Noise Measurements Photo Index Appendix B — Field Noise Measurements Printouts Appendix C — RCNM Model Construction Noise Calculation Printouts Appendix D — Onsite Noise Sources Reference Noise Measurements Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page ii City of Santa Clarita LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1— Proposed Site Plan and Study Area Figure 2 — Field Noise Monitoring Locations LIST OF TABLES Table A — FTA Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure ................ Table B — FTA Construction Noise Criteria .............................................. Table C — Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements ....................... Table D—Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors Table E — Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............. Table F — Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors ............... Table G — Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita 4 15 14 16 17 19 20 Page iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ANSI American National Standards Institute Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Santa Clarita CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB Decibel dBA A -weighted decibels DOT Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration EPA Environmental Protection Agency Hz Hertz Ldn Day -night average noise level Leq Equivalent sound level Lmax Maximum noise level ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control OSB Oriented Strand Board OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PPV Peak particle velocity RMS Root mean square SEL Single Event Level or Sound Exposure Level STC Sound Transmission Class VdB Vibration velocity level in decibels Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page iv City of Santa Clarita 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives This Noise Impact Analysis has been prepared to determine the noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park project (proposed project). The following is provided in this report: • A description of the study area and the proposed project; • Information regarding the fundamentals of noise; • Information regarding the fundamentals of vibration; • An evaluation of the current noise environment; • An analysis of the potential short-term construction -related noise impacts from the proposed project; and, • An analysis of long-term operations -related noise impacts from the proposed project. 1.2 Site Location and Study Area The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Santa Clarita (City). The project site includes nearly 500 acres of open space, including the Haskell Canyon Open Space and the Blue Cloud Open Space areas. The project site is bounded by open space to the north, open space, canine training and boarding facilities and Blue Cloud Road to the east, open space and single-family homes to the south, and open space and Pettinger Canyon Road to the west. The proposed site plan and study area is shown in Figure 1. Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project. There are also single-family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas to be disturbed as part of the project. 1.3 Proposed Project Description The proposed project would consist of developing a mountain bike park consisting of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Blue Cloud Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails (beginner and intermediate), approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails (beginner, intermediate, expert, and pro), and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails ((beginner, intermediate, and expert). The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi- use trails. The Haskell Core would include a 56-space parking lot and a parking/emergency turnaround with eight additional parking spaces, two American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and four spaces for food trucks; an event plaza with picnic tables and a flexible stage; beginner, intermediate, and advanced pump tracks; a dual slalom course; progressive jumplines; and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 1 City of Santa Clarita would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, vault restrooms, bike repair stations, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Several trailheads leading to perimeter, climbing, and multi -use trails would also be located in the Haskell Core. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would include a parking/emergency turnaround with 10 parking spaces and one ADA parking space. This portion of the Project Site would feature a field station with gathering and restoration work spaces for volunteers, designated areas for potential future landscape restoration, and a multi -use trailhead. Visitor amenities that would be provided at the Blue Cloud Trailhead include vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space for riders) with a shade structure. Specifically, the proposed project is anticipated to disturb approximately 20 acres, would require the import of approximately 4,400 cubic yards of material for road and trail base, would include construction of approximately 3,500 square feet of structures, and would pave approximately 123,000 square feet for parking areas, walkways and event plaza areas. 1.4 Executive Summary Standard Noise Regulatory Conditions The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the City of Santa Clarita and State of California. City of Santa Clarita Noise Regulations The following lists the noise and vibration regulations from the Municipal Code that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project. • Section 11.44.040 Noise Limits • Section 11.44.080 Construction Noise Exemptions • Section 17.15.050 Vibration Performance Standards State of California Noise Regulations The following lists the State of California noise regulations that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project. • California Vehicle Code Section 2700-27207 — On Road Vehicle Noise Limits • California Vehicle Code Section 38365-38350 — Off -Road Vehicle Noise Limits Summary of Analysis Results The following is a summary of the proposed project's impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines noise checklist questions. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the protect in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant impact. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 2 City of Santa Clarita Generation of excessive Eroundborne vibration or 2roundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. For a protect 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 protect expose people residing or working in the protect area to excessive noise levels? No impact. 1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project This analysis found that through adherence to the noise and vibration regulations detailed in Section 1.4 above, all noise and vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 3 City of Santa Clarita HASKELL CANYON Pro -level Upper Mountain ARCHERY RANGE downhill bike trail Expert -level Upper Mountain downhill bike trail r I I I IPROPERTY BOUNDARY ANGELES Trail connection NATIONAL requires coordination FOREST with US Forest Service ty �2 mile - use loop trail "� �{ Cklimb ngt awl-�.. cV t.1 ProgreMsive ountd�Hub' g _ �" connect o:etween f -3 'l ;a _ �.s•- x ,��, g� t: a o- .F y trails from Lo'weir - ` _ LowerlMo�ln Hub Multi use multi- ,- 5t", -'' and Perimeter Trai_r _ directional ri Pemeter Trail § ' (climbing trail for _ Intermediate Mid i � I � w ''- hlo+nta n downhill tra Is ,'�,`,, q. � Haskell trails) i - zp ._ P-' � vet Kt Progress ve -}� Ir. Md Nlunt n �� ti...-'a' �` n•' _ } a� s pestyleve .Fdownhillltrails` _ _ - iumpl nes t ,+ _ a"� f om Saddle Hub F SlopestYle '!,� ; d 9 "i �. .Y °vy4 - DLE return tail T -' f i Lowe Mou tan r n a d -`' - Legend climbing trail . a t s L IiUB Dual slalom 1 $ return Nail isI lomr - f `? ¢p ! ,P� _ O Trail Hub/Overlook Progressive Bike Park Start Mound h ^ skills area}'.s Q } a Trailhead HASKELL �— u pl ne y T _ BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK et a * ' S TRAILHEAD Perimeter Trail :a Pro9 e sv tom: 2 ti CORE e �:.v..iumpl nesr -_.Lt+ Multi -use _ Multi -use l,-, connector trail Climbing/Return Trail oop trail .. _ �:r. above Has core - TR a ��--Multi-use trail Beginner Downhill Bike Trail connection to Haskell g Potential future �. , •c I : n \ Canyon Open Space F trail planning area -il Intermediate Downhill Bike Trail Existing ` Q E r t I singletrack loop to t - - _- wdM Expert Downhill Bike Trail amain �y a` downhill b k P .As 1 - trail .;;..r,;. :'5`. 4 -a.: e r/ _. -. _ \W: - Bikecilmbingtrail ` + Pro Downhill Bike Trail fn and multi -use tra I - Z i ` ;Existing Haskell-=• "connection to Haskell ? k, Proposed Multi -use Trail fEanon Open Space Canyon Open Space tl S goadsy/trails to remain i, i�, Intermediate - O =` ti --- Existing Multi use Trail/Road to rn Upper -man - gdownNil 4, * Remain - _ F, - Note: All proposed trail alignments are Z t i� F s� conceptual and require field verification. p e �- Z_ _....... _ Y 0 HASKELL CANYON o 200 aoo 800 ft OPEN SPACE North SOURCE: Avid Trails. VISTA Figure 1 Proposed Site Plan and Study Area ENVIRONMENTAL 2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. A -weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. 2.1 Noise Descriptors Noise Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The Day -Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time -of -day corrections require the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 decibels to sound levels during the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. These additions are made to the sound levels at these time periods because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason, the sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly. 2.2 Tone Noise A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown that humans are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone. For a noise source to contain a "pure tone," there must be a significantly higher A -weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to "stand out" against other noise sources. A pure tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one-third octave band with the tone exceeds the average of the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one-third octave bands by: • 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 hertz (Hz) and above • 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz • 15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less 2.3 Noise Propagation From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 5 City of Santa Clarita multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD. 2.4 Ground Absorption The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground -effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft -site and hard -site conditions. Soft -site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft -site conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard -site conditions. Caltrans research has shown that the use of soft - site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 6 City of Santa Clarita 3.0 GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS Ground -borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground -borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels damage to buildings may occur. Although ground -borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground -borne noise is an effect of ground -borne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. 3.1 Vibration Descriptors There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Due to the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as (L) and is based on the rms velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is "VdB", which in this text, is when Lv is based on the reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second. 3.2 Vibration Perception Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Off - site sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel - wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground -borne noise or vibration. 3.3 Vibration Propagation The propagation of ground -borne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise. This is due to the fact that noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while ground -borne vibrations travel through the earth which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push-pull" fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or "side -to -side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation." As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 7 City of Santa Clarita 4.0 REGULATORY SETTING The project site is located in the City of Santa Clarita. Noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below. 4.1 Federal Regulations The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes: • Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assisting state and local abatement efforts • Promoting noise education and research The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency prohibits exposure of workers to excessive sound levels. The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit noise is regulated by the FTA, while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that "noise sensitive" uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized. Although the proposed project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual), prepared by the FTA, September 2018, is a guidance document from a government agency that has defined what constitutes a significant noise impact from implementing a project. The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings are provided below in Table A. Table A — FTA Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure Existing Noise Exposure (dBA Leq or Ldn) Allowable Noise Impact Exposure dBA Leq or Ldn Project Only Combined Noise Exposure Increase 45 51 52 +7 50 53 55 +5 55 55 58 +3 60 57 62 +2 65 60 66 +1 70 64 71 +1 75 65 75 0 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 8 City of Santa Clarita The FTA also provides guidance on construction noise and recommends developing construction noise criteria on a project -specific basis that utilizes local noise ordinances if possible. However, local noise ordinances usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the noise impacts of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should take into account the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land uses. The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings for a detailed construction noise assessment are provided below in Table B. Table B — FTA Construction Noise Criteria Land Use Day (dBA Leq(&hour)) Night (dBA Leq(g_hour)) 30-day Average (dBA Ldn) Residential 80 70 75 Commercial 85 85 80(1) Industrial 90 90 85(1) Notes: (') Use a 24-hour Leq (24hour) instead of Ldn (aoday) Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation sources, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning. 4.2 State Regulations Noise Standards California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix," which allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise. California Noise Insulation Standards Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards) requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL. When such structures are located within a 60-dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45-dBA CNEL annual threshold. In addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less due to aircraft noise. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 9 City of Santa Clarita Government Code Section 65302 Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. California Vehicle Code Section 27200-27207 — On -Road Vehicle Noise California Vehicle Code Section 27200-27207 provides noise limits for vehicles operated in California. For vehicles over 10,000 pounds noise is limited to 88 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 86 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1975, 83 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1988, and 80 dB for vehicles manufactured after 1987. All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle. California Vehicle Section 38365-38380 — Off -Road Vehicle Noise California Vehicle Code Section 38365-38380 provides noise limits for off -highway motor vehicles operated in California. 92 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 88 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1975, 86 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1986, and 82 dBA for vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1985. All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle. Vibration Standards Title 14 of the California Administrative Code Section 15000 requires that all state and local agencies implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires the analysis of exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration. However, no statute has been adopted by the state that quantifies the level at which excessive groundborne vibration occurs. Caltrans issued the Transportation- and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in 2004. The manual provides practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects. However, this manual is also used as a reference point by many lead agencies and CEQA practitioners throughout California, as it provides numeric thresholds for vibration impacts. Thresholds are established for continuous (construction -related) and transient (transportation -related) sources of vibration, which found that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.25 inch per second PPV for transient sources and 0.04 inch per second PPV for continuous sources. 4.3 Local Regulations The City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Municipal Code establishes the following applicable policies related to noise and vibration. City of Santa Clarita General Plan Canal 1 To Protect the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Santa Clarita and the planning area by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels. Policies 1.2 Include noise impact considerations in land use planning decisions. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 10 City of Santa Clarita 1.3 Control noise sources adjacent to residential, recreational, and community facilities, and those land uses classified as noise sensitive land uses. Goal 3 To prevent and mitigate significant noise levels in residential neighborhoods. Policies 3.2 Ensure that special noise sources, such as construction activities, leaf blowers, motorized lawn mowers, garbage collection, truck deliveries, and any other activities, which produce significant discernible noise do not create undue disturbances in residential neighborhoods. 3.3 Require that those responsible for construction activities develop techniques to mitigate or minimize the noise impacts on residences, and adopt standards which regulate noise from noise construction activities which may occur near residential neighborhoods. City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise. Chapter 11.44.040 Noise Limits A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels, except as expressly provided otherwise herein: Region Time Sound Level dB Residential zone Day 65 Residential zone Night 55 Commercial and manufacturing Day 80 Commercial and manufacturing Night 70 At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used. Chapter 11.44.080 Special Noise Sources -Construction and Building. No person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within three hundred (300) feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of seven a.m. to seven p.m., Monday through Friday, and eight a.m. to six p.m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. Emergency work as defined in Section 11.44.020(D) is permitted at all times. The Department of Community Development may issue a permit for work to be done "after hours"; provided, that containment of construction noise is provided. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 11 City of Santa Clarita Chanter 17.15.050 Performance Standards: C and I Zones C. Vibration. No use, except a temporary construction operation, shall be permitted which generates inherent and recurrent ground vibration perceptible without instruments at the boundary of the lot on which the use is located. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 12 City of Santa Clarita 5.0 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements have been taken in the vicinity of the project site. The field survey noted that noise within the project area is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on the nearby roads and from dogs barking at the canine facilities. The following describes the measurement procedures, measurement locations, noise measurement results, and the modeling of the existing noise environment. 5.1 Noise Measurement Equipment The noise measurements were taken using a Larson -Davis Model 831 Type 1 precision sound level meter programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form as well as the frequency spectrum of the noise broken down into 1/3 octaves. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod five feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring using a Larson - Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of ANSI Standard 51.4-1984 and IEC Standard 942: 1988 for Class 1 equipment. All noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (51.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). Noise Measurement Location The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Descriptions of the noise monitoring sites are provided below in Table C and are shown in Figure 2. Appendix A includes a photo index of the study area and noise level measurement locations. Noise Measurement Timing and Climate The noise measurements were recorded between 12:33 p.m. and 1:20 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 2024. During the noise measurements, the sky was clear, the temperature was 64 degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 41 percent, barometric pressure was 28.45 inches of mercury, and the wind was blowing at an average rate of five miles per hour. 5.2 Noise Measurement Results The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table C and the noise monitoring data printouts are included in Appendix B. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 13 City of Santa Clarita Site Table C — Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements Primary Noise Start Time of Measured Noise Level No. Description Sources Measurement dBA Leq dBA Lmax Located west of the bike park, Vehicles on approximately 50 feet east of Pettinger 1 Canyon Road centerline and at turnoff to Pettinger Canyon 12:33 p.m. 52.6 68.3 Road proposed road to bike park. Located south of the bike park at Haskell Vehicles on Copper 2 Canyon Trailhead, approximately 60 feet Hill Drive 12:51 p.m. 67.3 78.1 north of Copper Hill Drive centerline. Located east of the bike park between the Dogs barking at 3 canine facilities, approximately 20 feet 1:10 P.M. 47.5 55.3 west of Blue Cloud Road centerline. canine facilities Source: Noise measurements taken on March 26, 2024. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 14 City of Santa Clarita ... I { , n• n�X -.. . -:.11 ���• r � •;r < 3 Aw lee Ail low - A ` e ,, - t - �t r SOURCE: LA LEGEND •3 Noise Measurement Location Figure 2 VISTA Field Noise Monitoring Locations ENVIRONMENTAL 6.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS 6.1 Construction Noise The noise impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The FHWA compiled noise measurement data regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. Table D below provides a list of the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of construction as detailed in Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ImpactAnalysis Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (Air Quality Analysis), prepared by Vista Environmental, April 1, 2024. Table D — Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors Number of Acoustical Use Spec 721.560 Lmax at Actual Measured Lmax Equipment Description Equipment Factor' (percent) 50 feet2 (dBA, slow') at 50 feet' (dBA, slow') Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 40 85 82 Tractors 2 40 84 N/A Front End Loader 1 40 80 79 Backhoe 1 40 80 78 Grading Excavators 2 40 85 81 Grader 1 40 85 83 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82 Scrapers 2 40 85 84 Tractor 1 40 84 N/A Front End Loader 1 40 80 79 Building Construction Crane 1 16 85 81 Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83 Generator 1 50 82 81 Tractor 1 40 84 N/A Front End Loader 1 40 80 79 Backhoe 1 40 80 78 Welder 1 40 73 74 Paving Paver 2 50 85 77 Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77 Roller 2 20 85 80 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 40 80 78 Notes: ' Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. z Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program. ' The "slow" response averages sound levels over 1-second increments. A "fast' response averages sound levels over 0.125-second increments. ° Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s. Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006 and CalEEMod default equipment mix. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 16 City of Santa Clarita Table D also shows the associated measured noise emissions for each piece of equipment from the RCNM model and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day. Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the equipment noise levels and usage factors listed in Table D and through use of the RCNM. For each phase of construction, each piece of equipment was placed at the shortest distance from the disturbed area to the sensitive receptor. 6.2 Vibration Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table E gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. The data in Table E provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. Table E — Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment uipment Pile driver (impact) Pile driver (sonic) Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) Vibratory Roller Hoe Ram Large bulldozer Caisson drill Loaded trucks Jackhammer Small bulldozer Upper range typical Upper range typical Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) 1.518 0.644 0.734 0.170 0.202 0.210 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003 Approximate Vibration Level (L )at 25 feet 112 104 105 93 94 94 87 87 87 86 79 58 The construction -related vibration impacts have been calculated through the vibration levels shown above in Table E and through typical vibration propagation rates. The equipment assumptions were based on the equipment lists provided above in Table D. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 17 City of Santa Clarita 7.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to noise would occur if a proposed project is determined to result in: • Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or • 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. 7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards The proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long-term operations of the proposed project and compares the noise levels to the City standards. Construction -Related Noise Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City noise standards that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby homes and canine facilities. In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds detailed above in Section 4.1 have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 80 dBA at the nearest homes and 85 dBA at the canine facilities to the east. The calculated construction noise results are shown below in Table F and the RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix C. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 18 City of Santa Clarita Table F — Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors Construction Noise Level WBA Lea) at: Construction Phase Canine Facilities to East Homes to West Homes to South Site Preparation 62 56 55 Grading 64 57 56 Building Construction 63 56 55 Paving 58 51 50 Architectural Coating 50 43 42 FTA Construction Noise Threshold' 85 80 80 Exceed Threshold? No No No Notes: ' FTA Construction Noise Threshold obtained from Table B above. Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006 Table F shows that the construction -related noise levels for all phases of construction activities would be within the FTA construction noise standards. Therefore, through adherence to allowable construction times provided in 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code, the construction activities for the proposed project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Operational -Related Noise The proposed project would consist of the development and operation of a bike park. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be from project -generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors. The noise impacts created from project -generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors have been analyzed separately below. Roadway Vehicular Noise Impact to Nearby Sensitive Receptors Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the proposed project's potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed project. Neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code defines what constitutes a "substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels". As such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the FTA for a moderate impact that has been detailed above in Table A, which shows that the project contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dB, which is dependent on the existing roadway noise levels. According to the project applicant, the proposed project would generate up to 100 daily vehicle trips on weekends and during special event days. According to the One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR City of Santa Clarita, September 2010, Copper Hill east of McBean is the closest roadway segment with traffic data to the project site and it currently has 35,000 daily trips. The proposed project would contribute up Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 19 City of Santa Clarita to 0.3 percent of the daily trips on Cooper Hill Drive. In order for project -generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roadways by 3 dB, the average daily traffic (ADT) would have to double, or by 1.5 dB, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent. As such, the proposed project's roadway noise impacts would be negligible and would not result in a quantitative increase in roadway noise levels. Therefore, operational roadway noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Onsite Noise Impacts The project would create operational noise from the usage of the bike trails and parking lots, music associated with events at the bike park, and the operation of off -road equipment that would include monthly use of a mini -excavator or a trail dozer for trail maintenance and a small generator may be used for music events or food trucks. Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code limits the project's operational noise at the nearby homes to 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime and at the canine facilities to the east to 80 dBA during the daytime and 70 dBA during the nighttime. In order to determine the noise impacts from the operational use of the bike trails and parking lots and from a music event at the bike park, reference noise measurements for similar operations were taken of each source and are shown in Table G and the reference noise measurement printouts are provided in Appendix D. In order to determine the noise impacts from the off -road equipment, the RCNM Model was utilized where a backhoe and small generator were modeled. All of the reference noise levels were calculated at the distances to the nearby receptors based on standard geometric spreading of noise of a drop-off rate of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of distance between source and receptor. It should be noted that the calculated noise levels represent a worst -case as the noise calculations do not take account the hilly terrain of the bike park or the sound reduction provided by the vegetation. Table G — Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors Reference Noise Measurements' Calculated Noise Levels (dBA Leq) at: Canine Facilities to Homes to Homes to Distance Receptor Reference Noise Noise Source to Source (feet) Level (dBA Leq) East West South Bike Trails 20 40.6 9 2 1 Parking Lots 10 51.7 8 6 1 Music Event 70 74.0 39 44 37 Off -Road Equipment 50 75.1 50 43 42 Generator 50 73.6 32 37 30 Noise Level from All Sources Combined 50 46 43 City Noise StandardS2 (day/night) 80/70 65/55 65/55 Exceed City Noise Standards (day/night)? No/No No/No No/No Notes: 'The reference noise measurements printouts are provided in Appendix D. z From Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code. Source: Noise calculation methodology from Caltrans, 2013 (see Appendix D) Table G shows that the proposed project's worst -case (i.e., during a music event and trail maintenance) operational noise from the simultaneous operation of all noise sources on the project site would create a noise level as high as 50 dBA Leq at the canine facilities to the east, 46 dBA Leq at the homes to the west, and 43 dBA Leq at the home to the south, which would be within the applicable City's daytime and nighttime noise standards as detailed in Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, operation Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 20 City of Santa Clarita of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from onsite noise sources. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 7.3 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration The proposed project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The following section analyzes the potential vibration impacts associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project. Construction -Related Vibration Impacts Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off -road equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project. Section 17.15.050 of the Municipal Code limits vibration to what is perceptible at the boundary of the lot where it is created. However, Section 17.15.050 exempts construction activities from this vibration standard. Since the City construction vibration standards do not provide any limits to the vibration levels that may be created from construction activities, the Caltrans vibration guidance that is detailed above in Section 4.2 has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second PPV. As detailed above, the primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a dozer. From Table E above a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structures (800 feet away) would be 0.002 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite structure would be well below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold detailed above. Impacts would be less than significant. Operations -Related Vibration Impacts The proposed project would consist of the operation of a bike park. The on -going operation of the proposed project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the proposed project. Level of Significance Less than significant impact. 7.4 Aircraft Noise The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is Agua Dulce Airpark that is located approximately ten miles east of the project site. The project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of Agua Dulce Airpark. No impacts would occur from aircraft noise. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 21 City of Santa Clarita Level of Significance No impact. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 22 City of Santa Clarita 8.0 REFERENCES California Department of Transportation, 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, 2018. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analytics Protocol, September 2013. California Department of Transportation, Transportation- and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013. City of Santa Clarita, Draft Program EIR for the City of Santa Clarita's Proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan, September 2010. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan, June 2011. City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Municipal Code, July 14, 2020. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, January, 2006. Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, April 1, 2024. Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Page 23 City of Santa Clarita APPENDIX A Field Noise Measurements Photo Index Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Appendix A City of Santa Clarita I w ) Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking north Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking east n r� Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking south 0 _ k At Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking northeast Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking southeast Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking north Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking east Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking west Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking northeast Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking southwest Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking northwest Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking north Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking east Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking south Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking west Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking northeast Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking southeast Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking southwest Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking northwest APPENDIX B Field Noise Measurements Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Appendix B City of Santa Clarita Measurement Report Report Summary Meter's File Name 831_Data.001 Computer's File Name Meter 831 Firmware 2.403 User GT Description Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Note Located approx 50 ft east of Pettinger Cyn Rd CL at proposed entrance road to Bike Park Start Time 2024-03-26 12:33:45 Duration 0:10:00.7 End Time 2024-03-26 12:43:46 Run Time 0:10:00.7 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results Overall Metrics L/eq LAE EA 12. LZpeak 1 LASmax LASmin LAeq LCeq LAI eq Exceedances LAS > 65.0 dB LAS > 85.0 dB LZpeak > 135.0 LZpeak > 137.0 LZpeak > 140.0 Community Noise Any Data Leq Ls(max) LF(max) Lsmax) LS(min) LF(min) LI(min) LPeak(max) Overloads Statistics LAS 5.0 LAS 10.0 LAS 33.3 LAS 50.0 LAS 66.6 LAS 90.0 52.6 dB 80.4 dB SEA 1 NPa2h 03.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 68.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:41:21 27.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:35 52.6 dB 64.1 dB LC 56.4 dB LA Count Duratio 3 0:00:10.8 0 0:00:00.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 LDN 52.6 dB LDEN 52.6 dB A Level Time Stamp 52.6 dB 68.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:41:21 70.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:57 75.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:57 27.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:35 25.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:43:07 26.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:34 90.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:57 Count 0 61.2 dB 54.3 dB 39.9 dB 36.2 dB 33.2 dB 30.3 dB eq -LAeq eq LA eq n LDay 52.6 dB LDay 52.6 dB Duration 0:00:00.0 --- dB 11.5 dB 3.8 dB LNight 0.0 dB LEve --- dB C Level Time Stamp 64.1 dB 78.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:40:13 83.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:40:13 86.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:56 41.8 dB 2024-03-26 12:43:01 39.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:43 42.4 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:34 93.4 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:56 OBA Count 0 SLM_0002509_831 _Data_001.32.Idbin Location LNight --- dB Z Level Time Stamp 78.8 dB 94.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:40:14 98.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 101.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 49.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:55 44.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:44 51.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:55 103.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 OBA Duration 0:00:00.0 Measurement Report Report Summary Meter's File Name 831_Data.002 Computer's File Name Meter 831 Firmware 2.403 User GT Description Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Note At Haskell Cyn Trailhead, approx 60 ft north of Copper Hill Dr CL Start Time 2024-03-26 12:51:00 Duration 0:10:00.5 End Time 2024-03-26 13:01:01 Run Time 0:10:00.5 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results Overall Metrics L,eq 67.3 dB LAE 95.1 dB SEA EA 356.7 NPa2h LZpeak 102.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 LASmax 78.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 LASmin 40.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 LAeq 67.3 dB LCIq 71.9 dB LCeq - LA eq LAI 69.2 dB LAI - LA eq eq eq Exceedances Count Duration LAS > 65.0 dB 29 0:05:21.2 LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 LZpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 LZpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 LZpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 Community Noise LDN LDay 67.3 dB 67.3 dB LDEN LDay 67.3 dB 67.3 dB Any Data A Level Time Stamp Leq 67.3 dB Ls(max) 78.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 LF(max) 80.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 LImax) 81.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 LS(min) 40.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 LF(min) 38.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:03 LI(min) 40.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 LPeak(max) 92.5 dB 2024-03-26 13:00:20 Overloads Count Duration 0 0:00:00.0 Statistics LAS 5.0 72.3 dB LAS 10.0 71.2 dB LAS 33.3 68.1 dB LAS 50.0 64.7 dB LAS 66.6 59.0 dB LAS 90.0 50.4 dB --- dB 4.6 dB 1.9 dB LNight 0.0 dB LEve --- dB C Level Time Stamp 71.9 dB 88.2 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 90.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 91.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 50.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 49.2 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:03 51.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:04 98.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 OBA Count 0 SLM_0002509_831 _Data_002.26.Idbin Location LNight --- dB Z Level Time Stamp 74.4 dB 95.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 97.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 100.4 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 56.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:07 52.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 56.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:09 102.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 OBA Duration 0:00:00.0 Measurement Report Report Summary Meter's File Name 831_Data.003 Computer's File Name Meter 831 Firmware 2.403 User GT Description Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Note Approx 20 ft west of Blue Cloud Rd CL, between Canine Country Club and Cesar Milian's Dog Psychology Center Start Time 2024-03-26 13:10:51 Duration 0:10:00.7 End Time 2024-03-26 13:20:51 Run Time 0:10:00.7 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results Overall Metrics L/eq LAE EA 3. LZpeak 1 LASmax LASmin LAeq LCeq LAI eq Exceedances LAS > 65.0 dB LAS > 85.0 dB LZpeak > 135.0 LZpeak > 137.0 LZpeak > 140.0 Community Noise Any Data Leq Ls(max) LF(max) Lsmax) LS(min) LF(min) LI(min) LPeak(max) Overloads Statistics LAS 5.0 LAS 10.0 LAS 33.3 LAS 50.0 LAS 66.6 LAS 90.0 47.5 dB 75.3 dB SEA 7 NPa2h 04.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 55.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:11:19 32.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:06 47.5 dB 55.4 dB LC 54.3 dB LA Count Duratio 0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0 LDN 47.5 dB LDEN 47.5 dB A Level Time Stamp 47.5 dB 55.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:11:19 62.2 dB 2024-03-26 13:20:51 67.7 dB 2024-03-26 13:20:51 32.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:06 27.5 dB 2024-03-26 13:15:46 35.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:08 79.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 Count 0 51.5 dB 50.5 dB 47.9 dB 46.5 dB 44.9 dB 40.7 dB eq -LAeq eq LA eq n LDay 47.5 dB May 47.5 dB Duration 0:00:00.0 --- dB 7.9 dB 6.9 dB LNight 0.0 dB LEve --- dB C Level Time Stamp 55.4 dB 75.8 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 77.5 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 81.0 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 42.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:19:28 38.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:18:28 43.2 dB 2024-03-26 13:16:38 87.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 OBA Count 0 LNight --- dB Z Level Time Stamp 73.5 dB 95.9 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 99.9 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 102.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 50.1 dB 2024-03-26 13:18:28 44.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:18:28 51.9 dB 2024-03-26 13:19:36 104.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 OBA Duration 0:00:00.0 SLM_0002509_831_C Location APPENDIX C RCNM Model Construction Noise Calculation Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Appendix C City of Santa Clarita Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1/2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0 Tractor No 40 84 800 0 Tractor No 40 84 800 0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 800 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 53.5 49.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 60 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1/2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0 Tractor No 40 84 1700 0 Tractor No 40 84 1700 0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1700 0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 1700 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 48.5 44.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 46.9 43.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 53 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1/2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #3 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dozer No 40 81.7 1900.0 0.0 Dozer No 40 81.7 1900.0 0.0 Dozer No 40 81.7 1900.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84 1900.0 0.0 Tractor No 40 84 1900.0 0.0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1900.0 0.0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 1900.0 0.0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 47.5 43.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 46.0 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 52 55 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Grading ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 800 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 800 0 Grader No 40 85 800 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 800 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 800 0 Tractor No 40 84 800 0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 56.6 52.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 56.6 52.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 60.9 56.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 59.5 55.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 59.5 55.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 61 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Report date: Case Description Description Homes to West Description Excavator Excavator Grader Dozer Scraper Scraper Tractor Front End Loader Equipment Excavator Excavator Grader Dozer Scraper Scraper Tractor Front End Loader Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 4/1 /2024 Blue Cloud Bike Park - Grading ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Land Use Daytime Evening Night Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) No 40 80.7 1700 0 No 40 80.7 1700 0 No 40 85 1700 0 No 40 81.7 1700 0 No 40 83.6 1700 0 No 40 83.6 1700 0 No 40 84 1700 0 No 40 79.1 1700 0 Calculated (dBA) *Lmax Leq 50.1 46.1 50.1 46.1 54.4 50.4 51.0 47.1 53.0 49.0 53.0 49.0 53.4 49.4 48.5 44.5 Tota 1 54 57 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Results Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Lmax Leq Lmax Leq 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Grading ---- Receptor #3 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 1900 0 Excavator No 40 80.7 1900 0 Grader No 40 85 1900 0 Dozer No 40 81.7 1900 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 1900 0 Scraper No 40 83.6 1900 0 Tractor No 40 84 1900 0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1900 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Excavator 49.1 45.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Excavator 49.1 45.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 52.0 48.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 52.0 48.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 47.5 43.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 53 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Building Construction ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Crane No 16 80.6 800 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0 Generator No 50 80.6 800 0 Tractor No 40 84 800 0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 800 0 Welder / Torch No 40 74 800 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 56.5 48.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 56.5 53.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 53.5 49.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 49.9 45.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 60 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Report date: Case Description Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 4/1 /2024 Blue Cloud Bike Park - Building Construction Description Land Use Homes to West Residential Description Crane Gradall Gradall Gradall Generator Tractor Front End Loader Backhoe Welder / Torch Equipment Crane Gradall Gradall Gradall Generator Tractor Front End Loader Backhoe Welder / Torch Total Baselines (dBA) Daytime Evening 52.6 52.6 ---- Receptor #2 ---- Night 52.6 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) No 16 80.6 1700 0 No 40 83.4 1700 0 No 40 83.4 1700 0 No 40 83.4 1700 0 No 50 80.6 1700 0 No 40 84 1700 0 No 40 79.1 1700 0 No 40 77.6 1700 0 No 40 74 1700 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq 49.9 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 52.8 48.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 52.8 48.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 52.8 48.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.0 47.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 48.5 44.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 46.9 43.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.4 39.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 53 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Building Construction ---- Receptor #3 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Crane No 16 80.6 1900 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 1900 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 1900 0 Gradall No 40 83.4 1900 0 Generator No 50 80.6 1900 0 Tractor No 40 84 1900 0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1900 0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 1900 0 Welder / Torch No 40 74 1900 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 49.0 41.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Gradall 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 49.0 46.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 47.5 43.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 46.0 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 42.4 38.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 52 55 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Paving ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Paver No 50 77.2 800 0 Paver No 50 77.2 800 0 Paver No 50 77.2 800 0 Paver No 50 77.2 800 0 Roller No 20 80 800 0 Roller No 20 80 800 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 55.9 48.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 55.9 48.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 56 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Paving Description Homes to West Description Paver Paver Paver Paver Roller Roller Equipment Paver Paver Paver Paver Roller Roller ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Land Use Daytime Evening Night Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) No 50 77.2 1700 0 No 50 77.2 1700 0 No 50 77.2 1700 0 No 50 77.2 1700 0 No 20 80 1700 0 No 20 80 1700 0 Calculated (dBA) *Lmax Leq 46.6 43.6 46.6 43.6 46.6 43.6 46.6 43.6 49.4 42.4 49.4 42.4 Total 49 51 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Results Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Lmax Leq Lmax Leq 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 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Paving ---- Receptor #3 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3 Description Paver Paver Paver Paver Roller Roller Equipment Paver Paver Paver Paver Roller Roller Total Equipment Spec I mpact Lmax Device Usage(%) (dBA) No 50 No 50 No 50 No 50 No 20 No 20 Calculated (dBA) Results Day Actual Receptor Estimated Lmax Distance Shielding (dBA) (feet) (dBA) 77.2 1900 0 77.2 1900 0 77.2 1900 0 77.2 1900 0 80 1900 0 80 1900 0 Noise Limits (dBA) Evening Leq Lmax 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 *Lmax Leq Lmax 45.6 42.6 N/A 45.6 42.6 N/A 45.6 42.6 N/A 45.6 42.6 N/A 48.4 41.4 N/A 48.4 41.4 N/A 48 50 N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Leq N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Painting ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5 Description Compressor (air) Equipment Compressor (air) Total Description Land Use Homes to West Residential Description Compressor (air) Equipment Compressor (air) Total Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) No 40 77.7 800 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq 53.6 49.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 54 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Daytime Evening Night 52.6 52.6 52.6 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) No 40 77.7 1700 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq 47.0 43.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 47 43 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Painting ---- Receptor #3 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Compressor (air) No 40.0 77.7 1900 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 46.1 42.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 46 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. APPENDIX D Onsite Noise Sources Reference Noise Measurements Printouts Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis Appendix D City of Santa Clarita Serial Number 02509 Model 831 Firmware Version 2.301 Filename 831 Data.001 User GT Job Description Peters Canyon Regional Park Location 190 feet north of Intersection of Peters Cyn and Silverado Terrac Measurement Description Start Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:03:44 Stop Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:18:45 Duration 00:15:00.5 Run Time 00:15:00.5 Pause 00:00:00.0 Pre Calibration Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:01:08 Post Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Approximately 20' from dirt trail CL and 35' from Class 1 Bike Trail Noise from people talking, bicycles on dirt trail and vehicles on Peters Cyn Rd 83F, 29.61 in Hg, 52% Hu, 4 mph wind, clear sky LAeq 40.6 dB LASmax 2017 Jul 04 12:17:37 60.2 dB LApeak (max) 2017 Jul 04 12:17:37 95.9 dB LASmin 2017 Jul 04 12:09:17 31.6 dB LCeq 53.8 dB LAeq 40.6 dB LCeq - LAeq 13.1 dB LAIeq 49.2 dB LAeq 40.6 dB LAIeq - LAeq 8.6 dB Ldn 40.6 dB LDay 07:00-23:00 40.6 dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB Lden 40.6 dB LDay 07:00-19:00 40.6 dB LEvening 19:00-23:00 --- dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB LAE 70.2 dB # Overloads 0 Overload Duration 0.0 s # OBA Overloads 0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s Statistics LAS5.00 45.7 dBA LAS10.00 44.2 dBA LAS33.30 39.5 dBA LAS50.00 37.5 dBA LAS66.60 35.5 dBA LAS90.00 33.6 dBA LAS > 65.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s RMS Weight A Weighting Peak Weight A Weighting Detector Slow Preamp PRM831 Integration Method Linear OBA Range Normal OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3 OBA Freq. Weighting Z Weighting OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max Gain +0 dB Under Range Limit 26.2 dB Under Range Peak 75.8 dB Noise Floor 17.0 dB Overload 1/1 Spectra 143.3 dB Freq. (Hz): 8.0 16.0 31.5 63.0 125 250 500 lk 2k 4k 8k 16k LZeq 61.9 54.7 49.1 49.3 47.0 39.6 35.8 35.7 36.1 37.4 39.6 43.0 LZSmax 79.4 70.2 60.9 60.0 64.5 51.1 47.9 47.2 51.8 57.7 49.6 43.6 LZSmin 39.3 41.9 41.7 43.5 40.5 32.2 29.7 30.8 32.8 35.8 39.2 42.8 Freq. (Hz): 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 LZeq 59.0 57.1 54.7 52.2 49.2 47.1 45.7 44.1 43.1 44.3 42.8 46.0 LZSmax 77.2 71.9 71.3 67.7 64.7 62.0 60.8 56.2 56.4 57.7 56.6 59.9 LZSmin 33.0 34.6 34.2 33.8 35.7 36.1 35.8 36.7 34.5 36.3 35.6 37.9 Freq. (Hz): 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 lk 1.25k LZeq 44.8 40.9 38.5 36.4 34.8 32.3 31.2 30.8 31.3 31.3 30.8 30.8 LZSmax 64.8 51.5 53.2 49.1 47.5 44.6 46.6 43.3 43.6 45.6 43.0 46.3 LZSmin 36.4 35.0 31.7 29.1 26.2 24.6 24.4 24.1 24.9 25.0 26.0 26.5 Freq. (Hz): 1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k 16k 20k LZeq 31.1 31.5 31.4 32.0 33.0 32.8 33.6 34.7 35.8 37.0 37.8 39.5 LZSmax 43.3 49.4 47.5 49.8 55.7 50.1 47.6 45.0 38.5 38.2 38.5 39.8 LZSmin 27.0 27.7 28.6 29.8 30.8 31.9 33.1 34.3 35.5 36.7 37.6 39.3 Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa PRM831 04 Jul 2017 12:01:07 -25.8 PRM831 22 Jun 2017 14:02:37 -26.3 PRM831 22 Jun 2017 12:06:39 -25.9 PRM831 06 Apr 2017 13:35:04 -25.9 PRM831 05 Apr 2017 10:29:19 -25.5 PRM831 28 Mar 2017 11:12:45 -25.8 PRM831 02 Nov 2016 10:44:45 -25.2 PRM831 22 Sep 2016 15:49:59 -26.5 PRM831 24 Aug 2016 19:03:10 -26.1 PRM831 26 Jul 2016 10:53:46 -26.0 PRM831 26 Jul 2016 09:33:01 -26.4 Serial Number 02509 Model 831 Firmware Version 2.301 Filename 831 Data.002 User GT Job Description Peters Canyon Regional Park Location East side of Parking Lot for Peters Canyon Regional Park Measurement Description Start Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:32:01 Stop Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:47:01 Duration 00:15:00.6 Run Time 00:15:00.6 Pause 00:00:00.0 Pre Calibration Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:01:07 Post Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- On island between north and south sections of parking lot and approx 50' SW of pay station Noise from vehicles and people in parking lot, aircraft overflights and vehicles on Canyon View Ave 84F, 29.31 in Hg, 49% Hu, 7 mph wind, clear sky LAeq 51.7 dB LASmax 2017 Jul 04 12:40:31 69.7 dB LApeak (max) 2017 Jul 04 12:32:16 85.1 dB LASmin 2017 Jul 04 12:37:07 38.6 dB LCeq 63.9 dB LAeq 51.7 dB LCeq - LAeq 12.1 dB LAIeq 55.2 dB LAeq 51.7 dB LAIeq - LAeq 3.5 dB Ldn 51.7 dB LDay 07:00-23:00 51.7 dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB Lden 51.7 dB LDay 07:00-19:00 51.7 dB LEvening 19:00-23:00 --- dB LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB LAE 81.2 dB # Overloads 0 Overload Duration 0.0 s # OBA Overloads 0 OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s Statistics LAS5.00 55.4 dBA LAS10.00 51.5 dBA LAS33.30 45.9 dBA LAS50.00 44.8 dBA LAS66.60 43.6 dBA LAS90.00 41.5 dBA LAS > 65.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 2 / 14.5 s LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s RMS Weight A Weighting Peak Weight A Weighting Detector Slow Preamp PRM831 Integration Method Linear OBA Range Normal OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3 OBA Freq. Weighting Z Weighting OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max Gain +0 dB Under Range Limit 26.2 dB Under Range Peak 75.8 dB Noise Floor 17.0 dB Overload 1/1 Spectra 143.3 dB Freq. (Hz): 8.0 16.0 31.5 63.0 125 250 500 lk 2k 4k 8k 16k LZeq 71.6 65.6 60.7 58.1 55.6 50.5 51.1 46.6 40.7 38.6 39.9 43.0 LZSmax 87.2 82.8 72.1 71.8 73.7 68.3 71.0 66.2 56.3 49.0 44.3 43.3 LZSmin 40.7 47.4 48.4 47.0 43.0 36.6 35.3 35.0 34.4 36.3 39.6 42.8 Freq. (Hz): 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 LZeq 68.8 66.3 64.3 62.6 60.5 58.2 58.1 54.2 54.2 55.0 52.9 51.6 LZSmax 84.8 82.1 79.1 80.0 78.1 74.0 71.3 67.6 71.6 71.2 70.7 68.2 LZSmin 31.8 34.8 36.0 38.8 40.2 42.5 43.3 42.8 39.1 41.8 41.3 40.9 Freq. (Hz): 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 lk 1.25k LZeq 52.2 51.5 48.4 46.7 45.7 44.6 44.9 46.3 47.2 44.1 40.6 39.4 LZSmax 71.8 69.8 65.3 64.0 65.3 62.8 64.0 66.1 68.1 65.5 58.9 59.0 LZSmin 32.2 37.3 34.1 32.8 31.2 30.1 29.8 29.8 29.5 29.8 30.3 30.3 Freq. (Hz): 1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k 16k 20k LZeq 37.1 35.3 34.9 34.3 33.7 33.5 34.0 34.9 36.3 37.0 37.9 39.7 LZSmax 52.4 50.6 50.5 46.0 44.2 41.7 39.6 42.9 37.7 37.4 38.6 40.3 LZSmin 29.3 29.3 29.7 30.6 31.3 32.1 31.9 33.6 35.9 36.7 37.7 39.5 Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa PRM831 04 Jul 2017 12:01:07 -25.8 PRM831 22 Jun 2017 14:02:37 -26.3 PRM831 22 Jun 2017 12:06:39 -25.9 PRM831 06 Apr 2017 13:35:04 -25.9 PRM831 05 Apr 2017 10:29:19 -25.5 PRM831 28 Mar 2017 11:12:45 -25.8 PRM831 02 Nov 2016 10:44:45 -25.2 PRM831 22 Sep 2016 15:49:59 -26.5 PRM831 24 Aug 2016 19:03:10 -26.1 PRM831 26 Jul 2016 10:53:46 -26.0 PRM831 26 Jul 2016 09:33:01 -26.4 St Regis wedding.txt SLM & RTA Summary Translated: 10-Feb-2010 10:05:45 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- File Translated: z:\vista Env\2009\090103-Napa St Regis\Noise Measurements\LD\St Regis wedding.slmdl Model Number: 824 serial Number: A3176 Firmware Rev: 4.283 software version: 3.120 Name: Vista Environmental Descrl: 1021 Didrikson way Descrl: Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Setup: SLM&RTA.ssa Setup Descr: SLM & Real -Time Analyzer Location: St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort Note 1: 70' from 200 guest wedding reception w-amplified music Note 2: 150' from outdoor restaurant Overall Any Data start Time: 31-May-2009 15:11:59 Elapsed Time: 00:11:00.3 Leq SEL: Peak: Lmax (slow): Lmin (slow): Lmax (fast): Lmin (fast): A weight 74.0 dBA 102.2 dBA 94.2 dBA 31-May-2009 15:16:18 78.4 dBA 31-May-2009 15:20:35 64.8 dBA 31-May-2009 15:15:29 81.3 dBA 31-May-2009 15:20:34 52.7 dBA 31-May-2009 15:15:24 C weight 83.3 dBC 111.5 dBC 101.1 dBC 31-May-2009 15:12:34 88.4 dBC 31-May-2009 15:17:59 72.6 dBC 31-May-2009 15:15:24 92.2 dBC 31-May-2009 15:17:59 58.2 dBC 31-May-2009 15:15:24 Lmax (impulse): 83.6 dBA 94.2 dBC 31-May-2009 15:20:34 31-May-2009 15:19:49 Lmin (impulse): 65.3 dBA 74.8 dBC 31-May-2009 15:15:29 31-May-2009 15:14:53 Spectra Start Time: Freq 12.5 Hz 16.0 Hz 20.0 Hz 25.0 Hz 31.5 Hz 40.0 Hz 50.0 Hz 63.0 Hz 80.0 Hz 100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz 200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz 400 Hz 500 Hz 31-May-2009 15:11:59 Run Time: 00:11:00.3 Flat 83.6 dBF 111.8 dBF 101.7 dBF 31-May-2009 15:19:49 88.7 dBF 31-May-2009 15:17:59 72.8 dBF 31-May-2009 15:15:24 92.5 dBF 31-May-2009 15:17:59 59.1 dBF 31-May-2009 15:15:24 94.4 dBF 31-May-2009 15:19:49 75.0 dBF 31-May-2009 15:14:53 Leq 1/3 Leq 1/1 Max 1/3 Max 1/1 Min 1/3 Min 1/1 53.9 53.5 28.1 49.2 56.3 46.8 56.5 25.0 35.3 49.8 52.5 33.9 50.7 52.6 38.3 52.2 64.1 55.5 66.5 38.4 43.7 63.6 66.0 39.9 68.2 73.5 43.2 68.9 77.9 74.3 81.3 42.1 47.0 76.8 79.3 41.3 78.6 81.4 42.2 76.7 81.0 78.5 83.5 43.8 47.1 68.1 71.3 40.2 68.2 72.1 41.4 67.1 71.5 72.1 75.6 40.0 44.6 64.0 65.4 37.3 61.7 68.7 38.8 63.6 68.7 65.1 74.7 41.3 48.0 Page 1 St Regis wedding.txt 630 Hz 65.7 72.7 46.3 800 Hz 65.3 75.3 45.1 1000 Hz 66.3 69.8 76.9 80.4 42.6 1250 Hz 62.9 74.3 42.2 1600 Hz 63.9 71.2 41.2 2000 Hz 61.4 66.9 72.4 76.0 39.9 2500 Hz 60.4 69.5 40.5 3150 Hz 58.5 64.7 38.0 4000 Hz 54.0 60.3 61.4 66.7 35.0 5000 Hz 50.4 55.1 33.2 6300 Hz 46.2 47.8 30.1 8000 Hz 42.6 48.2 45.6 50.5 27.3 10000 Hz 37.5 42.2 23.2 12500 Hz 32.4 37.4 20.2 16000 Hz 24.2 33.4 27.2 37.9 19.1 20000 Hz 22.4 23.3 19.7 Ln start Level: 15 dB L (1.00) 0.0 L (5.00) 0.0 L (50.00) 0.0 L (90.00) 0.0 L (95.00) 0.0 L (99.00) 0.0 Detector: Slow weighting: A SPL Exceedance Level 1: 85.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times SPL Exceedance Level 2: 120.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times Peak-1 Exceedance Level: 105.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times Peak-2 Exceedance Level: 100.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times Hysteresis: 2 overloaded: 0 time(s) Paused: 0 times for 00:00:00.0 Current Any Data Start Time: 31-May-2009 15:11:59 Elapsed Time: 00:11:00.3 Leq SEL: Peak: Lmax (slow): Lmin (slow): Lmax (fast): Lmin (fast): A weight 74.0 dBA 102.2 dBA 94.2 dBA 31-May-2009 15:16:18 78.4 dBA 31-May-2009 15:20:35 64.8 dBA 31-May-2009 15:15:29 81.3 dBA 31-May-2009 15:20:34 52.7 dBA 31-May-2009 15:15:24 C weight 83.3 dBC 111.5 dBC 101.1 dBC 31-May-2009 15:12:34 88.4 dBC 31-May-2009 15:17:59 72.6 dBC 31-May-2009 15:15:24 92.2 dBC 31-May-2009 15:17:59 58.2 dBC 31-May-2009 15:15:24 Lmax (impulse): 83.6 dBA 94.2 dBC 31-May-2009 15:20:34 31-May-2009 15:19:49 Lmin (impulse): 65.3 dBA 74.8 dBC 31-May-2009 15:15:29 31-May-2009 15:14:53 Calibrated: 31-May-2009 11:57:31 offset: Checked: 31-May-2009 11:57:31 Level: Page 2 Flat 83.6 dBF 111.8 dBF 101.7 dBF 31-May-2009 15:19:49 88.7 dBF 31-May-2009 15:17:59 72.8 dBF 31-May-2009 15:15:24 92.5 dBF 31-May-2009 15:17:59 59.1 dBF 31-May-2009 15:15:24 94.4 dBF 31-May-2009 15:19:49 75.0 dBF 31-May-2009 15:14:53 -48.5 dB 94.0 dB 48.3 45.3 40.6 32.5 24.5 St Regis wedding.txt Calibrator not set Level: Cal Records Count: 0 Interval Records: Disabled Number Interval Records Time History: Disabled Number History Records: Run/stop Records: Number Run/stop Records Page 3 94.0 dB 0 0 2 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Operations ---- Receptor #1 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 800 0 Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 4100 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 53.5 49.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 34.5 31.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 54 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. ---- Receptor #2 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 1700 0 Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 2300 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 46.9 43.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 39.6 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 47 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 4/1 /2024 Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Operations ---- Receptor #3 ---- Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Backhoe No 40 77.6 1900 0 Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 5200 0 Results Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Day Evening Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Backhoe 46.0 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 32.5 29.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 46 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. APPENDIX H: ASSEMBLY BILL 52 DOCUMENTATION Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic & Cultural Preservation Department June 10, 2024 Jeff Morrison Open Space and Trails Administrator City of Santa Clarita Sent via email to JMORRISONgsanta-clarita.com Re: City of Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project Dear Jeff Morrison, The Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Division of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) has requested to engage in consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 for the proposed City of Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Project. The CRM Division of the FTBMI recommends site survey by Tribal Monitors procured by the FTBMI occur prior to holding a consultation meeting and providing Mitigation Measures. The FTBMI has maintained a professional Tribal Monitoring (TM) service for decades by aligning its traditional framework of preserving cultural, spiritual, and emotional ties to the land with effective options for mitigating potential damages to cultural resources. The Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation (THCP) Department's field services for the Project, located in the City of Santa Clarita, CA consist of TM pedestrian survey, and documentation of work activity and artifact discoveries through daily monitoring logs and photographs. The CRM Manager shall oversee Tribal coordination, correspondence, and reporting, but is not necessarily a full-time and/or field position. 1019 Second Street, Suite 11 San Fernando I California, 91340 1 (818) 837-0794 1 Fax (818) 837-0796 1 thcp@tataviam-nsn.us Contact Information Sarah Brunzell Manager Cultural Resources Management Division 1019 Second Street San Fernando, CA 91340 Office Contact: 818-83 7-0794 E-mail: sarah.brunzell@tataviam-nsn.us Respectfully submitted by TRIBE: FERNANDENO TATAVIAM BAND OF MISSION INDIANS Name: Sarah Brunzell Title: CRM Manager Accepted by CLIENT: City of Santa Clarita By: Name: Title: 1019 Second Street, Suite 11 San Fernando I California, 91340 1 (818) 837-0794 1 Fax (818) 837-0796 1 thcp@tataviam-nsn.us HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT: TRIBAL CONSULTATION LOG Agency and/or Consultant Type of Representative(s) Tribal Representative(s) Date Communication (name, title, affiliation) City of Santa Clarita (City) (name, title, affiliation) Description/SummaryDescription/Summary of Communication Initial contact with Sarah Brunzell to provide notification about the 02/7/2025 Email Sarah Brunzell, CRM Manager, Amber Rodriguez, Management Fernandeno Tatavium Band of City's plan to build Haskell Canyon Bike Park and asked to set up a Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Mission Indians meeting to discuss the project. Email was rejected and said undelivered. Followed -up with the Chief of Staff since the initial email was 02/7/2025 Email City of Santa Clarita (City) Kimia Fatehi, Chief of Staff, Amber Rodriguez, Management Fernandeno Tatavium Band of rejected. This email notified the tribe for a request to set up a Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Mission Indians meeting about the project. Amber Rodriguez called the main office line to follow-up with Kimia 2/14/2025 Phone Call City of Santa Clarita (City) Receptionist Amber Rodriguez, Management on the email that was sent on February 7, 2025. Anal st, Cit of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City) Receptionist Amber Rodriguez called the main office line to follow-up on the 2/18/2025 Phone Call Amber Rodriguez, Management email that was sent on February 7, 2025 and asked for a call back Analyst, City of Santa Clarita to setup a meeting. 2/25/2025 Email City of Santa Clarita (City) Kimia Fatehi, Chief of Staff, Kimia sent an emailing responding to the City's request regarding Amber Rodriguez, Management Fernandeno Tatavium Band of the project and connected City staff with Miguel Luna (Chief Anal st, Cit of Santa Clarita Mission Indians Administrative Officer 2/26/2025 Email City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief Miguel Luna responded to the email Amber Rodriguez sent on Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, February 14, 2025 and followed up on their June 2024 discussions Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of with Jeff Morrison regarding a contract for Tribal Monitors to Mission Indians conduct a cultural survey prior to the AB 52 consultation. They attached their formal request and estimate, and confirmed they're available to survey the site alongside the project archaeologists. 3/2/2025 Email City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief The City informed FTBMI that a new project manager has taken Amber Rodriguez, Management = Administrative Officer, over the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project and that Jeff Morrison is Analyst, City of Santa Clarita ;Fernandeno Tatavium Band of no longer involved. They confirmed that the consultation process Mission Indians has officially begun, welcomed FTBMI to visit the site, and offered the completed Phase I Cultural Assessment for review, with the CEOA document set to be released soon. Tribal Consultation Log — Haskell Canyon Bike Park 04/26/2025 Page 1of2 3/10/2025 Email City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief The FTBMI clarified that their discussions with Jeff Morrison were Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, about having Tribal Monitors participate in a pedestrian survey Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of before starting consultation, and they were unaware a Phase Mission Indians report had already been completed. They requested the City complete the Tribe's project intake and consultation forms, and upload all archaeological reports so they can review the site and City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief begin formal consultation. 4/8/2025 Email The City followed up on a project intake form submitted on March Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, 27, noting that the Tribe's response is the final item needed before Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of publishing the CEQA document. They also requested an in -person Mission Indians City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief meeting to discuss the project and offer any needed information. April 10, Email The Tribe classified the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project as 2025 Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, Medium Sensitivity and asked the City to complete their Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of consultation form accordingly. They also requested available dates Mission Indians to hold a government -to -government consultation before the MND City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief is published. The City informed the Tribe that they've been unable to submit the April 11, Email 2025 Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, consultation form due to technical issues and asked for guidance Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of or an alternative method. They provided their availability for Mission Indians consultation, requested to receive the Tribe's recommendations in advance, and emphasized the urgency of publishing the MND within the next week and a half. April 16, Email City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief Miguel Luna sent an email to schedule a meeting between the tribe 2025 Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, and the City. Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians City of Santa Clarita (City) Miguel Luna, Chief April 18. Zoom The City and Tribe met via Zoom to review the Tribe's 2025 Amber Rodriguez, Management Administrative Officer, recommendations and reached an agreement on the revised Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Fernandeno Tatavium Band of terms. Mission Indians Tribal Consultation Log — Haskell Canyon Bike Park 04/26/2025 Page 2of2 Amber T. Rodriguez From: Amber T. Rodriguez Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:02 PM To: 'Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer' Cc: THCP CRMD; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant Subject: RE: Haskell Canyon Bike Park Hi Miguel, Any chance you guys can send over your recommendations prior to the meeting? This would allow us to finalize the consultation by the end of this week, Thank you so much for all your help! From: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <Miguel.Luna @tataviam-nsn.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:31 PM To: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us>; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: Re: Haskell Canyon Bike Park CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Yes, can you please send out a calendar invite for me and Ms. Ortega cc'd here. Miguel Luna Chief Administrative Officer 0 o O Tribal Administration w o.,;r,.d• it Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians d 818-837-0794 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County t M D IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. I you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. Fernandefio Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers. c„ F` u rt p �1 From: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIG UEZ@santa-clarita.com> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 1:23 PM To: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <Miguel.Luna@tataviam-nsn.us> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us>, Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviam- nsn.us> Subject: RE: Haskell Canyon Bike Park [CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution. Hi Miguel, Sorry for missing your call. I'm available on Friday. Does 3pm work for you? From: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <Miguel.Luna @tataviam-nsn.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:22 PM To: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us>; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: Re: Haskell Canyon Bike Park Importance: High CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Amber — how's this Friday looking for you between the hours of 2pm-5pm online? If not, perhaps Monday next week 4-5pm? Let me know. 2 Miguel Luna Chief Administrative Officer G O Tribal Administration �7 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians d 818-837-0794 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County won IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers. - From: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com> Date: Friday, April 11, 2025 at 2:12 PM To: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <Miguel.Luna@tataviam-nsn.us> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us>, Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviam- nsn.us> Subject: RE: Haskell Canyon Bike Park [CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution. Hi Miguel, Thank you for sending over the link to the form. I've attempted to submit it about four times now, but each time it remains stuck in "processing." I'm not sure if that's typical, but I'd appreciate your guidance on how to move forward or if there's an alternate way to submit it. Regarding scheduling, I'm available Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and I'm happy to adjust to a time that works best for you to begin the government -to -government consultation. Please let me know your earliest availability. Additionally, if possible, I'd appreciate receiving the tribe's recommendations in advance so I can review them ahead of our meeting. That way, we can focus our time on any outstanding items and make the most of the discussion. Lastly, I want to reiterate the City's goal of publishing the MND within the next week and a half in order to meet critical deadlines. Please let me know the best way to submit the form and how we can continue moving forward. Thank you, Amber Rodriguez Management Analyst (661) 284-1414 From: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <Miguel.Luna@tataviam-nsn.us> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 1:42 PM To: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us>; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: Haskell Canyon Bike Park CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Amber, The proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project has been categorized as Medium Sensitivity. Please submit a consultation form at the link below and select Medium Sensitivity: https�//www tataviam-i)sii.us/pi- ct-consultation-form/ Please also provide your availability to engage in government -to -government consultation, which should occur prior to the MND being published. Miguel Luna Chief Administrative Officer Tribal Administration EI Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians E 818-837-0794 Ell019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 Q;Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any atia chrnents are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. ❑© X &W000 Miguel Luna Chief Administrative Officer O Tribal Administration ,�/ Fernandefio Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 818-837-0794 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County a O f IMPORTANT-. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. Fernandefie Tatavia Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers: 5 Miguel Luna ,. Chief Administrative Officer b p O Tribal Administration w ' oAli ,�,.+*' 4 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians d 818-837-0794 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County UME IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are conFick ntial. They are intende + for the named recipient(s) onl /. I you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers: Amber T. Rodriguez From: Miguel Luna <Miguel.Luna@tataviam-nsn.us> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 12:21 PM To: Amber T. Rodriguez Cc: THCP CRMD Subject: Re: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Attachments: FTBMI CONSULTATION SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE-V3.2024.pdf CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Amber, There seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Our conversations with Jeff Morrison were regarding the fact that the CRM Division of the FTBMI requested Tribal Monitors perform a pedestrian survey prior to engaging in consultation and providing Mitigation Measures. We were not aware that a Phase I survey and report had already been completed. The intention was for Tribal monitors to participate in the pedestrian survey per the proposal provided, not for the Tribe to visit the site. Also, the CRM Division of the FTBMI requires a project intake form and consultation form prior to engaging in consultation. Please see the FTBMI's attached fee schedule for more information. If the pedestrian survey was already performed, please complete the mandatory project intake form at the link below: httos://vitivw.tataviam-nsn.us/oroiect-intake One reason the CRM Division of the FTBMI requested to participate in the pedestrian survey, is due to some unknowns about the location. Please ensure the Phase I Pedestrian Survey and any additional archaeological reports are uploaded with the project intake form. If the City of Santa Clarita is not the project applicant, please ensure the project applicant provides the requested information. Once the project intake form is received, we can review the project and confirm the level of sensitivity. Once the consultation form is received, we can engage in government -to -government consultation. Miguel Luna Chief Administrative Officer O Tribal Administration w o • ,,�.' i/ Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians d 818-837-0794 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are co ;h! iial. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If YOU have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender iniir, •i,s( iy and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers: 903 From: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com> Date: Sunday, March 2, 2025 at 1:13 PM To: Miguel Luna <Miguel.Luna@tataviam-nsn.us> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: RE: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project ........ -- (CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution. _... Mr. Luna, Thank you for your email regarding the City's Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (formerly Blue Cloud Bike Park). I have taken over as project manager, and Jeff Morrison is no longer associated with it. However, he provided a history of his interaction with the Fernandeno Tataviom Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). We are happy to provide FTMBI with the completed Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (April 2024) if you would like to review it. FTBMI members are welcome to visit the site and evaluate it. If FTBMI members intend to visit the site, please notify me in advance of their visit. The City understands that the FTBMI would like to engage in a government -to -government consultation and provide recommended mitigation measures; please consider this a notification that the consultation has begun, and we look forward to receiving FTBMI's recommendations. The project location and description are attached, and please find attached an exhibit showing the project layout. The draft CEQA document will be released for its 30-day public comment period in the next two weeks. I look forward to working with you. Amber Rodriguez Management Analyst (661) 284-1414 From: Miguel Luna <Miguel.Luna@tataviam-nsn.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 3:20 PM To: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com> Cc: THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: Re: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Moving Ms. Fatehi to Bcc. Ms. Rodriguez: Thank you for reaching out regarding the Blue Could Bike Park Project (Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project). The conversation left off in June 2024 with Jeff Morrison working on a contract/what a contract should look like for us to provide Tribal Monitors to survey the site prior to holding a AB 52 consultation meeting and providing Mitigation Measures. Attached is the Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Division of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians' (FTBMI) formal request and survey estimate that was submitted to Jeff per his request June 10, 2024. We had been in communication with Jeff since April of 2024. Also, the CRM Division informed Jeff we're happy to perform this pedestrian survey at the same time as the project archaeologist(s). Please copy CRM@tataviam-nsn.us on all future emails as this will ensure a prompt response. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Miguel Luna � • °r Chief Administrative Officer p "w O Tribal Administration if°* IV Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians �. 818-837-0794 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County li\jl°ORTANT: The contents of this emai' and any attachments are confidential. They ar.- in:_ r .!ad for the narned recipient(s) only. If YOU have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or mate copies thereof. VeoC V�4 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers. From: Kimia Fatehi <kfatehi@tataviam-nsn.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:19 PM To: Amber T. Rodriguez <ATRODRIGUEZ@santa-clarita.com>; THCP CRMD <crm@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: Re: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Dear Amber, Please excuse this late reply. I am SO sorry that I missed your original email. Thank you for checking in with me and bumping this up my inbox. I've copied the email address that reaches our CRM team. They will review and get back to you shortly. Please don't hesitate to email me for anything else. Thank you, Kimia 13 '1. Kimia Fatehi p Chief of Staff w O Office of the Tribal President it Fernandeho Tataviam Band of Mission Indians d 818-837-0794 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 4 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County Moo IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. 4 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Proactively establishing entities to overcome systemic barriers: CAC, � nIk From: Amber T. Rodriguez<ATRODRIGUEZCa@santa-clarita.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 6:20:47 PM To: Kimia Fatehi <kfatehi@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: RE: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project You don't often get email from atrodriguez@santa-clarita.com. Learn why this is important [CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution. Hi Kimia, I hope all is well. Following up on my last email regarding the City's Haskell Canyon Bike Park project. I am trying to finalize the CEQA survey and want to ensure that we finalize any necessary conversations with the tribe before finalizing. Thank you, Amber Rodriguez Management Analyst (661)284-1414 From: Amber T. Rodriguez Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 2:09 PM To:'kfatehi@tataviam-nsn.us' <kfatehi@tataviam-nsn.us> Subject: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Hi Kimia, I hope you're doing well. My name is Amber Rodriguez, and I work for the City of Santa Clarita. I recently took over as the project manager for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project, previously known as Blue Cloud Bike Park. I'd like to follow up on where the previous project manager left off with your team. I initially reached out to Sarah Brunzell, but my emails were returned as undeliverable. Is there someone new in her role that I can connect with? Thank you, Amber Rodriguez Management Analyst (661)284-1414 HASKELL CANYON/BLUE-CLOUD BIKE PARK XVIII., TRIBAL CULTURE RESOURCES/TRIBAL CONSULTATION - MITIGATION MEASURES Tribal Consultation concluded on 04/18/2025 with the City and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians agreeing to the following mitigation measures. TCR-1 Document Release Any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. TCR-2 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan In the event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP will provide details regarding the process for in -field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non -funerary resources. TCR-3 Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor The project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity during the initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of which it will be disturbed). If Cultural Resources are not encountered after observing the initial pass of all ground -disturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If Cultural Resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, project archaeologist, and the City to insure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the project applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days' notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. TCR-4 In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery If 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 retained by the project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the Projects outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) shall be contacted about any pre -contact and/or post -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. TCR-5 Human Remains In the inadvertent discovery of human remains or funerary objects 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 shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Lead Agency: Prepared by: City of Santa Clarito 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa CI ari ta, CA 91355 (661) 284-1414 Contact: Amber Rodriguez INTERNATIONAL 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 Office: (562) 200-7165 JUNE 2025 City of SANTA CLARITA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project) has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which require all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision -making body or authorized staff person. This MMRP provides a framework to document implementation of the required mitigation measures, identifies monitoring/reporting responsibility for each mitigation measure, and provides a record of the monitoring/reporting to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that are required to minimize impacts associated with the Project. The mitigation measures identified in the table below were incorporated into the approval for this Project in order to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. A signature and compliance date for each mitigation measure indicates that the measure has been implemented and fulfills the City of Santa Clarita's monitoring requirements with respect to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures are numbered as presented in the IS/MND for the Project. Any modifications to the terms and/or timing of the mitigation measures in this MMRP shall provide a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than the approved mitigation measure. The City of Santa Clarita Department of Neighborhood Services, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or city departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed modifications and, if necessary, may refer said determination to the City Council. No changes to the MMRP shall be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as determined by the City of Santa Clarita, the lead agency for the Project. City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of SANTA CLARITA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Signature/Date of Compliance Biological Resources MM 1310-1 Prior to the construction of the proposed Project, a Prior to City of Santa City of Santa preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified construction Clarita, Clarita, botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure Department of Department of no special -status plant species are present or will be Neighborhood Neighborhood impacted within the proposed impact areas. If no special- Services Services and, if status plant species are found during the preconstruction needed, survey, no further mitigation is required and there will be no CDFW and/or impact to special -status plant species. USFWS If populations of special -status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, avoidance and minimization measures shall be explored to protect the special -status plant population(s). If avoidance is not possible, consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF" will be required prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands to be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity would be required to compensate for the loss of habitat occupied by any non -listed special -status plant species found onsite. In the unlikely event a State or federally -listed plant species is present and avoidance is not feasible, consultation with CDFW and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be required prior to initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. City of Santa Clarita June 2025 Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Responsible Monitoring Signature/Date Party Agency or of Compliance Mitigation Measures Timing Party MM B10-2 Prior to the start of construction, every individual working on Prior to City of Santa City of Santa the Project must attend a Worker's Environmental Awareness construction Clarita, Clarita, Program training session delivered by the project biologist. Department of Department of The biological awareness training shall include a description of Neighborhood Neighborhood special -status species and sensitive habitats, species Services Services identification characteristics, best management practices to be implemented, project -specific avoidance measures that must be followed, and the steps necessary if special -status species are encountered at any time. MM B10-3 A qualified biological monitor shall be present during During City of Santa City of Santa vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities to vegetation Clarita, Clarita, conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special- clearing and Department of Department of status reptile species. If any wildlife species are found, the ground Neighborhood Neighborhood project biologist shall relocate the animal(s) to appropriate disturbance Services Services habitat off -site. Daily monitoring logs will be prepared to activities document work activities and any relocations that were conducted. MM B10-4 All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are During City of Santa City of Santa stored in the Project area during construction for one or more construction Clarita, Clarita, overnight periods shall be either securely capped prior to Department of Department of storage or thoroughly inspected by the contractor and/or the Neighborhood Neighborhood biological monitor for special -status wildlife species or other Services Services animals before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. MM B10-5 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of special -status wildlife During City of Santa City of Santa species or other animals during construction, the project construction Clarita, Clarita, biologist and/or construction foreman/manager shall ensure Department of Department of all excavated, steep -walled holes or trenches more than 6 Neighborhood Neighborhood inches deep are provided with one or more escape ramps Services Services constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals by the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager. City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Signature/Date of Compliance MM B10-6 If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird Prior to City of Santa City of Santa nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction construction Clarita, Clarita, nesting bird survey shall be conducted within one week prior during the Department of Department of to vegetation removal. migratory bird Neighborhood Neighborhood A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be nesting Services Services and, if established around any active nest of migratory birds and a season needed, minimum 500-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established (February 15 CDFW and/or around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species to August 31) USFWS Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the project site to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. MM B10-7 Temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features Prior to City of Santa City of Santa resulting from the proposed Project shall require a Water construction Clarita, Clarita, Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality Department of Department of Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the California Porter- Neighborhood Neighborhood Cologne Water Quality Control Act prior to impacts occurring Services Services and, if within jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for needed, impacts would be determined during the formal notification RWQCB process and must be approved by RWQCB prior to work and/or CDFW occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in - lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Responsible Monitoring Signature/Date Party Agency or of Compliance Mitigation Measures Timing Party of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from the CDFW shall be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in - lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. MM 1310-8 Project materials shall not be cast from the Project Site into During City of Santa City of Santa nearby habitats; further, project -related debris, surplus construction Clarita, Clarita, spoils, and trash shall be contained and removed to a proper Department of Department of disposal facility. Neighborhood Neighborhood Services Services MM 1310-9 All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the During City of Santa City of Santa Project Site footprint and inspected by the project biologist to construction Clarita, Clarita, confirm it is free of non-native plant material in order to Department of Department of minimize the importation of such material into the Project Site. Neighborhood Neighborhood All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post- Services Services construction landscaping activities and erosion control best management practices shall be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program shall be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post -construction. City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Signature/Date of Compliance Cultural Resources MM CUL- Archaeological monitoring shall occur in the area of potential During City of Santa City of Santa 1 effect during all soil -disturbing and grubbing/grading/excavation/ ground- Clarita, Clarita, trenching activities, which could impact archaeological disturbance Department of Department of resources. The monitor will observe construction activities to activities Neighborhood Neighborhood determine if cultural resources are present below the surface. Services Services The Principal Investigator (PI) will submit a request to the City during construction, requesting a modification to the monitoring program when field conditions occur that could reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. Such field conditions may include modern disturbance post- dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered. Ground -disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, geotechnical boring, trenching, grading, excavating, and the demolition of building foundations. Monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological monitor who is working under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738). The archaeological monitor shall observe ground -disturbing activities in all areas with the potential to contain significant cultural deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain and submit monitoring logs at the conclusion of monitoring. If discoveries are made during ground -disturbing activities, additional work may be required in accordance with the terms specified in the cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground - disturbing activities on the site, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the City that documents monitoring activities conducted by the Project archaeologist within 60 days of completion of monitoring. This report shall document the daily archaeological monitoring results; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Responsible Monitoring Signature/Date Party Agency or of Compliance Mitigation Measures Timing Party cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the qualified archaeologist. Final monitoring reports will be submitted to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center. Any unanticipated archaeological finds and subsequent evaluation or data recovery efforts will be documented in the report. MM CUL- In the event an archaeological resource is unearthed during During City of Santa City of Santa 2 excavation, all excavations shall be halted within 50 feet of the construction, if Clarita, Clarita, find. Work shall stop immediately, and the discovery shall be archaeological Department of Department of evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary resources are Neighborhood Neighborhood of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for discovered Services Services archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738), pursuant to the procedures set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. As the lead agency, the City shall make a determination of significance on the basis of the recommendations of the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined not to be significant, then resource -specific work shall be completed, and construction may proceed. If the resource is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, then a resource -specific archaeological resources treatment plan shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 prior to recommencing ground -disturbing activities that may impact the resource. MM CUL- Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred During City of Santa City of Santa 3 treatment for historical resources, but avoidance is not always construction if Clarita, Clarita, feasible. In the event that a historical resource is discovered cultural Department of Department of and disturbance to such a resource cannot be avoided, one of resources are Neighborhood Neighborhood the following treatments shall be implemented: avoidance, site discovered Services Services City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Signature/Date of Compliance capping, creation of conservation easements, or archaeological data recovery. If avoidance, site capping, or creation of a conservation easement is determined infeasible, then a Phase III data recovery excavation will be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 106 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.13, to document the resource's scientifically consequential information. The Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the consulting tribe(s) if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The Phase III study shall consist of the recovery and analysis of a statistically significant sample of the site through archaeological excavation, radiocarbon dating of organic materials or other kinds of dating, cataloging, specialist analysis, and report writing designed to document the resource in perpetuity. During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the qualified archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the area of potential effect for cataloging and analysis will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The landownershall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non- human remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City with evidence of final disposition of the cultural material collection: • Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting tribe(s). This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible Party Monitoring Agency or Party Signature/Date of Compliance occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed. • A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in Los Angeles County that meets federal standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 79, and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in Los Angeles County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. • If more than one Native American tribe is involved with the Project and the tribes cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at an appropriate qualified repository determined by the City. MM CUL- If human skeletal remains are found during earth -moving During ground City of Santa City of Santa 4 activities, work shall be suspended and the Los Angeles disturbance Clarita, Clarita, County Coroner's Office shall be notified. Standard activities if Department of Department of guidelines set by California law provide for the treatment of human Neighborhood Neighborhood skeletal material of Native American origin (California Public remains are Services Services Resources Code, Sections 5097.98 et seq.; Health and found Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the remains are found to be archaeological in their disposition, then after the coroner releases the site, the qualified professional archaeologist, in consultation with the most likely descendant, shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 that also incorporates the guidance in "A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated Grave Goods," published by the California Native American Heritage Commission. City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Responsible Monitoring Signature/Date Party Agency or of Compliance Mitigation Measures Timing Party Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ- Prior to commencement of construction activities, a Prior to City of Santa City of Santa 1 Construction Fire Prevention Plan shall be prepared for the construction Clarita, Clarita, Project to specify the construction phase restrictions and fire Department of Department of safety requirements that would be implemented to reduce Neighborhood Neighborhood risk of ignitions and pre -plans for responding to an unlikely Services Services and, if ignition. Prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials needed, onto the Project Site, improvements within the active LACoFD development area shall be in place, including an approved, temporary roadway surface and fuel modification zones established. These improvements shall also be included in the Construction Fire Prevention Plan, which shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) for review and approval. MM HAZ- Three (3) days prior to a scheduled event at the Project Site Three (3) City of Santa City of Santa 2 with more than 50 visitors (including riders, spectators, staff, days prior to a Clarita, Clarita, and volunteers), the City will coordinate LACoFD to scheduled Department of Department of determine the fire danger. If there is a red flag warning issued event at the Neighborhood Neighborhood for the Project area within 24 hours of a scheduled event, the Project Site Services Services and, if event shall be cancelled in accordance with Santa Clarita with more needed, Municipal Code Section 14.06.230, Emergency or than 50 LACoFD Temporary Closure of Parks, Public Places, Trails, and visitors Recreational Areas, which states that, in an emergency or when the City Manager determines that the public interest, public health, public morals, maintenance purposes, or public safety demands such action, any park, public place, grounds, trails, or recreation facility, or any part or portion thereof, may be closed to the public, and all persons may be excluded therefrom until such emergency or other reason upon which such determination of the City Manager is based has ceased, at which time the park, public place, grounds, trails, or recreation facility, or part or portion thereof so closed shall be reopened to the public by the City Manager. City of Brea June 2025 DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Responsible Monitoring Signature/Date Party Agency or of Compliance Mitigation Measures Timing Party Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR- Document Release: Any and all archaeological documents Prior to City of Santa City of Santa 1 created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, construction Clarita, Clarita, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall Department of Department of be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Neighborhood Neighborhood Indians. Services Services MM TCR- Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan: In the During ground City of Santa City of Santa 2 event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, disturbance Clarita, Clarita, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the activities Department of Department of Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be Neighborhood Neighborhood important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Services Services and, if Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the needed, Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP Fernandeno will provide details regarding the process for in -field treatment Tataviam Band of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently of Mission discovered non -funerary resources. Indians MM TCR- Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor: The Project During ground City of Santa City of Santa 3 applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by disturbance Clarita, Clarita, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe activities Department of Department of all ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, Neighborhood Neighborhood clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, Services Services and, if plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, needed, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity during the Fernandeno initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of Tataviam Band which it will be disturbed). If cultural resources are not of Mission encountered after observing the initial pass of all ground- Indians disturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If cultural resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, Project archaeologist, and the City to ensure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the Project City of Brea June 2025 DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Responsible Monitoring Signature/Date Party Agency or of Compliance Mitigation Measures Timing Party applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by Project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground - disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the Project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. MM TCR- In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery: If cultural During City of Santa City of Santa 4 resources are discovered during project activities, all work in construction if Clarita, Clarita, the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cultural Department of Department of cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of resources are Neighborhood Neighborhood Interior standards retained by the Project applicant shall discovered Services Services and, if assess the find. Work on the portions of the Project outside of needed, the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Fernandeno The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be Tataviam Band contacted about any pre -contact and/or post -contact finds and of Mission be provided information after the archaeologist makes their Indians initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. MM TCR- Human Remains: In the inadvertent discovery of human During City of Santa City of Santa 5 remains or funerary objects during any activities associated construction if Clarita, Clarita, with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100- human Department of Department of foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner remains are Neighborhood Neighborhood shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code found Services Services §7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. City of Brea June 2025 DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA After publication of the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in May 2025, these parties submitted comments within the comment period ("Agency Comments"): California Department of Fish and Wildlife Agency 6/12/25 County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Agency 6/12/25 Ventura County Public Works Department Agency 5/20/25 A preliminary review of the Agency Comments suggest that none identify the need for recirculation of the IS/MND. Implementation of mitigation measures to address the comments is sufficient and may be implemented to ensure that— with mitigation — the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment. In the interest of fully informing the City Council regarding the Agency Comments, the Neighborhood Services Department chose to provide preliminary responses and additional mitigation measures (to be included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program or "MMRP") as part of this Errata. Attached, and incorporated by this reference, are the additional mitigation measures for the MMRP. Below are staff's responses to comments, corrections to errors and omissions and supplemental testimony. This document is being filed to meet the City Council meeting schedule to consider this matter on June 24, 2025. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT JUNE 12, 2025 COMMENTS: COM-1: The project is expected to have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station, despite a potential minor increase in emergency response needs. COM-2: The project will increase the population in the area, leading to a higher demand for law enforcement services due to its remote location. COM-3: The Station is currently understaffed, and there may be challenges in providing additional law enforcement services as required by the project. COM-4: The project includes a parking lot for 40 vehicles, but there is potential for up to 100 vehicles, which could lead to emergency access issues. COM-5: Roads leading to the project site should have a minimum clearance of 26 feet to accommodate emergency vehicles. A Construction Traffic Management Plan is recommended to address traffic congestion and ensure emergency access during construction. STAFF RESPONSE : COM-1 to COM-3 are noted. The City of Santa Clarita contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement needs. Staffing, response times, and equipment requirements are governed through that agreement and are found to meet the needs for this Project. COM-4 and COM-5 are addressed in Section IX of the IS/MND (pp.62. to 64). No additional response is required. VENTURA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAY 20, 2025 COMMENTS: COM-6: The project is located about 50,000 feet from the Santa Clara River, a jurisdictional redline channel, and does not propose new stormwater drainage connections to this channel. COM-7: The increase in impervious area due to the project will require mitigation to ensure runoff is released at no greater than the existing flow rate, preventing adverse downstream impacts. COM-8: The project design, with imposed conditions, mitigates impacts to flood control facilities and watercourses, resulting in a less than significant environmental impact. STAFF RESPONSE : COM-6 to COM-7 are received. COM-8 is received, appreciated, and noted. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE JUNE 12, 2025 COMMENTS: COM-9: CDFW recommends specific mitigation measures, including public education, trash management, activity restrictions, and compensatory mitigation to offset habitat loss. COM-10: For mountain lions, CDFW suggests evaluating habitat use, obtaining incidental take permits, and setting aside replacement habitat. COM-11: For Crotch's bumble bee, CDFW advises conducting focused surveys and obtaining take authorization if detected. COM-12: For coastal California gnatcatcher, CDFW recommends pre -construction surveys and consultation with the USFWS. COM-13: CDFW also suggests revising the MND to include discussions on impacts to rare plants and bats, and to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures. STAFF RESPONSE: Generally, staff notes that the IS/MND addresses most of the matters raised by COM-9 to COM-13. The biological resources technical report (BRTR) prepared for the project (and referenced in CDFW's comments) inventoried the plant and animal life observed on the project site. No known sensitive plant or animal species were identified during the site surveys. Responding to COM-10, the BRTR did not detect any mountain lions on the project site. Mitigation Measure BI0-1 requires that preconstruction surveys be conducted to ensure no mountain lions will be impacted during construction. This comment states that the Project may impact mountain lions through vegetation removal, grading activities, and construction activities, and through exposing lions to human presence. As noted in COM-10, BRTR Section 5.2.5 states "[a] number of other species are expected to be resident within the region and may use the project site to forage or for cover, including mountain lion (Puma concolor)." COM-10 also states that "it is predicted that the Project area provides medium to high habitat suitability for mountain lion." While mountain lion is known to exist in the area due to the species' extensive range, and chaparral habitat occurring on -site provides potentially suitable habitat for mountain lion, this species is only expected to occur as a transient through the Project site. The species is most abundant in riparian vegetation, which is absent from the Project site, and prefer habitat with tree/brush edges. Trees are also generally absent from the Project site, further reducing the Project site's suitability to support mountain lion. Moreover, mountain lions are not expected to occur within the Project site during breeding or have a natal den within the Project site as caves and other natural cavities suitable for denning were not observed within the Project site. Further, denning mountain lions have been known to avoid roads and human disturbances, both of which are present within and around the Project site under existing conditions. Regarding vegetation removal, approximately 35.38 acres of permanent impacts associated with installation of the trail system and amenities would occur across the 380-acre Project site, often coinciding with areas that have previously experienced some form of human disturbance. As a result, a substantial portion of the Project site would remain undisturbed, further reducing the potential for impacts to mountain lions and on -site habitats. Vast undisturbed areas occur north of the Project site in the Angeles National Forest, where more suitable habitat for mountain lion, including cavities for denning and a mix of tree and scrub habitats, are present. Thus, while mountain lions are expected to pass through the Project site, adverse impacts to mountain lions are not expected. The City also has approximately 13,000 acres of open space, further reducing the potential for the Project to significantly decrease the availability of suitable habitat for mountain lions within the City. Regarding construction activities and increased human presence during construction and operation, any transient mountain lion that may occur would be expected during nighttime, when the proposed bike park would be closed, reducing the potential for human disturbances to the species. Additionally, construction activities would not occur during nighttime. Thus, construction noise and nighttime lighting have no potential to impact the species. Moreover, while the Project site is primarily vacant and undeveloped, there are existing formal and informal trails throughout the site and the Project site is regularly used for off -road recreational activities. The existing conditions of the Project site already include anthropogenic disturbances related to recreational use of the site. The Project site also contains several LADWP transmission towers and the ruins of a mining site which was only closed in 2016. Although the Project would increase human presence within the Project site, the more intensive recreational activities would be concentrated within the two proposed programming areas. Vehicle access to the Project site would be limited to the parking areas for the Haskell Core and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Accordingly, the 380-acre Project site would remain predominantly undisturbed with implementation of the Project. Based on the above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to mountain lions and no mitigation measures are warranted. Responding to COM-11, site surveys did not detect any Crotch's bumble bees on the project site. Further, no Crotch's bumble bees have been known to occur on property within three miles of the project site. As discussed above, however, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 already requires preconstruction surveys to ensure no Crotch's bumblebees are impacted during construction. Responding to COM-12, known habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher exists in the southern portions of City of Santa Clarita. There is no known habitat, however, inside the Project site or in its proximity. Additionally, no coastal California gnatcatchers were identified on the project site during site surveys. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will ensure no coastal California gnatcatchers will be impacted during construction. ATTACHMENT A: ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party Mitigation Measure #1: Public Education — The City will install appropriate public information signage at trailheads and/or along trails During Project City to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; Construction 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human -wildlife and Ongoing conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife (e.g., dogs on leash, proper waste disposal); and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife. Signs cannot be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass. Mitigation Measure #2: Trash — Trash receptacles will be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may During Project City attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas. Construction and Ongoing Mitigation Measure #3: Activity Restriction — The City must regulate activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or restricting During Project City use of trails near breeding habitat, to aid in minimizing disturbance to Construction environmental surroundings. Pets must always be kept on leash and and Ongoing on trails. Hikers must clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste. Mitigation Measure #4: Rodenticides -The City will prohibit use of an rodenticides and second -generation anticoagulant rodenticides within Ongoing City the Project area. Mitigation Measure #5: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 - Before the Before Project City construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey must Initiation be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special -status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. Methods during the survey must adhere to guidance provided in CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Findings from the surveys must be provided to CDFW before ground disturbing activities. If no special -status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required. If populations of special -status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, the City must coordinate with CDFW before project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for impacts on thesespecies. Such mitigation must be reflected in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands to be protected under a conservation easement in perpetuity. The HMMP must outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP must provide measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP must include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. If a State or federally -listed plant species is present, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS is required before initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure # 6 - Nesting Bird. If vegetation removal is Before Project City required during the bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a Initiation preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted not more than three days before vegetation removal. Surveys must encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer must be established around any active nest of birds and a minimum 500-foot no - disturbance buffer must be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer may be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor must immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer may not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS must be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist must monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the Project area to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. Recommendation #7: Landscaping. CDFW recommends the MND Before Project Lead provide the Project's landscaping plant palette and replacement tree Initiation/Duri Agency/City species list. CDFW recommends the City use only native species ng Project ound in naturally occurring vegetation communities within or adjacent Construction o the Project area. The City should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce non-native, invasive plant species to areas that are adjacent o and/or near native habitat areas. Accordingly, CDFW recommends he City restrict use of any species, particularly `moderate' or `high' listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2024). These species are documented to have substantial and severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 o State of California — Natural Resources Agency GAVINNEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTONH. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region , 3883 Ruffin Road ` San Diego, CA 92123 wildlife.ca.gov June 12, 2025 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 atrodriguez(a)santaclarita.gov SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT, SCH NO. 2025050436, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA Dear Amber Rodriguez: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Santa Clarita (City) for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines'. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW ROLE CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish & G. Code, § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. Conseming Caffornia's Wifdffe Since 1870 Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 2 of 30 regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take" as defined by State law2 of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) or the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: City of Santa Clarita Objective: The objective of the Project is to develop a bike park that consists of 15 miles of trails and two activity/programming areas, Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead. Bike trails within the Blue Cloud Trailhead area would consist of climbing trails, downhill trails, and multi -use trails. The Haskell Core area would include an event plaza with picnic tables, multi -level pump tracks, a dual slalom course, jumplines, and space for four food trucks. The programming areas would consist of a parking lot, recreational areas, and visitor amenities. Two cargo containers would be placed on site to be used as storage sheds. Additionally, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Project area. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. Vehicular access will primarily be provided from Petting Canyon Road with Blue Cloud Road providing access to the eastern portion of the site. Primary Project activities include grading, construction, and vegetation removal. Location: The Project area is located partially in the City of Santa Clarita and partially in unincorporated Los Angeles County on approximately 380 acres. The Project area is comprised of nine parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2813-010-273, through - 276, 2813-010-900 through -902, 2813-025-270, and 3244-031-901). The Project area is bound by the Angeles National Forest to the north; Haskell Open Space and residential uses to the south; open space, Cesar Milan's Dog Psychology Center, and the Blue Cloud Movie Ranch to the east; and open space and a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) transmission corridor to the west. The entire Project area is owned by the City. Timeframe: The Project is anticipated to begin July 2025 and be completed in December 2025. Biological Setting: The 380-acre Project area is currently vacant and undeveloped with existing dirt trails, transmission towers, and dirt access paths. Vegetation within the Project area include black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chapparal, and non-native grassland. General biological surveys of the Project area was conducted on February 13 and 14, 2024, and findings were compiled in a Biological Resources Technical 2 "Take" is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 3 of 30 Report (BRTR). No special -status plants were identified during the general surveys. The Project area has a moderate to high potential to support slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 B.2) and short - joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris; CRPR 1 B.2). Approximately 11 water features were identified throughout the Project area. Several water features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. Additionally, the special -status wildlife species that have the potential to occur on site and may be impacted by the Project include, but are not limited to: mountain lion (Puma concolor, CESA candidate), Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; California Species of Special Concern (SSC)), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum; SSC), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; SSC) Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CESA candidate), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; Endangered Species Act (ESA) threatened and SSC). The MND provides mitigation measures specific to rare plants, nesting birds, an on -site biological monitor, wildlife escape ramps, and notification to CDFW for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA). COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. COMMENT # 1: Human Presence Issue: The Project may increase human and wildlife interactions through the addition of new trails and recreational facilities. Specific impact: Direct impacts in the form of habitat loss and degradation could occur as a result of new trails and recreational facilities as well as any off -trail use from visitors. Impacts to wildlife could result in mortality or injury, increased human disturbance in habitat supporting wildlife, reproductive suppression during breeding seasons, or population decline of special -status species. Indirect effects to biological resources, such as noise, trash, predation of and by domestic pets, also occur when trail systems run through natural open spaces. Why impact would occur: The Project area is approximately 383 acres, with an estimated 20 acres being impacted. The MND states that approximately 15 miles of new trails of widths between 4 to 6 feet wide will be developed. In addition, the Project proposes the construction of two programming areas that include shade structures, spectator areas, benches, and designated areas for parking and food trucks. The MND also states that approximately 20 weekday and 6 weekend events would occur on the Project area every year. These events would result in an estimated 40 visitors and 20 vehicles for weekday events and 250 visitors and 100 vehicles for weekend events. Event days include the operation of food trucks, associated generators, and music. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 4 of 30 Furthermore, the MND proposes daily maintenance of trails by compaction through the use of hand tools. This would significantly increase human presence over current levels. Having a high volume of recreational use within the trail system will increase human and wildlife interaction. It will precipitate increased noise levels in sensitive areas, increased trash or pet waste, and introduction of unnatural food sources via trash and trash receptacles. Outdoor recreation may also cause distress on individual wildlife, resulting in energetic costs to the animal and decline in the animals' behavior and fitness. Studies have shown that outdoor recreation is the second leading cause of the decline of federally threatened and endangered species on public lands (Losos et al. 1995) and fourth leading cause on all lands (Czech et al. 2000). Overall, recreational trails would lead to an increase in human -wildlife interactions that may result in harm to wildlife and/or humans. The MND only discusses impacts with regards to the implementation and construction of the Project. The mitigation measures in the MND therefore address only those impacts. Discussion of impacts from the operation and continued maintenance of the Project as well as the long-term effects from the Project is not provided, and measures to mitigate for those impacts are not proposed in the MND. Species may be indirectly impacted by the trails that is in excess of the 20 acres identified in the MND. The buildout of the proposed Project may not provide an effective buffer to neutralize edge effects as the undisturbed open space would restrict wildlife movement and may result in an increase in human disturbance. Habitat in adjacent areas could be impacted as a result of edge effects such as introducing new sources of night lighting, pets, and domestic animals, as well as spreading invasive, non-native plants as a result of increased human presence. Evidence impact may be significant: The Project area supports a variety of special - status species. Impacts to special -status species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Impacts on the special -status wildlife may require a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community and/or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, §15065) Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to special status plant or wildlife species will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Impacts on the special -status wildlife may require a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community and/or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, §15065) Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 5 of 30 Recommendation #1: Buffer Determination — The City should identify an appropriate buffer from the trail that would continue to be indirectly affected by the Project (due to edge effects, spreading of invasive species, introduction of light, encroachment, etc.). This buffer of impacts should be justified using technical details such as data, maps, diagrams, and similar relevant information and disclosed in the final CEQA document. Mitigation Measure #1: Public Education — The Project proponent shall install appropriate public information signage at trailheads and/or along trails to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human -wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife (e.g., dogs on leash, proper waste disposal); and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife. Signage shall be written in language(s) understandable to all those likely to recreate and use the trails. Signs shall not be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass. Mitigation Measure #2: Trash — Trash receptacles shall be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas. Mitigation Measure #3: Activity Restriction — The Project proponent shall place restrictions on types of activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or restricting use of trails near breeding habitat, to aid in minimizing disturbance. Pets shall always be kept on leash and on trails. Hikers shall be encouraged to clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste as it tends to lead to wildlife avoidance. Mitigation Measure #4: Compensatory Mitigation — Based on the new impacts identified and disclosed in Recommendation #1, the City shall provide commensurate compensatory mitigation to offset the temporal and permanent loss of habitat. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio appropriate to maintain no net loss of habitat values, acreage, and function (See Mitigation Measure #7). COMMENT # 2: Mountain Lion Issue: The Project may impact mountain lion. Specific impact: The proposed Project may impact mountain lion through vegetation removal and grading activities within the Project area. The Project may also impact mountain lion by increasing prey availability in and adjacent to the development and expose lions to human presence. Indirect impacts to lions could also occur with associated construction noise. Why impact would occur: The BRTR states that "A number of other species are expected to be resident within the region and may use the Project area to forage or for cover, including mountain lion" (p 26). Additionally, it is predicted that the Project area provides medium to high habitat suitability for mountain lion (CDFW 2025c)3. The MND 3 https:Hdata.ca.gov/dataset/mountain-lion-range-cwhr-ml65-ds793 Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 6 of 30 does not acknowledge potential presence of mountain lion and fails to discuss potential direct or indirect impacts the Project may have on mountain lion. The Project as proposed would also reduce the habitat available for mountain lion in the Project vicinity. The Project would permanently impact approximately 20 acres of available habitat. Conserving and restoring habitat is essential for mitigating impacts to mountain lions. This is especially critical in the face of climate change -driven habitat loss and increased frequency of fires (CBD 2019). Under a high emissions and warm and wet climate scenario, much of the chaparral habitat in southern California that provide habitat for mountain lions would be climactically highly stressed by the year 2070 (Thorne et al. 2016). Lastly, the MND does not address the anthropogenic impacts the Project will have on mountain lion individuals that may be within the Project site or its vicinity. The Project may increase human presence (e.g., new development, public trail access), traffic, and noise as well as potential artificial lighting during Project construction and over the life of the Project. Most factors affecting the ability of the southern California mountain lion populations to survive and reproduce are caused by humans (CBD 2019). As California has continued to grow in human population and communities expand into wildland areas, there has been a commensurate increase in direct and indirect interaction between mountain lions and people (CDFW 2017b). As a result, the need to relocate or humanely euthanize mountain lions (depredation kills) may increase for public safety. Mountain lions are exceptionally vulnerable to human disturbance (Lucas 2020). Areas of high human activity have lower occupancy of rare carnivores. Mountain lions tend to avoid roads and trials by the mere presence of those features, regardless of how much they are used (Lucas 2020)N. Increased traffic could cause vehicle strikes. As human population density increases, the probability of persistence of mountain lions decreases (Woodroffe 2000). Evidence impact would be significant: Mountain lion is a specially protected mammal in the State (Fish and G. Code, § 4800). In addition, on April 21, 2020, the California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list an evolutionarily significant unit of mountain lion in southern and central coastal California as threatened under CESA (CBD 2019). As a CESA candidate species, the mountain lion in southern California is granted the full protection of a threatened species under CESA. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). As to CEQA, the status of mountain lion as a threatened species under CESA qualifies it as an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §15380). No mitigation has been proposed for impacts on mountain lion from the Project from the standpoint of habitat loss and encroachment, as well as anthropogenic impacts discussed above. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 7 of 30 Recommendation #2: Mountain Lion Discussion - CDFW recommends the City evaluate the mountain lion territory size and use of habitat within and surrounding the Project vicinity. The City should analyze the effects of increased human presence and area of anthropogenic influence that will now be in on mountain lion habitat, and how it may impact mountain lion behavior, reproductive viability, and overall survival success. Based on these known anthropogenic impacts on mountain lions, CDFW also recommends the City provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to mountain lion. The MND should justify how the proposed compensatory mitigation would reduce the impacts of the Project to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City recirculate the MND for more meaningful public review and assessment of the City's analysis and subsequent mitigation for mountain lion. Additionally, the City should recirculate the MND if the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures must be required [CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5(a)(1)]. Mitigation Measure #5: Incidental Take Permit - If take or adverse impacts to mountain lion cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq.). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization prior to the issuance of a grading permit and before any ground disturbance and vegetation removal. Mitigation Measure #6: Rodenticides -The Project proponent shall prohibit use of any rodenticides and second -generation anticoagulant rodenticides within the Project area in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure #7: Compensatory Mitigation - The Project proponent shall set aside replacement habitat to have a no net loss for wildlife movement. The replacement habitat be located as near to the Project site as possible. There shall be no net loss of suitable habitat for mountain lions. The City shall consult and collaborate with CDFW to conserve areas beneficial to the southern California mountain lion population that may improve chances of survival and reproduction of mountain lions in the face of climate change. The mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012). Assembly Bill 1094 amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. An appropriate non -wasting endowment shall be provided for the long-term management of mitigation lands. A conservation easement and endowment funds shall be fully acquired, established, transferred, or otherwise executed prior to implementing Project -related ground -disturbing activities. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 8 of 30 Mitigation Measure #8: Focused Surveys - Due to habitat in the Project vicinity, withir one year prior to Project implementation that includes site preparation, equipment staging, and mobilization, a CDFW-approved biologist knowledgeable of mountain lion species ecology shall survey areas that may provide habitat for mountain lion to determine presence/absence, territory size, and potential for natal dens within a half mile of the Project site. Caves and other natural cavities, and thickets in brush and timber provide cover and are used for denning. Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably occur in spring. Surveys shall be conducted when the species is most likely to be detected, during crepuscular periods at dawn and dusk (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. The survey report shall include a map of potential denning sites. The survey report shall include measures to avoid impacts mountain lions that may be in the area as well as dens and cubs, if necessary. Mitigation Measure #9: Natal Dens - If potential habitat for natal dens is identified, the Project proponent shall avoid potential impacts to mountain lions, especially during spring, to protect vulnerable cubs. Two weeks prior to Project implementation, and once a week during construction activities, a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a survey for mountain lion natal dens. The survey area shall include the construction footprint and the area within 2,000 feet (or the limits of the property line) of the Project disturbance boundaries. CDFW shall be notified within 24 hours upon location of a natal den. If an active natal den is located, during construction activities, all work shall cease. No work shall occur within a 2,000-foot buffer from a natal den. A qualified biologist shall notify CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action. CDFW shall also be consulted to determine an appropriate setback from the natal den that would not adversely affect the successful rearing of the cubs. No construction activities or human intrusion shall occur within the established setback until mountain lion cubs have been successfully reared; the mountain lions have left the area; or as determined in consultation with CDFW. COMMENT # 3: Impacts on Crotch's Bumble Bee Issue: The MND does not discuss the Project impacts on Crotch's bumble bee Specific impact: The Project includes vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities which could result in direct mortality of Crotch's bumble bee or loss of foraging opportunities or loss of suitable ground burrows. Additionally, the Project may cause burrow collapse, nest abandonment, and reduced nest success. Why impact would occur: According to CDFW's Crotch's Bumble Bee Range — CDFW [ds3095]4 dataset, the Project area lies within the current home range for Crotch's bumble bee (CDFW 2025b). Additionally, various vegetation communities (i.e., open grassland, desert scrub) throughout the Project area provide suitable habitat for nesting 4 https://data.ca.gov/dataset/crotchs-bumble-bee-range-cdfvv-ds30951 Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 9 of 30 and foraging. Crotch's bumble bee are generalists and known to utilize a variety of sources for nesting and overwintering opportunities. Crotch's bumble bee primarily uses abandoned small mammal burrows to nest, but this species may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, under brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2018). Overwintering sites utilized by Crotch's bumble bee mated queens include soft, disturbed soil (Coulson 2010), or under leaf litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014). Given that the Project area is in the current range and has suitable habitat, there is potential for this CESA candidate species to be detected on site. The MND notes a potential for Crotch's bumble bee to occur within the Project area. However, it does not discuss the Project's impact on individual Crotch's bumble bee and supporting habitat. Moreover, no surveys on Crotch's bumble bee were provided in any biological reports for this Project. If the Project proceeds without appropriate focused surveys, the Project may result in mortality and/or injury of undetected individual Crotch's bumble bee that may be present during Project activities. Ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with Project implementation during the breeding season could also result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment in areas adjacent to the Project area. Habitat loss, as a result of the proposed Project, may further reduce suitable habitat for this species in the broader landscape, as development increases throughout the City. Evidence impact would be significant: The California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list the Crotch's bumble bee as endangered under CESA, determining the listing "may be warranted" and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. The Project may substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat as well as reduce and potentially impair the viability of populations of Crotch's bumble bee. The Project may also reduce the number and range of the species without considering the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands may rely upon the habitat that occurs on the proposed Project area. In addition, Crotch's bumble bee has a State Ranking of S1/S2. This means that the Crotch's bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often 5 or fewer populations). Crotch's bumble bee is also listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority5 (CDFW 2017a). Accordingly, Crotch's bumble bee meets the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Therefore, take of Crotch's bumble bee could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 1565). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Recommendation #3: Crotch's Bumble Bee Discussion — The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project's potential direct and indirect impact on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's bumble bee, the 5 https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=157415&inline Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 10 of 30 MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch's bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA ITP can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. Mitigation Measure #10: Crotch's Bumble Bee Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species' (CDFW 2023). Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project area and during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure #11: Incidental Take Permit - If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. COMMENT # 4: Impacts on Coastal California Gnatcatcher Issue: The Project may potentially impact coastal California gnatcatcher (gnatcatcher). Specific impact: Project activities of vegetation removal and increased human -wildlife interface may have negative impacts to gnatcatcher. Project activities occurring during the breeding and nesting season could also result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nesting. Why impact would occur: According to the BRTR, gnatcatcher is "Not Expected" to occur within the Project area because "suitable foraging and nesting habitats preferred by this species are not present within the project site" (pg 36). However, CDFW believes that the Project area does include suitable habitat for gnatcatcher due to 3.51 acres of observed sage scrub occurring on site. According to the BRTR and USFWS, typical gnatcatcher habitat is sage scrub, which is characterized by plant species, such as California sagebrush and California buckwheat. Furthermore, multiple observations of gnatcatcher have been reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) within two miles of the Project area (CDFW 2025a). CDFW is concerned that the proposed Project will result in adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on gnatcatcher. 6 https://nrm.dfq.ca.qov/FileHandler. ashx?DocumentlD=213150&inline Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 11 of 30 Therefore, CDFW recommends discussion of gnatcatcher within the revised MND and inclusion of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to this ESA -listed species. Evidence impact would be significant: Coastal California gnatcatcher is considered an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Take under the ESA is more broadly defined than CESA. Take under ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. CEQA provides protection not only for State and federally listed species, but for any species including, but not limited to SSC, which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. SSC's meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC's could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). CDFW considers impacts to CESA-listed and SSC's a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Recommendation #4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Discussion — The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project's potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on gnatcatcher. If the Project may impact gnatcatcher, the MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to gnatcatcher as well as habitat supporting the species. Mitigation Measure #12: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys - If removal of habitat and/or construction activities is necessary during breeding season (approximately February 15 through August 30, with peak of nesting occurring from mid - March through mid -May), the Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre -construction surveys within three days of initiation of Project activities. Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher shall be performed on the Project area and wherever suitable habitat occurs within 500 feet of the Project area. Surveys shall follow proper protocols outlined by USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Protocol' (USFWS 2019). Mitigation Measure #13: USFWS Consultation - If coastal California gnatcatcher are present, the City shall consult with the USFWS to determine if the Project would result in take of coastal California gnatcatcher. In order to comply with the ESA, consultation with the USFWS is advised well in advance of any ground - disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal that may impact coastal California gnatcatcher. https://www.fvvs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-protocol-for-coastal-california-gnatcatcher. pdf Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 12 of 30 COMMENT # 5: Impacts on Rare Plants Issue: Mitigation Measure 131O-1 may not provide sufficient avoidance and minimization to prevent impacts to rare plants. Specific impact: Vegetation clearing, grading, and construction of the Project will result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of rare plants. Project activities may also result in the seedbank being buried, crushed, or trampled on. Mitigation Measure 131O-1 does not provide detail on avoidance and minimization measures, and as such, CDFW is unable to assess the value of these measures. Why impact would occur: According to the BRTR, short -joint beaver tail and slender mariposa lily respectively have a moderate and high potential to occur on the Project area. Additionally, while individuals of this species, and other rare plant species, were not detected, the field survey was conducted in late winter, which is outside of the typical blooming periods for many plant species. Therefore, the potential for rare plant species to exist on the Project area remains. The City has incorporated Mitigation Measure 131O-1, which would require qualified botanists to conduct pre -construction surveys on the Project area during the appropriate blooming period prior to construction of the proposed Project. However, this measure does not outline specific avoidance and minimization measures to be used to protect special -status plant species. Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts on rare flora could be considered a significant effect on the environment. Plants with a CRPR of 1 B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened. Most of the plants that are ranked 1 B have declined significantly over the last century. The additional threat rank of 0.1 indicates a species with over 80 percent of its occurrences threatened in California. The additional threat rank of 0.2 indicates a species with 20 to 80 percent of its occurrences threatened (CNPS 2024). Impacts to CRPR 1 B plant species and their habitat meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Impacts to CRPR 1 B plant species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Insufficient mitigation may result in unmitigated temporal or permanent impacts to a rare plant species. Subsequently, the Project would continue to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #14: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 — CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure 131O-1 by incorporating the underlined language and removing the language with strikethrough: Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 13 of 30 Prior to the construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special -status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. Methods during the survey shall adhere to guidance provided in CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities8 (CDFW 2018). Findings from the surveys shall be provided to the City and CDFW prior to ground disturbing activities If no special - status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required_;;AC_J thP_Fo �.Uill be nn impact tn cnoniol_c�o�i is nlaRt cnonioc If populations of special -status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, the Project proponent shall coordinate ayeidanno and minimiza+inn Measures Shall be eXPIGrod 4n PFGten4 Oho GpeGial_stati is nlaRt pep ilatinn/s\ If ayeidanno is nni nnssihlo nnnsi'ItAtinn with CDFW Will hp rP_q Bred prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for impacts on the less of these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands to be protected under a conservation easement in hold in a restrin+iye dood far perpetuity_ The HMMP shall outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP shall provide measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. and `nine ild be required in nmmPonsaio far mananomoni of Rq itiga+inn land the Tress r,f hahitat Gnni ivied by anY nGn listed menial status nlan4 ?[ on 1 )1'nod nrnrsmo In the , ,nlikel„ eVeRt If a State or federally -listed plant species is present and av eidanno iS Pet feasible, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to initiating any ensite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. COMMENT # 6: Impacts on Bats Issue: The MND does not discuss potential impacts to bat species due to Project activities. Specific impact: Project activities include ground disturbing activities, vegetation removal, use of mechanized equipment, and increased human -wildlife. These activities may have negative impacts to bat species. 8 https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=18959&inline Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 14 of 30 Why impact would occur: The MND states that spotted bat and Townsend's big -eared bat have "low" potential to occur. Additionally, the BRTR states that suitable habitat for pallid bat is present on the Project area. The MND does not discuss the potential of the Project to impact bats nor provide potential mitigation measures. Focused bat surveys have not been conducted within the Project footprint. Due to lack of focused surveys and discussion, impacts to bats could occur through mortality of individuals, disturbance of breeding or roosting activity, abandonment of roosts, and loss of habitat. Evidence impact would be significant: Bats are considered non -game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment (Fish & G. Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1). Additionally, a California Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: 1. if the species is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role; 2. if the species is listed as threatened or endangered under ESA-, but not CESA- threatened, or endangered; 3. if the species meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; 4. if the species is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; and, 5. if naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for CESA - threatened or -endangered status (CDFW 2024e). CEQA provides protection not only for CESA-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC that can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #15: Bat Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified bat specialist to conduct daytime and nighttime bat surveys throughout the Project area (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows). These surveys shall identify potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites, and any maternity roosts. Acoustic recognition technology shall be utilized during day and night surveys to maximize detection of bats. A discussion of survey results, including negative findings, shall be provided to the City and CDFW. If bat species are detected, no Project activities shall commence, and the Project proponent shall develop avoidance and minimization where possible and compensatory mitigation measures when complete avoidance is not possible. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 15 of 30 COMMENT # 7: Impacts on Species of Special Concern - Reptiles Issue: The Mitigation Measure does not provide for compensatory mitigation for special status reptile species. Specific impact: The Project activities of grading, vegetation removal, and construction may result in direct, adverse impacts, such as individual mortality, to special status reptile species and associated habitat. In addition to direct impacts, the Project may also indirectly impact these species such as through behavioral disruption or loss of foraging, nesting, and breeding habitat. Why impact would occur: The MND states that there is a moderate to high potential to support coastal whiptail and coast horned lized within the Project area (pg 30). While Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is provided to avoid and minimize impacts on these species, it does not provide compensatory mitigation for Project impacts on SSC. According to the MND, the Project area is currently vacant and undeveloped. However, the Project intends to increase the amount of existing trails tenfold. In addition, impacts will be permanent as the Project is expected to operate for the foreseeable future. To offset the permanent loss of suitable habitat, compensatory mitigation should be provided. While the MND states that the Project would impact a limited amount of habitat relative to the amount of available habitat, the Project will contribute to cumulative impacts on suitable habitat in conjunction with other projects developed for industrial, commercial, and residential uses without replacement of lost habitat. Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA provides protection not only for State and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC's which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC reptiles meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of the aforementioned reptiles could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, §15065). CDFW considers impacts to CESA-listed and SSC's a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #16: SSC Compensatory Mitigation - For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project area, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC [CEQA Guidelines, § 15370(e)]. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary. If on -site mitigation is not achievable, the Project proponent shall provide off - site mitigation. Location of the off -site mitigation shall be approved by CDFW. Mitigation shall provide appropriate habitat (depending on the species), refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 16 of 30 wildlife species present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to issuance of City permits. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which shall include an appropriate funding to provide for the long- term management of mitigation lands. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Nesting Bird. CDFW recommends that the City revises Mitigation Measure 131O-6 to incorporate the underlined language and omit the language in strikethrough: If vegetation removal is required during the MiglFaeF bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted Within GRe week no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of minim birds and a minimum 500-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the Project area to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. Landscaping. CDFW recommends the MND provide the Project's landscaping plant palette and replacement tree species list. CDFW recommends the City use only native species found in naturally occurring vegetation communities within or adjacent to the Project area. The City should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce non-native, invasive plant species to areas that are adjacent to and/or near native habitat areas. Accordingly, CDFW recommends the City restrict use of any species, particularly `moderate' or `high' listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2024). These species are documented to have substantial and severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Scientific Collecting Permit. Focused surveys for special -status species (i.e., Crotch's bumble bee) require specific handling permits prior to conducting surveys. The Project proponent should retain a qualified biologist(s) with appropriate handling permits, or should obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. CDFW has the authority to issue permits for the take or possession of wildlife, Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 17 of 30 including mammals; birds, nests, and eggs; reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants; and invertebrates (Fish & G. Code, §§ 10027 1002.57 1003). Effective October 1, 2018, a Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 147 § 650). Please visit CDFW's Scientific Collection Permits9 webpage for information (CDFW 2025d). Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. CDFW recommends the Project's environmental document include mitigation measures recommended in this letter. CDFW has provided comments via a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan to assist in the development of feasible, specific, detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and fully enforceable mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6). The Lead Agency is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project's mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Attachment A). ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB website10 provides direction regarding the types of information that should be reported and allows on-line submittal of field survey forms. In addition, information on special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities, should be submitted to CDFW's Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program using the Combined Rapid Assessment and Relevb Form". The City should ensure data collected for the preparation of the MND is properly submitted. FILING FEES The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. 9 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collectinq#53949678 10 https://wiIdlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB 11 https://wiIdlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Submit Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 18 of 30 (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.) CONCLUSION CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15073(e)). Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Riley Scott12, Environmental Scientist at Riley.Scott(c-)wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, ["DocuSigned by: 5991E19EF8094C3_ Victoria Tang Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Victoria Tang, Environmental Program Manager Steve Gibson, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Riley Scott, Environmental Scientist Office of Planning and Research State. Clearing house(aDopr.ca.gov REFERENCES [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017a. California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority. Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=149499&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017b. Human/Wildlife Interactions in California: Mountain Lion Depredation, Public Safety, and Animal Welfare — Amendment to Department Bulletin 2013-02. Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=68271 12 Phone: 858-761-8020; Email: Riley. Scotta-wiIdlife. ca.gov Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 19 of 30 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=18959&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=213150&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Government [ds45]. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 6). [Accessed 2025 June 5]. Accessed at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025b. Crotch's Bumble Bee Range [ds3095]. Available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/crotchs-bumble-bee-range-cdfw- ds30951 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025c. Mountain Lion Range — CWHR M165 [ds793]. Available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/mountain-1ion-range- cwhr-ml65-ds793 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025d. Scientific Collecting Permits. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025e. Threatened and Endangered Species. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA [Cal IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2025. Available at: https://www.cal-ipc.ora/ [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2025. California Rare Plant Ranks. Available at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/california-rare-plant-ranks [CBD] Center of Biological Diversity. 2019. A Petition to List the Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Mountain Lions as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=171208&inline Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P.K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50: 593-601 Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behavior, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press, New York. 317pp. Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Foltz Jordan, S., Blackburn, M., Code, Aimee. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List Four Species of Bumblebees as Endangered Species. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 20 of 30 Losos, E., J. Hayes, A. Phillips, D. Wilcove, and C. Alkire. 1995. Taxpayer -subsidized resource extraction harms species. BioScience 45:446-455 Lucas, E. 2020. Recreation -related disturbance to wildlife in California — better planning for and management of recreation are vital to conserve wildlife in protected areas where recreation occurs. California Fish and Wildlife Journal 29-51 Pierce, B.M and Bleich, V.C. 2003. Mountain Lion. Pages 744-757 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. Second edition. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Thorne, J. H., Boynton, R. M., Holguin, A. J., Stewart, J. A. E., & Bjorkman, J. (2016). A climate change vulnerability assessment of California's terrestrial vegetation (p. 331). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph Stewart4/publication/296639897 A cli mate change vulnerability assessment of California's terrestrial vegetation/links/ 56d72def08aee1 aa5f75c693/A-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment-of- Cal iforn iasterrestrial-vegetation. Of [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines February 28, 1997. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey- protocol-for-coastal-california-qnatcatcher. pdf Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 208pp Woodroffe, R. 2000. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Animal Conservation 3:165-173. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 21 of 30 ATTACHMENT A: DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project. Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party Mitigation Measure #1: Public Education — The Project proponent shall install appropriate public information signage at trailheads and/or along trails to: 1) educate During Project Project and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper Construction Proponent avoidance measures to reduce human -wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife (e.g., dogs on leash, proper waste disposal); and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife. Signage shall be written in language(s) understandable to all those likely to recreate and use the trails. Signs shall not be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass. Mitigation Measure #2: Trash — Trash receptacles shall be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance During Project Project wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas. Construction Proponent Mitigation Measure #3: Activity Restriction — The Project proponent shall place restrictions on types of activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or During Project Project restricting use of trails near breeding habitat, to aid in minimizing disturbance. Pets Construction Proponent shall always be kept on leash and on trails. Hikers shall be encouraged to clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste as it tends to lead to wildlife avoidance. Mitigation Measure #4: Compensatory Mitigation — Based on the new impacts identified and disclosed in Recommendation #1, the City shall provide Following commensurate compensatory mitigation to offset the temporal and permanent loss of Project habitat. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio appropriate to maintain no net loss of Completion habitat values, acreage, and function (See Mitigation Measure #7). Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 22 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party Mitigation Measure #5: Incidental Take Permit - If take or adverse impacts to mountain lion cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW Prior to Project Project and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Initiation Proponent Code, § 2080 et seq.). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization prior to the issuance of a grading permit and before any ground disturbance and vegetation removal. Mitigation Measure #6: Rodenticides -The Project proponent shall prohibit use of any rodenticides and second -generation anticoagulant rodenticides within the During Project Project Project area in perpetuity. Construction Proponent Mitigation Measure #7: Compensatory Mitigation - The Project proponent shall set aside replacement habitat to have a no net loss for wildlife movement. The Prior to Project Project replacement habitat be located as near to the Project site as possible. There shall be Initiation Proponent no net loss of suitable habitat for mountain lions. The City shall consult and collaborate with CDFW to conserve areas beneficial to the southern California mountain lion population that may improve chances of survival and reproduction of mountain lions in the face of climate change. The mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012). Assembly Bill 1094 amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. An appropriate non -wasting endowment shall be provided for the long- term management of mitigation lands. A conservation easement and endowment Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 23 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party funds shall be fully acquired, established, transferred, or otherwise executed prior to implementing Project -related ground -disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure #8: Focused Surveys - Due to habitat in the Project vicinity, within one year prior to Project implementation that includes site preparation, Prior to Project Project equipment staging, and mobilization, a CDFW-approved biologist knowledgeable of Initiation Proponent mountain lion species ecology shall survey areas that may provide habitat for mountain lion to determine presence/absence, territory size, and potential for natal dens within a half mile of the Project site. Caves and other natural cavities, and thickets in brush and timber provide cover and are used for denning. Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably occur in spring. Surveys shall be conducted when the species is most likely to be detected, during crepuscular periods at dawn and dusk (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. The survey report shall include a map of potential denning sites. The survey report shall include measures to avoid impacts mountain lions that may be in the area as well as dens and cubs, if necessary. Mitigation Measure #9: Natal Dens - If potential habitat for natal dens is identified, the Project proponent shall avoid potential impacts to mountain lions, especially Prior to Project Project during spring, to protect vulnerable cubs. Two weeks prior to Project implementation, Initiation Proponent and once a week during construction activities, a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a survey for mountain lion natal dens. The survey area shall include the construction footprint and the area within 2,000 feet (or the limits of the property line) of the Project disturbance boundaries. CDFW shall be notified within 24 hours upon location of a natal den. If an active natal den is located, during construction activities, all work shall cease. No work shall occur within a 2,000-foot buffer from a natal den. A qualified biologist shall notify CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action. CDFW shall also be consulted to determine an appropriate setback from the natal Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 24 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party den that would not adversely affect the successful rearing of the cubs. No construction activities or human intrusion shall occur within the established setback until mountain lion cubs have been successfully reared; the mountain lions have left the area; or as determined in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation Measure #10: Crotch's Bumble Bee Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct Prior to Project Project focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for Initiation Proponent California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project area and during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure #11: Incidental Take Permit - If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate Prior to Project Project take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Initiation Proponent Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground - disturbing activities and vegetation removal. Mitigation Measure #12: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys - If removal of habitat and/or construction activities is necessary during breeding season Prior to Project Project (approximately February 15 through August 30, with peak of nesting occurring from initiation Proponent mid -March through mid -May), the Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre -construction surveys within three days of initiation of Project activities. Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher shall be performed on the Project area and wherever suitable habitat occurs within 500 feet of the Project area. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 25 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party Surveys shall follow proper protocols outlined by USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Protocol (USFWS 2019). Mitigation Measure #13: USFWS Consultation - If coastal California gnatcatcher are present, the City shall consult with the USFWS to determine if the Project would Prior to Project Project result in take of coastal California gnatcatcher. In order to comply with the ESA, Initiation Proponent consultation with the USFWS is advised well in advance of any ground -disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal that may impact coastal California gnatcatcher. Mitigation Measure #14: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 - Prior to the construction of Prior to Project Project the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified Initiation Proponent botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special -status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. Methods during the survey shall adhere to guidance provided in CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Findings from the surveys shall be provided to the City and CDFW prior to ground disturbing activities If no special -status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required. If populations of special -status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for impacts on these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands to be protected under a conservation easement in perpetuity. The HMMP shall outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP shall provide measurable goals and Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 26 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. If a State or federally -listed plant species is present, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to initiating any eps+te project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure #15: Bat Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified bat specialist to conduct daytime and nighttime bat surveys throughout the Prior to Project Project Project area (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows). These surveys shall identify Initiation Proponent potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites, and any maternity roosts. Acoustic recognition technology shall be utilized during day and night surveys to maximize detection of bats. A discussion of survey results, including negative findings, shall be provided to the City and CDFW. If bat species are detected, no Project activities shall commence, and the Project proponent shall develop avoidance and minimization where possible and compensatory mitigation measures when complete avoidance is not possible. Mitigation Measure #16: SSC Compensatory Mitigation - For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project area, the Project Prior to Project Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss Initiation Proponent of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC [CEQA Guidelines, § 15370(e)]. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary. If on -site mitigation is not achievable, the Project proponent shall provide off -site mitigation. Location of the off -site mitigation shall be approved by CDFW. Mitigation shall provide appropriate habitat (depending on the species), Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 27 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and wildlife species present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to issuance of City permits. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which shall include an appropriate funding to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands. Mitigation Measure #17 - Nesting Bird. If vegetation removal is required during the Prior to Project Project bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird Initiation Proponent survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of birds and a minimum 500-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 28 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party to the Project area to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. Recommendation #1: Buffer Determination - The City should identify an appropriate buffer from the trail that would continue to be indirectly affected by the Prior to Final Lead Agency Project (due to edge effects, spreading of invasive species, introduction of light, CEQA encroachment, etc.). This buffer of impacts should be justified using technical details Document such as data, maps, diagrams, and similar relevant information and disclosed in the final CEQA document. Recommendation #2: Mountain Lion Discussion - CDFW recommends the City evaluate the mountain lion territory size and use of habitat within and surrounding Prior to Final Lead Agency the Project vicinity. The City should analyze the effects of increased human CEQA presence and area of anthropogenic influence that will now be in on mountain lion Document habitat, and how it may impact mountain lion behavior, reproductive viability, and overall survival success. Based on these known anthropogenic impacts on mountain lions, CDFW also recommends the City provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to mountain lion. The MND should justify how the proposed compensatory mitigation would reduce the impacts of the Project to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City recirculate the MND for more meaningful public review and assessment of the City's analysis and subsequent mitigation for mountain lion. Additionally, the City should recirculate the MND if the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures must be required [CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5(a)(1)]. Recommendation #3: Crotch's Bumble Bee Discussion — The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project's potential direct and indirect Prior to Final Lead Agency impact on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's bumble bee, the CEQA MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate Document potential impacts to Crotch's bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 29 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA ITP can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. Recommendation #4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Discussion — The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project's potential direct, Prior to Final Lead Agency indirect, and cumulative impacts on gnatcatcher. If the Project may impact CEQA gnatcatcher, the MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, Document and/or mitigate potential impacts to gnatcatcher as well as habitat supporting the species. Recommendation #5: Landscaping. CDFW recommends the MND provide the Prior to Project Lead Project's landscaping plant palette and replacement tree species list. CDFW Initiation/During Agency/Project recommends the City use only native species found in naturally occurring vegetation Project Proponent communities within or adjacent to the Project area. The City should not plant, seed, Construction or otherwise introduce non-native, invasive plant species to areas that are adjacent to and/or near native habitat areas. Accordingly, CDFW recommends the City restrict use of any species, particularly `moderate' or `high' listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2024). These species are documented to have substantial and severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Recommendation #6: Scientific Collecting Permit. Focused surveys for special- Prior to Project Lead Agency status species (i.e., Crotch's bumble bee) require specific handling permits prior to Initiation conducting surveys. The Project proponent should retain a qualified biologist(s) with appropriate handling permits, or should obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. CDFW has the authority to issue permits for the take or possession of wildlife, including mammals; birds, nests, and Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51 C1 E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez City of Santa Clarita June 12, 2025 Page 30 of 30 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party eggs; reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants; and invertebrates (Fish & G. Code, §§ 1002, 1002.57 1003). Effective October 1, 2018, a Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 147 § 650). Please visit CDFW's Scientific Collection Permits webpage for information (CDFW 2025d). PUBLIC WATERSHED PROTECTION VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION WORKS800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 2025 TO: Philip Hess, Case Planner County of Ventura FROM: Yunsheng Su, PWA-WP Case Reviewer SUBJECT: RMA25-020 APN:i CEQA Review Comments and Conditions Pursuant to your request dated 5/15/2025, this office has reviewed the submitted materials and provides the following comments. PROJECT LOCATION: Location Map: - r f Regional uca"M MW RMA25-020 May 20, 2025 Page 2 of 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Project would develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Blue Cloud Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails (beginner and intermediate), approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails (beginner, intermediate, expert, and pro), and approximately 5 miles of multi -use trails (beginner, intermediate, and expert). The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. The Haskell Core would be located on the western portion of the Project Site. An existing access road into the Haskell Core would lead to a proposed parking lot with approximately 40 spaces, a parking/ emergency turnaround, four American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and unstructured space for four food trucks. The Haskell Core would include an event plaza with picnic tables; beginner, intermediate, and advanced pump tracks; a dual slalom course; progressive jumplines; and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core would include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, two vault restrooms, a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Several trailheads leading to perimeter, climbing, and multi -use trails would also be located in the Haskell Core. Additionally, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Haskell Core. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would be located near the central portion of the Project Site and accessible from Blue Cloud Road. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would include an unstructured parking area. The Blue Cloud Trailhead area would also include space for potential future landscape restoration and a multi -use trailhead. Visitor amenities that would be provided at the Blue Cloud Trailhead include a single vault restroom, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub, which is a meeting space for riders with a shade structure. No utility connections for water, wastewater, or lighting are proposed. APPLICATION COMPLETENESS: Complete - from our area of concern. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: Item 31a. Flood Control Facilities/Watercourses — Ventura County Public Works Agency, Watershed Protection is deemed to be Less Than Significant. The proposed project is situated about 50000 feet from the Santa Clara River, which is a WP jurisdictional redline channel. No new or modified direct stormwater drainage connections to this WP channel, activities within WP's easement, or activities over, under, or within the redline channel appear to be proposed or indicated on the applicant's submitted materials. This proposed project would result in an increase of impervious area within the subject property. It is understood that impacts from the proposed increase in impervious area and RMA25-020 May 20, 2025 Page 3 of 3 stormwater drainage design within the project site will be required to be mitigated to less than significant under the conditions imposed by County of Ventura. The mitigation requires that runoff from the proposed project site be released at no greater than the existing flow rate and in such manner as to not cause an adverse impact downstream in peak discharge, velocity, or duration. WP staff determines that the proposed project design with the conditions mentioned above mitigates the direct and indirect project -specific and cumulative impacts to flood control facilities and watercourses. Therefore, the environmental impact is less than significant (LS) on redline channels under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection. WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMENTS: None. WATERSHED PROTECTION CONDITIONS: None. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email at Yunsheng.Su(a)Ventura.Org or by phone at 805-654-2005. END OF TEXT. f OFFICE OF THFS HFRIFF 2Sy OFlOgq�c ;<- COt--sT-Y or Los AN 6WI-Es U Rom"R,r G. siu-RIFr June 12, 2025 Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst City of Santa Clarita Department of Neighborhood Services 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Ms. Rodriguez: HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY/NIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW COMMENTS Thank you for inviting the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Department) to review and comment on the May 2025 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project) located in both the City of Santa Clarita (City) and unincorporated Los Angeles County area but owned by the City. The proposed Project is located within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station (Station). Please see the attached review comments provided by our Station (see correspondence dated June 12, 2025, from Station). In addition, according to Section XV Public Services for Police Service of the IS/MND pages 89, "During operation, the proposed Project would bring more individuals to the Project Site than under existing conditions, which has the potential to result in a minor increase in emergency response, search and rescue, and other Sheriff services if any injuries or crime incidents occur as a result of bike park users. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project's minor increase in demand for police protection services would require new police facilities to be constructed. The proposed Project is expected 21 1 W1 ST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 cam/ c�7C1'Cl f(QI'! !�� c�Pll^tCP Ms. Rodriguez - 2 - June 12, 2025 to have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services provided by the Station." However, the proposed Project will increase population through City employees, volunteers and visitors, and daytime participants within the Station's service area, which will generate an increased demand for law enforcement services, especially due to its remote proximity. The Project includes a proposed parking lot to be constructed to support 40 vehicles. However, the Transportation Section indicates that there is the potential to have 100 vehicles for an event and/or daily use of the facility. The City is encouraged to further evaluate the potential impacts on the proposed parking lot and roads leading up to the proposed Project site and the ability to support the participants and anticipated food trucks. Lack of proper transportation planning could lead to significant emergency access issues and additional calls for law enforcement services. Roads leading up to the Project site are recommended to have a minimum of 26 feet wide clearance to allow for emergency vehicles. To date, the Station is currently understaffed. To the extent the Department is considered as the provider of these additional law enforcement services, it should be noted/understood that we may not have the capacity to provide the necessary staff resources when a project is contemplated or completed. We recommend that your agency evaluate the law enforcement service needs of the community, as well as the availability of local law enforcement agencies to provide these services prior to approving a project. We remain concerned that continued growth and intensification of multi -use land uses within the service area will ultimately contribute to significant cumulative impacts from this Project and other developments previously approved within the City on our Department resources and operations. It is reasonable to expect that, although planned, continued development within the City will lead to a significant increase in the demand for law enforcement services and facilities. Meeting such demands requires additional resources, including patrol deputies, other sworn deputies, support personnel, search and rescue and attendant assets, such as patrol vehicles, support vehicles, communications equipment, weaponry, office furnishings/equipment, etc. Resources should be evaluated as projects are completed with the Station Captain and the Department's Contract Law Enforcement Bureau. Ms. Rodriguez - 3 - June 12, 2025 For future reference, the Department provides the following updated address and contact information for all requests for review comments, law documents, and other related correspondence: Jennifer Fang, Acting Bureau Director Facilities Planning Bureau, SBB- 4th Floor Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 211 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Attention: Planning Section Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me, at (323) 526-5657, or your staff may contact Ms. Bee Bee Pee, of my staff, at (323) 526-5697. Sincerely, ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERIFF ennifer Fang, Acting Bureau Director Facilities Planning Bureau SH-AD-32A (3/23) SUBJECT: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT "A Ti-odilio17 of 'SCI.11ce Si»cc OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE IR50- DATE: June 12, 2025 FILE NO: BRANDON L. BARCLAY TO: JENNIFER FANG ACTING CAPTAIN ACTING BUREAU DIRECTOR SANTA CLARITA VALLEY FACILITIES PLANNING BUREAU STATION REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SANTA CLARITA HASKELL The Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station (Station) reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated May 2025, for the Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project). It is our understanding that the project proposes to develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails aligned throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. The Project is located in both the City of Santa Clarita (City) and unincorporated LA County areas but is owned by the City. The Project has the potential to enhance recreational opportunities, promote sustainability, and contribute to the well-being of the community. However, it is crucial that the City of Santa Clarita (City) considers the need for additional e-motorcycle enforcernent to ensure the safety and enjoyment of all path users. By engaging in careful planning and leveraging best practices, the City can create a bike path that is both beneficial and sustainable. Due to the undeveloped area and natural setting, it is imperative that the project include proper signage, allowing first responders to be able to find the correct location during an emergency. The Department recommends integrating robust precautionary measures into the project design and implementation to mitigate fire hazards and the need for emergency responses. Additionally, comprehensive and effective emergency management plans should be prepared as it is essential to ensure the safety of the participants and employees and the broader community in the event of a wildland fire. Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon -2- June 12, 2026 Bike Park Project The Station offers additional recommendations below: 1. Special Protection Requirements or Recommendations: a. The Department recommends that the principles of Crime. Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) are incorporated in the design plans. The goal of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for criminal activities by employing physical design features that discourage anti -social behavior, while encouraging the legitimate use of the site. The overall tenets of CPTED include defensible space, territoriality, surveillance, lighting, landscaping, and physical security. The Station recommends installation of security cameras to reduce opportunities for criminal activities, where feasible. b. A Construction Traffic Management Plan should also be established as part of the proposed Project to address construction -related traffic congestion and emergency access issues. If temporary lane closures are necessary for the installation of utilities, vault restrooms, and emergency access should be maintained at all times. Flag persons and/or detours should be provided as needed to ensure safe traffic operations, and construction signs should be posted to advise motorists of reduced construction zone speed limits. At this time, the Station has no further comments on the proposed Project. However, the Station reserves the right to amend or supplement our assessment upon subsequent reviews of the proposed Project once additional information becomes available. Thank you for including the Station in the review process for the proposed Project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact please contact Acting Captain Brandon Barclay at (661)-287-5702. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Prepared by: 10MM41;92UcSMRoR W 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 June 2026 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The City of Santa Clarita (City) has prepared this Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Haskell IS/MND) to address the potential site -specific environmental impacts associated with the addition of the proposed Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project (Revised Project). This Addendum is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Cal. Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq., as amended) and its implementing guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., 2016). In 2025, the City prepared the Haskell IS/MND for the development of a bike park (Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project/Approved Project) with approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout approximately 380 acres within the Haskell Canyon open space area located in the northern portion of the City of Santa Clarita and a portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County (Approved Project Site). The Haskell IS/MND was adopted by the City of Santa Clarita City Council on June 24, 2025. The Revised Project would install approximately four inches of asphalt concrete over an existing approximately 1.4-mile long unpaved main access drive from Copper Hill Drive north to the City Archery Range, with two approximately 0.25-mile spur roads off of the unpaved main access drive to provide access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range. Two dip crossings over the Haskell Canyon Wash would also be constructed, one for each of the spur roads. The proposed improvements would provide all-weather access to the existing Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the existing City Archery Range, as well as to other existing uses, including the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) facilities, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest. No expansion of use or capacity of any of these existing uses is proposed. This Addendum addresses the environmental impacts of the Revised Project when compared to the Approved Project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Section 15164. 1.1 Applicability and Use of an Addendum Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) may be prepared if none of the following conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 1 Chapter 1 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City, as the lead agency, has prepared this Addendum to confirm that none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Public Resources Code Section 21166(c) have been triggered. This Addendum to the previously adopted Haskell IS/MND demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project remain substantively unchanged despite project additions described herein, and supports the finding that the Revised Project does not raise any new issues and does not exceed the level of impacts identified in the Haskell IS/MND. 1.2 Format of this Addendum The previously adopted Haskell IS/MND serves as the primary environmental compliance document for the Revised Project, and this Addendum provides minor changes and additions to the adopted Haskell IS/MND, utilizing a similar Environmental Checklist Form (Checklist) to explain the changes and additions. This Addendum should be considered with the full text of the previously adopted Haskell IS/MND. All applicable mitigation measures from the Haskell IS/MND would be applicable to the Revised Project and, therefore, are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Per the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum does not need to be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Haskell IS/MND prior to making a decision on the Revised Project. 1.3 Summary of Findings Based upon the Checklist prepared for the Revised Project and supporting responses (see Chapter 3), adoption of the Revised Project would not result in substantial changes requiring major revisions to the previously adopted Haskell IS/MND. Further, the Revised Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts that were not discussed in the Haskell IS/MND City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 2 Chapter 1 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation measures are required for the Revised Project. Since only minor changes and additions are required to the Improvements IS/MND, and none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a-b) or Section 15164 requiring preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred, the City finds that the preparation of an addendum to the Haskell IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Revised Project and that the Revised Project is within the scope of the Haskell IS/MND. 1.4 Lead Agency and Discretionary Approvals This Addendum and the previously adopted Haskell IS/MND are intended to serve as the environmental documentation for the changes being requested under the Revised Project. The City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency under CEQA and maintains authority to approve this Addendum for the Revised Project. Discretionary approvals being sought as part of the Revised Project include the following: • Acknowledgement of this Addendum to the Haskell IS/MND, which demonstrates that no subsequent CEQA document is required; • Contracts for the construction of the Revised Project and construction support services. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 3 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The Revised Project would be located in the northern portion of the City on portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 3244-034-271, 3244-031-272, and 3244-031-902 (Revised Project Site) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The Revised Project Site is bounded by the Angeles National Forest to the north; open space, residential uses, and Copper Hill Drive to the south; City Archery Range, Haskell Canyon Bike Park, Haskell Canyon Open Space and a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) transmission corridor to the east; and open space and residential uses to the west. As shown in Figure 2, primary vehicular access to the Revised Project Site is from Copper Hill Drive. 2.2 Project Background The Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, provides access to LADWP electrical transmission line towers and the Haskell Switching Station. The original facilities were installed circa 1916 and facilities were added between 1969 and 1978, which included new transmission towers, repurposing the existing corridor, and constructing the Haskell Canyon Switching Station. The access road and spur roads for inspections, maintenance, and repairs were added as the towers were constructed. Upgrades were also completed between 2013 and 2016 to accommodate the additional power being generated from alternative energy sources (wind and solar); however, those upgrades did not include the addition of transmission towers, only modifications to the existing facilities. These LADWP facilities supply approximately 15 to 22 percent of Los Angeles's electrical power. Therefore, establishing an all-weather access road is important for the continued operation and maintenance of the facilities. In 2011 the City of Santa Clarita acquired the approximately 562-acre Haskell Canyon Open Space predominantly located on the east side of the Haskell Canyon Access Road and the utility corridor owned by LADWP. The Haskell Canyon Open Space includes hiking trails, the City Archery range, and the Haskell Canyon Bike Park. Primary access to the Haskell Canyon Open Space is via the Haskell Canyon Access Road. Currently, the Haskell Canyon Access Road is unpaved and contains only small areas of asphalt concrete paving, although when and how much of the road was paved is not known. Gravel was also placed over the access road by LADWP over the years. Some portions of the access road cross drainages, which may now be considered jurisdictional to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and would require permits for any improvements to the access road. These drainage crossings have been in place for many decades; they appear much the same in aerial photography from 1952 and 1976 as they do today. The drainage crossing along the main access drive south of the spur road leading into Haskell Canyon Bike Park contains a reinforced concrete low-water crossing. It is not known when this crossing was constructed and no work is proposed on it. The spur roads have crossings that appear to have been improved to resist erosion but are not constructed of reinforced concrete. These existing crossings would be demolished to construct new crossings. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 4 Santa Clarita SANTA SUSAN/y MpU A A NT /,VS is §x Simi Valley SIM�LLS Legend Project Location SanFear SAN FERNANDO VAILLEV /SOLEDAD-CANYON W � Los Angeles VEROUGO MOUNTAINS HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT O 0 2.5 5 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Miles Regional Vicinity Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, National Geographic World Map: Santa Clarita, California Figure 1 r 3 r� R ti k Michael Baker Chapter 2 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 2.3 Project Characteristics The Revised Project would install approximately four inches of asphalt concrete over an existing approximately 1.4-mile long dirt access road from Copper Hill Drive north to the City Archery Range. The Revised Project would also construct two low-water crossings (dip crossings) over the Haskell Canyon Wash, one for each of the approximately 0.25-mile spur roads to provide improved access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range. The dip crossings would be placed at the same elevation as the drainage channel, which would allow any flows to pass over them. Asphalt paving would also be installed on each side of the dip crossings. The proposed improvements would provide all-weather access to the existing Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the existing City Archery Range, as well as to other existing uses, including the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) facilities, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest. No expansion of use or capacity of any of these existing uses is proposed. The City's Parks Division would close the City Archery Range and the Haskell Canyon Bike Park during inclement weather, which would minimize vehicle traffic through the low-water crossings when flows are present. 2.4 Project Construction Paving of the main access drive is anticipated to take approximately three weeks and would begin in the summer of 2026 and be completed by late summer of 2026. Construction of the dip crossings would require environmental permitting from CDFW and RWQCB and are anticipated to take approximately four weeks and would be completed during the late spring and summer of 2027. Construction activities for the main access drive include minor grading followed by placement of asphalt concrete paving. Construction of the dip -crossings would be completed outside of the rainy season and would include demolition and excavation of the existing crossings, placement of lumber forms, reinforcing steel, and Portland cement concrete. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 7 CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section includes an assessment, by issue area, of the Revised Project's potential effects on the environment in relation to the analysis provided in the Haskell IS/MND. Determinations are made as to whether the Revised Project would result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe effects, which would trigger the need for a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. For each threshold identified below, the following questions are addressed and discussed in the narrative for each issue area: • What is the impact conclusion of the Revised Project and the Approved Project analyzed in the Haskell IS/MND? For each impact identified below, a level of significance of the impact is provided. While the criteria for determining significant impacts are unique to each issue area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on the following definitions consistent with CEQA and its implementing CEQA Guidelines: - No Impact (NI) — A designation of no impact is given when no changes in the environment would occur. - Less -than -Significant Impact (LTS) — A less -than -significant impact would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment. Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation (LTSM) — A less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated avoids substantial adverse impacts on the environment with adherence to identified mitigation measures. For those issue areas where the impact of the Revised Project would be less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measure(s) identified in the adopted IS/MND for the Approved Project, the impact is identified as LTSM (AP). - Significant and Unavoidable Impact (SU) — A significant unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. • Does the Project involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND resulting from a substantial change in the project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance? • Is there new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 8 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.1 Aesthetics FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED [ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Except as provided in Public Resources Code 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a NI LTS No No No No No scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock NI NI No No No No No outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized area, 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 NI LTS No No No No No accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely NI NI No No No No No affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3.1.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts related to scenic vistas and the visual character and the quality of public views would be less than significant. The Approved Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and views of and within the Approved Project Site would not substantially change as the Approved Project would only include small structures, which would preserve the existing visual character and quality of public views and scenic vistas of the site and its surroundings. Related to scenic highways, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not require removal of, or impact views of, any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway as the Approved Project Site is not located along or within a designated state scenic highway. As identified in the Haskell IS/MND, City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 9 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project the nearest eligible state scenic highway is located approximately 5.5 miles to the northeast while the nearest officially designated state scenic highway approximately 22 miles to the southeast. Regarding light and glare, the Approved Project Site is within an undeveloped area with no existing lighting, and the Approved Project does not propose any lighting. Additionally, the Approved Project would operate from dawn to dusk, and thus would not generate any additional light from vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Furthermore, the Approved Project does not include any buildings or materials that could generate glare in the area. 3.1.2 Revised Project Analysis Similar to the Approved Project, views of the Revised Project Site would not substantially change as the Revised Project would pave the Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, and construct two dip crossings, which would preserve the existing visual character and quality of public views and scenic vistas of the Revised Project Site and its surroundings. The Revised Project Site is located directly to the west of the Approved Project Site, and thus, would not require removal of, or impact views of, any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway as the nearest eligible state scenic highway is located approximately 5.5 miles to the northeast while the nearest officially designated state scenic highway approximately 22 miles to the southeast. Regarding light and glare, similar to the Approved Project Site, the Revised Project Site is within an area with no existing lighting, and the Revised Project does not propose any lighting. Additionally, as the Revised Project consists of roadway paving, the Revised Project would not generate any additional light from vehicles traveling along the access road compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, the Revised Project would not use materials that could generate glare in the area. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any impacts related to aesthetics. 3.1.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.1.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 10 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the NI NI No No No No No Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural NI NI No No No No No 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 NI NI No No No No No 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 NI NI No No No No No 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 NI NI No No No No No Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 11 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.2.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources. The Approved Project Site would not be located on or near Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no agricultural uses or operations occur onsite or within the vicinity of the Project Site. A portion of the Approved Project Site within the City is zoned for Open Space (OS) uses, which allows for passive, natural and active open space uses, while the portion located within the County is zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-2-2). However, the Approved Project Site is not currently used for agriculture, and the Haskell IS/MND determined that the City is not required to comply with land use regulations adopted by the County because of intergovernmental immunity. Therefore, the Approved Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. In addition, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project Site is not part of a Williamson Act contract and does not contain any farmland. Thus, the Revised Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Regarding forest land and timberland, the Approved Project Site is undeveloped and does not include any land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Thus, the Approved Project Site would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland or result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. 3.2.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project Site would not be located on or near Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no agricultural uses or operations occur within the Revised Project Site as it is an existing access road.' The Revised Project Site is zoned for Open Space (OS) uses, which allows for passive, natural and active open space uses, including drainage easements. As the Revised Project proposes to pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, and construct two dip crossings, the Revised Project would not change or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Moreover, similar to the Approved Project Site, the Revised Project Site is not part of a Williamson Act contract and does not contain any farmland.2 Thus, the Revised Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Regarding forest land and timberland, as the site functions as an existing access road, the Revised Project Site does not include any land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Thus, the Revised Project Site would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland or result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, similar to the California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation. ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/app/, accessed June 5, 2026. 2 California Department of Conservation, California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/dIrp/WiIIiamsonAct/, accessed June 5, 2026. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 12 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Approved Project, the Revised Project would result in no impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources. 3.2.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.3 Air Quality FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT. CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality LTS LTS No No No No No plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an LTS LTS No No No No No existing or projected air quality violation? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 13 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or LTS LTS No No No No No state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial LTS LTS No No No No No pollutant concentrations? e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting LTS LTS No No No No No a substantial number of people? 3.3.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND determined that impacts to air quality would be less than significant. The Approved Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project is evaluated against the SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP), and it was determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan as short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts, and the ongoing operation of the Approved Project would not generate significant air pollutant emissions on a regional basis. Moreover, the Approved Project would not increase population or housing, would generate a minimal number of employees to maintain the park, and thus, would not exceed the population, housing, or employment forecasts for the AQMP. Regarding violations of air quality standards and a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment, the Haskell IS/MND calculated the construction -related emissions from the Approved Project and found that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the Approved Project. Additionally, the Haskell IS/MND calculated operation - related emissions from vehicle trips generated by the Approved Project, onsite area source emissions created from the ongoing use of the Approved Project, and the use of off -road City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 14 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project equipment for maintenance and event days, and found that none of the criteria pollutants generated during operations would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds. The Haskell IS/MND also evaluated localized impact to air quality for emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5) by comparing the Approved Project's onsite emissions to the SCAQMD's applicable localized significance thresholds (LST) screening criteria. As evaluated in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would not result in emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's LST screening criteria, and thus, would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NO, PMIO, and PM2,5. Moreover, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created from the Approved Project since the nearby intersections to the Approved Project Site are much smaller and with far less traffic than the intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD and found to not cause a CO Hotspot. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment, and would not be considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. Regarding other emissions, the Haskell IS/MND states that the Approved Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors, and any objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Approved Project Site's boundaries. Moreover, as a bike park development, the Approved Project would not emit any known odors during operation. 3.3.2 Revised Project Analysis Similar to the Approved Project Site, the Revised Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is governed by the SCAQMD. The Revised Project is evaluated against the 2022 AQMP and considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. Specifically, the Revised Project would be considered consistent with the AQMP if it would not: 1) result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP, and 2) exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Regarding an increase in the frequency or severity of violations, construction of the Revised Project would be less intensive and would require a shorter duration of construction than the Approved Project. For example, the Approved Project resulted in approximately 20 acres of disturbance and required a six-month construction duration, while the paving of the roadways proposed by the Revised Project would disturb less than one acre and require a three-week construction duration. Construction of the dip crossings for the Revised Project would also disturb less than one acre and would require a four -week construction duration that would occur after the completion of the paving. Furthermore, the Approved Project has already been constructed, and thus, construction of the Revised Project would not overlap with construction for the Approved Project. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the Revised Project would generate less construction -related emissions compared to the Approved Project, and such emissions would not exceed either the regional or local criteria pollutants emissions thresholds for construction. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 15 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Moreover, the Revised Project is an access improvement project and would not include any new uses that would generate new emissions during operation. Other users of the road, such as those using the road to access existing LADWP facilities, the existing City Archery Range, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest, would not generate net new vehicle miles traveled, and thus emissions, during operation as the Revised Project would serve only to provide all-weather access to the existing uses, and is not a new road. Regarding exceeding the assumptions in the AQMP, the Revised Project would pave an existing Haskell Canyon Access Road and construct crossings over existing drainages. The Revised Project would not increase population or housing, and thus, would not exceed the population, housing, or employment forecasts used in the AQMP. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding violations of air quality standards and a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment, as discussed above, it can be reasonably inferred that the Revised Project would generate less construction -related emissions than the Approved Project (both daily and total emissions), and would not exceed the regional emissions thresholds for construction. The LST screening criteria for the Revised Project would be different than for the Approved Project, as the Revised Project would disturb less than one acre and the nearest sensitive receptors to the Revised Project Site would be closer (i.e., residences located approximately 200 to the east and west of the Haskell Canyon Access Road). However, using the LST screening criteria from SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 1 acre in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley at a distance of 25 meters,3 and the maximum daily onsite construction emissions from the Approved Project, the Revised Project would still not exceed local criteria pollutant emissions thresholds during construction. In addition, the Revised Project is an access improvement project and would not develop new uses or generate new users on the Revised Project Site that would generate new criteria pollutant emissions during operation. Therefore, the Revised Project would not generate emissions that would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during operation. Moreover, since there are no new proposed uses on the Revised Project Site that could create a new residential or daytime population, the Revised Project would not generate any new daily trips. Thus, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created from operation of the Revised Project. The Revised Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment, and would not be considered to have a significant adverse air quality impact. As discussed above, the Revised Project would not generate emissions that would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction or operation. According to SCAQMD, projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily regional or local emissions thresholds. Therefore, the Revised Project's less -than -significant impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, similar to the Approved Project. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds, Appendix C — Mass Rate LST Look -up Tables, https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-Ist-look-up-tables.pdf. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 16 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Regarding other emissions, any objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods as construction would occur on a rolling basis along the Haskell Canyon Access Road. Moreover, the Revised Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with objectionable odors and would not emit any new odors during operation. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in other emissions, such as odors, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.3.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 17 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.4 Biological Resources FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? 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 LTSM LTSM No No No No No (AP) 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, NI NI No No No No No policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 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, LTSM vernal pool, coastal, etc.) (AP) LTSM No No No No No 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 LTS LTS No No No No No resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 18 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological NI NI No No No No No resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community NI NI No No No No No conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area NI NI No No No No No (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? 3.4.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would have a less -than -significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species with mitigation incorporated. Permanent direct impacts to special -status plant species may occur during implementation of the Approved Project, which can occur through the loss of counted or estimated individuals, loss of occurrence, loss of occupied habitat, and/or loss of suitable habitat. Indirect impacts to special -status plants may be short-term construction -related impacts or long-term development -related impacts and could include the accumulation of construction -related dust on plants that may affect their ability to photosynthesize or the alteration of waterways that may affect plant species that require a source of surface or groundwater to survive. In addition, the introduction of invasive species, pollutants, or hazardous materials may occur during construction and have an indirect impact on any special -status plant species near any active construction zone. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included in the Haskell IS/MND to reduce impacts related to special -status plants to a less -than -significant level. Permanent direct impacts to special -status wildlife species may occur during implementation of the Approved Project, which include the loss of individuals, loss of important resources, and/or the loss of suitable habitat. Project construction could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and to reptiles, by causing injury or mortality. For special -status bird species with potential to nest in the project area, direct impacts could include the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally between February 15 and August 31). For special -status reptiles, impacts could include the loss of burrows, City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 19 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project eggs, and adult and juvenile individuals during vegetation clearing and ground -disturbing activities. Direct impacts to individuals of designated special -status species could occur during a critical period of these species' life cycles and could result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. Indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species may also occur during implementation of the Approved Project. These impacts include construction noise that may temporarily affect a bird attempting to nest in the area, or with an active nest. Construction -related noise has been documented to cause birds to abandon their nests and young, ultimately having an impact on that species' survival. Reptilian species have the potential to nest and burrow underground and ground vibration from construction can cause premature emergence due to vibrations mimicking rain, or burrow abandonment. Increased lighting due to night work may also potentially affect nearby sensitive species or attract predators to that area. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 through Mitigation Measure BIO-6 were included in the Haskell IS/MND to reduce impacts related to special -status wildlife to a less -than -significant level. Although 11 potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Approved Project Site, no associated riparian habitat was observed in association with any of these aquatic features. Additionally, none of the 13 special -status vegetation communities that have been reported in the California Natural Diversity Database in the general Approved Project area were identified within the Approved Project Site during the field surveys. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would have no impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. However, impacts on state or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated under the Approved Project. The 11 potentially state or federal jurisdictional features would not be considered subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction but would be evaluated by CDFW and the RWQCB to make the final determination of state jurisdictional limits. Upon determination of jurisdictional limits, any potential impacts to aquatic features that are under jurisdiction of RWQCB and CDFW may require a Waste Discharge Requirement and/or authorization from CDFW prior to construction. These potential impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction, which would decrease the amount of jurisdictional waters within the Approved Project Site. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 131O-7 through BIO-9 were included in the Haskell IS/MND to reduce impacts related to state protected wetlands to a less -than -significant level. With respect to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors, the Approved Project Site consists mostly of undeveloped land and open space with natural vegetation communities with a small portion that is devoid of vegetation or has current or historical development. The Approved Project Site is not identified as a wildlife corridor within any natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or subarea plan. Although the establishment of trails and recreational amenities under the Approved Project would decrease the amount of native vegetation within the Approved Project Site, the Approved Project is not anticipated to cause any impacts to wildlife movement or connectivity within the Approved Project Site or to the surrounding area since the proposed development of approximately 20 acres of the 380-acre Approved Project Site would not cause the existing open space area to become constrained or fragmented. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native wildlife, the use of wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 20 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Additionally, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not remove any oak trees; is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; and is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County. Therefore, the Approved Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; or affect a Significant Ecological Area. As such, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that no impacts would occur related to local policies/ordinances protecting biological resources, habitat conservation plans, or significant ecological areas. 3.4.2 Revised Project Analysis The analysis of impacts to biological resources for the Revised Project is based on the Biological Resources Assessment for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project in Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Biological Assessment) and the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project(ARDR) prepared by Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker), which are included as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively, of this Addendum. The Biological Assessment included a field survey of the Biological Survey Area (BSA), which is defined as the unpaved main access drive and spur roads, and the adjacent habitats occurring within 300-feet (see Figure 3 in Appendix A). According to the Biological Assessment, although the Revised Project Site consists of an unpaved main access drive and two unpaved spur roads, the BSA supports several vegetation communities and land cover types adjacent to the roadways, which are summarized in Table 1 below. Non-native species were observed in the disturbed red willow woodland, disturbed California buckwheat/purple sage/California sagebrush scrub, Coast live oak woodland, and disturbed land cover types. A total of 38 plant species, including 21 native (55 percent) and 17 non-native (45 percent), were recorded within the BSA. In addition, a total of 22 wildlife species (20 birds, 1 mammal, and 1 reptile) were observed during the field survey, 20 native (91 percent) and 2 non-native (9 percent). The most commonly occurring birds during the field survey included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). The complete list of observed plant and wildlife species is provided in Appendix A. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 21 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Table 1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types BSA Vegetation Community/Land Cover Big Sagebrush Scrub - Artemisia tridentate Shrubland Alliance 5.48 Red Willow Woodland - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance 1.46 Disturbed Red Willow Woodland — Disturbed Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland 1.15 Alliance Brittlebush Scrub — Encelia farinosa Shrubland Alliance 0.02 California Buckwheat/Purple Sage/California Sagebrush Scrub - 18.53 Eriogonum fasciculatum — Salvia dorrii — Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance Disturbed California Buckwheat/Purple Sage/California Sagebrush Scrub — Disturbed Eriogonum fasciculatum — Salvia dorrii — Artemisia californica Shrubland 0.37 Alliance Thickleaf Yerba Santa Scrub - Eriodictyon crassifolium Shrubland Alliance 1.33 Scrub Oak Woodland — Quercus John-tuckeri Shrubland Alliance 0.91 Disturbed Fourwing Saltbush Scrub — Disturbed Atriplex canescens Shrubland 1.71 Alliance Coast Live Oak Woodland — Quercus agrifolia Forest and Woodland Alliance 0.44 Ornamental 1.49 Disturbed 84.13 Developed 3.64 TOTAL 117.02 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE No special -status plant or wildlife species were observed during the field survey. However, based on the results of the literature review and a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges, the short -joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada, California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1 B.2) is expected to occur in the BSA and club -haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus, CRPC 4.3), and slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis, CRPR 1 B.2), have a moderate potential to occur. In addition, two wildlife species are expected to occur in the BSA, including Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii, candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act [CESA]) and California legless lizard (Anniella spp., CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]), while four wildlife species have moderate potential to occur including, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, federally listed as endangered and CDFW SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis, CDFW SSC), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri, CDFW SSC), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii, CDFW SSC). City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 22 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project All activities associated with the Revised Project would occur within the footprint of existing unpaved roadways, which do not provide habitat suitable for special -status plants or wildlife. Further no vegetation trimming or clearing would occur during paving or construction of the dip crossings. Therefore, direct impacts to any special -status plant species would be avoided and are not expected. Indirect impacts to special -status plants during construction related to dust and erosion and sedimentation may also occur. With implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures 131O-3, 131O-8, and 131O-9, the potential for direct and indirect impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant levels. Since the Revised Project would be confined to the footprint of the existing unpaved roadways and no vegetation removal would occur, direct impacts to special -status wildlife species are reduced. However, the potential for them to occur on unpaved roadways exists, which would make them susceptible to being run over by vehicles. In addition, indirect impacts to special -status wildlife could occur during construction related to noise, ground disturbance, and human presence that may temporarily affect a bird attempting to nest in the area or displace wildlife from areas where habitat and resources for their survival may exist, potentially leading to the loss of such individuals. Although Crotch's bumblebees were not observed during the field survey, floral resources potentially suitable for the species occur within native vegetation adjacent to the Revised Project Site and the species has been recorded from within five miles of the Revised Project Site. While overwintering and nesting by the species is not expected in the Revised Project Site, due to the compacted nature of the unpaved road, noise, ground vibrations and human presence during the species active flight season (April -August) when the species is actively foraging, could displace the species from habitat and resources for their survival, potentially leading to the loss of such individuals. With implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures 131O-3 and 131O-6, the potential for impacts and take of Crotch's bumblebees would be reduced to a less than significant level. Although special -status reptile species were not observed during the field survey, occurrences of the southern California legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and coastal whiptail have recently been recorded near the Revised Project Site. Therefore, there is potential for these species to occur on -site during development of the Revised Project. With implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures 131O-3, 131O-4, and 131O-6, the potential for take of special -status reptile species would be reduced to a less than significant level. Although the coastal California gnatcatchers were not observed during the field survey, potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitats for the species occur adjacent to the Revised Project Site. Indirect impacts from construction noise, ground vibration, and human presence may occur during construction causing nest abandonment or displacement from habitat and resources the species depend on. With implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures 131O-3 and 131O-6, the potential for take of coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, to maintain compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), pre -construction nesting bird surveys are typically required during the breeding season City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 23 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project (generally February 1 to August 31 but as early as January 1 for raptors) prior to any project activities to avoid direct and indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds. Consequently, if an active bird nest is destroyed or if project activities result in indirect impacts to nesting birds (e.g., nest abandonment, loss of reproductive effort), it is considered "take" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Although no nests were observed during the field survey, vegetation, utility poles, and the ground surface within the BSA provides suitable nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species and indirect impacts from construction activities during the breeding season are considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-6, and BIO-8, the potential for impacts to nesting birds and any special -status bird species would be reduced to less than significant. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND RIPARIAN HABITAT According to the Biological Assessment, the following ten natural communities considered sensitive by the CDFW were reported in the California Natural Diversity Database within the U.S. Geological Survey Whitaker Peak, Warm Springs Mountain, Green Valley, Val Verde, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Oat Mountain, San Fernando, and Santa Susana 7.5-minute quadrangle maps from the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map: California Walnut Woodland, Mainland Cherry Forest, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Mixed Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Scrub, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, Southern Willow Scrub, Valley Oak Woodland. In addition, as shown in Table 1 above, small portions of sensitive communities including coast live oak woodland, red willow woodland, and California buckwheat/purple sage/ California sagebrush scrub exist within the BSA. However, as discussed above, all activities associated with the Revised Project would occur within the footprint of existing unpaved man access drive and spur roads and no vegetation trimming or clearing would occur. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities are expected to occur as a result of the Revised Project. The ARDR identified 0.06 acres of riparian vegetation under CDFW jurisdiction. However, no permanent impacts to the riparian vegetation would occur as a result of the Revised Project (see Table 2 in Appendix B). Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat are expected to occur as a result of the Revised Project. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS The ARDR was prepared to document all aquatic features within the Revised Project Site that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act), and the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. The ARDR included a field delineation to determine the jurisdictional limits of the waters of the U.S. (WoUS) and waters of the State (WoS), including potential wetlands, located within the boundaries of the Revised Project Site and to conduct a Streamflow Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) assessment for the Revised Project Site. Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that no wetland WoUS or WoS are located within the boundaries of the Revised Project Site. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 24 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project According to the ARDR, three aquatic features are mapped within the Project Site. These aquatic features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime based on the results of the SDAM assessment and would not be considered subject to USACE jurisdiction. The three mapped aquatic features are subject to the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and total approximately 0.21 acres of non -wetland WoS. In addition, these aquatic features exhibited a bed and bank within the Haskell Canyon Wash and are considered CDFW jurisdictional streambed. A total of 0.29 acres of CDFW jurisdiction are located within the Revised Project Site in association with the Haskell Canyon Wash, comprised of 0.21 acres of unvegetated streambed, 0.02 acres of vegetated streambed, and 0.06 acres of associated riparian vegetation. The Revised Project Site consists of unpaved roadways and does not contain any vegetation. No vegetation removal is anticipated as part of the Revised Project. However, impacts to aquatic resources regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW would occur during the paving of the spur roads and construction of the dip crossings. Permanent impacts to aquatic features that are under jurisdiction of RWQCB and CDFW, which include 0.04 acres of non -wetland WoS and 0.04 acres of unvegetated streambed, would require a Waste Discharge Requirement from RWQCB and authorization from CDFW prior to construction. With implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures BIO-7 through 131O-9, impacts to aquatic features would be reduced to less than significant. LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES, CONSERVATION PLANS, AND SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREAS As stated above, the Revised Project Site consists of unpaved roadways and does not contain any vegetation. Removal of vegetation adjacent to the Revised Project Site is not anticipated. Therefore, the Revised Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. In addition, as concluded in the Biological Assessment (Appendix A) the Revised Project Site is not within any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Furthermore, the Revised Project Site is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County. As such, no impacts related to local policies or ordinances, conservation plans, or Significant Ecological Areas would occur. 3.4.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 25 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.4.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures contained in the Haskell IS/MND are applicable to the Revised Project: BIO-3: A qualified biologist shall be present during vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special special -status reptile species. If any wildlife species are found, the project biologist shall relocate the animal(s) to appropriate habitat off -site. Daily monitoring logs will be prepared to document work activities and any relocations that were conducted. Implementation Action: In implementing B/O-3 for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, the City of Santa Clarita will ensure that a qualified biologist is present during ground disturbance activities to confirm all project activities remain within the footprint of the existing roadways and to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special special -status reptile, bird, and insect species. In the event a state and/or federally listed or candidate species is detected, a 500-foot no -disturbance buffer will be established around the species and the City will immediately notify CDFW and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. Although it is anticipated that daily monitoring will be necessary, the biologist will coordinate with the City of Santa Clarita to confirm that monitoring is conducted at a frequency necessary to comply with B/O-3. BIO-4: All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored in the project area during construction for one or more overnight periods shall be either securely capped prior to storage or thoroughly inspected by the contractor and/or the biological monitor for special -status wildlife species or other animals before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. BIO-6: If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of migratory birds and a minimum 500-foot no - disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the project site to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 26 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Implementation Action: In implementing B/O-6 for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, the City of Santa Clarita will apply B/O-6's requirements to construction activities that require ground disturbance. If such activities are required between February 15 and August 31, corresponding with the migratory bird nesting season and Crotch's bumble bee active flight period, a preconstruction nesting bird and Crotch's bumble bee survey will be conducted within one week prior to the start of construction activities. In the event that a state and/or federally listed or candidate species, such as coastal California gnatcatcher or Crotch's bumble bee, is detected, a 500-foot no -disturbance will be implemented and CDFW and/or USFWS will be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. 1310-7: Temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from the proposed Project shall require a Waste Discharge Requirement4 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by RWQCB prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in -lieu of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from the CDFW shall be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. 1310-8: During construction and operation, project materials will not be cast from the project site into nearby habitats; further, project -related trash will be contained and removed to a proper disposal facility. Any excess soil unearthed during construction will be used to create the proposed trail alignments. 1310-9: All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the project footprint and inspected by the project biologist to confirm it is free of non-native plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the project site. All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post -construction landscaping activities and erosion control BMPs will be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program will be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post -construction. 4 This was incorrectly referred to as a "Water Discharge Requirement' in the Haskell Canyon Bike Park MMRP City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 27 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.5 Cultural Resources FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical NI NI No No No No No resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an LTSM archaeological resource LTSM No No No No No pursuant to CEQA (AP) Guidelines Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those LTSM LTSM No No No No No interred outside of formal (AP) cemeteries? 3.5.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings According to the Haskell IS/MND, no historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a) were identified within the Approved Project Site as a result of the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search; pedestrian survey; and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) evaluations. Therefore, as determined in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would have no impact on historical resources. As determined in the Haskell IS/MND, based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results, the archaeological sensitivity for potentially unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the area of potential effect identified for the Approved Project is low, and the potential for significant buried historic period resources is also considered low. Nonetheless, the Haskell IS/MND included Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 to require the proper handling and disposition of archaeological resources in the unexpected event that such resources are inadvertently discovered during construction of the Approved Project. The Haskell IS/MND concluded that with implementation of these mitigation measures, any impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 28 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project With respect to human remains, the Haskell IS/MND determined that although no evidence of any prior human burials or use as a burial ground was identified for the Approved Project Site during the records search and background research conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment or during the Native American consultation process conducted for the Approved Project, the potential for uncovering human remains exists. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL- 4 was included in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during Approved Project construction. The Haskell IS/MND concluded that any impact to human remains would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4. 3.5.2 Revised Project Analysis The analysis of impacts to cultural resources for the Revised Project is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural Assessment) prepared by Michael Baker, which is included as Appendix C, of this Addendum. A records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was conducted on May 18, 2026, for the Revised Project Site and a surrounding 0.5-mile radius as part of the Cultural Assessment. The SCCIC records search results indicated that seven previously recorded cultural resources have been identified and recorded within the half -mile radius of the Revised Project Site, one of which, P-19-003131, the remains of a twentieth century hog farm, intersects the Project Site. The features of this resource include a mid-20th century historic refuse dump, a refuse scatter, a corral, vegetation growing in linear patterns, a fence line, possible livestock pens, a concrete foundation, a wood platform, a house foundation, and a leveled trailer pad associated with hog farm. These features were located on either side of Haskell Canyon Access Road (main access drive). P-19-003131 was individually determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) by consensus through the Section 106 process and is listed in the California Register. In addition to the resources identified during the records search, one additional resource, a twentieth-century mining operation (Bluecloud-MBI-01 H), was documented during the initial survey for the Approved Project. All of the resources identified within the search area were historic -aged resources and no prehistoric -aged sites were identified. A pedestrian survey of the Revised Project Site was conducted on May 28, 2026 as part of the Cultural Assessment, which included the Haskell Canyon Access Road (main access drive and spur roads) and a 5-meter buffer. No historical or archaeological resources were identified or observed within the Revised Project Site and 5-meter buffer during the survey, including the part of the Revised Project Site that overlaps P-19-003131. No built environment resources were identified in the records search or during the pedestrian survey conducted for the Revised Project. Bluecloud-MBI-01 H, which was documented during the initial survey for the Approved Project, is not located within the Revised Project Site or 5-meter buffer and was determined to be ineligible for listing in the California Register and not a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Although P-19-003131 overlaps the Revised Project Site, is listed in the California Register, and is considered a historical resource under CEQA, no elements of the site have been identified within the Revised Project Site itself. Therefore, the Revised Project City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 29 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and no impacts would occur. Additionally, the Cultural Assessment included an archaeological sensitivity analysis of the Revised Project Site. Archaeological sensitivity is determined based on the general presence and/or absence of Native American occupation sites, isolated prehistoric Native American artifacts and burials, and historic archival and archaeological materials exposed during various construction projects. Roadways have been developed in the Haskell Canyon area since the nineteenth century, and the existing roadway topographic maps, aerial photographs, and archival records have indicated that historic -period homesteads and mining operations were established within or near the Revised Project area during the early to mid -twentieth century. One historic - period archaeological site eligible for the National Register and listed in the California Register (P-19-003131) was identified within the Revised Project area. P-19-003131, is mapped as overlapping the Project site. However, the resource represents the remnants of a hog farm that was established alongside Haskell Canyon Access Road and was deliberately placed to avoid being within the roadway. None of the features associated with the resource were mapped within the Revised Project Site, and the archaeological survey failed to identify any artifacts or features associated with the resource within the Revised Project Site. The site is eligible for the National Register and listed in the California Register because of its data potential. P-19-003131's data potential would not be impacted by the Revised Project. In addition, the soils of the Revised Project Site have been heavily impacted by the roadway's development from the surface to unknown but significant depths. Therefore, based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results, the archaeological sensitivity for potentially unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the area of potential effect is low, and the potential for significant buried historic period resources is also considered low. Nonetheless, in the event of inadvertent discovery during the construction of the Revised Project, Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. With regard to human remains, no evidence of any prior human burials or use as a burial ground was identified for the Revised Project Site during the records search and pedestrian survey conducted for the Revised Project. The Revised Project would install approximately four inches of asphalt concrete over the Haskell Canyon Access Road and construct two dip crossings. The likelihood of encountering human remains within the Revised Project Site during construction is very low. Nonetheless, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during construction of the Revised Project, implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that any impacts to human remains would be less than significant. 3.5.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 30 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures contained in the Haskell IS/MND are applicable to the Revised Project: CUL-1: Archaeological monitoring shall occur in the area of potential effect during all soil - disturbing and grubbing/grading/excavation/trenching activities, which could impact archaeological resources. The monitor will observe construction activities to determine if cultural resources are present below the surface. The Principal Investigator (PI) will submit a request to the City during construction, requesting a modification to the monitoring program when field conditions occur that could reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. Such field conditions may include modern disturbance post-dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered. Ground -disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, geotechnical boring, trenching, grading, excavating, and the demolition of building foundations. Monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological monitor who is working under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738). The archaeological monitor shall observe ground -disturbing activities in all areas with the potential to contain significant cultural deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain and submit monitoring logs at the conclusion of monitoring. If discoveries are made during ground -disturbing activities, additional work may be required in accordance with the terms specified in the cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground -disturbing activities on the site, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the City that documents monitoring activities conducted by the Project archaeologist within 60 days of completion of monitoring. This report shall document the daily archaeological monitoring results; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the qualified archaeologist. Final monitoring reports will be submitted to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center. Any unanticipated archaeological finds and subsequent evaluation or data recovery efforts will be documented in the report. CUL-2: In the event an archaeological resource is unearthed during excavation, all excavations shall be halted within 50 feet of the find. Work shall stop immediately, and the discovery shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738), pursuant to the procedures set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 31 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project and execution of a Phase II Archaeological Testing Plan. As the lead agency, the City shall make a determination of significance on the basis of the recommendations of the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined not to be significant, then resource -specific work shall be completed, and construction may proceed. If the resource is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, then a resource -specific archaeological resources treatment plan shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 prior to recommencing ground -disturbing activities that may impact the resource. CUL-3: Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred treatment for historical resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. In the event that a historical resource is discovered and disturbance to such a resource cannot be avoided, one of the following treatments shall be implemented: avoidance, site capping, creation of conservation easements, or archaeological data recovery. If avoidance, site capping, or creation of a conservation easement is determined infeasible, then a Phase III data recovery excavation will be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 106 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.13, to document the resource's scientifically consequential information. The Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the consulting tribe(s) if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The Phase III study shall consist of the recovery and analysis of a statistically significant sample of the site through archaeological excavation, radiocarbon dating of organic materials or other kinds of dating, cataloging, specialist analysis, and report writing designed to document the resource in perpetuity. During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the qualified archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the area of potential effect for cataloging and analysis will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non -human remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City with evidence of final disposition of the cultural material collection: • Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting tribe(s). This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed. • A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in Los Angeles County that meets federal standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 79, and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in Los Angeles County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 32 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project • If more than one Native American tribe is involved with the Project and the tribes cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at an appropriate qualified repository determined by the City. CUL-4: If human skeletal remains are found during earth -moving activities, work shall be suspended and the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office shall be notified. Standard guidelines set by California law provide for the treatment of skeletal material of Native American origin (California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.98 et seq.; Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the remains are found to be archaeological in their disposition, then after the coroner releases the site, the qualified professional archaeologist, in consultation with the most likely descendant, shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 that also incorporates the guidance in "A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated Grave Goods," published by the California Native American Heritage Commission. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.6 Energy FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUSION CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or LTS LTS No No No No No unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for LTS LTS No No No No No renewable energy or energy efficiency? 3.6.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts related to energy would be less than significant. As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would utilize energy resources, including electricity and petroleum -based fuel supplies and distribution systems, during construction and operation. Electricity demand for the Approved Project would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Construction of the Approved Project would consume City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 33 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project approximately 2,623 gallons of gasoline and 43,512 gallons of diesel fuel, or 0.0001 percent of the gasoline and 0.01 percent of the diesel used annually in Los Angeles County. Thus, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction. During operation, other than the occasional use of generators for food trucks and music, the Approved Project would not require electricity or natural gas. It was determined that operation of the Approved Project would consume 652 gallons of diesel fuel and 18.458 gallons of gasoline per year, which equates to 0.0005 percent of the gasoline consumed annually in Los Angeles County. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND determined that operation of the Approved Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, the Haskell IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project's consistency with the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan and determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with all applicable energy -related policies from the General Plan. Therefore, the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.6.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project would impact energy resources, including electricity and petroleum -based fuel supplies and distribution systems, during construction. Similar to the Approved Project, electricity consumption may be required for the conveyance of water that would be used during construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and to power any necessary lighting or electronic equipment. However, electricity use would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Construction of the Revised Project would also consume gasoline and diesel fuel related to construction worker vehicle trips and use of heavy equipment for paving and construction of the dip crossings. However, the intensity and duration of construction for the Revised Project would be less than estimated for construction of the Approved Project due to the size and nature of the construction activities. Thus, it is assumed that the Revised Project would consume less than 0.0001 percent of the gasoline and 0.01 percent of the diesel used annually in Los Angeles County, as estimated for the Approved Project, and would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, impacts would be less than significant for the Revised Project. No permanent structures or uses would be developed on the Revised Project Site that would require the consumption of energy resources during operation of the Revised Project. Therefore, operation of the Revised Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and no impacts would occur. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project is evaluated against the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan to determine if it would conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Revised Project would pave approximately 7,500 feet of the Haskell Canyon Access Road, which consists of the main access drive and the spur roads to the existing archery range and bike park. As the Revised Project is an access improvement project and no permanent structures or uses would be City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 34 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project developed on the Revised Project Site, it would not require the consumption of electricity or natural gas, or generate any new vehicle trips that would increase energy consumption in the form of petroleum fuels. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.6.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 35 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.7 Geology and Soils FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? 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 NI NI No No No No No the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground LTS LTS No No No No No shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including LTS LTS No No No No No liquefaction? iv. Landslides? LTS LTS No No No No No b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss LTS LTS No No No No No 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 LTS LTS No No No No No result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1994), creating LTS LTS No No No No No substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 36 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal NI NI No No No No No systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Result in a change in topography or ground surface relief NI LTS No No No No No features? g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic NI LTS No No No No No yards or more? h) Involve development and or/grading on a NI LTS No No No No No slope greater than 10% natural grade? i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any LTS LTS No No No No No unique geologic or physical feature? j) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological LTS LTS No No No No No resource or site or unique geologic feature? 3.7.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND determined that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant. As stated in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project Site is located in a seismically active region in Southern California near several fault lines. However, the Approved Project Site is not mapped within a state -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, the Approved Project Site is not located within any other known fault zones. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. The nearest fault is the Pelona Fault zone, which is located approximately one mile northeast of the Approved Project Site. Seismic activity along this fault or on any other of the numerous faults City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 37 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project in the Southern California area could cause seismic ground shaking in the City. Additionally, a portion of the Approved Project Site lies within a liquefaction zone; however, the impacts associated with potential seismic -induced liquefaction settlements related to the components of the Approved Project are considered low. The design and construction of Approved Project would be required to comply with existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, which would minimize risks pertaining to seismic ground shaking the event of an earthquake, and seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Regarding landslides, the Approved Project Site is within a landslide zone, and the topography of the Approved Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The Approved Project would be constructed to follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, would not cause adverse effects involving landslides. Moreover, the Approved Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a landslide. As discussed, the design and construction of the Approved Project would comply with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, which would minimize risks pertaining to landslides. Additionally, as the Approved Project would follow the existing grade of the site, impacts related to a change in topography or ground surface relief features; earth movement of 10,000 cubic yards or more; and development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10 percent natural grade would be less than significant. Regarding erosion, the Approved Project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements, including to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to minimize the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff; and to implement best management practices (BMPs) pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04, Chapter 17.90, and Chapter 17.95 to ensure that discharges of pollutants are effectively prohibited during construction and operation. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding unstable geologic units, the Haskell IS/MND states that no extraction of gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring at the Approved Project Site, and the Approved Project would not include any groundwater extraction which could result in subsidence. In addition, the risk of hydrocollapse of native soils at the Approved Project Site is considered low, and construction of the Approved Project would not result in excessive loading of the soils on site. Therefore, impacts related to an unstable geologic unit, including subsidence and collapsible soils, would be less than significant. The Haskell IS/MND states that the distribution of potentially expansive soil is highly variable at the Approved Project Site. The design and construction of the Approved Project would be required to comply with existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, which would minimize risks pertaining to expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 38 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project As stated in the Haskell IS/MND, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required, and thus, no related impact would occur. Regarding unique geologic features, the Haskell IS/MND states that the Approved Project would not result in the destruction or covering of any unique geologic or physical feature. Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, the Approved Project would not result in the modification of the ridgelines such that it would have a significant impact on any unique geologic features. Regarding paleontological resources, while fossils have been discovered in nearby locations in the same sedimentary deposits as exist in the Approved Project area, the Approved Project would not require ground disturbance at depths greater than four feet and would take place within previously disturbed fill sediments or at the current topsoil surface, which would not require ground disturbance in undisturbed geologic contexts. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.7.2 Revised Project Analysis Similar to the Approved Project Site, the Revised Project Site is located in a seismically active region in Southern California near several fault lines, but is not mapped within a state -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.5 In addition, the Revised Project Site is not located within any other known fault zones. As such, the Revised Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no impact would occur. The nearest fault to the Revised Project Site is the Pelona Fault zone, which is located approximately two mile northeast of the Revised Project Site.' Similar to the Approved Project Site, seismic activity along this fault or on any other of the numerous faults in the Southern California area could cause seismic ground shaking in the City. Additionally, the Revised Project Site lies within a liquefaction zone.' The design and construction of Revised Project would be required to comply with existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, which would minimize risks pertaining to seismic ground shaking the event of an earthquake, and seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Regarding landslides, portions of the Revised Project Site are within a landslide zone,$ and the topography of the Revised Project area is characterized by hills and valleys. The Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, and construct two dip crossings, and thus, would not change the existing grade of the site or cause adverse effects involving landslides. As discussed, the design and construction of t 6 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.qov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed June 8, 2026 6 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/fam/, accessed June 8, 2026. ' California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/EQZApp/app/, accessed June 8, 2026. $ California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/EQZApp/app/, accessed June 8, 2026. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 39 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project he Revised Project would comply with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, which would minimize risks pertaining to landslides. Additionally, as the Revised Project would follow the existing grade of the site and would not include the construction of any new structures on the Revised Project Site or require substantial grading, impacts related to a change in topography or ground surface relief features and development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10 percent natural grade would not occur. Lastly, the Revised Project would not result in earth movement of 10,000 cubic yards or more, and thus no impacts would occur in this regard. Regarding erosion, as the Revised Project would not disturb more than one -acre, a SWPPP would not be required. However, the Revised Project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements, which include the implementation of BMPs pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04, Chapter 17.90, and Chapter 17.95 to ensure that discharges of pollutants are effectively prohibited during construction and operation. Compliance with regulatory requirements would minimize impacts related to erosion during construction. Additionally, paving the main access drive and spur roads would have beneficial impacts by minimizing erosion. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding unstable geologic units, no extraction of gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring at the Revised Project Site, and the Revised Project would not include any groundwater extraction which could result in subsidence. In addition, although the Revised Project Site is comprised of soils with various expansion potential, implementation of the Revised Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property since the Revised Project would not construct any permanent structures or uses on the Revised Project Site.. Therefore, impacts related to an unstable geologic unit, including subsidence and collapsible or expansive soils, would be less than significant. The Revised Project is an access improvement project and would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur. Regarding unique geologic features, the Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road and construct two dip crossings. Thus, the Approved Project would not result in the modification of the ridgelines such that it would have a significant impact on any unique geologic features. Regarding paleontological resources, the Cultural Assessment (Appendix C) prepared for the Revised Project included a record search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC). The results of the records search showed one previously identified fossil locality within the Revised Project Site. Additionally, fossil localities were recorded, either at the surface or at depth, near the Revised Project Site from geologic units similar to those underlying the Revised Project Site. Based on the Cultural Assessment, the sensitivity for paleontological resources within the Revised Project Site is low. Fossil shell has been documented within or near the Revised Project Site, and significant vertebrate fossil localities have been recovered from similar geologic units near the Revised Project Site. There is high potential to encounter paleontological resources within undisturbed geologic contexts (i.e., undisturbed bedrock or City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 40 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project subsurface geologic deposits in previously undisturbed areas) within the Revised Project vicinity. However, the field survey confirmed that the Revised Project Site is highly disturbed and, in many places, covered in imported gravel. The Revised Project, which would pave the main access drive and spur roads and construct two dip crossings, is not anticipated to impact undisturbed sensitive deposits. Thus, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.7.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUSION CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED I ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that LTS LTS No No No No No may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the LTS LTS No No No No No purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 41 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.8.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND determined that impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than significant. The Approved Project would consist of the development of a bike park and would generate approximately 204 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) of GHG emissions from area sources, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, off -road equipment and construction equipment, which would be well below the SCAQMD's draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not generate GHG that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project was also evaluated against the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020), and the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024). The Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.8.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project is an access improvement project and no permanent new uses would be developed on the Revised Project Site that would generate GHG emissions from area sources, mobile sources, energy usage, water transport, wastewater processing, or solid waste disposal. Therefore, the Revised Project would only generate GHG emissions during construction of the Revised Project. However, the intensity and construction duration for the Revised Project would be less than estimated for construction of the Approved Project due to the size and nature of the construction activities. Thus, it is inferred that construction of the Revised Project would generate fewer metric tons of CO2e than was estimated for the construction of the Approved Project, and would be nominal compared to the 204 MTCO2e of total GHG emissions generated by the Approved Project. The GHG emissions generated by the Revised Project would also be well below the SCAQMD's draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even when combined with the emissions from the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and impacts would be less than significant similar to the Approved Project. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project is evaluated against CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal 2020, and Connect SoCal 2024 to determine if it would conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. During construction, all construction equipment fleets utilized for the Revised Project are required to be registered with CARB and meet CARB's current emission reductions regulations, which are anticipated to be updated to meet Executive Order N-79-20 requirements. As such, the Revised Project would not conflict with CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan. Additionally, the Revised Project would be consistent with Goal 2 of Connect SoCal 2020, which aims to improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods. Moreover, the Revised Project would support the goals and strategies in Connect SoCal 2024 by improving travel along Haskell Canyon Access Road and providing all-weather access to the bike park constructed as part of the Approved Project, which would promote alternative transportation modes (i.e., bike City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 42 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project riding). Lastly, as discussed above, the Revised Project would not develop permanent structures or uses on the Project Site that would generate any new vehicle trips and corresponding GHG emissions during operation, which supports the goals to reduce GHG emissions in the Southern California region. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.8.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUSION CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED I ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the LTS LTS No No No No No routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 43 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident LTS LTS No No No No No conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, NI NI No No No No No substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code NI NI No No No No No 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 NI NI No No No No No the project result in a safety hazard excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard NI NI No No No No No for people residing or working in the project area? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 44 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency LTS LTS No No No No No response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are LTSM LTSM No No No No No adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., LTS LTS No No No No No electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? 3.9.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND determined that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be required to reduce impacts related to wildland fires to a less -than -significant level. All other impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant or have no impact. As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, construction activities for the Approved Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. However, the Approved Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials, thereby reducing the risk of hazardous materials use. During operations, the Approved Project would involve the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils for equipment, and would similarly comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Approved Project operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts were determined to be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 45 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project As stated in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, nor are there any underground storage tanks or no oil/gas wells within the Approved Project Site. Therefore, the Approved Project would not 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, and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Additionally, the Approved Project would have no impacts related to listed hazardous material sites. The Haskell IS/MND determined that there are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the Approved Project Site, and as such, the Approved Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Similarly, the Approved Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in impacts related to airport - related safety hazards or excessive noise. Regarding emergency access, the Haskell IS/MND determined that construction activities associated with the Approved Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Approved Project Site would be maintained. The City's existing emergency response procedures would not change with implementation of the Approved Project and would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of natural or man-made incidents in the Approved Project area that result in a need to evacuate some or all of the future Approved Project visitors and employees. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. According to the Haskell IS/MND, the hills and mountainous areas of Santa Clarita are considered to be wildland urban interface areas, and approximately 80 to 90 percent of the Santa Clarita Valley is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), including the Approved Project Site. As the Approved Project would require construction and operation within a VHFHSZ, the Approved Project could expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND determined that Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be required to reduce impacts related to wildland fires to a less -than -significant level. Regarding exposing people to existing sources of potential health hazards, such as electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines, the Haskell IS/MND states that there are several overhead electrical transmission lines and transmission towers in the Approved Project Site. However, the Approved Project would not construct any habitable structures on the Approved Project Site that would result in prolonged exposure of visitors to electrical magnetic fields, live wires, or flashovers from the transmission towers. Recreational users of the mountain bike park also would not be exposed to overhead transmission lines for long periods of time. Moreover, the risk of hazards from live wires and flashovers is similar to other transmission towers and power lines in urbanized areas of the City. Therefore, the Approved Project would not increase the risk of exposure to electrical transmission lines to visitors of the bike park. Additionally, there is no City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 46 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project natural gas infrastructure located within the Approved Project Site. Therefore, the Approved Project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. 3.9.2 Revised Project Analysis Similar to the Approved Project, construction activities for the Revised Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. The Revised Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use and management of hazardous materials during construction, thereby reducing the risk of hazardous materials use, and no hazardous materials would be stored on - site. The Revised Project is an access improvement project and would not include any permanent structures or uses on the Revised Project Site that would require the use or storage of hazardous materials during operation. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. The Revised Project Site is not included on any of the following list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: DTSC EnviroStor database of hazardous waste clean-up sites; SWRCB list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; SWRCB GeoTracker database of leaking underground storage tanks sites and cleanup program sites; and SWRCB list of sites with active cease and desist orders (CDO) and cleanup or abatement orders (CAO).9 The Revised Project Site has one former oil well (dry hole) located along the edge of the spur road to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park, which was plugged and abandoned in 1952.10,11 The well abandonment was formally approved in 1959.12 The City would notify the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), regarding paving near the well and acquire a permit for the Revised Project, if required, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 3208.1 and 3224. With the notification and approval of any required permits, the Revised Project would minimize the risk of foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials. As stated above, the Revised Project would comply with all applicable fede o California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Background and History, https://calepa. ca.gov/site clean up/corteselist/background/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ up blic/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit, https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf, accessed June 5, 2026. State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/#, accessed June 5, 2026. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(c), List of "active" and CDO and CAO, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5c/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division, Wellfinder, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/calgem/findwells/#data_s=id%3AdataSource_2-Well-0%3A3182, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division, WeIISTAR, https://wellstar- public.conservation.ca.gov/Well/Well/Detail?api=0403706209#, accessed June 5, 2026. 12 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division, Wellfinder, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/calgem/findwells/#data_s=id%3AdataSource_2-Well-0%3A3182, accessed June 5, 2026. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 47 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project ral, state, and local requirements concerning the use and management of hazardous materials during construction, and would not require the use of hazardous materials during operation. Therefore, the Revised Project would not 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, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the Approved Project would have no impacts related to listed hazardous material sites. Similar to the Approved Project, there are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the Revised Project Site, and as such, the Revised Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, the Revised Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, located approximately 11 miles to the northeast.13 Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in impacts related to airport -related safety hazards or excessive noise. Regarding emergency access, construction activities would involve paving the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, and constructing two dip crossings, which would require a partial -rolling closure of the Haskell Canyon Access Road during the maximum six -week construction period. However, as with the Approved Project, access for emergency response or evacuation would be maintained at all times. Moreover, once completed, the City's existing emergency response procedures would not change with implementation of the Revised Project and would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of natural or man-made incidents in the Revised Project area, including for the bike park constructed as part of the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts would be less than significant. The Revised Project Site is in a VHFHSZ.14 Construction of the Revised Project would bring workers and construction equipment to the Revised Project Site for approximately three weeks to pave the main access drive and spur roads, and approximately four weeks to construct the dip crossings. Construction equipment would be equipped with a spark arrester as required by the Los Angeles Fire Code Section 326.12.1; however, as with the Approved Project, construction activities for the Revised Project could still accidentally spark a fire. Therefore, the Revised Project would implement Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 which would require the preparation and implementation of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan to reduce construction - related impacts to wildland fires to a less -than -significant level. Once operational, the Revised P 13 Google, Google Maps (measure distance between Haskell Canyon Access Road and Agua Dulce Airpark), https://www.google.com/maps, accessed June 8, 2025. 14 California Department of Fire and Forestry Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/ what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones, accessed June 8, 2026. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 48 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project roject would function similar to existing conditions, as an improved access road, and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Regarding exposing people to existing sources of potential health hazards, such as electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines, the Revised Project Site is located with a transmission line easement. However, the Revised Project would not construct any habitable structures on the Revised Project Site that would result in exposure of visitors to electrical magnetic fields, live wires, or flashovers from the transmission towers. Additionally, the risk of hazards from live wires and flashovers is similar to existing conditions as the Revised Project is a an access improvement project for the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road. Therefore, the Revised Project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts would be less than significant. 3.9.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measure contained in the Haskell IS/MND is applicable to the Revised Project: HAZ-1: Prior to commencement of construction activities, a Construction Fire Prevention Plan shall be prepared for the Project to specify the construction phase restrictions and fire safety requirements that would be implemented to reduce risk of ignitions and pre -plans for responding to an unlikely ignition. Prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials onto the Project Site, improvements within the active development area shall be in place, including an approved, temporary roadway surface and fuel modification zones established. These improvements shall also be included in the Construction Fire Prevention Plan, which shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) for review and approval. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 49 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste LTS LTS No No No No No discharge requirements? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level LTS LTS No No No No No (e.g., the 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of LTS LTS No No No No No a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or LTS LTS No No No No No substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 50 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage LTS LTS No No No No No systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially LTS LTS No No No No No degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard NI NI No No No No No Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would NI NI No No No No No impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, NI NI No No No No No including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) [Result in] inundation by seiche, tsunami, or LTS LTS No No No No No mudflow? k) Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction LTS LTS No No No No No of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) [Result in] other modification of a wash, LTSM LTSM No No No No No channel creek, or river? m)Impact stormwater management in any of the following ways? i. Potential impact of project construction and project post- LTS LTS No No No No No construction activity on stormwater runoff? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 51 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: ii. Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste LTS LTS No No No No No handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii. Significant environmentally harmful increase in the LTS LTS No No No No No flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? iv. Significant and environmentally harmful increases in LTS LTS No No No No No erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? v. Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of LTSM LTSM No No No No No receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi. Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, LTSM LTSM No No No No No watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii. Does the Proposed Project include provisions for the separation, recycling, LTS LTS No No No No No and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 52 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.10.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND determined that impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with mitigation. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-1 through 13I0-9 would be required to reduce impacts related to modification of a wash, channel creek, or river; stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters; and stormwater management that could cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies to a less -than -significant level. All other impacts related to hydrology and water quality were determined to be less than significant or have no impact. The Approved Project Site is located within the Los Angeles RWQCB's region and drains into the Santa Clara River Watershed. Since the Approved Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of land, the Approved Project would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP. Moreover, all construction and grading activities would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulatory documents, including all applicable City ordinances and the City's permit regulating discharges into and from the storm drain system. During operation, drainage within the Approved Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions, and the Approved Project's infiltration basins would retain onsite a specified volume of stormwater runoff from a storm event to control stormwater quality. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in discharge that would violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality, and impacts would be less than significant. As stated in the Haskell IS/MND, there are no active groundwater wells within the Approved Project Site, and groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered due to the shallow depth of excavation needed for construction. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater quality would be less than significant. Regarding groundwater supplies and flows, the Approved Project would introduce minimal paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Approved Project Site. Thus, groundwater recharge within the Project Site would generally be the same as existing conditions. For the same reason, the rate of flow, currents, and the course and direction of groundwater within the Approved Project Site would generally be the same as existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supplies and the flow of groundwater would be less than significant. Regarding erosion, drainage patterns and stormwater quality, the Approved Project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements, including to obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit; to develop a SWPPP to minimize the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff; and to implement BMPs pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04, Chapter 17.90, and Chapter 17.95 to ensure that discharges of pollutants are effectively prohibited during construction and operation. Additionally, the Approved Project would install culverts and a ditch, which would convey flows directly into the Haskell Canyon creek, similar to the existing condition drainage pattern. Thus, the Approved Project's drainage devices would mitigate the increased velocity of drainage and include dissipaters consisting of riprap, as necessary, to prevent erosion and control stormwater quality. Therefore, the Approved Project would not substantially alter the existing City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 53 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site, or cause harmful increases in erosion of the Approved Project Site or surrounding area. Additionally, the Approved Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. As discussed, the Approved Project would introduce minimal paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Approved Project Site, would follow the existing grade of the area, and would not substantially change the drainage of the site. Thus, drainage and runoff within the Approved Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions. Therefore, the Approved Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site; change the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water; impact stormwater management during construction and post -construction; or increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Regarding stormwater drainage facilities, the Approved Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities and would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. Thus, the Approved Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Regarding flooding, the Approved Project Site occurs within Zones X and D, which has at least a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding and is an area of undetermined flood hazard, respectively. The Approved Project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project Site is not located within the Castaic Dam Inundation Zone or any other inundation zones, and thus would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. Regarding inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, the Approved Project Site is not located in an area that is susceptible to seiche or tsunami. While the Approved Project Site is located in an area characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges, the Approved Project Site would not result in inundation by mudflow as a result of post -fire slope instability. Moreover, the Approved Project would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as the Approved Project would involve minimal development and would generally follow the existing contours of the slopes for areas at higher elevations. Therefore, impacts related to mudflow would be less than significant. As discussed in Subsection 3.4.1, the Approved Project may potentially result in impacts to aquatic features that are under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW. Impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 131O-7 through BIO-9 would be required to reduce impacts related to the modification of a wash, channel creek, or river to a less than significant level. Regarding potential stormwater discharges associated with hazardous materials and maintenance areas, construction activities for the Approved Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. The City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 54 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Approved Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials, including for vehicle or equipment fueling and maintenance. Additionally, the Approved Project would implement a site - specific SWPPP that sets forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. During operation, the Approved Project would involve the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils for equipment, and would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. No vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance would occur onsite. Therefore, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to stormwater management from potential discharges. As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, any stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits and that could cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 13I0-7 through 13I0-9. Regarding impacts to stormwater management from solid waste, the Approved Project would generate a small amount of waste from construction activities, and a nominal amount of waste from users of the park, workers, and volunteers, with additional waste during event days, during operation. Adequate space would be set aside to allow for the collection and storage of recyclable materials on the Approved Project Site. All non -hazardous solid waste generated from the Approved Project Site would be recycled per local and state regulations, and non -recyclable solid waste would be disposed of at one of the nearby landfills. Accordingly, the Approved Project would comply with adopted programs and regulations pertaining to solid waste and City waste diversion goals. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in stormwater management impacts related to solid waste provisions, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.10.2 Revised Project Analysis Similar to the Approved Project Site, the Revised Project Site is located within the Los Angeles RWQCB's region and drains into the Santa Clara River Watershed. All construction and grading activities would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulatory documents, including all applicable City ordinances and the City's permit regulating discharges into and from the storm drain system. As part of the Revised Project, two dip crossings would be constructed at the same elevation as the existing drainage channels and would allow any flows to pass over them. Additionally, paving the main access drive and spur roads would have beneficial impacts by minimizing erosion. Therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially change the drainage conditions, amount of stormwater runoff, or stormwater quality from the Revised Project Site. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in discharge that would violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality, and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 55 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project There are no active groundwater wells within the Approved Project Site,'s and groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction activities. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater quality would be less than significant. Regarding groundwater supplies and flows, the Revised Project would introduce minimal additional paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces compared to the Approved Project. Thus, groundwater recharge within the Revised Project vicinity would generally be the same as existing conditions and the Revised Project would not affect the groundwater recharge potential for the watershed. For the same reason, the rate of flow, currents, and the course and direction of groundwater within the Revised Project vicinity would generally be the same as existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supplies and the flow of groundwater would be less than significant. Regarding erosion, drainage patterns and stormwater quality, the Revised Project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements, including to implement BMPs pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04, Chapter 17.90, and Chapter 17.95 to ensure that discharges of pollutants are effectively prohibited during construction and operation. Additionally, the Revised Project would construct the two dip crossings at the same elevation as the existing drainage channels, which would allow any flows to pass over them, and convey flows directly into the Haskell Canyon creek, similar to the existing condition drainage pattern. Additionally, paving the main access road and spurs would have beneficial impacts by minimizing erosion. Thus, the Approved Revised Project would not change the velocity of drainage, erosion from the Revised Project Site, or stormwater quality. Therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, or cause harmful increases in erosion of the Revised Project Site or surrounding area. Additionally, the Revised Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed, the Revised Project would introduce minimal additional paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces compared to the Approved Project, would follow the existing grade of the area, and would not substantially change the drainage of the Revised Project Site. Thus, drainage and runoff within the Revised Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions. Therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site; change the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water; impact stormwater management during construction and post -construction; or increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Regarding stormwater drainage facilities, the Revised Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities and would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. Thus, the Revised Project would not create or s California Department https://dwr.maps.arcgis. accessed June 8, 2026. City of Santa Clarita June 2026 of Water Resources, Well Completion Report Map Application, com/apes/webappviewer/index.html?id=181078580a214c0986e2da28f8623b37, Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND Page 56 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Similar to the Approved Project, no impact would occur. Regarding flooding, the Revised Project Site occurs within Zone X, which has at least a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding.16 The Revised Project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Moreover, the Revised Project Site is not located within the Castaic Dam Inundation Zone or any other inundation zones'17 and thus would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. Regarding inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, the Revised Project Site is not located in an area that is susceptible to seiche or tsunami. While the Revised Project Site is located in an area characterized by hills and valleys, the Revised Project Site would not result in inundation by mudflow as a result of post -fire slope instability as the last wildfire near the Revised Project Site was the Buckweed Fire in 2007. Moreover, the Revised Project would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as it would involve paving the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road. Therefore, impacts related to mudflow would be less than significant. As discussed in Subsection 3.4.2 above, the Revised Project would result in permanent impacts to aquatic features that are under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW, which include 0.04 acres of non -wetland WoS and 0.04 acres of unvegetated streambed, due to the construction of the dip crossings. Implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures 131O-7 through 1310- 9 would reduce impacts related to the modification of a wash, channel creek, or river to a less than significant level. Regarding potential stormwater discharges associated with hazardous materials and maintenance areas, construction activities for the Revised Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. The Revised Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, and management of hazardous materials, including for vehicle or equipment fueling and maintenance, and no fuels would be stored within the Revised Project Site during construction. Additionally, the Revised Project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements, which include the implementation of BMPs pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04, Chapter 17.90, and Chapter 17.95 to ensure that discharges of pollutants are effectively prohibited during construction and operation. During operation, the Revised Project would not require the use of hazardous materials and would not include vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts related to stormwater management from potential discharges. Any stormwater discharges that could potentially significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits and that could cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or 16 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd&extent=-118.54152868832648, 34.458702063383775,-118.53114317502083, 34.46312509252125, accessed June 8, 2026. 17 City of Santa Clarita, May 2022, City of Santa Clarita Safety Element. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 57 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project water bodies would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures BIO-7 through BIO-9, similar to the Approved Project. Regarding impacts to stormwater management from solid waste, the Revised Project would generate a small amount of waste from the demolition of the existing crossings on the spur roads and the construction of the new dip crossings. No solid waste would be generated during operation of the Revised Project. In addition, the Revised Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirement to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least 65 percent of the non -hazardous construction and demolition waste. All non -hazardous solid waste generated from construction of the Revised Project would be recycled per local and state regulations, and disposed of at one of the nearby landfills, if necessary. Accordingly, the Revised Project would comply with adopted programs and regulations pertaining to solid waste and City waste diversion goals. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in stormwater management impacts related to solid waste provisions, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.10.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.10.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9 contained in the Haskell IS/MND are applicable to the Revised Project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. See Subsection 3.4.4 above for the full text of the mitigation measures. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 58 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.11 Land Use and Planning FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Physically divide an NI NI No No No No No established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or NI NI No No No No No regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation NI NI No No No No No plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 3.11.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impacts to land use and planning. The Approved Project Site is undeveloped with dirt access paths/trails, LADWP transmission towers, and vegetation, and the Approved Project would develop a bike park that would create new trails and connect to existing trails in the area, which would improve connectivity within the Approved Project Site. Thus, the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community. A portion of the Approved Project Site within the City is zoned for Open Space (OS) uses, which allows for passive, natural and active open space uses, while the portion located within the County is zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-2-2). However, the Approved Project Site is not currently used for agriculture, and the Haskell IS/MND determined that the City is not required to comply with land use regulations adopted by the County because of intergovernmental immunity. Therefore, the Approved Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In addition, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project Site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and thus, would not conflict with such plans and policies. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 59 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.11.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, and construct two dip crossings for drainages that have been in place for many decades. Therefore, the Revised Project would not change connectivity in and around the Revised Project Site and would not physically divide an established community. Similar to the Approved Project, no impact would occur. The Revised Project Site is zoned for Open Space (OS) uses, which allows for passive, natural and active open space uses, including drainage easements. As the Revised Project is a roadway improvement project, the Revised Project would not change the zoning of the site, or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Similar to the Approved Project, no impact would occur. In addition, as discussed above in Subsection 3.4.2, the Revised Project Site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and thus, would not conflict with such plans and policies. Similar to the Approved Project, no impact would occur. 3.11.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.11.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 60 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.12 Mineral Resources FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that NI NI No No No No No 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 NI NI No No No No No delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Would the project use nonrenewable resources LTS LTS No No No No No in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.12.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings The Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of mineral resources and no impacts would occur. The Approved Project Site is not located within an existing Mineral Extraction Area or a Mineral Resource Zone, as identified on the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element's Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources). According to the City's General Plan, as well as the CaIGEM Well Finder database, there are no producing, idle, or abandoned oil or natural gas wells, or any other types of mineral extraction activities within the Approved Project Site. Furthermore, the Approved Project Site is governed by the provisions of the OS zone within the City, which does not permit mineral recovery uses. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource recovery site. The Haskell IS/MND also determined that the Approved Project would not require any unique construction methods or materials that would consume nonrenewable resources in an unusually intensive manner. During operation, the Approved Project Site would not be connected to any utilities and would not be supplied with electricity and water. All electricity used onsite would be provided by a generator and water would be delivered to the Approved Project Site by water trucks. In addition, the consumption of petroleum -based fuels during operation of the Approved Project would be typical of similar mountain bike projects and would not constitute a wasteful or inefficient method of City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 61 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project consuming energy. Therefore, the Approved Project would not use nonrenewable resources during construction or operation in a wasteful or inefficient manner, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.12.2 Revised Project Analysis Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project is not located within an existing Mineral Extraction Area or a Mineral Resource Zone, as identified on the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element's Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources).18According to the CaIGEM Well Finder database, there is a former oil well located adjacent to the spur road leading to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park. However, this oil well was abandoned in 1952 and the well abandonment was formally approved in 1959.19 Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource recovery site. The Revised Project would primarily use asphalt concrete for the road paving and Portland cement concrete and reinforcing steel to construct the dip crossings. The Revised Project would also consume energy in the form of petroleum based fuel during construction for construction equipment and vehicles. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including gravel and soils, along with petroleum -based fuels to power construction machinery and vehicles. A highly competitive construction economy encourages the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction, to be cost effective and meet financial goals. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not require any unique construction methods or materials that would consume nonrenewable resources in an unusually intensive manner. During operation, the Revised Project would utilize energy in the form of electricity and petroleum -based fuels for roadway maintenance. All electricity used would be provided by a generator the consumption of petroleum -based fuels would be typical for road maintenance and would not constitute a wasteful or inefficient method of consuming energy. Therefore, based on the above, the Revised Project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner during construction and operation, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.12.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would $ City of Santa Clarita, June 2011, City of Santa Clarita General Plan — Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources) 9 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division, Well Finder, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/calgem/findwelIs/, accessed June 5, 2026. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 62 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.13 Noise FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local LTS LTS No No No No No general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or LTS LTS No No No No No groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project LTS LTS No No No No No vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in LTS LTS No No No No No the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 63 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project result in: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public NI NI No No No No No use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people NI NI No No No No No residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.13.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, construction activities for the Approved Project would not create a significant substantial temporary noise increase that would exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria thresholds. Therefore, with adherence to allowable construction times provided in Section 11.44.080 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, the construction of the Approved Project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the Approved Project would be from vehicular traffic generated by the Approved Project on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors. The maximum of 100 daily vehicle trips generated by the Approved Project would be negligible and would only contribute up to 0.3 percent of the daily trips on Copper Hill Drive. Therefore, during operation of the Approved Project, roadway noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. In addition, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project's worst - case operational noise from the simultaneous operation of all noise sources on the Approved Project Site would not exceed the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards provided in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.040. Therefore, operation of the Approved Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from onsite noise sources and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, as analyzed in the Haskell IS/MND, the primary source of vibration during construction of the Approved Project would be from the operation of a dozer, which would create a vibration City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 64 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project level of 0.089 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet. Thus, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the vibration level at the nearest offsite structure (800 feet away) during construction of the Approved Project would be below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold and the ongoing operation of the Approved Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that a less vibration impacts during the construction and operation of the Approved Project would be less than significant. Lastly, as discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, approximately 12.2 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to airport -related safety hazards or excessive noise. 3.13.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and two spur roads, and construct two dip crossings. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would comply with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.080, which permits construction activities to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays. Since the Revised Project consists only of access improvements to a much smaller site, construction of the Revised Project would be less intensive than the Approved Project and the number and types of construction required would be similar or less than that of the Approved Project. Moreover, construction of the Approved Project is complete and there would be no overlap of construction activities with the Revised Project. Therefore, like the Approved Project, construction of the Revised Project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, as an access improvement project, the Revised Project would not generate vehicle trips or contain onsite noise sources. Therefore, operation of the Revised Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. As determined in the Haskell IS/MND, the primary source of vibration during construction of the Approved Project would be from the operation of a dozer, which would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. As previously stated, the number and types of construction equipment required for the Revised Project would be similar or less than that of the Approved Project. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors would be the residences located approximately 200 feet east and west of Haskell Canyon Access Road. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structure during construction of the Revised Project would be below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold. In addition, similar to the Approved Project, operation of the Revised Project would not include any known vibration sources. Therefore, vibration impacts during the construction and operation of the Revised Project would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Revised Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 65 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, approximately 11 miles to the northeast.20 Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in impacts related to airport -related safety hazards or excessive noise. 3.13.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures apply. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.14 Population and Housing FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUSION CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED I ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes NI NI No No No No No and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 20 Google, Google Maps (measure distance between Haskell Canyon Access Road and Agua Dulce Airpark), https://www.google.com/maps, accessed June 8, 2025. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 66 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUSION CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of NI NI No No No No No replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the NI NI No No No No No construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.14.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As analyzed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would not develop any housing or businesses on the Project Site that would generate residents or a substantial number of employment opportunities. Thus, the Approved Project would not directly result in population growth. In addition, the Approved Project is not anticipated to increase the population of the Approved Project area as the bike park would generally serve the local community and would not require any utility infrastructure. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in indirect population growth due to the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Furthermore, the Approved Project would not construct any housing or displace any people or housing. Thus, the Approved Project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that no impacts related to population and housing would occur as a result of the Approved Project. 3.14.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and two spur roads, and construct two dip crossings. The Revised Project Site does not contain dwelling units or other occupiable structures and no new homes or structures are proposed for the Revised Project. In addition, although the Revised Project would construct access improvements, no extension of roadways or other infrastructure is proposed. The proposed access improvements would serve existing uses and would not provide access to land that is available for private development. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in indirect population growth due to the extension of roads or other infrastructure. In addition, the Revised Project would not displace any housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, as with the City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 67 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Approved Project, no impacts related to population and housing would occur under the Revised Project. 3.14.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures apply. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.15 Public Services FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION OF PREVIOUSLY INFEASIBLE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project 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 ofwhich 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? NI LTS No No No No No b) Police protection? NI LTS No No No No No c) Schools? NI NI No No No No No d) Parks? NI LTS No No No No No e) Other public facilities? NI NI No No No No No 3.15.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would not develop or residential or commercial uses or any habitable structures that would result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Approved Project Site or increase the population in the City. During operation, the Approved Project would bring more individuals to the Project Site than under City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 68 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project existing conditions, which has the potential to result in a minor increase in demand for wildland fire protection services, fire prevention services, emergency medical services, hazardous materials services, emergency response, search and rescue, and other fire protection and sheriff services. Given the nominal potential increase in demand, the Approved Project is not anticipated to affect fire and police protection demands to the extent that new or physically altered fire and police facilities would be required. Furthermore, in City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of California State University Ruling (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, the court found that Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution requires local agencies to provide public safety services, including fire and police protection, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the City would comply with that provision to ensure that public safety services are provided. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts on fire and police protection services would be less than significant. The Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Approved Project Site that would generate a demand for schools. Therefore, no new or altered school facilities would be required and no impact would occur. As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project is a mountain bike park development that would provide two activity/programming areas and approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the approximately 380-acre Project Site. In addition, the Approved Project would maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi -use trails. Thus, the Approved Project would improve the City's parkland to resident ratio. Although the Approved Project would require construction and operation that would result in impacts discussed throughout the Haskell IS/MND, there would be minimal physical alteration of the majority of the Approved Project Site. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and impacts would be less than significant. Lastly, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not generate a demand for other public facilities. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities and no impact would occur. 3.15.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project is a roadway improvement project and would not develop residential or commercial uses that could generate a permanent or daytime population on the Revised Project Site. Rather, the Revised Project would provide all-weather access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range, as well as to LADWP facilities, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest that could improve fire and police protection services to the surrounding area. Therefore, the Revised Project would not generate a demand for fire and police protection services on the Revised Project Site and no new or physically altered fire and police facilities would be required. In addition, since the Revised Project would not generate a permanent residential population on the Revised Project Site, the Revised Project would not generate a demand for new or altered school, park or other public services that would require the construction of new or physically altered school, park or other public facilities. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 69 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Therefore, no impacts related to new or physically altered facilities for fire, police, schools, parks or public services would occur. 3.15.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.15.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.16 Recreation FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION OF PREVIOUSLY INFEASIBLE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational LTS LTS No No No No No 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 LTS LTSM No No No No No recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 70 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.16.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project has the potential to increase the use of open space within Haskell Canyon through the operation of the proposed bike park as it is anticipated that more users would visit the area than under existing conditions. However, the bike park and existing and new trails would be maintained daily and monthly by staff, such that substantial physical deterioration of the Approved Project Site would not occur or be accelerated. Moreover, the proposed bike park could decrease the use of other parks in the region with similar features. Thus, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that may have the potential to result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, the Approved Project has been evaluated in the Haskell IS/MND to determine whether physical impacts to the environment would occur, and mitigation measures have been identified, as appropriate, to reduce any such impacts to a less than significant level. Specifically, the Approved Project involves mitigation measures associated with reducing impacts to the environment, as identified in: Section IV. Biological Resources; Section V. Cultural Resources; Section IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Noise; Section X. Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section XX. Wildfire. Implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Haskell IS/MND would reduce any potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. 3.16.2 Revised Project Analysis As previously described, the Revised Project is an access improvement project that would provide all-weather access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range, as well as to LADWP facilities, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest. Although the Revised Project does not include recreational facilities, development of the Revised Project would improve access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and other recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Revised Project Site. However, the Revised Project is not expected to increase the number of users to the area more than what was anticipated under the Approved Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated and impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the Revised Project would not include the development of recreation facilities or generate a residential population on the Revised Project Site that would result in the need to construct or expand recreational facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.16.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 71 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.16.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.17 Transportation FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- LTS LTS No No No No No motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines LTS LTS No No No No No Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or LTS LTS No No No No No dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate LTS LTS No No No No No emergency access? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 72 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.17.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings According to the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project Site does not include any transit stops or designated pedestrian or commuter bicycle paths, and would not intersect any highways, freeways, or conflict with any intersections or streets. The Approved Project Site has existing multi -use trails and would propose additional multi -use trails, which would provide for more connectivity in the area. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Approved Project would generate an average of 108.6 daily trips on a worst -case week. As such, the Approved Project would generate less than 110 daily trips and is screened from conducting a VMT analysis. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would be designed to maximize safety by adhering to established design and engineering standards for the proposed programming areas and for the multi -use trails. The Approved Project would also designate trails with appropriate signage to protect private properties and park visitors. Moreover, public parks and trails are permitted uses for the Approved Project Site. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that construction activities associated with the Approved Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. The Approved Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core programming area would include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks. Moreover, existing fire roads within the Approved Project Site could be used for emergency access. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.17.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project Site consists of an unpaved main access drive and two unpaved spur roads. There are no transit stops or designated pedestrian or bicycle paths within the Revised Project Site and the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road is not a classified roadway within the City's General Plan. The Revised Project would pave the Haskell Canyon Access Road and construct two dip crossings to provide all-weather access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range, as well as to LADWP facilities, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest. Therefore, the Revised Project would improve connectivity within the Haskell Canyon area and would not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system. As with the Approved Project, impacts under the Revised Project would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 73 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project The Revised Project is an access improvement project and would not generate any new daily trips or increase the amount of trips generated by the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not require a VMT analysis and would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b). Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed above, the Revised Project Site consists of an unpaved main access drive and two unpaved spur roads. Implementation of the Revised Project would improve the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road and provide all-weather access to the surrounding area, including the Haskell Canyon Bike Park, the City Archery Range, LADWP facilities, the Haskell Canyon Open Space, the Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and the Angeles National Forest. Therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, as previously discussed, construction of the Revised Project would require a partial - rolling closure of those access roads during the construction period. However, as with the Approved Project, access for emergency response or evacuation would be maintained at all times. Moreover, once completed, the City's existing emergency response procedures would not change with implementation of the Revised Project and would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of natural or man-made incidents in the Revised Project area, including for the bike park constructed as part of the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. 3.17.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.17.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 74 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT I IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, 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 a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of LTS LTS No No No No No historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section LTSM 5024.1? In applying the LTSM No No No No No criteria set forth in (AP) 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? 3.18.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As determined in the Haskell IS/MND, the two cultural resources sites identified for the Approved Project are not associated with a California Native American tribe and do not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. Thus, neither site is considered a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. Additionally, a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was completed for the Approved Project area with negative results. In compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (PRC Section 21074), which requires tribal consultation as part of the CEQA process, the City initiated consultation in April 2024 with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). Based on consultation with the FTBMI, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-5 were incorporated to reduce the Approved Project's impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less -than -significant -level. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 75 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.18.2 Revised Project Analysis The analysis of impacts to tribal cultural resources for the Revised Project is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural Assessment) prepared by Michael Baker, which is included as Appendix C, of this Addendum, along with the results of the tribal consultation for the Approved Project. No resources of Native American origin were identified within the Revised Project Site as a result of the records search, archival research, and the pedestrian survey conducted for the Cultural Assessment. The results of the Sacred Lands File search for the Revised Project vicinity provided by the NAHC on June 3, 2026 was positive, and the FTBMI were identified as potentially having information about resources of Native American significance in the vicinity of the Revised Project Site. The FTBMI were consulted during the preparation of the Haskell IS/MND and, given their knowledge of the potential tribal cultural resources in the Approved Project area, provided mitigation measures which were adopted for the Approved Project. The result of the Sacred Lands File search for the Revised Project is consistent with the sensitivity of the Approved Project area considered in the Haskell IS/MND. Therefore, like for the Approved Project, implementation of Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 would reduce impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources to a less -than -significant level. 3.18.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures contained in the Haskell IS/MND are applicable to the Revised Project: TCR-1: Document Release. Any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 76 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project TCR-2: Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. In the event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP will provide details regarding the process for in -field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non -funerary resources. TCR-3: Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor. The Project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity during the initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of which it will be disturbed). If cultural resources are not encountered after observing the initial pass of all ground - disturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If cultural resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, Project archaeologist, and the City to ensure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the Project applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by Project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the Project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. TCR-4: In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery. If 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 retained by the Project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be contacted about any pre -contact and/or post -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 77 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project TCR-5: Human Remains. In the inadvertent discovery of human remains or funerary objects 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 shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED I ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional NI NI No No No No No Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or, electric power, natural gas, or NI NI No No No No No telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of NI NI No No No No No existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 78 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? Would the project: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and NI LTS No No No No No resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has NI NI No No No No No adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate LTS LTS No No No No No the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and LTS LTS No No No No No reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 3.19.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, it is anticipated that the waste collected from the three vault restrooms proposed for the Approved Project would be disposed of at the Saugus or Valencia Water Reclamation Plants, which would have adequate capacity to serve the Approved Project. Additionally, the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District must comply with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. According to the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to storm water drainage facilities. Additionally, the Approved Project would not require connections to water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Moreover, the Approved Project would not interfere with the existing LADWP transmission towers, and thus, would not require relocation of any electrical facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 79 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Based on the analysis in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities and the Approved Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. Thus, the Approved Project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage stormwater facilities or expansion of facilities, and no impact would occur. As determined in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would not require connections to water distribution facilities. Additionally, due to the nominal amount of water required for maintenance, it is expected that the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency would have sufficient supplies to serve the Approved Project and that water could be purchased for maintenance purposes. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Approved Project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed. As such, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project would not require any demolition and would only generate a small amount of waste from construction activities, such as vegetation from site clearing. During operation, the Approved Project would generate a nominal amount of waste and it is anticipated that the landfills that currently receive the City's municipal solid wastes would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's construction and operational waste disposal needs. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts related to landfill capacity and solid waste disposal would be less than significant. In addition, all non -hazardous solid waste generated from the Approved Project Site (e.g., plastic and glass bottles and jars, paper, newspaper, metal containers, cardboard) would be recycled per local and state regulations, with a diversion goal of 75 percent, in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. The City would also review building plans and ensure that adequate space is set aside to allow for the collection and storage of recyclable materials on the Approved Project Site prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, the Approved Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.19.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and two spur roads, and construct two dip crossings. No habitable structures would be constructed on the Revised Project Site that would require connections to water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, no impacts related to water, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would occur as a result of the Revised Project. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities and no structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities would be required as part of the Revised Project. Thus, the Revised Project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage stormwater facilities or expansion of facilities, and no impact would occur. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 80 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project The Revised Project would only generate a small amount of waste from the demolition of the existing crossings on the spur roads and the construction of new dip crossings, which is anticipated to be less than the amount generated during the construction of the Approved Project. In addition, the Revised Project would comply with the CALGreen requirement to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least 65 percent of the non -hazardous construction and demolition waste. Furthermore, no solid waste would be generated during operation of the Revised Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, it is anticipated that the landfills that currently receive the City's municipal solid waste would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the minimal amount of construction waste generated by the Revised Project. As such, impacts related to landfill capacity and compliance with solid waste statues and regulations would be less than significant under the Revised Project. 3.19.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.19.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES No Haskell IS/MND mitigation measures are required. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.20 Wildfire FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUSION CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or LTS LTS No No No No No emergency evacuation plan? City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 81 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR (MM), NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE IMPACTS SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE RESULTING FROM: SHOWS THAT: NEW OR DIFFERENT MM IMPACT NEW EFFECTIVE BUT WOULD CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL OF INFEASIBLE REDUCE REVISED ADOPTED IN THE CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIAL MM ARE NOW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE PROJECT IS/MND PROJECT? CIRCUMSTANCE? IMPORTANCE? FEASIBLE? EFFECT(S)? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose LTSM project occupants to, LTSM No No No No No pollutant concentrations (AP) 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 LTS LTS No No No No No 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 LTS LTS No No No No No landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 3.20.1 Haskell IS/MND Findings As discussed in the Haskell IS/MND, the eastern portion of the Approved Project Site outside of the City's boundaries has been designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a VHFHSZ within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The western portion of the Approved Project Site within the City's boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. The emergency response and evacuation for the Approved Project Site is governed by the City's Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Haskell IS/MND determined that construction activities associated with the Approved Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. The City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. Additionally, the Approved Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 82 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core would also include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks. Thus, the Approved Project would not preclude the City from implementing the Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, or LACoFD from implementing their latest Strategic Plan. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. According to the Haskell IS/MND, the Approved Project Site is located in an area that is susceptible to wildland fires because of its hilly terrain, dry weather conditions, and vegetation. Construction activities for the Approved Project could accidentally spark a fire and exacerbate wildfire risks. Additionally, operation of the Approved Project would bring more visitors to the Approved Project Site while a nearby wildfire is happening compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Approved Project could expose visitors to wildfire risks due to the location and condition of the Approved Project Site, as well as to pollutant concentrations from a nearby wildfire. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, which include the implementation of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan, establishment of fuel modification zones, and park closure protocols, would reduce impacts related to wildfire risks to a less -than -significant level. The Approved Project would not require the installation or maintenance of emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities. Additionally, the City would submit 90 percent project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. With approval from the Fuel Modification Unit, impacts related to the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk would be minimized. Furthermore, the Approved Project would not interfere with existing LADWP transmission towers or require the relocation of any electrical facilities. Therefore, the Haskell IS/MND concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The Haskell IS/MND determined that the Approved Project Site would not expose people or structures to risks involving flooding or landslides as a result of post -fire slope instability. Additionally, the Approved Project would not result in substantial changes related to drainage and would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as the Approved Project would involve minimal development and would generally follow the existing contours of the slopes for areas at higher elevations. Therefore, the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 83 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.20.2 Revised Project Analysis The Revised Project Site is in a VHFHSZ zone and in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA).21 As previously discussed, construction activities would involve paving the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road, which includes the main access drive and spur roads, and constructing two dip crossings, which would require a partial -rolling closure of the Haskell Canyon Access Road during the maximum six -week construction period. However, as with the Approved Project, access for emergency response or evacuation would be maintained at all times. Moreover, once completed, the City's existing emergency response procedures would not change with implementation of the Revised Project and would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of natural or man-made incidents in the Revised Project area, including for the bike park constructed as part of the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts would be less than significant. The Revised Project would follow the existing grade of the site and would not include the construction of any new structures on the Revised Project Site or require substantial grading. However, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project Site is located in an area that is susceptible to wildland fires because of the surrounding hilly terrain, dry weather conditions, and vegetation. Thus, like the Approved Project, construction activities for the Revised Project could accidentally spark a fire and exacerbate wildfire risks. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ- 1, which includes the implementation of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan and establishment of fuel modification zones, would reduce impacts related to wildfire risks to a less -than -significant level. The Revised Project would pave the existing Haskell Canyon Access Road and improve access to LADWP facilities. However, implementation of the Revised Project would not interfere with existing LADWP transmission towers or require the relocation of any electrical facilities. No installation or maintenance of emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities would be required as part of the Revised Project. Therefore, the impacts related to the installation or maintenance of infrastructure associated with the Revised Project would be less than significant. As discussed above, the Revised Project would introduce minimal additional paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces, would follow the existing grade of the area, and would not substantially change the drainage of the Revised Project Site. Thus, drainage and runoff within the Revised Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions and would not cause flooding on -or off -site. Although portions of the Revised Project Site are within a landslide zone, the Revised Project would not develop new habitable structures or uses on the Revised Project Site. Therefore, the Revised Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability and impacts would be less than significant. 21 California Department of Fire and Forestry Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/ what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones, accessed June 8, 2026. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 84 Chapter 3 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 3.20.3 Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously identified in the Haskell IS/MND would occur as a result of a substantial change proposed by the Revised Project, a substantial change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance associated with the Revised Project. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that effective but previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible or that new or different mitigation measures would substantially reduce significant effects of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required. 3.20.4 Mitigation Measures APPLICABLE HASKELL IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES Haskell IS/MND Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 contained in the Haskell IS/MND is applicable to the Revised Project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. See Subsection 3.9.4 above for the full text of the mitigation measures. NEW MITIGATION MEASURES No new or different mitigation measures are required. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 85 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the attached environmental checklist explanation, cited references, and attachments, the City finds that the Revised Project: ❑ Has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document adopted/certified pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project is a component of the whole action analyzed in the previously adopted/certified CEQA document. ® Has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document adopted/certified pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Changes and additions to the earlier CEQA document are needed to make the previous documentation adequate to cover the project which are documented in this addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred ❑ Has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document adopted/certified pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. However, there is important new information and/or substantial changes have occurred requiring the preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation (subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15163. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 86 REFERENCES California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/EQZAPP/app/, accessed June 8, 2026 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division, Wellfinder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/findwells/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division, WeIISTAR, https://welIstar-public.conservation.ca.qov/Well/Well/Detail?api=0403706209#, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/fam/, accessed June 8, 2026. California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/app/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Conservation, California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/dIrp/WiIIiamsonAct/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Fire and Forestry Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm. fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard- severity-zones, accessed June 8, 2026. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor database, https://www.envirostor. dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Department of Water Resources, Well Completion Report Map Application, https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/ apes/webappviewer/index.html?id=181078580a214c0986e2da28f8623b37, accessed June 8, 2026. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Background and History, https://calepa. ca.qov/sitecleanup/corteselist/background/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(c), List of "active" and CDO and CAO, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5c/, accessed June 5, 2026. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit, https://calepa.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf, accessed June 5, 2026. City of Santa Clarita, May 2022, City of Santa Clarita Safety Element. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 87 References Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project City of Santa Clarita, June 2011, City of Santa Clarita General Plan — Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources). Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, https:Hhazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index. htmI?id=8bOadb5l996 444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=-1 18.54152868832648,34.458702063383775, - 118.53114317502083,34.46312509252125, accessed June 8, 2026. Google, Google Maps (measure distance between Haskell Canyon Access Road and Agua Dulce Airpark), https://www.google.com/maps, accessed June 8, 2025. State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, https:Hgeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/#, accessed June 5, 2026. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds, Appendix C — Mass Rate LST Look -up Tables, https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/ hand book/local ized-sig nificance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass- rate- Ist- look- up-tabl es. pdf. City of Santa Clarita Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND June 2026 Page 88 APPENDIX A: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT INTERNATIONAL June 23, 2026 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Dan Duncan, Environmental Administrator 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 We Make a Difference JN 208136 SUBJECT: Biological Resources Assessment for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project in Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Dear Dan Duncan, Michael Baker International is pleased to submit this technical letter report documenting the results of a biological resources assessment for the proposed Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements project (Project) located in Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. The Project proposes paving roads and improving access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and City Archery Range. This report is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.0 PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 1.4-mile-long Project is located roughly 6 miles east of Interstate 5 and roughly 7 miles north of state Route 14 along Haskell Canyon Wash in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Attachment A, Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map). The Project site is depicted in Section 01, Township 04 North, Range 16 West and Section 36, Township 05 North, Range 16 West of the Newhall, CA 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (Attachment A, Figure 2, Project Site Vicinity Map). Specifically, the project site is located within Haskell Canyon south of the Angeles National Forest, north of Copper Hill Drive, east of Old Spanish Trail, and west of North Deer Springs Road. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would install approximately four inches of asphalt concrete over an approximately 1.4-mile long dirt access road from Copper Hill Drive north to the City Archery Range, with two approximately 0.25-mile spur roads off of the main dirt road to provide access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range. Two dip crossings over the Haskell Canyon Wash would also be constructed, one for each of the spur roads. Project activities to install asphalt concrete on the main roadway and spur roads are anticipated to remain within the existing footprint of the unpaved roadways. No tree or other vegetation removal would occur and the roadway would not be widened from its current footprint. MBAKERINTL.COM 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 5001 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Office: 949.472.3505 1 Fax: 949.472.8373 I N T E R N A T I O N A L 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is located within Haskell Canyon in the foothills of the Sierra Pelona Mountains and Angeles National Forest. The Project site includes a north -south aligned unpaved road that generally runs parallel to Haskell Canyon Wash, providing access to the aforementioned Haskell Canyon Bike Park and City Archery Range as well as to other existing uses, including the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power facilities, Haskell Canyon Open Space, Santa Clarita Movie Ranch, and Angeles National Forest. Two unpaved spur roads off the main road are included in the project site. The main unpaved roadway ranges roughly between 25 and 30 feet wide and supports two-way vehicular traffic. The two spur roads are somewhat narrower, generally around 20 feet wide. Native and non-native vegetation communities occur along both sides of the roadway and areas adjacent to the roads are generally undeveloped. The southern portion of the Project site, in the vicinity of Copper Hill Drive is surrounded by residential development, while most of the alignment is surrounded by undeveloped open space. Elevations along the roadway range from approximately 1350 feet at the southern end of the roadway at Copper Hill Drive, to 1,470 feet at the spur road to the archery range. Refer to Attachment B for representative photographs taken throughout the Project site. Soils on -site consist of the following types (USDA NRCS 2026) and are depicted in Attachment A, Figure 4 USDA Soils: • CmF2: Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded • CyC: Cortina sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes • HcC: Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes • ScF2: Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded • SsB: Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes • YoC: Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 4.0 METHODS 4.1 Literature Review Prior to conducting the field survey, Michael Baker conducted a thorough literature review and records search to characterize existing site conditions and assess the potential for special -status' biological resources to occur that might pose a constraint to Project implementation. A query of the California Department of Fish and Wiildlife's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CNDDB 2026) and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2026) was conducted to obtain a list of special -status plant and wildlife species occurrence records within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Whitaker Peak, Warm Springs Mountain, Green Valley, Val Verde, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Oat Mountain, San Fernando, and Santa Susana 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) online database was also Special -status refers to plant and wildlife species that are federal or state -listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank 1, 2, or 4 by the California Native Plant Society; wildlife species that are designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern; Watch List; and other state or locally rare vegetation communities. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 2 I N T E R N A T I O N A L reviewed to identify special -status species and other resources known or expected to occur in the Project region (USFWS 2026a). Other sources of information reviewed about the Project site and surrounding area include the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2026b), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2026) and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2026c). All the information obtained informed our understanding of the Project site and assisted with the field survey and subsequent analysis. The results presented in this report provide an assessment of the suitability of the habitat on -site to support special -status plant and wildlife species and other sensitive natural resources. 4.2 Habitat Assessment/Field Survey Michael Baker biologists Stephen Anderson and Luke Willett conducted a field survey on May 13, 2026 between 0800 and 1100 hours to document existing conditions and conduct a habitat assessment for special -status plant and wildlife species, and sensitive natural communities. The area surveyed included the unpaved roadways and adjacent habitats occurring within 300-feet of the alignment of the roadways, the Biological Survey Area (BSA) (Attachment A, Figure 3 Biological Study Area). Weather conditions were overcast to partial cloud cover and temperatures ranging from 65 to 82 degrees Fahrenheit with wind speeds ranging from 1 to 2 miles per hour. Classification of vegetation communities and other land covers occurring within the BSA is based on the descriptions of terrestrial vegetation classification systems described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on -site vegetation communities, and the presence of potentially regulated jurisdictional features were noted. A formal aquatic resources delineation was also conducted by Michael Baker, with the methods and results of that investigation provided under separate cover. Michael Baker used geographic information systems (GIS) software to digitize the mapped vegetation communities and overlayed the data onto an aerial photograph to further analyze existing conditions and quantify the acreages of each vegetation community on -site. All plant and wildlife species observed during the field survey were recorded in a field notebook. Plant species observed were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field while unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed and later identified using taxonomic guides. Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Wildlife detections were made through aural and visual detection, as well as observation of sign including scat, trails, tracks, burrows, and nests. Field guides used to assist with identification of species during the field survey included The Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2014) for birds, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) for herpetofauna, and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006) for mammals. Wildlife species taxonomy follows the North American Butterfly Association (NABA, NABA 2024) for butterflies, the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (Nicholson et al. 2025) for herpetofauna, the American Ornithological Society for birds Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 3 I N T E R N A T I O N A L (Chesser et al. 2023), and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Scientific names are provided immediately following common names of wildlife species (first reference only). The potential for special -status species to occur in the BSA was evaluated based on each species' known geographic distribution and elevation range; species -specific habitat requirements (e.g., vegetation communities/land covers, soils, hydrology, slope/aspect, and other requirements); life history traits (e.g., disturbance tolerance); and Michael Baker biologists' expertise, knowledge, and best professional judgement. Current and historic records of species identified during the literature review were also considered during the analysis; however, a species' potential to occur determination was not solely based on the age or location of these previously documented records. The potential to occur categories used in this analysis are defined as follows: • Present: The species was observed or detected within the study area during 2026 surveys. • Expected: The study area is within the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is high quality suitable habitat (considering vegetation, soils, and other factors) is present, and there is viable landscape connectivity to a local, known extant population(s) or sighting(s) within the study area. • Moderate: The study area is within the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is moderate to low quality suitable habitat (considering vegetation, soils, and other factors), and there is limited or no landscape connectivity to a local, known, extant population. • Not Expected: The study area is outside the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is marginal to no suitable habitat, and there is no connectivity to known, extant populations. • Absent: The species was not detected during focused or agency -approved protocol surveys. 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers While the Project site consists of unpaved roadway, the surrounding BSA supports several native vegetation communities and land cover types, including: big sagebrush scrub, red willow woodland, disturbed red willow woodland, brittlebush scrub, California buckwheat/purple sage/California sagebrush scrub, disturbed California buckwheat/purple sage/California sagebrush scrub, thickleaf yerba santa scrub, scrub oak woodland, disturbed fourwing saltbush scrub, coast live oak woodland, ornamental, disturbed, and developed land. These communities and land cover types are summarized in Table 1 and depicted in Attachment A, Figure 5, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types. Areas surrounding the BSA consist of mixed - use suburban development and native wilderness areas including Haskell Canyon and Angeles National Forest. A total of 38 plant species, including 21 native (55 percent) and 17 non-native (45 percent), were recorded on -site. Attachment C, Species Compendiums, contains a list of observed plant species. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 4 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L TABLE 1. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES Vegetation Community/Land Cover I the BSA Big Sagebrush Scrub - Artemisia tridentata Shrubland Alliance 5.48 Red Willow Woodland - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance 1.46 Disturbed Red Willow Woodland — Disturbed Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance 1.15 Brittlebush Scrub — Encelia farinosa Shrubland Alliance 0.02 California Buckwheat/Purple Sage/California Sagebrush Scrub - Eriogonum fasciculatum — Salvia dorrii — Artemisia californica Shrubland 18.53 Alliance Disturbed California Buckwheat/Purple Sage/California Sagebrush Scrub — Disturbed Eriogonum fasciculatum — Salvia dorrii — Artemisia 0.37 californica Shrubland Alliance Thickleaf Yerba Santa Scrub - Eriodictyon crassifolium Shrubland Alliance 1.33 Scrub Oak Woodland — Quercus John-tuckeri Shrubland Alliance 0.91 Disturbed Fourwing Saltbush Scrub — Disturbed Atriplex canescens Shrubland Alliance 1.71 Coast Live Oak Woodland — Quercus agrifolia Forest and Woodland Alliance 0.44 Ornamental 1.49 Disturbed 84.13 Developed 3.64 TOTAL 117.02 Big Sagebrush Scrub (Artemisia tridentata Shrubland Alliance) Big sagebrush scrub is present across the length of the BSA and is dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) occurring in lesser quantities. Red Willow Woodland (Salix laeviaata Forest & Woodland Alliance Red willow woodland is present within a portion of Haskell Canyon Wash at the southern end of the BSA and is dominated by red willow (Salix laevigata) with mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 5 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua) occurring in lesser quantities. Disturbed Red Willow Woodland (Disturbed Salix laeviaata Forest & Woodland Alliance Disturbed red willow woodland is located just north of the red willow woodland within the BSA and consists of the same species, but in addition to being dominated by red willow it's also dominated by non-native and highly invasive salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima). Mulefat, Fremont cottonwood, and sandbar willow also occurs in lesser quantities. Brittlebush Scrub (Encelia farinosa Shrubland Alliance) Brittlebush scrub is only present within a small area along the eastern border within the southern portion of the BSA. This vegetation community is entirely dominated by a small stand of brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). California Buckwheat/Purple Sage/ California Sagebrush Scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum — Salvia dorrii — Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance) California buckwheat/purple sage/California sagebrush scrub is present across the length of the BSA. This vegetation community is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), purple sage (Salvia dorrii), and California sagebrush. This vegetation community varies throughout the site, with some areas of this community consisting of a higher concentration of either California buckwheat, purple sage, or California sagebrush. Disturbed California Buckwheat/Purple Sage/California Sagebrush Scrub (Disturbed Eriogonum fasciculatum — Salvia dorrii — Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance) Disturbed California buckwheat/purple sage/California sagebrush scrub is present across the length of the BSA. This vegetation community is similar in composition to the California buckwheat/purple sage/California sagebrush scrub within the BSA but also includes non-native species including red brome (Bromus rubens) and short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Thickleaf Yerba Santa Scrub (Eriodictyon crassifolium Shrubland Alliance) Thickleaf yerba santa scrub is present within a small area within the central portion of the BSA near the main channel wash. This vegetation community is entirely dominated by thickleaf yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium) with big sagebrush occurring in lesser quantities. Scrub Oak Woodland (Quercus iohn-tuckeri Shrubland Alliance) A small area of scrub oak woodland is present within the northern portion of the BSA near the new Haskell Canyon Bike Park. This vegetation community is entirely dominated by a stand of Tucker's oak (Quercus John -tucked). Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 6 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Disturbed Fourwing Saltbush Scrub (Disturbed Atriplex canescens Shrubland Alliance) A small area of disturbed fourwing saltbush scrub is present within the northern portion of the BSA. This includes an area that is dominated by fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) along with non -natives including ripgut (Bromus diandrus) and short podded mustard. Coast Live Oak Woodland (Quercus agrifolia Forest and Woodland Alliance) Coast live oak woodland is present within the central and northern portions of the BSA. This includes areas with small stands of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), with some non -natives present within the understory, including short podded mustard, ripgut, and red brome. Ornamental Landscaped/ornamental land covers are present within the southern portion of the BSA and are associated with residential development. This land cover consists mostly of large areas of bank catclaw (Acacia redolens), with some Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle) and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) present. Disturbed Disturbed/ruderal land cover present within the BSA includes areas that have experienced anthropogenic disturbances and where native vegetation is generally no longer present. Such areas may lack any vegetation, such as the unpaved dirt roadways that constitute most of the Project Site, or are dominated by non-native plant species that have colonized the area. Non- native plant species dominant within this land cover type include short -podded mustard, ripgut, red brome, and wild oat. Developed Developed land cover within the BSA includes the roadways outside of the project site and any developed land cover associated with the surrounding development. 5.2 General Floral Inventory A total of 38 floral species were observed during the field survey, 21 native (55 percent) and 17 non-native (45 percent). Attachment C contains a full list of plant species detected within the BSA. 5.3 General Wildlife Inventory A total of 22 wildlife species (20 birds, 1 mammal, and 1 reptile) were observed during the field survey, 20 native (91 percent) and 2 non-native (9 percent). The most commonly occurring birds during the field survey included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). Attachment C contains a full list of wildlife species detected within the BSA. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 7 I N T E R N A T I O N A L 5.4 Special -Status Biological Resources Sensitive Natural Communities Ten natural communities considered sensitive by the CDFW were reported in the CNDDB from the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map region surrounding and including the Newhall map. These include: • California Walnut Woodland • Mainland Cherry Forest • Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub • Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest • Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest • Southern Mixed Riparian Forest • Southern Riparian Scrub • Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland • Southern Willow Scrub • Valley Oak Woodland The site consists of disturbed/ruderal land cover types and natural vegetation communities. There are small portions of sensitive communities including coast live oak woodland, red willow woodland, and California buckwheat/purple sage/ California sagebrush scrub. Special -Status Plant Species A total of 38 special -status plant species were identified during reviews of the CNDDB, CNPS Inventory, and IPaC. No special -status plant species were observed during the field survey. After a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges, short -joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada, California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 113.2) is expected to occur in the BSA and club -haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus, CRPC 4.3), and slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis, CRPR 1 B.2), have a moderate potential to occur. A list of the special -status plant species identified during reviews of the CNDDB, CNPS inventory, and IPaC, their conservation status, preferred habitats, and potential to occur within the BSA are provided in Table A in Attachment D. Special -Status Wildlife Species A total of 41 special -status wildlife species were identified during reviews of the CNDDB and I PaC. No special -status wildlife species were observed during the survey. After a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and occurrence records, 2 species are expected to occur in the BSA including Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii, candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act [CESA]) and California legless lizard (Anniella spp., CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]), while 4 have moderate potential to occur including, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, federally listed as endangered and CDFW SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis, CDFW SSC), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri, CDFW SSC), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii, Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 8 I N T E R N A T I O N A L CDFW SSC). A list of the special -status wildlife species identified during reviews of the CNDDB and IPaC, their conservation status, preferred habitats, and potential to occur within the BSA are provided in Table B in Attachment D. Critical Habitat Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), Critical Habitat may be established for species listed as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species that were occupied at the time it was listed that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species and that may require special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether the species is still extant in the area. Areas that were not known to be occupied at the time a species was listed can also be designated Critical Habitat if they contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to that species' conservation and if the other areas that are occupied are inadequate to ensure the species' recovery. No USFWS-designated Critical Habitat coincides with the BSA. The nearest occurs just over 3 miles east of the BSA for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossa/is) (Attachment A, Figure 6 USFWS Critical Habitat). State and Federal Jurisdictional Aquatic Features Three key agencies regulate activities within inland lakes, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Branch regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the state agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharges to waters of the State, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; and the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and associated riparian habitat pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. Based on a review of aerial photographs, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, USFWS National Wetland Inventory maps, and observations made during the field survey, a drainage feature, Haskell Canyon Wash, occurs within the BSA. The wash intersects the main road at one location, where there is an existing dip crossing, and both spur roads at one location. A review of the USFWS NWI (USFWS 2026c) indicates the wash as Riverine habitat. Michael Baker regulatory specialists conducted a jurisdictional delineation to identify the extent of Haskell Canyon Wash that occurs in the project site, focusing on areas where the wash intersects the two spur roads where dip crossings are proposed. A total of 0.21 acres of non -wetland waters under RWQCB jurisdiction and 0.21 acres of unvegetated streambed, 0.02 acres of vegetated streambed, and 0.06 acres of associated riparian habitat falling under CDFW jurisdiction was identified (Michael Baker 2026). Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 9 I N T E R N A T I O N A L 5.5 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by areas of non - suitable habitat such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Wildlife corridors are essential to the regional ecology of a species because they provide avenues of genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates "islands" of wildlife habitat that are more or less isolated from each other. Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) that could lead to local extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and shelter. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape -level corridors (often referred to as "habitat or landscape linkages") can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. Although it is commonly used as a synonym for wildlife corridor, a habitat linkage refers to a more substantial, or wider, land connection between two habitat areas. Habitat linkages allow for the periodic exchange of animals between habitat areas, which is essential to maintain adequate gene pools. The Project site falls within the foothills of the Sierra Pelona Mountains and is just south of vast open space in the Angeles National Forest. While Haskell Canyon Wash, which is in the BSA, likely provides a travel route for many wildlife species in the area; however, disturbances associated with roadways that occupy the Project site limit its ability to provide suitable conditions for wildlife movement. The BSA is primarily mapped as having "1-Limited Connectivity Opportunity" in CDFW's Terrestrial Habitat Connectivity Viewer (CDFW 2026), reflecting the surrounding area's limited suitability to support wildlife movement; however, the far northern portion of the BSA is mapped as "3-Connections with Implementation Flexibility," reflecting more suitable conditions for wildlife movement and connectivity. In this on-line tool, an area's ability to support wildlife movement is based on a rating scored from 1 to 5, with 1 representing an area with "Limited Connectivity Opportunity" and 5 as an area considered "Irreplaceable and Essential Corridors." A formal wildlife corridor was not identified across the BSA during review of CDFW on- line viewer. Haskell Canyon Wash and associated vegetation likely provide a corridor for localized wildlife movement between suitable foothill habitats and the larger Sierra Pelona Mountains in the Angeles National Forest, but do not serve as a corridor for regional movement or by large populations of wildlife. Terrestrial mammals and bird species may follow the creek bed and associated vegetation to seek localized cover, nesting/rearing, and foraging habitats. 6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following discussion examines the impacts to biological resources that may occur as a result of the proposed project. The determination of impacts is based on both the features of the proposed project and the biological values of the habitat and sensitivity of plant and wildlife Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 10 I N T E R N A T I O N A L species potentially affected. A project description was supplied by the City of Santa Clarita. Michael Baker interpreted the project description and hand -digitized the study area into GIS. Impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which mirror the policy statement contained in the CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. The questions below model those included in the checklist of questions listed in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. These guidelines are evaluated to determine if the project would have significant impacts on biological resources. For those impacts determined significant, Biological Resources Mitigation Measures identified in the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) (City of Santa Clarita 2025) are carried forward as applicable. 6.1 Impacts to Special -Status Species a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No special -status plants or wildlife were observed during the field survey; however, it was determined that 3 plant species and 6 wildlife species are expected to occur or have moderate potential to occur in the BSA and may be impacted during Project construction. The following provides an evaluation of potential impacts to those species that are expected to occur or have moderate potential to occur within the BSA and mitigation measures that shall be implemented to reduce impacts to special -status species to less than significant. Special -Status Plants Project activities would be conducted within the footprint of an existing unpaved roadway, which does not provide habitat suitable for special -status plants. Further no vegetation trimming or clearing will occur during paving or construction of the two dip crossings, and as a result direct impacts to any special -status plant species would be avoided and are not expected. However, indirect impacts to special -status plants during construction related to dust and erosion and sedimentation may occur. With implementation of B10-3, B10-8, and B10-9 provided below in Section 7.0, the potential for direct and indirect impacts to special -status plant species would be reduced to less than significant. Special -Status Wildlife Project activities would be conducted within the footprint of an existing unpaved roadway, which does not provide habitat suitable for special -status wildlife. Further no vegetation trimming or clearing will occur during paving and as a result direct impacts to special -status wildlife species are inherently reduced. Special -status reptile species could occur on unpaved roadways, making them susceptible to being run over by project equipment. Indirect impacts to special -status wildlife could also occur during construction related to noise, ground disturbance, and human presence that may temporarily affect a bird attempting to nest in the area, or displace wildlife from areas Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 11 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L where habitat and resources for their survival may exist, potentially leading to the loss of such individuals. No Crotch's bumblebees were observed during the field survey; however, floral resources potentially suitable for the species occur within native vegetation adjacent to the Project site and the species has been recorded from within five miles of the project site. While overwintering and nesting by the species is not expected in the Project site, due to the compacted nature of the unpaved road, noise, ground vibrations and human presence during the species active flight season (April -August) when the species is actively foraging, could displace the species from habitat and resources for their survival, potentially leading to the loss of such individuals. With implementation of B10-3 and B10-6 provided below in Section 7.0, the potential for impacts and take of this species would be reduced to less than significant. While no special -status reptile species were observed during the field survey, occurrences of southern California legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and coastal whiptail have recently been recorded near the Project site in the CNDDB, giving them potential to occur during project work. With implementation of B10-3, B104, and B10-6 provided below in Section 7.0, the potential for take of special -status reptile species would be reduced to less than significant. While no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during the field survey, potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitats for the species occur adjacent to the Project site. No direct impacts to the species or its habitat are anticipated; however, indirect impacts from construction noise, ground vibration, and human presence may occur during construction causing nest abandonment or displacement from habitat and resources the species depend on. With implementation of B10-3 and B10-6 provided below in Section 7.0, the potential for take of coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, nesting birds are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)2 and the CFGC.3 To maintain compliance with the MBTA and CFGC, pre -construction nesting bird surveys are typically required during the breeding season (generally February 1 to August 31 but as early as January 1 for raptors) prior to any project activities to avoid direct and indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds. Consequently, if an active bird nest is destroyed or if project activities result in indirect impacts to nesting birds (e.g., nest abandonment, loss of reproductive effort), it is considered "take" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Although no nests were observed during the field survey, vegetation, utility poles, and the ground surface within the BSA provides suitable nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species. Indirect impacts from project activities during the breeding season are considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of B10-3, B10-6, and B10-8 provided in 2 The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer to: https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1 918 3 Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the California Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of -prey); and Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non -game bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 etseq.). Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 12 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Section 7.0, the potential for impacts to nesting birds and any special -status bird species would be reduced to less than significant. 6.2 Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The Project site consists of unpaved roadways and no vegetation removal is anticipated. A total of 0.06 acres of riparian vegetation under CDFW jurisdiction occurs on -site; however, as determined by Michael Baker (2026), no permanent impacts to riparian vegetation would occur as a result of the project since all activities would occur within the existing footprint of the unpaved roadways where no riparian habitat exists. 6.3 Impacts to State or Federal Wetlands c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Project site consists of unpaved roadway and no state or federally protected wetlands were identified by Michael Baker (2026). However, impacts to aquatic resources in the form of non -wetland waters of the State regulated by the RWQCB and vegetated and unvegetated streambed regulated by CDFW would occur during improvements to the spur roads. With implementation of B10-7 through B10-9 in Section 7.0 below, impacts to aquatic resources regulated by the state would be reduced to less than significant. 6.4 Impacts to Wildlife Movement or Wildlife Corridors d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ormigrato►V fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than significant. While the Project site likely provides opportunities for localized wildlife movement between resources, it does not serve as a formal wildlife movement corridor. Project implementation is not anticipated to significantly impact wildlife movement. Wildlife may temporarily avoid the area during Project implementation; however, paving the roadways is not expected to significantly reduce or change existing conditions related to wildlife movement and the Project is not anticipated to increase vehicular use of the roadways from current usage. Therefore, impacts to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors would be less than significant. Moreover, implementation of the B10 measures included in Section 7.0, would ensure that impacts to wildlife movement would be further avoided and minimized. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 13 I N T E R N A T I O N A L 6.5 Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with any local policies or ordinances. 6.6 Conflicts with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan 0 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ip an? No impact. The project site is not within any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. In addition, the project site is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES As indicated in Section 6.0, Biological Resource Mitigation Measures (BIO) are carried forth as applicable from the Haskell Canyon Bike Park MMRP to reduce Project impacts to biological resources to less than significant. BIO numbering follows those identified in the MMRP. 1310-3: A qualified biologist shall be present during vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special special -status reptile species. If any wildlife species are found, the project biologist shall relocate the animal(s) to appropriate habitat off -site. Daily monitoring logs will be prepared to document work activities and any relocations that were conducted. Implementation Action: In implementing BIO-3 for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, the City of Santa Clarita will ensure that a qualified biologist is present during ground disturbance activities to confirm all project activities remain within the footprint of the existing roadways and to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for special special -status reptile, bird, and insect species. In the event a State and/or federally listed or candidate species is detected, a 500-foot no -disturbance buffer will be established around the species and the City will immediately notify CDFW and/or USFWS to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. Although it is anticipated that daily monitoring will be necessary, the biologist will coordinate with the City of Santa Clarita to confirm that monitoring is conducted at a frequency necessary to comply with BIO-3. 1310-4: All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored in the project area during construction for one or more overnight periods shall be either securely capped prior to storage or thoroughly inspected by the contractor and/or the biological monitor for Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 14 I N T E R N A T I O N A L special -status wildlife species or other animals before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. B10-6: If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal. A minimum 300-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of migratory birds and a minimum 500-foot no -disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the project site to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status. Implementation Action: In implementing BIO-6 for the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, the City of Santa Clarita will apply the measure's requirements to construction activities that require ground disturbance. If such activities are required between February 15 and August 31, corresponding with the migratory bird nesting season and Crotch's bumble bee active flight period, a preconstruction nesting bird and Crotch's bumble bee survey will be conducted within one week prior to the start of construction activities. In the event that a State and/or federally listed or candidate species, such as coastal California gnatcatcher or Crotch's bumble bee, is detected, a 500-foot no -disturbance will be implemented and CDFIN and/or USFWS will be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. B10-7: Temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from the proposed Project shall require a Waste Discharge Requirement4 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by RWQCB prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in -lieu of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from the CDFW shall be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must 4 This was incorrectly referred to as a "Water Discharge Requirement' in the Haskell Canyon Bike Park MMRP. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 15 I N T E R N A T I O N A L be approved by CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an in -lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off -site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity. B10-8: During construction and operation, project materials will not be cast from the project site into nearby habitats; further, project -related trash will be contained and removed to a proper disposal facility. Any excess soil unearthed during construction will be used to create the proposed trail alignments. B10-9: All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the project footprint and inspected by the project biologist to confirm it is free of non-native plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the project site. All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post -construction landscaping activities and erosion control BMPs will be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program will be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post -construction. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS The proposed project, inclusive of the mitigation measures outlined above, will mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 330- 4147 or at stephen.anderson(a�mbakerintl.com with any questions you may have regarding the results and/or conclusions of this report. Sincerely, Stephen Anderson Senior Biologist Attachments A. Figures B. Site Photographs C. Species Compendium D. Special -Status Species Potential to Occur Tables Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 16 I N T E R N A T I O N A L REFERENCES Baldwin et al. 2012, January. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded, Second Edition. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025a. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. February 2025. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities CDFW. 2025b. Sensitive Natural Communities Only by Life Form. February 2025. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities CDFW. 2026. Terrestrial Habitat Connectivity Mapping. Accessed June 3, 2026. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/Analysis/Connectivity. Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernandez -Banos, R. A. Jimenez, Oscar Johnson, N. A. Mason, and P. C. Rasmussen. 2025. Check -list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. https:Hchecklist.americanornithology.org/taxa/ City of Santa Clarita. 2025. Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Prepared by Michael Baker International. June. CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2026a. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [March 31, 2026]. CNDDB. 2026b. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2026c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2026d. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2026e. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNPS (California Native Plant Society), Rare Plant Program. 2026. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5.1). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 5April 2026]. Google (Google, Inc.). 2026. Google Earth Pro, version 7.3.6.9345. Historical aerial imagery from 1985 to 2025. HistoricAerials.com. 2026. Historic aerial image from 1962. http://www.historicaerials.com. Michael Baker International (Michael Baker). 2026. Haskell Canyon Shard Access Improvements Project. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. June. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 17 I N T E R N A T I O N A L NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2024. Checklist of North American Butterflies, Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico, Edition 2.3. Website https://naba.Orcj/butterfly- names-checklist/ [accessed May 10, 2026.] Nicholson, K. E. (ed.). 2025. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding. Ninth Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 87pp. Reid, F.A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. Sibley, D.A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles andAmphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2026. Web Soil Survey. Website https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [accessed April 5, 2026]. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2026a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index [accessed April 5, 2026]. USFWS. 2026b. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Website https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4feO98 93cf75b8dbfb77 [accessed April 5, 2026]. USFWS. 2026c. National Wetlands Inventory. Website https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ [accessed April 5, 2026]. Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Online version. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Accessed August 17, 2010. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/. Biological Resources Assessment June 23, 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page 18 ATTACHMENT A Figures Santa Clarita e SANTA SUSANNA MaUNTq /fV S Simi Valley SIMI HILL< Legend Project Location SanFear SAN FERNANDO VALLEY N /SOLEDAD-CANKON-,—___ Los Angeles VEROUGO MOUNTAINS HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT O 0 2.5 5 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Miles Regional Vicinity Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, National Geographic World Map: Santa Clarita, California Figure 1 .r 1 ISM 'csr 35 a. e C¢ EJ j -) ° 6 a° r 4 —4. 0�4�0 i COPPER HELL � 1. ;0 U J. K [fy A y5 30 H sstt ❑rayon 37 6N1B A�7 t� 77 1 5 9—R l k }5 / 2 7 5 16.. IN 0 31r- o r 6 �C t 6 7 tea% A ti h�6 C.r G4ppVt riILL pR 6 @ SARCO16 TTA pR 0f1 < � H .ar ` yCIR 1 wa � R4HIPEI� `+ems. t5 Legend o Project Site HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT O 0 1,000 2,000 US Feet Site Vicinity I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Mint Canyon (2022) and Newhall (2022), California Figure 2 rt { si Ty'�" _cam., r i f �• �=-.u" x f 3. Legend o Project Site Biological Study Area (300-ft Buffer) O 0 800 1,600 US Feet I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L IS,,,,, : Es, coumy of Los A,gelas, 2020 Nearmap image,y HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Biological Study Area Figure 3 r wi1---'1.w'1- .. Sc 2 ` / SsB HcC ScF2 \ SsB CmF2 ` ScF2 YOC ScF2 ScF2 CmF2 -YOC HcC t � ScF2 YOC ScF2 s�•t1 t Legend ® Reference Points USDA Soils sse Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes O Project Site ¢mFz Castaic Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded vo¢ Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Q Biological Study Area (300-ft Buffer) cvc Cortina sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes rmc Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes s�Ez Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded O 0 800 1,600 US Feet I N T E R N A T I O N A L source: Es, , County of Los Angeles, 2026 N,,r m,p Imagery -118.485�2.13 �� HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT USDA Soils Figure 4 wil---'I.P'll- , I- - 34.45�78��7 -118.5Y32�158 3' ,SWOT9 -118.485�2.13 �� A Legend ® rfare�caaoma egg saeaerus, saue fsae0cresl coan ❑ya oapwooaia�a foaa0cresl o�numaa caumm�a euwwnaa0aumiasagercaumm�a saeaerus, saue foas0cres7 omama�rai (r ae0cresl m�ar�ayaa vama saga saue fraa0cres7 Q a�iaa sre ® enmaeus, s`tie fo oz0cresl oayaiopaa fa as 0c�1 o�numaa r-ou�g saim�s, saue (r �r 0�s1 Rea vmuowwooaia�a (z ar 0cres7 r—IBiolo9iral SWtlYArea (300.ff Buffer) California BUWwM1eatlPuryle Sa9PlCalifomia 9a9ebrusM1 Snub (1853AcresJ Oisturbetl (84.13AcresJ Oisturbetl Retl VUllow VWotllantl Snub Oak Wootllantl l081 Acres) O 0 800 1,600 US Feet I N T E R N A T I O N A L source: Es, cosry of Losnngeies, 2020 Neam,ap imagery HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT tation Communities and Land Cover Types Figure 5 f� er r re 7 i l Michael Baker f�. Y Copper Hill Dr F'+4-iF� ff' OFF ATTACHMENT B Site Photographs I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Photograph 1. North -facing view of the road within the center of the project site (34.46829°,-118.50746°). Photograph 2. West -facing view across the wash within the center of the survey area (34.46710°,-118.50809°). ATTACHMENT B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page B-1 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ATTACHMENT B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 3. East -facing view of the BSA located within the northern portion of the project site (34.47906°,-118.50986°) Photograph 4. South -facing view of the willow forest portion of the wash from the southern portion of the project site (34.46234°,-118.50885°). Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page B-2 I N T E R N A T I O N A L ATTACHMENT B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph S. Northeast -facing view of the wash from the northern portion of the survey area (34.47419°,-118.50868°). Photograph 6. North -facing view of the wash from the site of the northern -most proposed dip crossing (34.47908°,-118.50939°). Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page B-3 ATTACHMENT C Species Compendiums N T E R N A T I 0 N A L PLANTS VASCULAR SPECIES EUDICOTS ATTACHMENT C SPECIES COMPENDIUMS ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY Sambucus nigra blue elderberry None/None/None ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Schinus molle Peruvian peppertree* None/None/None ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed None/None/None Artemisia californica California sagebrush None/None/None Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush None/None/None Baccharis salicifolia mulefat None/None/None Centaurea melitensis Maltese star -thistle* None/None/None Encelia californica California brittle bush None/None/None Encelia farinosa brittle bush None/None/None Isocoma menziesii Menzies's golden bush None/None/None Lepidospartum squamatum scale broom None/None/None BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Eriodictyon crassifolium thick leaf yerba santa None/None/None BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Hirschfeldia incana Short podded mustard* CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Atriplex canescens fourwing saltbush None/None/None Salsola tragus prickly Russian thistle* None/None/None EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY Croton setiger dove weed None/None/None FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY Acacia redolens bank catclaw* None/None/None Acmispon glaber deer weed None/None/None Melilotus officinalis Sweetclover* None/None/None FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY Quercus John-tuckeri Tucker oak None/None/None GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium botrys longbeak stork's bill* None/None/None LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Salvia leucophylla purple sage None/None/None MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow* None/None/None MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY Eucalyptus camaldulensis river redgum* None/None/None Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page C-1 �k i a -.f1, ATTACHMENT C N T E R N A T I 0 N A L SPECIES COMPENDIUMS POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat None/None/None SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood None/None/None Salix exigua sandbar willow None/None/None Salixlaevigata red willow None/None/None SIMAROUBACEAE QUASSIA OR SIMAROUBA FAMILY Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven* None/None/None SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura stramonium jimsonweed* None/None/None Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco* None/None/None TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY Tamarix ramosissima tamarisk* None/None/None MONOCOTS AGAVACEAE AGAVE FAMILY Hesperoyucca whipplei chaparral yucca None/None/None ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm* None/None/None POACEAE GRASS FAMILY Avena fatua wild oat* None/None/None Bromus diandrus ripgut brome* None/None/None Bromus madritensis compact brome* None/None/None Elymus condensatus giant wild rye None/None/None Status Legend: Federal California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) FE: Federally listed as endangered CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either FT: Federally listed as threatened rare or extinct elsewhere FPE: Federally proposed for listing as endangered CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened and elsewhere FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common None: No federal listing elsewhere FDL: Delisted CRPR 26: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere State CRPR 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is SE: State listed as endangered needed ST: State listed as threatened CRPR 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution SR: State rare .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) SCT: State candidate for listing as threatened .2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences None: No state listing threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) SDL: State delisting .3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page C-2 �k i a -.f1, ATTACHMENT C N T E R N A T I 0 N A L SPECIES COMPENDIUMS WILDLIFE Name Common Name Status Federal/State I OtherScientific BIRDS ICTERIDAE BLACKBIRDS Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole None/None PASSERELLIDAE NEW WORLD SPARROWS Melospiza melodia song sparrow None/SSC Melozone crissalis California towhee None/None; IUCN_LC-Least Concern Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee None/None CORVIDAE CROWS & JAYS Aphelocoma californica California scrub -jay None/None Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow None/None Corvus corax common raven None/None No Other Status TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird None/None Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird None/None ODONTOPHORIDAE NEW WORLD QUAIL Callipepla californica California quail None/None PHRYNOSOMATIDAE IGUANID LIZARDS Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard None/None TROGLODYTI DAE WRENS Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren None/None SYLVIIDAE SYLVIID WARBLERS Chamaea fasciata wrentit BCC/None FRINGILLIDAE FRINGILLINE & CARDUELINE FINCHES & ALLIES Haemorhous mexicanus house finch None/None No Other Status Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch None/None, IUCN_LC-Least Concern NABCI_YWL-Yellow Watch List USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS & DOVES Zenaida macroura mourning dove None/None I CDFW-SSC TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird None/None, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern LEPORIDAE HARES & RABBITS Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail None/None, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS & THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird None/None PASSERIDAE OLD WORLD SPARROWS Passer domesticus house sparrow None/None AEGITHALIDAE LONG-TAILED TITS & BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus bushtit None/None Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page C-3 I N T E R N A T I O N A L STURNIDAE Sturnus vulgaris Status Legend: Federal FE: Federally listed as endangered FT: Federally listed as threatened FPE: Federally proposed for listing as endangered FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) None: No federal listing FDL: Delisted STARLINGS European starling* State SE: State listed as endangered ST: State listed as threatened SR: State rare SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered SCT: State candidate for listing as threatened SSC: Species of Special Concern None: No state listing SDL: State delisting ATTACHMENT C SPECIES COMPENDIUMS None/None I BLM-S I CDFW-SSC IUCN-LC; BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC- Species of Special Concern IUCN_NT- Near Threatened I USFS_S-Sensitive USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern Other USFWS-BCC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern BLM-S: Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species CDFW-FP: California Fully Protected Species CDFW-SSC: California Species of Special Concern USFS-S: U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species IUCN-LC: International Union for Conservation of Nature, Species of Least Concern NABCI-YWL: U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, Yellow Watch List Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Page C-4 ATTACHMENT D Special -Status Species Potential to Occur Tables I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR TABLE A. SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA Berberis nevinh Calochortus clavatus var clavatus Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis Calochortus fimbriatus Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri Calochortus pl ummerae Nevin's barberry FE/SE/113.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/perennial evergreen shrub/(Feb)Mar—June/230-2705 club -haired mariposa None/None/4.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, lily Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay, Rocky, Serpentine (usually)/perennial bulbiferous herb/(Mar)May—June/100-4265 slender mariposa -lily None/None/113.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial bulbiferous herb/Mar— June(Nov)/1050-3280 late -flowered None/None/113.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, mariposa -lily Riparian woodland; Serpentine (sometimes)/perennial bulbiferous herb/June—Aug/900-6250 Palmer's mariposa- None/None/113.2 Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous lily forest, Meadows and seeps; Mesic/perennial bulbiferous herb/Apr— J u ly/2330-7840 Plummer's mariposa- None/None/4.2 lily Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland; Granitic, Rocky/perennial bulbiferous herb/May—July/330-5580 Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 2 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Moderate potential to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. In addition, there is a recent occurrence record (Calflora 2024) roughly 1.5 miles southeast of the project site. Moderate potential to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. In addition, there is a recent occurrence record (CNDDB; Occ. 113) roughly 0.4 miles southwest of the project site. Not expected to occur. Marginally suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are no CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range and no suitable habitat is present. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are no recent occurrence records within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-1 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Cal ystegia peirsonii Canbya candida Cercocarpus betuloides var blancheae Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Deinandra minthornii Peirson's morning- glory white pygmy -poppy island mountain - mahogany San Fernando Valley spineflower Parry's spineflower Santa Susana tarplant None/None/4.2 None/None/4.2 None/None/4.3 None/SE/113.1 None/None/113.1 None/SR/113.2 ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Chaparral, Chenopod scrub, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial rhizomatous herb/Apr—June/100-4920 Joshua tree "woodland", Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Granitic, Gravelly, Sandy/annual herb/Mar—June/1970- 4790 Chaparral, Closed -cone coniferous forest/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb— May/100-1970 Coastal scrub (sandy), Valley and foothill grassland/annual herb/Apr— J u ly/490-4005 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Openings, Rocky (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/annual herb/Apr— June/900-4005 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Rocky/perennial deciduous shrub/July— Nov/920-2495 Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are no recent occurrence records within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range and there is no suitable habitat present. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-2 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Deinandra panicul ata Delphinium parryi ssp. purpureum Dodecahema leptoceras Harpagonella palmeri Helianthus inexpectatus paniculate tarplant Mt. Pinos larkspur slender -horned spineflower Palmer's grapplinghook Newhall sunflower None/None/4.2 None/None/4.3 FE/S E/1B.1 None/None/4.2 None/None/113.1 ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Sandy (sometimes), Vernally Mesic (usually)/annual herb/(Mar)Apr— Nov/80-3085 Chaparral, Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland/perennial herb/May— June/3280-8530 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub (alluvial fans); Sandy/annual herb/Apr—June/655- 2495 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay, Openings/annual herb/Mar—May/65- 3135 Marshes and swamps, Riparian woodland; Seeps/perennial rhizomatous herb/Aug—Oct/1000- 1000 Hordeum vernal barley None/None/3.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley intercedens and foothill grassland (depressions, saline flats), Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar—J une/15-3280 Horkelia cuneata mesa horkelia None/None/113.1 Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane var. puberula woodland, Coastal scrub; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/perennial herb/Feb— July(Sep)/230-2660 Biological Resources Assessment Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA, but there are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 2 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA, but there are no recent extant occurrences within 5 miles of the BSA. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. June 2026 Page D-3 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Juglans californica Southern California black walnut Juncus acutus ssp. southwestern spiny leopoldii rush Lepechinia fragrant pitcher sage fragrans Lepechinia rossii Ross' pitcher sage Lepidium Robinson's pepper- virginicum var. grass robinsonii Lilium humboldtii ocellated Humboldt ssp. ocellatum lily Lupinus paynei Payne's bush lupine None/None/4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland/perennial deciduous tree/M a r—Aug/165-2955 None/None/4.2 None/None/4.2 None/None/113.2 None/None/4.3 None/None/4.2 None/None/113.1 ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Coastal dunes (mesic), Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps)/perennial rhizomatous herb/(Mar)May—June/10-2955 Chaparral/perennial shrub/Mar— Oct/65-4300 Chaparral/perennial shrub/May— Sep/1000-2590 Chaparral, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Jan—J u ly/5-2905 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Riparian woodland; Openings/perennial bulbiferous herb/Mar—J uly(Aug)/100-5905 Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Sandy/perennial shrub/Mar—Apr(May—July)/720-1380 Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-4 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Malacothamnus Davidson's davidsonii bushmallow Navarretia fossalis Navarretia ojaiensis Navarretia setil oba Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada Orcuttia californica Phacelia mohavensis spreading navarretia Ojai navarretia Piute Mountains navarretia short -joint beavertail California Orcutt grass None/None/113.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland/perennial deciduous shrub/June—Jan/605-3740 FT/None/113.1 None/None/113.1 None/None/113.1 None/None/113.2 FE/S E/1B.1 ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Chenopod scrub, Marshes and swamps (shallow freshwater), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr—June/100- 2150 Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub (openings), Valley and foothill grassland/annual herb/May—July/900- 2035 Cismontane woodland, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay (sometimes), Gravelly (sometimes), Loam (sometimes)/annual herb/Apr— J u ly/935-6890 Chaparral, Joshua tree "woodland", Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland/perennial stem/Apr— June(Aug)/1395-5905 Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr— Aug/50-2165 Mojave phacelia None/None/4.3 Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/annual herb/Apr— Aug/4595-8205 Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is not present in the BSA. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 3 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. In addition, this species was observed within the Haskell Canyon Bike Park just east of the BSA. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 3 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range and there is no suitable habitat present. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-5 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Pseudognaphaliu white rabbit -tobacco None/None/213.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, m leucocephalum Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland; Gravelly, Sandy/perennial herb/(J u ly)Aug—Nov( Dec)/0-6890 Schoenoplectiella Rocky Mountain None/None/213.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), Vernal saximontana bulrush pools; Sandy (often)/annual rhizomatous herb/(Mar—May)June— Sep(Oct)/150-2360 Senecio chaparral ragwort None/None/213.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, aphanactis Coastal scrub; Alkaline (sometimes)/annual herb/Jan— Apr(May)/50-2625 Streptanthus southern jewelflower None/None/113.3 Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous campestris forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Rocky/perennial herb/(Apr)May— July/2955-7545 Symphyotrichum Greata's aster None/None/113.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, greatae Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Riparian woodland; Mesic/perennial rhizomatous herb/June—Oct/985-6595 Biological Resources Assessment Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are no recent occurrence records within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. The BSA is outside of the species' known elevation range. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Species was not observed during survey. June 2026 Page D-6 INTERNATIONAL Status Legend: Federal FE: Federally listed as endangered FT: Federally listed as threatened FPE: Federally proposed for listing as endangered FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) None: No federal listing FDL: Delisted State SE: State listed as endangered ST: State listed as threatened SR: State rare SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered SCT: State candidate for listing as threatened None: No state listing SDL: State delisting Biological Resources Assessment Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Other California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 113: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere CRPR 213: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is needed CRPR 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) June 2026 Page D-7 INTERNATIONAL ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR TABLE B. SPECIAL -STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA Amphibians Anaxyrus arroyo toad FE / None / SSC californicus Rana boylii pop. 6 foothill yellow- FE / SE /None legged frog - south coast DPS Rana draytonii California red- FT / None / SSC legged frog Biological Resources Assessment Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project None Desert wash I Riparian scrub I Not expected to occur. Suitable Riparian woodland I South coast habitat is present in the BSA. flowing waters I South coast standing There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of waters; Semi -arid regions near washes the species recorded within a 5- or intermittent streams, including mile radius of the BSA, but no valley -foothill and desert riparian, recent observations. desert wash, etc. None Aquatic I Riparian forest I Riparian Not expected to occur. No scrub I Riparian woodland I South suitable habitat is present in the coast flowing waters; Southern Coast BSA. There are 0 CNDDB Ranges from Monterey Bay south occurrences of the species through San Gabriel Mountains; west recorded within a 5-mile radius of the Salinas River in Monterey Co, of the BSA. south through Transverse Ranges, and east through San Gabriel Mountains. Historically may have ranged to Baja California. None Aquatic I Artificial flowing waters I Not expected to occur. There is Artificial standing waters I Freshwater no suitable habitat present marsh I Marsh & swamp I Riparian within the BSA. forest I Riparian scrub I Riparian woodland I Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters I Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters I South coast flow; Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. June 2026 Page D-8 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Rana muscosa southern mountain FE / SE / None yellow -legged frog Spea hammondii western spadefoot FPT / None / SSC Taricha torosa Birds Ammodramus savannarum Athene cunicul aria Coast Range newt grasshopper sparrow burrowing owl None / None / SSC None / None / SSC None / SCE / SSC None None None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Aquatic; Disjunct populations known from southern Sierras (northern DPS) and San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mtns (southern DPS). Found at 1,000 to 12,000 ft in lakes and creeks that stem from springs and snowmelt. May overwinter under frozen lakes. Cismontane woodland I Coastal scrub Valley & foothill grassland I Vernal pool I Wetland; Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley -foothill hardwood woodlands. Wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grassland; Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County. None Valley & foothill grassland; Dense grasslands on rolling hills, lowland plains, in valleys and on hillsides on lower mountain slopes. None Coastal prairie Coastal scrub I Great Basin grassland Great Basin scrub Mojavean desert scrub I Sonoran desert scrub I Valley & foothill grassland; Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low - growing vegetation. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Marginal suitable habitat is present within the project site and there are no direct habitat connections to any occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Marginally suitable habitat is located within the project, however due to frequent anthropogenic disturbances, the species is not expected. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-9 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk Coccyzus western yellow- americanus billed cuckoo occidentalis Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite Gymnogyps cal ifornian us Icteria virens California condor yellow -breasted chat None / ST / None FT / SE / None None / None / FP FE/SE/FP None / None / SSC None None None None None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Great Basin grassland Riparian forest Riparian woodland Valley & foothill grassland; Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper -sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Riparian forest; Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood -bottoms of larger river systems. Cismontane woodland I Marsh & swamp I Riparian woodland I Valley & foothill grassland I Wetland; Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Chaparral I Valley & foothill grassland; Require vast expanses of open savannah, grasslands, and foothill chaparral in mountain ranges of moderate altitude. Riparian forest I Riparian scrub Riparian woodland; Summer resident; inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. Not expected to occur. This species has the potential to occur as a transient during migration. Not expected to occur. Not enough suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Suitable nesting habitats preferred by this species are not present within the project site. Not expected to occur. Suitable foraging and nesting habitats preferred by this species are not present within the project site. Not expected to occur. Minimal suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-10 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Lanius ludovicianus Polioptila californica californica Riparia riparia Setophaga petechia Vireo bellii pusill us loggerhead shrike coastal California gnatcatcher bank swallow yellow warbler least Bell's vireo None / None / SSC FT / None / SSC None / ST / None None / None / SSC FE / SE / None None None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Broadleaved upland forest I Desert wash I Joshua tree woodland Mojavean desert scrub I Pinon & juniper woodlands I Riparian woodland I Sonoran desert scrub; Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon - juniper, Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub and washes. Coastal bluff scrub I Coastal scrub; Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft in Southern California. None Riparian scrub I Riparian woodland; Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. None Riparian forest I Riparian scrub Riparian woodland; Riparian plant associations in close proximity to water. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests in Cascades and Sierra Nevada. None Riparian forest I Riparian scrub Riparian woodland; Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft. Not expected to occur. Suitable foraging and nesting habitats preferred by this species are not present within the project site. Moderate potential to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 5 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no additional recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no additional recent observations. Not expected to occur. Marginal suitable habitat is present in the BSA. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-11 INTERNATIONAL Fishes Catostom us santaanae Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Gila orcuttii Rhinichthys gabrielino Invertebrates Bombus crotchii Santa Ana sucker unarmored threespine stickleback arroyo chub Santa Ana speckled dace FT / None / SSC FE/SE/FP None / None / SSC FPT / None / SSC Crotch's bumble bee None / SCE / None None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Aquatic I South coast flowing waters; Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south coastal streams. None Aquatic I South coast flowing waters; Weedy pools, backwaters, and among emergent vegetation at the stream edge in small Southern California streams. None None None Aquatic I South coast flowing waters; Native to streams from Malibu Creek to San Luis Rey River basin. Introduced into streams in Santa Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave and San Diego river basins. Aquatic I South coast flowing waters; Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel rivers. May be extirpated from the Los Angeles River system. Open grassland and scrub communities supporting suitable floral resources. ; Coastal California east to the Sierra -Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5- mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 7 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is not present in the BSA. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are no CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no additional, recent observations. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present and there are no known extant occurrence records near the project site. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-12 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Branchinecta I ynchi Danaus plexippus plexippus Euphydryas editha quino Mammals Antrozous pallidus vernal pool fairy shrimp monarch - California overwintering population quino checkerspot butterfly pallid bat FT / None / None FPT / None / None FE / SCE / None None / None / SSC None None None None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Valley & foothill grassland I Vernal pool I Wetland; Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains, in astatic rain -filled pools. Closed -cone coniferous forest; Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Chaparral I Coastal scrub; Sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage shrublands in parts of Riverside and San Diego counties. Chaparral I Coastal scrub I Desert wash I Great Basin grassland I Great Basin scrub I Mojavean desert scrub Riparian woodland I Sonoran desert scrub Upper montane coniferous forest Valley & foothill grassland; Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 2 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. No suitable overwintering habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Although marginally suitable foraging habitat preferred by the species present within the project site, today, the Quino checkerspot butterfly is only known from western Riverside County, southern San Diego County, and northern Baja California, Mexico. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5- mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-13 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Corynorhinus townsendii Euderma maculatum Eumops perotis californicus Macrotus californicus Townsend's big - eared bat spotted bat None / None / SSC None / None / SSC western mastiff bat None / None / SSC California leaf -nosed None / None / SSC bat ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR None Broadleaved upland forest I Chaparral Chenopod scrub I Great Basin grassland I Great Basin scrub I Joshua tree woodland I Lower montane coniferous forest I Meadow & seep Mojavean desert scrub I Riparian forest I Riparian woodland I Sonoran desert scr; Throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites. None Foothills, mountains, desert regions of southern California, including arid deserts, grasslands, and mixed -conifer forests; roosts in rock crevices and cliffs; feeds over water and along washes; Occupies a wide variety of habitats from arid deserts and grasslands through mixed conifer forests. None Chaparral I Cismontane woodland Coastal scrub I Valley & foothill grassland; Many open, semi -arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc. None Riparian scrub I Sonoran desert scrub; Desert riparian, desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent scrub, alkali scrub and palm oasis habitats. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-14 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Neotoma lepida San Diego desert intermedia woodrat Onychomys southern torridus ramona grasshopper mouse Taxidea taxus Reptiles Actinemys pallida American badger southwestern pond turtle None / None / SSC None / None / SSC None / None / SSC FPT / None / SSC None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Coastal scrub; Coastal scrub of Southern California from San Diego County to San Luis Obispo County. None Chenopod scrub; Desert areas, especially scrub habitats with friable soils for digging. Prefers low to moderate shrub cover. None None Alkali marsh I Alkali playa I Alpine Alpine dwarf scrub I Bog & fen Brackish marsh I Broadleaved upland forest I Chaparral I Chenopod scrub Cismontane woodland I Closed -cone coniferous forest I Coastal bluff scrub Coastal dunes I Coastal prairie; Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Freshwater environments such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and slow - moving streams with abundant aquatic vegetation, typically in low to mid - elevation areas. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 0 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA and no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Marginally suitable habitat is present within the project site. Not expected to occur. Minimal suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 2 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-15 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Anniella spp. California legless lizard Arizona elegans California glossy occidentalis snake None / None / SSC None / None / SSC Aspidoscelis tigris coastal whiptail None / None / SSC stejnegeri Phrynosoma coast horned lizard None / None / SSC bl ainvillii None None None None ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley —foothill, chaparral, and scrubs; pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated with sparse vegetation and moist sandy or loose, loamy soils; Contra Costa County south to San Diego, within a variety of open habitats.This element represents California records of Anniella not yet assigned to new species within the Anniella pulchra complex. Arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral, open areas with loose soil; 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. Hot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.; Found in deserts and semi -arid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas. Also found in woodland and riparian areas. Chaparral I Cismontane woodland Coastal bluff scrub I Coastal scrub Desert wash I Pinon & juniper woodlands Riparian scrub I Riparian woodland Valley & foothill grassland; Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 11 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA with additional, recent observations. One occurrence was directly within the BSA. Moderate potential to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 7 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, with additional, recent observations. Moderate potential to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 9 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, with additional, recent observations. Moderate potential to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There are 9 CNDDB occurrences of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, with additional, recent observations. Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-16 INTERNATIONAL Thamnophis hammondii Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 Status Legend: two -striped ga rte rsn a ke south coast ga rte rsn a ke None / None / SSC None / None / SSC ATTACHMENT D SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR None Marsh & swamp I Riparian scrub Riparian woodland I Wetland; Coastal California from vicinity of Salinas to northwest Baja California. From sea to about 7,000 ft elevation. None Artificial standing waters Marsh & swamp I Riparian scrub Riparian woodland I South coast flowing waters South coast standing waters Wetland; Southern California coastal plain from Ventura County to San Diego County, and from sea level to about 850 m. Federal State FE: Federally listed as endangered SE: State listed as endangered FT: Federally listed as threatened ST: State listed as threatened FPE: Federally proposed for listing as endangered SR: State rare FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) SCT: State candidate for listing as threatened None: No federal listing None: No state listing FDL: Delisted SDL: State delisting Not expected to occur. Minimal suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5-mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence of the species recorded within a 5- mile radius of the BSA, but no recent observations. CDFW Designation FP: California Fully Protected Species SSC: California Species of Special Concern Biological Resources Assessment June 2026 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Road Improvements Project Page D-17 APPENDIX B: AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, Los ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Prepared For: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Contact: Dan Duncan (661) 255-4348 Prepared By: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, California 92707 Contact: Lizbeth Pliego Guzman (949) 330-4127 June 2026 JN 208136 HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, Los ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA Aquatic Resources Delineation Report The undersigned certify that this report is a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions of jurisdictional wetland and non -wetland "waters of the U.S.," "waters of the State," and streambed/banks and associated riparian vegetation delineation for the above -referenced project. — ��_ (:�*5, - Lizbeth Pliego Guzman Associate Regulatory Specialist Natural Resources and Regulatory Services Travis Whitney Technical Manager Natural Resources and Regulatory Services June 2026 JN 208136 Executive Summary Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has prepared this Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR) for the proposed Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvement Project (project or project site), located in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Michael Baker conducted a jurisdictional delineation on May 14, 2026 to map any jurisdictional features and conduct a Streamflow Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) assessment for the project site. The City of Santa Clarita proposes to pave roads and improve access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and City Archery Range. The project involves improvements to two approximate one -quarter mile spur roads including one dip crossing each over Haskell Canyon Wash. The project is located east of Interstate 5 (I-5) north of Copper Hill Drive within Haskell Canyon. This ARDR was prepared to document all aquatic features identified by Michael Baker within the project site that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). State and federal jurisdictional areas (including Haskell Canyon Wash) were identified within the project site. Table ES -I identifies the total jurisdiction for each regulatory agency. Table ES-2 identifies the summary of impacts for each regulatory agency. Delineation methods followed the most recent, acceptable guidelines for conducting a jurisdictional delineation in this region. However, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional limits. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements ES-1 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Executive Summary ...................................... ES-1: Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site Jurisdictional Limits Aquatic Latitude/ Cowardin RWQCB (acres) CDFW (acres) Linear Feature Longitude Code Wetland Non -wetland Unvegetated Vegetated Associated Feet WoS WoS Streambed Streambed Riparian Haskell Canyon Wash 34.476449 / Riverine - 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.05 266 (Aquatic -118.508342 Feature 1) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479090 / Riverine - 0.13 0.14 - 0.01 78 (Aquatic -118.509306 Feature 2) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479087 / Riverine - <0.01 <0.01 - - 33 (Aquatic -118.509191 Feature 2A) TOTAL - 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.06 t771 ES-2: Summary of Permanent Impacts Impacts to Jurisdictional Limits RWQCB (acres) CDFW (acres) Linear Aquatic Latitude/ Cowardin Feature Longitude Code Wetland Non -wetland Unvegetated Vegetated Associated Feet WoS WoS Streambed Streambed Riparian Haskell Canyon Wash 34.476449 / Riverine - 0.01 0.01 - - 12 (Aquatic -118.508342 Feature 1) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479090 / Riverine - 0.03 0.03 - - 26 (Aquatic -118.509306 Feature 2) Haskell Canyon 34.479087 / Riverine - - - - - - Wash -118.509191 (Aquatic Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project ES-2 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Executive Summary ...................................... Impacts to Jurisdictional Limits RWQCB (acres) CDFW (acres) Linear Aquatic Feature Latitude/ Longitude Cowardin Code Wetland WoS Non -wetland WoS Unvegetated Streambed Vegetated Streambed Associated Riparian Feet Feature 2A) TOTAL - 0.04 0.04 - 38 Within the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, Aquatic Feature 1 (AF-1), Aquatic Feature 2 (AF-2), and Aquatic Feature 2A (AF-2A) are subject to RWQCB and CDFW regulatory authority and would require authorization prior to the commencement of construction. Based on a detailed review of current site conditions and project design plans, the following regulatory permits/authorizations would be required prior to construction within the identified jurisdictional areas: 1. Approved Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE to confirm that no on -site resources are considered waters of the U.S. under the present federal definition; 2. RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements for impacts associated with the placement of dredge and/or fill material into waters of the State (WoS) pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Act; and, 3. California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts occurring to waters of the State comprised of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian areas. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project ES-3 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Table of Contents Section1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location.................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Description............................................................................................................. 6 Section2 Regulations........................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers........................................................................................... 7 2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board.............................................................................. 7 2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife....................................................................... 8 Section3 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers........................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S......................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Wetland Waters of the U.S................................................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Stream Duration Assessment Method............................................................................... 12 3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board............................................................................ 12 3.2.1 Non -Wetland Waters of the State..................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Wetland Waters of the State............................................................................................. 12 3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife..................................................................... 12 Section4 Literature Review........................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Watershed Review............................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Local Climate.................................................................................................................... 13 4.3 USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle.................................................................... 13 4.4 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................................. 14 4.5 Soil Survey........................................................................................................................ 14 4.6 Hydric Soils List of California.......................................................................................... 15 4.7 National Wetlands Inventory............................................................................................ 15 4.8 Flood Zone........................................................................................................................ 15 4.9 National Hydrography Dataset......................................................................................... 15 Section5 Site Conditions................................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Drainage Features............................................................................................................. 16 5.1.1 Aquatic Feature 1.............................................................................................................. 16 5.1.2 Aquatic Feature 2.............................................................................................................. 17 5.1.3 Aquatic Feature 2A........................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Wetland Features.............................................................................................................. 18 5.3 Streamflow Duration Assessment Method....................................................................... 18 5.4 Antecedent Precipitation Tool.......................................................................................... 18 Section6 Findings........................................................................................................................... 19 6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers......................................................................................... 19 6.1.1 Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Determination.............................................................. 19 6.1.2 Wetland Determination..................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board............................................................................ 19 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project i Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Table of Contents ................................. 6.2.1 Non -Wetland Waters of the State Determination............................................................. 19 6.2.2 Wetland Determination..................................................................................................... 23 6.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife..................................................................... 23 Section 7 Regulatory Approval Process........................................................................................ 26 7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers......................................................................................... 26 7.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board............................................................................ 26 7.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife..................................................................... 28 7.4 Recommendations.............................................................................................................28 Section8 References........................................................................................................................ 29 FIGURES Figure1: Regional Vicinity................................................................................................................2 Figure2: Site Vicinity........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3a: Project Site — Location 1..................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3b: Project Site — Location 2..................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4a: RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters — Location 1.................................................. 21 Figure 4b: RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters — Location 2.................................................. 22 Figure 5a: CDFW Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters — Location 1..................................................... 24 Figure 5b: CDFW Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters — Location 2..................................................... 25 TABLES Table 1: Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site.................................................................... 20 Table 2: Jurisdictional Limits Permanent Impacts Summary......................................................... 27 APPENDICES Appendix A Documentation Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C OHWM Datasheets Appendix D Beta Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Data Forms Appendix E Antecedent Precipitation Tool Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................... ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AF Aquatic Feature APT Antecedent Precipitation Tool ARDR Aquatic Resources Delineation Report CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFGC California Fish and Game Code CWA EPA FAC FACU FACW HUC I-5 Michael Baker OBL OHWM Porter -Cologne Act project Regional Supplement Revised Definition RPW RWQCB SDAM M►►IA Clean Water Act Environmental Protection Agency Facultative Facultative Upland Facultative Wetland Hydrological Unit Code Interstate 5 Michael Baker International Obligate Wetland ordinary high-water mark California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvement Project Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States "; Conforming Relatively Permanent Water Regional Water Quality Control Board User Manual for a Beta Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for the Arid West of the United States, Version 1.1 Traditional Navigable Waters UPL Upland USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Manual 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WoS Waters of the State WoUS Waters of the U.S. OF Fahrenheit Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section I Introduction On behalf of the City of Santa Clarita, Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has prepared this Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR) to describe, map, and quantify aquatic features located within the proposed project site. This ARDR describes the regulatory setting, methodologies, and results of the jurisdictional delineation, including recommendations for any proposed impacts to previously documented or potential jurisdictional resources. This ARDR presents Michael Baker's best professional determination of the jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory agencies; however, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional limits. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located within the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1, Regional Vicinity). Specifically, the project site is depicted within Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 16 West of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Newhall, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, Project Vicinity). The project site is located north of Copper Hill Drive (refer to Figure 3a, Project Site Location 1 and Figure 3b, Project Site Location 2). Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I Aquatic Resources Delineation Report SANTA SUSANV OUNT9 A Al DNS Simi Valley SIMI HILLS Legend Project Location Santa Clarita 9o'Y'tl'� '.. SanFear SAN FERNANDO VALLEY N SOLEDAD-CANYON "',-__, ,l Los Angeles VEROUGO MOUNTAINS HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O 0 2.5 5 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Miles Regional Vicinity Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, National Geographic World Map: Santa Clarita, California Figure 1 Will;e t ti 35 Me _ C y 1 y mo ^' o ir a �S41N 07iA f)R 1600 R4MP(��O UR x i �9 a' Legend Project Site 0 Crossing Locations 30 l 3p t tt n 1f+ t ;� ry Af p T5N`�'R15�'Wf� s k n 55� 2 14 0 3 Ir 31 v / c rRA LaQ4 I 6. 6 HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O 0 1,000 2,000 US Feet Site Vicinity I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, Newhall USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Santa Clarita, California Figure 2 Legend Project Site Study Limits O 0 35 70 US Feet I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L IS,,,,, : Esn, county of Los A,g,l,s, 2026 N...m,p Imagery k r� FAF F: ki� HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Project Site - Location 1 Figure 3A Legend Project Site Study Limits I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 0 35 70 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O i US Feet Project Site - Location 2 source:Es, County of Los Angeles, 2026 N... m,p Imagery Figure 3B Section I — Introduction 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would install approximately four inches of asphalt concrete over an approximately 1.4-mile long dirt access road from Copper Hill Drive north to the City Archery Range, with two approximately 025-mile spur roads off of the main dirt road to provide access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range. Two dip crossings over the Haskell Canyon Wash would also be constructed, one for each of the spur roads. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 2 Regulations Three agencies regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Of the State agencies, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act). 2.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Since 1972, the USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into "waters of the U.S." (WoUS), including wetland and non -wetland aquatic features, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Section 404 is founded on the findings of a significant nexus (or connection) between the aquatic or other hydrological features in question and interstate commerce via Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and ultimately Traditional Navigable Waters (TNW), through direct or indirect connection as defined by USACE regulations. On September 8, 2023, the EPA and the USACE published the Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States"; Conforming (Revised Definition) in the Federal Register to define WoUS, at which point the final rule became effective across the nation including the state of California (Federal Register, 2023). Notable changes under the Revised Definition include the requirement that tributaries demonstrate relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing water; and the requirement that adjacent wetlands demonstrate "a continuous surface connection." 2.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may discharge to WoUS must seek a Water Quality Certification from the State or Indian tribe with jurisdiction'. In California, there are nine Regional Boards that issue or deny Certification for discharges within their geographical jurisdiction. Such Certification is based on a finding that the discharge will meet water quality standards, which are defined as numeric and narrative objectives in each Regional Board's Basin Plan, and other applicable requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board has this responsibility for projects affecting waters within multiple RWQCBs. The RWQCB's jurisdiction extends to all WoUS, including wetlands, and to non-federal waters of the State (described below). The Porter -Cologne Act gives the State broad authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. The Porter -Cologne Act has become an important tool for the regulatory environment following the recent redefinition of WoUS with respect to the State's authority over isolated and otherwise insignificant waters. Generally, if there is no nexus to a TNW, any person proposing to discharge waste into waters of the State that could affect its water quality I Title 33, United States Code, Section 1341; Clean Water Act Section. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 7 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 2 —Regulations ............................................ must file a Report of Waste Discharge. Although "waste" is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the Regional Board also interprets this to include fill discharged into water bodies. On April 2, 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures), for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California. The Procedures consist of four major elements: 1) a wetland definition; 2) a framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the state; 3) wetland delineation procedures; and 4) procedures for the submittal, review, and approval of applications for Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities. The Procedures were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on August 28, 2019, and became effective May 28, 2020 (State Water Resources Control Board, 2019). 2.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC establishes a fee -based process to ensure that projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, or when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided. Section 1602 of the CFGC requires any person, State, or local governmental agency or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. This applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State, including the maintenance of existing drain culverts, outfalls, and other structures. Notification to CDFW under the Lake or Streambed Alteration Program is generally required when an activity occurs within the top of active banks and/or the canopy/dripline of any associated riparian vegetation. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 8 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 3 — Methods Section 3 Methods The analysis presented in this ARDR is supported by a site reconnaissance conducted by Michael Baker. On May 14, 2026, Michael Baker conducted a field delineation to determine the jurisdictional limits of WoUS and WoS (including potential wetlands), located within the boundaries of the project site and to conduct a Streamflow Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) assessment for the project site. While in the field, jurisdictional features were recorded on an aerial base map at a scale of 1" = 100' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as guidelines. Data points were obtained on Field Maps using Global Positioning System to record and identify specific widths for OHWM indicators and the locations of photographs, soil points, and other pertinent jurisdictional features, if present. These data were then transferred as a .shp file and added to the jurisdictional figures contained herein. The jurisdictional figures were prepared using ESRI ArcMap software and comply with the USACE Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resource Delineations, dated January 2016 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2016). 3.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 3.1.1 NON -WETLAND WATERS OF THE U.S. The limits ofUSACE jurisdiction in non -tidal waters extend to the OHWM, which is defined as "...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." An OHWM can be determined by the observation of a natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and debris; wracking; vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; sediment sorting; leaf litter disturbed or washed away; scour; deposition; multiple observed flow events; bed and banks; water staining; and/or change in plant community. 2 3.1.2 WETLAND WATERS OF THE U.S. The limits of USACE jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using the methods outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008). This document is part of a series of regional supplements to the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). According to the USACE Manual, identification of wetlands is based on a three -parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. To be considered a wetland, an area must exhibit at least minimal characteristics within these three (3) parameters. The Regional Supplement presents wetland indicators, delineation guidance, and other information that is specific to the Arid West Region. In 2 CWA regulations 33 CFR §328.3(e). Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 9 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 3 — Methods the field, vegetation, soils, and evidence of hydrology have been examined using the methods listed below and documented on USACE wetland determination data forms, when applicable. Vezetation Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may occur in wetlands. These plants, often referred to as hydrophytic vegetation, are listed in regional publications by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during growing season. Hydrophytic vegetation decisions are based on the assemblage of plant species growing on a site, rather than the presence or absence of indicator species. Vegetation strata are sampled separately when evaluating indicators of hydrophytic vegetation. A stratum for sampling purposes is defined as having 5 percent or more total plant cover. Cover of vegetation is estimated and is ranked according to their dominance. Species that contribute to a cumulative total of 50 percent of the total dominant coverage, plus any species that comprise at least 20 percent (also known as the "50/20 rule") of the total dominant coverage, are recorded on a wetland determination data form. Wetland indicator status is assigned to each species using The National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5 (USAGE, 2022). If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species from all strata were Obligate Wetland, Facultative Wetland, or Facultative species, the criteria for wetland vegetation is met. Plant indicator status categories are described below: • Obligate Wetland (OBL): Plants that occur almost always in wetlands under natural conditions, but which may also occur rarely in non -wetlands; • Facultative Wetland (FACW): Plants that occur usually in wetlands, but also occur in non -wetlands; • Facultative (FAC): Plants with similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and non -wetlands; • Facultative Upland (FACU): Plants that occur sometimes in wetlands, but occur more often in non - wetlands; and • Obligate Upland (UPL): Plants that occur rarely in wetlands but occur almost always in non - wetlands under natural conditions. Hydrology Wetland hydrology indicators are presented in four (4) groups, which include: • Group A Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils: Based on the direct observation of surface water or groundwater during the site visit. • Group B Evidence of Recent Inundation: Consists of evidence that the site is subject to flooding or ponding, although it may not be inundated currently. These indicators include water marks, drift deposits, sediment deposits, and similar features. • Group C Evidence of Recent Soil Saturation: Consists of indirect evidence that the soil was saturated recently. Some of these indicators, such as oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living roots Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 10 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 3 — Methods and the presence of reduced iron or sulfur in the soil profile, indicate that the soil has been saturated for an extended period. • Group D Evidence from Other Site Conditions or Data: Consists of vegetation and soil features that indicate contemporary rather than historical wet conditions and include shallow aquitard and the FAC-neutral test. If wetland vegetation criteria are met, the presence of wetland hydrology is evaluated at each transect by recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to free water in the soil test pits. The lateral extent of the hydrology indicators is used as a guide for locating soil pits for evaluation of hydric soils and jurisdictional areas. In portions of the stream where the flow is divided by multiple channels with intermediate sand bars, the entire area between the channels is considered within the OHWM and the wetland hydrology indicator is considered met for the entire area. Soils A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 16-20 inches'. The concept of hydric soils includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils that are sufficiently wet because of artificial measures are included in the concept of hydric soils. The limits of wetland hydrology indicators are also used as a guide for locating soil pits. If any hydric soil features are located, progressive pits are dug moving laterally away from the active channel until hydric features are no longer present within the top 20 inches of the soil profile. Once in the field, soil characteristics are verified by digging soil pits along each transect to an excavation depth of 20 inches; in areas of high sediment deposition, soil pit depth may be increased. Soil pit locations are usually placed within the drainage invert or within adjoining vegetation. At each soil pit, the soil texture and color are recorded by comparison with standard plates within a Munsell Soil Chart (Munsell Color, 2009). Munsell Soil Charts aid in designating color labels to soils, based by degrees of three simple variables — hue, value, and chroma. Any indicators of hydric soils, such as organic accumulation, iron reduction, translocation, and accumulation, and sulfate reduction, are also recorded. Hydric soil indicators are present in three groups, which include: • All Soils: Refers to soils with any U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) soil texture. Hydric soil indicators within this group include histosol, histic epipedon, black histic, hydrogen sulfide, stratified layers, 1-centimeter muck, depleted below dark surface, and thick dark surface. 3 According to the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008), growing season dates are determined through on -site observations of the following indicators of biological activity in a given year: (1) above -ground growth and development of vascular plants, and/or (2) soil temperature. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 11 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 3 — Methods • Sandy Soils: Refers to soil materials with a USDA soil texture of loamy fine sand and coarser. Hydric soil indicators within this group include sandy mucky mineral, sandy gleyed matrix, sandy redox, and stripped matrix. • Loamy and Clayey Soils: Refers to soil materials with a USDA soil texture of loamy very fine sand and finer. Hydric soil indicators within this group include loamy mucky mineral, loamy gleyed matrix, depleted matrix, redox dark surface, depleted dark surface, redox depressions, and vernal pools. 3.1.3 STREAMFLOW DURATION ASSESSMENT METHOD For this project location, stream duration was determined using the methods outlined in the Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods for the Arid West and Western Mountains of the United States, Version 2.0 (SDAM) (Manor, et al., 2024). This manual is intended to provide a rapid and repeatable method to distinguish between ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streamflow regimes. The SDAM considers several variables in determining the stream duration of a given reach, including presence and abundance of hydrophytic plant species, aquatic invertebrates, EPT taxa (comprised of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera), algae, and other single indicators (fish and/or algae cover >10%). 3.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 3.2.1 NON -WETLAND WATERS OF THE STATE The RWQCB generally shares the USACE jurisdictional methods for identifying non -wetland waters unless the waterbody is not jurisdictional to the USACE under the Revised Definition. Non -wetland WoS do not require connectivity to downstream TNW and can include isolated and/or ephemeral aquatic features not subject to federal jurisdiction. In the case the waterbody is not a WoUS, the RWQCB considers such waterbodies to be jurisdictional waters of the State. 3.2.2 WETLAND WATERS OF THE STATE The Procedures adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on April 2, 2019, contain a wetland definition and wetland delineation procedures. The State wetland definition and delineation procedures are largely consistent with the three -parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology implemented by the USACE and outlined in the Regional Supplement to the USACE Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008). However, one exception is that an area can naturally lack vegetation and still qualify as a wetland WoS if it satisfies both the hydric soil and wetland hydrology parameters. 3.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The scope of CDFW jurisdictional authority includes the bed and bank of streambeds and extends to the dripline of any associated riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 12 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 4 — Literature Review Section 4 Literature Review A thorough review of relevant literature and materials was conducted to preliminarily identify areas that may fall under the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies. A summary of materials utilized during the literature review is provided below and in Appendix A, Documentation. In addition, refer to Section 8 for a complete list of references used throughout the course of this delineation. 4.1 WATERSHED REVIEW The Lower Bouquet Canyon [Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) 180701020202] in the Santa Clarita Valley and is a portion of the Santa Clara River Watershed (HUC 18070102). Haskell Canyon Wash is located within the project site, which is a tributary to the Santa Clara River, a tributary to the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Clara River watershed is approximately 1,610 square miles and encompasses portions of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2023). The watershed is divided into numerous subwatersheds based on flow direction and landscape, all of which ultimately connect to the Santa Clara River. Haskell Canyon Wash and the Santa Clara River are not designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2026). 4.2 LOCAL CLIMATE Los Angeles County features a Mediterranean climate of hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Climatological data obtained for the City of Santa Clarita indicates the annual precipitation averages to 16.7 inches per year. Almost all of the precipitation in the form of rain occurs in the months between December and March, with hardly any occurring between the months of April and November. The wettest months are January and February, with a monthly average total precipitation of 1.39 inches. The average minimum and maximum temperatures for the City of Santa Clarita are 44 and 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) respectively with December being the coldest month and August being the hottest month (monthly average 65.6°F) (Climates to Travel, 2026). 4.3 USGS 7.5-MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE The project site is located within the Newhall quadrangle of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 36 of Township 5 North, Range 16 West. The project site appears to be relatively flat with no areas of significant topographic relief. On -site elevations range from approximately 1,444 to 1,469 feet above mean sea level and a gently slope west to east (GoogleEarth, 2026). According to the topographic map and the field visit, the project site is comprised of vacant/undeveloped land, with dirt paths that are used for access. No additional drainage features, ponds, basins, or gravel pits were noted. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 13 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 4 — Literature Review 4.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Prior to the field visits, Michael Baker reviewed multiple aerial photographs from Google Earth for the project site, including images dated 2006 through 2025. Aerial photographs can be useful during the delineation process, as the photographs often indicate the presence of drainages and riparian vegetation within the boundaries of the project site (if any). According to 2006 through 2025 aerial photographs, Haskell Canyon Wash has changed the most downstream with more upland vegetation. No additional drainage features or ponds were noted. 4.5 SOIL SURVEY Soils within the project site were researched prior to the field delineation using the Custom Soil Resource Reportfor Antelope Valley Area, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026). The presence ofhydric soils is initially investigated by comparing the mapped soil series for the site to the County list of hydric soils. Soil surveys furnish soil maps and interpretations originally needed in providing technical assistance to farmers and ranchers; in guiding other decisions about soil selection, use, and management; and in planning, research, and disseminating the results of the research. In addition, soil surveys are now heavily utilized in order to obtain soil information with respect to potential wetland environments and jurisdictional areas (i.e., soil characteristics, drainage, and color). The following soil series have been reported onsite: Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CmF2) Soils in the Castaic-Balcom series are found in the Castaic/Santa Clarita region and consist of approximately 60 percent Castaic silty clay loam and approximately 40 percent Balcom silty clay loam. These soils are found in very steep and highly eroded hillsides. Surface runoff is very high and the soils are classified as well drained. Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (HcO This soil type was queried at both locations where a dip crossing is proposed. Soils in the Hanford series are typically very deep, well -drained alluvial soils formed mainly from granite -derived sediments and occur on alluvial fans, stream terraces, and floodplains. This soils series is one of the most common agricultural and urban soils in California's valleys. Surface runoff is low and the soils are classified as well drained. Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (ScF2) Soils in the Saugus series are classified as steep, highly eroded hillside soil that dominates much of the Santa Clarita and Castaic foothill landscape. This series consists of deep, well -drained loam soils from weakly consolidated sedimentary rocks such as sandstone and shale. Surface runoff is high and soils are classified as well drained. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 14 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 4 — Literature Review Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SsB) This soil type was queried at both locations where a dip crossing is proposed. Soils in the Sorrento series are classified as very deep, well -drained, fine -loamy soil formed in alluvium from sedimentary rocks, typically found on alluvial fans and stabilized floodplains. It is part of the Sorrento soil series, which is widely mapped in Southern California valleys. Surface runoff is low and soils are classified as well drained. 4.6 HYDRIC SOILS LIST OF CALIFORNIA The Hydric Soils List of California (United States Department of Agriculture, 2026) was reviewed to verify whether the on -site soils mapped by USDA are considered to be hydric'. It should be noted that lists of hydric soils along with soil survey maps provide off -site ancillary tools to assist in wetland determinations, but they are not a substitute for field investigations. According to the soils list, none of the soils are listed as hydric. 4.7 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY The United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps were reviewed for the project site. According to the National Wetland Inventory, the Haskell Canyon Wash is mapped as riverine. Haskell Canyon Wash is reported to be of the riverine system, intermittent subsystem, streambed class, seasonally flooded (R4SBC) (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2026). Refer to Appendix A, Documentation. 4.8 FLOOD ZONE The Federal Emergency Management Agency's FEMA National Flood Insurance Program was reviewed for available flood data within the project site. According to Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06037C0810G, Haskell Canyon Wash is located within Zone AO which is designated as a high -risk Special Flood Hazard Area subject to shallow flooding (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2026). Refer to Appendix A, Documentation. 4.9 NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET The National Hydrography Dataset was reviewed for available hydrography data within the project site using the USGS The National Map Advanced Viewer. According to the National Hydrography Dataset, one ephemeral wash (Haskell Canyon Wash) is noted throughout the project site generally flowing from north to south (U.S. Geological Survey, 2026). Refer to Appendix A, Documentation. 4 A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 15 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section S — Site Conditions Section 5 Site Conditions Michael Baker regulatory specialists conducted a jurisdictional delineation on May 14, 2026 to map any jurisdictional features and conduct an SDAM assessment for the project site. Field staff did not encounter any access limitations during the site visit. Refer to Appendix B, Site Photographs taken throughout the project site. 5.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES 5.1.1 Aquatic Feature 1 Aquatic Feature 1 (AF-I) is within Haskell Canyon Wash and is an earthen channel that runs through the project site in a north to south direction and eventually discharges to the Santa Clara River located approximately 4.60 miles southwest of the project site. At the time of the survey, AF-1 was completely dry and did not contain flowing or standing water. Surface flows within AF-1 are primarily provided by rain events. Within the project site, AF-1 primarily exhibits an earthen streambed consisting of a natural substrate with cobble and sediment consisting of deep soil cracks. A gravel road crosses AF-1 and leads into the Bike Park Entrance. Evidence of erosion alongside the gravel road indicates surface water runoff flows over the road crossing and into AF-I. Evidence of an OHWM and surface hydrology was observed via the following indicators: a change in vegetation type, a sharp break in slope, line impressed on bank, soil cracking, sandy bottom, presence of debris, presence of wracking, scour, and bed and banks. Refer to Appendix C, OHWMDatasheets. The OHWM was generally consistent throughout the project site and measured between approximately 11 and 12 feet in width. Based on historic aerials and visual evidence observed in the field, the banks of AF-1 contained the following trees: arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis, FACW), red willow (Salix laevigata, FACW), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii, FACW). Common plant species occurring within the upstream portion inside of AF-1 include Fremont cottonwood samplings, goosefoot (Chenopodium californicum, UPL), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca, FAC), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii, UPL), black mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL), California Croton (Croton californicus, UPL), flatline bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa, UPL), and Indian tobacco (Nicotiana quadrivalvis, FACU). Upland species within the upstream portion of AF-1 include black mustard, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), red brome (Bromus rubens, UPL), wild oats (Avena spp.), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia, FAC), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis, UPL), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica, UPL), flatline bursage, and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum, UPL). Willow and Fremont cottonwood samplings were observed within the channel in the downstream portion. Upland species occurring within the downstream portion of AF-1 include Fremont cottonwood, tamarisk (Tamarix ssp.), black mustard, ripgut brome, red brome, and California sagebrush. Associated riparian vegetation includes arroyo willow, red willow, Fremont cottonwood, and tamarisk. Burnt trees were also observed downstream of AF-1. No vegetation was observed within the channel in the downstream portion. Due to the absence of dominant hydrophytic vegetation, no soil samples were taken within AF-1. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 16 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section S — Site Conditions 5.1.2 Aquatic Feature 2 Aquatic Feature 2 (AF-2) is within Haskell Canyon Wash and is an earthen channel that runs through the project site in a north to south direction and through three 48-inch culverts located under the gravel road. The three culverts are surrounded by riprap and a constructed road crossing. The culverts and crossing appeared to be maintained; however the time of construction and maintenance of the crossing is unknown. AF-2 eventually discharges to the Santa Clara River located approximately 4.80 miles southwest of the project site. At the time of the survey, AF-2 was completely dry and did not contain flowing or standing water. Surface flows within AF-2 are primarily provided by rain events. Within the project site, AF-2 primarily exhibits an earthen streambed consisting of sandy to cobble substrate. A gravel road crosses AF- 2 and leads into the Archery Range. Evidence of an OHWM and surface hydrology was observed via the following indicators: drainage patterns, soil cracking, sediment deposits, a change in sediment type from sandy upland to large cobble, line impressed on bank, a change in vegetation, break in slope, and shelving. Refer to Appendix C, OHWMDatasheets. The OHWM was generally consistent throughout the project site and measured between approximately 17 and 33 feet in width. Based on historic aerials and visual evidence observed in the field, the banks of AF-2 contained one red willow. Common plant species occurring within the upstream portion of AF-2 include black mustard, tree tobacco, red willow, goosefoot, red brome, ripgut, purple sage (Salvia leucophylla, UPL), California Croton, jimson weed, coastal heron's bill (Erodium cicutarium, UPL), tocalote, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum, FACU), California sagebrush, and California buckweat. Vegetation inside of the channel within the upstream portion consisted of mostly saplings such as eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) seedling, ripgut, flatline bursage, annual yellow sweetclover (Melilotus indicus, FACU), coastal heron's bill, and jimson weed. Species occurring within the downstream portion of AF-2 include chick lupine (Lupinus microcarpus, UPL), mulefat, mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana, UPL), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer, UPL), coastal lotus (Acmispon maritimus, UPL), flatline bursage, tamarix spp., California sagebrush, and California buckwheat. Samplings were observed within the channel in the upstream and downstream portion. Due to the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, no soil samples were taken within AF-2. 5.1.3 Aquatic Feature 2A Aquatic Feature 2A (AF-2A) is a side channel of AF-2 and is an earthen channel that runs parallel to AF-2 and flows north to southwest. At the time of the survey, AF-2A was completely dry and did not contain flowing or standing water. Surface flows within AF-2A are primarily provided by rain events. Within the project site, AF-2A primarily exhibits an earthen streambed. Evidence of an OHWM and surface hydrology was observed via the following indicators: sediment deposits, break in slope, shelving, erosion, and a small change in vegetation type. Refer to Appendix C, OHWMDatasheets. The OHWM was generally consistent throughout the project site and measured approximately 8.7 feet in width. Based on historic aerials and visual evidence observed in the field, the banks of AF-2A did not contain any riparian vegetation. Common plant species occurring within AF-2A include tree tobacco, black Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 17 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section S — Site Conditions mustard, and non-native grass such as red brome, ripgut brome, and wild oats. Due to the absence of hydrophytic vegetation, no soil samples were taken within AF-2A. 5.2 WETLAND FEATURES In order to qualify as a wetland, an area must exhibit all three wetland parameters (i.e., vegetation, soils, and hydrology) described in the USACE Arid West Regional Supplement. Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that no areas met all three wetland parameters and no jurisdictional wetland features exist within the project site. 5.3 STREAMFLOW DURATION ASSESSMENT METHOD Michael Baker conducted a stream duration assessment using the SDAM for two reaches within Haskell Canyon. Reach I (downstream end latitude 33.476393°, longitude-118.5082930) which had a mean channel width of 3.1 meters and a reach length of 40 meters, and Reach 2 (downstream end latitude 34.4763240, longitude-118.5082560) which had a mean channel width of 7.43 meters and a reach length of 40 meters. Neither reach exhibited hydrophytic vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, algal cover, or single indicators. Therefore, both Reach I and Reach 2 would be considered ephemeral. Refer to Appendix D, SDAMForms, for a copy of the Beta Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method forms. 5.4 ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION TOOL The Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) is a desktop tool that supports decisions as to whether field data collection and other site -specific observations occurred under normal climatic conditions. This tool was originally developed by the USACE to streamline the review of climate data, which supports decision - making related to wetland delineations. The APT facilitates the comparison of antecedent or recent rainfall conditions for a given location to the range of normal rainfall conditions that occurred during the preceding 30 years. In addition to providing a standardized methodology to evaluate normal precipitation conditions (i.e., precipitation normalcy), the APT can assess the presence of drought conditions, as well as the approximate dates of the wet and dry seasons for a given location (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2026). The APT was used for this project site to confirm that the field survey was conducted during normal climatic conditions (see Appendix E, Antecedent Precipitation Took. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 18 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 7 — Regulatory Approval Process .............................................................................. Section 6 Findings This delineation has been prepared in order to document the jurisdictional authority of the USAGE, RWQCB, and CDFW within the project site. This ARDR presents our best effort at determining the extent of jurisdictional features using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory agencies. However, as with any jurisdictional delineation, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries. 6.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 6.1.1 NON -WETLAND WATERS OF THE U.S. DETERMINATION While evidence of an OHWM was noted within the boundaries of the project site, the mapped aquatic features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime based on the results of the SDAM assessment. As such, it was determined that the waters on -site are non-RPWs that would not be subject to USACE jurisdiction. 6.1.2 WETLAND DETERMINATION As previously noted, an area must exhibit all three wetland parameters described in the USACE Regional Supplement to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. Based on the results of the site visit, it was determined that no on -site locations exhibited all three wetland parameters within the project site. 6.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 6.2.1 NON -WETLAND WATERS OF THE STATE DETERMINATION Evidence of an OHWM was noted within the mapped aquatic features within the project site. Therefore, AF-1, AF-2, and AF-2A are under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter -Cologne Act. Therefore, approximately 0.21 acres of onsite aquatic features are subject to RWQCB jurisdiction. Refer to Table 1: Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site and Figure 4A, RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 1 and Figure 4B, RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 2. Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 19 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 6—Findings ....................................... Table 1: Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site Jurisdictional Limits Aquatic Latitude/ Cowardin RWQCB (acres) CDFW (acres) Linear Feature Longitude Code Wetland Non -wetland Unvegetated Vegetated Associated Feet WoS WoS Streambed Streambed Riparian Haskell Canyon Wash 34.476449 / Riverine - 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.05 266 (Aquatic -118.508342 Feature 1) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479090 / Riverine - 0.13 0.14 - 0.01 78 (Aquatic -118.509306 Feature 2) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479087 / Riverine - <0.01 <0.01 - - 33 (Aquatic -118.509191 Feature 2A) TOTAL - 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.06 t771 Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 20 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Legend O SDAM Point Study Limits Non -Wetland Waters of the State (0.07 Acres) E::> Flow Direction Photo Points IE51 Project Site No Permanent Impacts (0.01 Acres) I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 0 35 70 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O US Feet RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters - Location 1 source:Es, County of Los Angeles, 2026 N... m,p Imagery Figure 4A Legend 0 SDAM Point Q Study Limits C Non -Wetland Waters of the State (0.13 Acres) => Flow Direction Photo Points IE51 Project Site No Permanent Impacts (0.03 Acres) I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 0 35 70 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O US Feet RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters - Location 2 source: Es, county of Los A,g,l,s, 2026 N... map Imagery Figure 4B Section 6—Findings ........................................ 6.2.2 WETLAND DETERMINATION As previously noted, an area must exhibit all three wetland parameters described in the Regional Supplement to the USACE Manual to be considered a USACE jurisdictional wetland. In addition, the State wetland definition and delineation procedures are largely consistent with the three -parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology implemented by the USACE. However, one exception is an area can lack vegetation and still satisfy the parameter for hydrophytic vegetation thus qualifying the area as a wetland water of the State if the hydric soil, and wetland hydrology parameters are also fulfilled. Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that no wetland WoUS or State are located within the boundaries of the project site. Refer to Figure 4A: RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 1 and Figure 413: RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 2. 6.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AF-I, AF-2, and AF-2A exhibit a bed and bank and are considered CDFW jurisdictional streambed; additionally, these features occur within the bed and bank of Haskell Canyon Wash. It was determined that a total of 0.29 acres of CDFW jurisdiction are located within the project site in association with the Haskell Canyon Wash, comprised of 0.21 acres of unvegetated streambed, 0.02 acre of vegetated streambed, and 0.06 acres of associated riparian vegetation inclusive of AF-I, AF-2, and AF-2A. Refer to Table 1: Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site, Figure 5A: CDFWImpacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 1 and Figure 513: CDFWImpacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 2. Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 23 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Legend Q Study Limits ® Permanent Impacts (0.01 Acres) Vegetated Streambed (0.02 Acres) E:�> Flow Direction Project Site Unvegetated Streambed (0.06 Acres) Associated Riparian Vegetation (0.05 Acres) I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 0 35 70 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O US Feet CDFW Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters - Location 1 source: Es, county of Los Angeles, 2026 N... —p Imagery Figure 5A Legend Q Study Limits ® Permanent Impacts (0.03Acres) Unvegetated Streambed (0.15Acres) Project Site = Associated Riparian Vegetation (0.01 Acres) I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 0 35 70 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT O USFeet CDFW Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters - Location 2 source: Es, county of Los Angeles, 2026 N... —p Imagery Figure 5B Section 7 — Regulatory Approval Process .............................................................................. Section 7 Regulatory Approval Process This ARDR has been prepared to delineate the USAGE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional authority within the project site. Below is a summary of the various permits/authorizations that would be required prior to temporarily or permanently impacting on -site jurisdictional features. 7.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS The USACE regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into WoUS and wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The project site does not contain any USACE jurisdictional features under Section 404 of the CWA, and a Section 404 permit is not required. 7.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD No temporary impacts are anticipated. Permanent impacts resulting from the proposed project would require a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit, under the Porter -Cologne Act, from the RWQCB prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. The RWQCB also requires that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance be obtained prior to issuance of the final WDR. Temporary and/or permanent impacts prior to the jurisdictional delineation that have not previously obtained permission from the RWQCB may also be subjected to a Section 401 WQC. A fee is required with the application submittal which is based on both total temporary and permanent impact acreages (as applicable). Refer to Table 2, Jurisdictional Limits Permanent Impact Summary, Figure 4A, RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 1 and Figure 4B, RWQCB Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 2. Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 26 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 7 — Regulatory Approval Process .............................................................................. Table 2: Jurisdictional Limits Permanent Impact Summary Impacts to Jurisdictional Limits Aquatic Latitude/ Cowardin RWQCB (acres) CDFW (acres) Linear Feature Longitude Code Wetland Non -wetland Unvegetated Vegetated Associated Feet WoS WoS Streambed Streambed Riparian Haskell Canyon Wash 34.476449 / Riverine - 0.01 0.01 - - 12 (Aquatic -118.508342 Feature 1) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479090 / Riverine - 0.03 0.03 - - 26 (Aquatic -118.509306 Feature 2) Haskell Canyon Wash 34.479087 / Riverine (Aquatic -118.509191- Feature 2A) TOTAL - 0.04 0.04 Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 27 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 7 — Regulatory Approval Process .............................................................................. 7.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The CDFW regulates alterations to streambed under Section 1602 of the CFGC. Therefore, formal notification to, and subsequent authorization from CDFW, would be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. Previous construction activities completed without notification may result in a violation from CDFW. The CDFW also requires that CEQA compliance be obtained prior to issuing the final Lake or Streambed Alternation Agreement. In addition, a notification fee is required, which is calculated based on project costs within CDFW jurisdictional areas. Refer to Table 2, Jurisdictional Limits Impact Summary, Figure 5A: CDFWImpacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 1 and Figure 513: CDFWImpacts to Jurisdictional Waters Location 2. 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the regulatory permitting process, this delineation will be forwarded to each of the regulatory agencies for their concurrence. Once received, agency concurrence is generally accepted as valid for up to five years and would solidify findings noted within this ARDR. Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 28 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 8 — References ........................................... Section 8 References Climates to Travel. (2026). Climate in Santa Clarita (California). Retrieved from https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/united-states/santa-clarita Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2026, May 13). FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer. Retrieved from Federal Emergency Management Agency: https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappvlewer/index.httnl?id=8b0adb5 l 996444d487933 8b5529aa9c d&extent=-121.5694118998388,37.62353495296746,-121.54864087322748,37.63203212332643 Federal Register. (2023, September 8). Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States " Conforming, 88 F.R. 61964. Retrieved from Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-18929/revised-definition-of-waters- of-the-united-states-conforming GoogleEarth. (2026). Mazor, R., James, A., Fritz, K. M., Topping, B., Nadeau, T.-L., Edgerton, R. F., & Nicholas, K. (2024). Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods for the Arid West and Western Mountains of the United States. Munsell Color. (2009). Munsell Soil -Color Charts: With Genuine Munsell Color Chips. State Water Resources Control Board. (2019). State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material to Waters of the State. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pd£ State Water Resources Control Board. Retrieved May 26, 2026 The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (2026, May 15). The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Retrieved from https://rivers.gov/rivers/apps/califomia U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg: Environmental Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.nab.usace. army.mil/Portals/63/docs/Regulatory/Pubs/wlman87.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2008). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid Wet Region. Vicksburg: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Retrieved April 1, 2026, from https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/I 7/docs/regulatory/JD/RegionalSupplements/An*dWestSu pplementV2_092008.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2016, January). Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. Retrieved from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/ 12/documents/regulatory/j d/minimum- standards/Minimum_Standards_for Delineation with_Template-final.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2023, April 15). Investigations - Santa Clara River Watershed, CA. Retrieved from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact- Sheets/Article/3 3 64009/investigations-santa-clara-river-watershed-ca/ Haskell Carryon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 29 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Section 8 — References ........................................... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2026, May 26). The Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/wotus/antecedent-precipitation-tool-apt U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2026, May 18). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Agriculture: https://websollsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx U.S. Geological Survey. (2026, May 13). National Hydrography Dataset. Retrieved from U.S. Geological Survey: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/ United States Department of Agriculture. (2026). State Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List. California. Retrieved 2026, from https://www.nres.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2026, May 13). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service: https:Hfwspn*mary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ USAGE. (2022). National Wetland Plant List. Retrieved March 13, 2026, from National Wetland Plant List: https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project 30 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix A Documentation National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette - FEMA 118030'52"W 34o29'N I.UUUV 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, ASS SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE orDepthzoneAE,AO,AH,VE,AR 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 Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zonex Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. zone FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone o NOSCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zonex Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zoned GENERAL - — - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee, Dike, or Floodwall s 2o.z Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance ��•s Water Surface Elevation a - - - Coastal Transect —ins--- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary — — — — Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped 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 5/13/2026 at 10:28 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. Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 Haskell Canyon 5/13/2026 Flow Direction Pipeline Pipeline Layers StreamRiver -Ephemeral Flowline - Large Scale Red: Band 1 Ephemeral Green: Band-2 Blue: Band 3 USGS TNM — National Hydrography Dataset. Data Refreshed April, 2026., USDA, USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed June, 2024. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National -Inventory Haskell Canyon May 13, 2026 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife y Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the Wetlands base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other r--' Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper USDA United States Department of Agriculture NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California Location 1 - Haskell Canyon Shared Access Improvements Project May 18, 2026 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Antelope Valley Area, California..................................................................... 13 CmF2—Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded...................................................................................................13 HcC—Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes ...................................... 15 ScF2—Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded...............................16 SsB—Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes ................................................ 17 References............................................................................................................19 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. M 361330 361350 34' 28' 37' N Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 361370 361390 361410 361430 361450 361470 361490 361510 361530 361550 • �# y ' k, motr ' - y, kv t _ i = Of t e g _ h valid tit i- 34' 28' 32" N • I — - uu.": - _. u- - - - •i " 361330 361350 361370 361390 361410 361430 361450 361470 361490 361510 361530 361550 3 Map Scale: 1:1,160 iFprinted on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters N 0 15 30 60 90 n Feet ,N\ 0 50 10D 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Comercoordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 9 361570 ter'-1 34' 28' 37' N 1 93 34' 28' 32" N 361570 N MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (A01) I , Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons . r Soil Map Unit Lines 0 Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit .E Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp ` Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Special Line Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Water Features scale. Streams and Canals Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map a r� Rails measurements. �.. Interstate Highways Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Major Roads Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Background distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Antelope Valley Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 8, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 26, 2022—Jan 21, 2023 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. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CmF2 Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded 0.0 0.9% HcC Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 3.0 69.3% ScF2 Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded 0.2 4.9% SsB Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 1.1 24.8% Totals for Area of Interest 4.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Antelope Valley Area, California CmF2—Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol. hcd9 Landscape: Uplands Elevation: 50 to 2,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F Frost -free period. 280 to 300 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Castaic and similar soils: 50 percent Balcom and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Castaic Setting Landscape: Uplands Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape. Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Parent material: Residuum weathered from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: silty clay loam H2 - 9 to 26 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 26 to 30 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 22 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 3 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R019XD063CA - CLAYEY 9-20" Hydric soil rating. No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Balcom Setting Landscape: Uplands Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Parent material: Residuum weathered from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: silty clay loam H2 - 7 to 25 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 25 to 29 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R019XD063CA - CLAYEY 9-20" Hydric soil rating. No Minor Components Saugus Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating. No Gaviota Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating. No Unnamed Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Drainageways Hydric soil rating. Yes 14 Custom Soil Resource Report HcC—Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hcf5 Elevation: 2,600 to 4,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F Frost -free period. 200 to 250 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hanford Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape. Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam H2 - 8 to 70 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R019XD964CA - LOAMY 9-20" Hydric soil rating. No 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Greenfield Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No ScF2—Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hch8 Landscape: Uplands Elevation: 600 to 2,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F Frost -free period: 275 to 300 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Saugus and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Saugus Setting Landscape: Uplands Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape. Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Parent material: Weakly consoildated alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: loam H2 - 15 to 42 inches: loam H3 - 42 to 46 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R019XD964CA - LOAMY 9-20" Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Rough broken land Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Gaviota Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Balcom Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating. No Castaic Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating. No SsB—Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hchh Elevation: 80 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 64 degrees F Frost -free period: 200 to 300 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Sorrento and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sorrento Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape. Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 72 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R019XG911 CA - Loamy Fan Hydric soil rating. No Minor Components Metz Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating. No Mocho Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating. No Yolo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating. No 18 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=n res142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y 87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/land use/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 20 USDA United States Department of Agriculture NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Antelope Valley Area, California Location 2 - Haskell Canyon Shared Access Improvements Project May 19, 2026 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Antelope Valley Area, California..................................................................... 13 HcC—Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes ...................................... 13 SsB—Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes ................................................ 14 References............................................................................................................16 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 361310 361320 361330 361340 361350 361360 361370 361380 361390 361400 361410 361420 361430 361440 361450 361460 34' 28' 46' N �i r� 0 �i �i Soil Map may not b. alid 34' 28' 43" N 361310 361320 361330 361340 361350 361360 361370 361380 361390 361400 361410 361420 361430 361440 361450 361460 3 3: Map Scale: 1:739 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters N 0 10 20 40 60 n Feet ,N\ 0 35 70 140 210 Map projection: Web Mercator Connercoordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 9 P34' 28' 46'N a F8 is �i 34° 28' 43' N MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (A01) I , Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons . r Soil Map Unit Lines 0 Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit .E Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp ` Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Special Line Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Water Features scale. Streams and Canals Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map a r� Rails measurements. �.. Interstate Highways Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Major Roads Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Background distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Antelope Valley Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 8, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 26, 2022—Jan 21, 2023 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. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI HcC Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 0.8 76.9% SsB Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.2 23.1 % Totals for Area of Interest 1.0 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 11 Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Antelope Valley Area, California HcC—Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol. hcf5 Elevation: 2,600 to 4,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F Frost -free period. 200 to 250 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hanford Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape. Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam H2 - 8 to 70 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R019XD964CA - LOAMY 9-20" Hydric soil rating. No Minor Components Greenfield Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating. No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Unnamed Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No SsB—Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hchh Elevation: 80 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 64 degrees F Frost -free period: 200 to 300 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Sorrento and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sorrento Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape. Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 72 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R019XG911 CA - Loamy Fan Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Metz Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Mocho Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Yolo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 15 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=n res142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y 87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/land use/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 17 Appendix B Site Photographs I N T E R N A T I O N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 1; view facing south and downstream (latitude: 34.4766817°, longitude:-118.5084816°) Photo 2. Soil cracks observed within Haskell Canyon Wash —Aquatic Feature 1; view facing south and downstream (latitude: 34.4767033°, longitude:-118.50849°) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I N T E R N A T I O N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 3. Dense riparian vegetation observed within Haskell Canyon Wash —Aquatic Feature 1; view facing south and downstream (latitude: 34.4766733°, longitude: - 118.5084133°) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I N T E R N A T I O N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS - 1 �✓ F� � �Y �r� �` .�.^`Rim �' � J W l � F'ri � l� • IE Fes_ � - � - J. y f � � �i Photo 5. Break in slope within Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 1; view facing northwest and downstream (latitude: 34.4762783°, longitude:-118.50816490) Photo 6. Dense riparian vegetation observed within Haskell Canyon Wash —Aquatic Feature 1; view facing south and downstream (latitude: 34.47636830, longitude: - 118.5081416°) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I N T E R N A T I O N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 7. Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 2; view facing north and upstream (latitude: 34.4790850, longitude:-118.5093530) Oro - C r b`w 1 S. A 9k_ � 3�"Y _ � �� ��� Wyk 'Ls� •y � _ 77 Photo 8. Break in slope within Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 2; view facing northeast and upstream (latitude: 34.4794033°, longitude:-118.50937660) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I N T E R N A T I O N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 9. Culverts under road within Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 2; view facing south and downstream (latitude: 34.479230, longitude:-118.50936490) Photo 10. Culvert surfacing downstream within Haskell Canyon Wash —Aquatic Feature 2; view facing east and downstream (latitude: 34.479031°, longitude: - 118.509412° ) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS I � •y - � � ` �• f �� �a�u�_�#-� 'fit j x. l)l \ Photo 11. Wracking found within Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 2; view facing east and downstream (latitude: 34.4789967°, longitude:-118.50928160) Photo 12. Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 2A; view facing east and upstream (latitude: 34.479045°, longitude:-118.5092499°) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project I N T E R N A T I O N A L APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 13. Break in slope within Haskell Canyon Wash — Aquatic Feature 2A; view facing east and upstream (latitude: 34.4790817°, longitude:-118.50919830) Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project Appendix C OHWM Datasheets U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET Approval Expires: The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. Project ID #: 208136 Site Name: Haskell Canyon - Crossing I upstream Date and Time: 5/14/26 10:00am Location (lat/long): 34.476555°,-118.508416- Investigator(s): A.Cruz, L. Pliego Guzman Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? gage data 1-1 LiDAR geologic maps NSA climatic data satellite imagery land use maps aerial photos topographic maps Other: Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Underground culvert runs under the road crossing with riprap surrounding the adjacent crossing. Vegetation changes from unvegetated within the streambed and to mature trees along the bank and nonnative grasses in the uplands. There is cobble size rocks within the channel invert, drainage patterns, and small weedy saplings. The surrounding upland sediment is sandy. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below and above the OHWM. From the drop -down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just below 'b', at Ix', or just above 'a' the OHWM. OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log. Geomorphic indicators Sediment indicators Ancillary indicators Break in slope: x Soil development: Wracking/presence of b organic litter: 1-1 on the bank: Changes in character of soil: Presence of large wood: k: undercut bank ❑ Leaf litter disturbed or X Mudcracks: b washed away: valley bottom: x Changes in particle -sized x Water staining: distribution: Other: transition from cobble to silt Weathered clasts or bedrock: FX El Shelving: a upper limit of sand -sized particles Other observed indicators? shelf at top of bank: a silt deposits: Describe: natural levee: Vegetation Indicators Sediment deposition, large cobbles 1-1 man-made berms or levees: �/ Change in vegetation type a within the streambed. density: and/or ❑ other berms: Check the appropriate boxes and select Channel bar: the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe the vegetation transition looking from shelving (berms) on bar: the middle of the channel, up the unvegetated: banks, and into the floodplain. ❑vegetation transition (go to veg. indicators) vegetation deciduous trees Step 4 Is additional information needed to absent to: ❑sediment transition moss to: support this determination? (go to sed. indicators) ElYes No ❑upper limit of deposition forbs to: on bar: 1ZInstream bedforms and other If yes, describe and attach information graminoids to: to datasheet: bedload transport evidence: deposition bedload indicators (e.g., imbricated clasts, ❑ woody shrubs to: gravel sheets, etc.) ❑ deciduous ❑bedforms (e.g., poofs, riffles, steps, etc.): trees to: ❑ coniferous erosional bedload indicators FX(e.g., obstacle marks, scour, b trees to: Vegetation matted down smoothing, etc.) and/or bent: Secondary channels: ❑ Exposed roots below intact soil layer: ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: 208136 Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHM Break in slope, change in vegetation type and density, and sediment changes. Additional observations or notes d Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? 0 Yes No If no, explain why not: List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Photograph description Number See Appendix B. Site Photographs ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page 2 of 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET Approval Expires: The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. Project ID #: Site Name: Haskell Canyon - Crossing 2 upstream Date and Time: 5/14/26 8:40am Location (lat/long): 34.479354°,-118.509398° Investigator(s): A.Cruz, L. Pliego Guzman Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? gage data 1-1 LiDAR geologic maps NSA climatic data 19 satellite imagery land use maps aerial photos El topographic maps Other: Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Underground culvert runs under the road crossing with riprap surrounding the adjacent crossing. Vegetation changes from unvegetated within the streambed and to mature trees along the bank and nonnative grasses in the uplands. There is cobble size rocks within the channel invert, drainage patterns, and small weedy saplings. The surrounding upland sediment is sandy. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below and above the OHWM. From the drop -down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just below W, at x', or just above 'a' the OHWM. OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log. Geomorphic indicators Sediment indicators Ancillary indicators Break in slope: of Soil development: El litter: organic organic 1-1 on the bank: Changes in character of soil: 1-1 Presence of large wood: undercut bank: ❑ litter disturbed or X Mudcracks: b ❑ El washed away: valley bottom: b Changes in particle -sized x 1-1 Water staining: distribution: Other: transition from pebble to silt Weathered clasts or bedrock: FX El Shelving: upper limit of sand -sized particles Other observed indicators? 1-1 shelf at top of bank: El silt deposits: Describe: 1-1 natural levee: Vegetation Indicators Line impressed upon the bank. 1-1 man-made berms or levees: �/ Change in vegetation type a density: and/or ❑ other Above OHWM Check the appropriate boxes and select 1 berms: Channel bar: the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe the vegetation transition looking from shelving (berms) on bar: the middle of the channel, up the unvegetated: banks, and into the floodplain. ❑vegetation transition (go to veg. indicators) vegetation deciduous trees Step 4 Is additional information needed to absent to: ❑sediment transition moss to: support this determination? (go to sed. indicators) ElYesNo ❑upper limit of deposition forbs to: on bar: ❑Instream bedforms and other If yes, describe and attach information graminoids to: to datasheet: bedload transport evidence: deposition bedload indicators ❑ woody (e.g., imbricated clasts, shrubs to: gravel sheets; etc.) ❑ deciduous ❑bedforms (e.g., poofs, riffles, steps, etc.): trees to: ❑ coniferous erosional bedload indicators (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, trees to: Vegetation matted down smoothing, etc.) and/or bent: Secondary channels: ❑ Exposed roots below intact soil layer: ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHVVM Break in slope, change in vegetation type and density, sediment changes, and mudcracks. Additional observations or notes 3 3 y�r� Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? 0 Yes No If no, explain why not: List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description See Appendix B. Site Photographs ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page 2 of 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET Approval Expires: The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. Project ID #: Site Name: Haskell Canyon - Crossing 2 downstream Date and Time: 5/14/26 9:00am Location (lat/long): 34.478837,-118.509313- Investigator(s): A.Cruz, L. Pliego Guzman Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? gage data 1-1 LiDAR geologic maps NSA climatic data 19 satellite imagery land use maps aerial photos El topographic maps Other: Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Underground culvert runs under the road crossing with riprap surrounding the adjacent crossing. Vegetation changes from unvegetated within the streambed and to mature trees along the bank and nonnative grasses in the uplands. There is cobble size rocks within the channel invert, drainage patterns, and small weedy saplings. The surrounding upland sediment is sandy. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below and above the OHWM. From the drop -down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just below W, at x', or just above 'a' the OHWM. OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log. Geomorphic indicators Sediment indicators Ancillary indicators Break in slope: Soil development: Wracking/presence of b litter: organic on the bank: Changes in character of soil: � Presence of large wood: b IX-1 undercut bank: b Mudcracks: b Leaf litter disturbed orwashed El away: valley bottom: b Changes in particle -sized x 1-1 Water staining: distribution: Other: transition from pebble to silt Weathered clasts or bedrock: FX El 1-1 Shelving: upper limit of sand -sized particles Other observed indicators? 1-1 shelf at top of bank: silt deposits: Describe: 1-1 natural levee: Vegetation Indicators Line impressed upon the bank. 1-1 man-made berms or levees: �/ Change in vegetation type a density: and/or ❑ other berms: Check the appropriate boxes and select ZChannel bar: the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe the vegetation transition looking from shelving (berms) on bar: the middle of the channel, up the unvegetated: banks, and into the floodplain. vegetation transition (go to veg. indicators) vegetation ❑� absent to: Woody shrubs Step 4 Is additional information needed to sediment transition b ❑ support this determination? moss to: (go to sed. indicators) ElYesNo ❑upper limit of deposition forbs to: on bar: ❑Instream bedforms and other If yes, describe and attach information graminoids to: to datasheet: bedload transport evidence: deposition bedload indicators ❑ woody (e.g., imbricated clasts, shrubs to: gravel sheets; etc.) ❑ deciduous ❑bedforms (e.g., poofs, riffles, steps, etc.): trees to: ❑ coniferous erosional bedload indicators (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, trees to: Vegetation matted down smoothing, etc.) and/or bent: Secondary channels: ❑ Exposed roots below intact soil layer: ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 4 Project ID #: Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHM Break in slope, change in vegetation type and density, sediment changes, and mudcracks. Additional observations or notes OH Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached? 0 Yes No If no, explain why not: List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description See Appendix B. Site Photographs ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page 2 of 4 Appendix D Beta Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Data Forms Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Report SDAM Version 3.0.1 Release Date: October 2025 https: //wNvw. epa. gov/streamflow-dur ation-assessment Visit date: 2026-05-14 Report generated date: 2026-05-15 Project name: Haskell Canyon - Crossing 1 downstream Site code: Crossing 1 - downstream end Arid West SDAM classification: EPHEMERAL F Pacific 4low orthwest Great Plains Arid West Western Mountains Northeast Southeast General site information Project name or number: Haskell Canyon - Crossing I downstream Site code or identifier: Crossing 1 - downstream end Regional SDAM: Arid West Adjacent SDAM1 Regions within 10 miles: None Assessor(s): A. Cruz, L, Pliego Guzman AVaterwav name: Unnamed Visit date: 2026-05-14 Current weather conditions: Clear/Sunny Notes on current or recent weather conditions: Location: 34.476393,-118.508293 Surrounding land use within 100 in: openspace, Other Natural Notes on land use: Surrounding reach are dirt access roads for utilities as well as an archery range and other recreational trails, such as bike paths. Description of reach boundaries: The reach begins downstream of the road crossing. It extends 40 meters downstream and is confined by the project boundaries. Assessment reach length (in): 40 Disturbed or difficult conditions: Other (explain in notes) Notes on disturbances or difficult site conditions: Evidence of previous fire on the woody vegetation, but regrowth has taken place. Observed hydrology Percent of reach with surface flow: 0 Percent of reach with surface and sub -surface flows: 0 Number of isolated pools: 0 Notes on observed hydrology: No hydrology or recent evidence of hydrology was observed. Site photos SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 2 of 9 Top of reach looking downstream: tl ^ - ,. Middle of reach upstream: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 3 of 9 Middle of reach Bottom of reach downstream: upstream: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 4 of 9 Site sketch Indicators Mean bankfull channel width (m): 3.1 Notes on mean bankfull channel width: Mean bankfull channel width photos and descriptions: Perennial indicator taxa: No perennial indicator taxa detected Aquatic macroinvertebrates in assessment area: Aquatic macroinvertebrates absent SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 5 of 9 Notes on aquatic macroinvertebrates: Macroinvertebrate photos and photo descriptions: Slope (to the nearest half -percent: 100 Notes about slope: Slope photos and descriptions: Number of hydrophytic plant species: 2 Vegetation in assessment area: Notes on hydrophytic plants: Salix laevigata and Salix lasiolepis were observed along the reach's banks. No other FAMV or ORL species were noted. Hydrophyte photos and photo descriptions: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 6 of 9 Prevalence of upland rooted plants in streambed: 3 (Strong) Rooted upland plants are absent from the streambed/thalweg. Notes about upland rooted plants: No upland rooted plants were observed in the strcambed. Upland rooted plants photos and descriptions: Algal cover: Not Detected Check here if algae exclusively appears to have been deposited from an upstream source, and no local growth is evident: Not checked Notes about algal cover: N/A Algal cover photos and descriptions: Differences in vegetation: 0.5 Notes about differences in vegetation: Some FACW species exist within the reach's riparian corridor, but this includes few individuals. Otherwise, the composition between the riparian areas and the adjacent upland are the same and include mature and sapling trees and nonnative grasses. Vegetation differences photos and descriptions: Rife -pool sequence: 0 (Poor) No rile -pool sequences observed. Notes about riffle -pool sequence: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 7 of 9 N/A Riffle -pool photos and descriptions: Supplemental information Additional notes about the assessment: Supplemental information photos and descriptions: SDAM resources SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 8 of 9 End of Report SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 9 of 9 Western Mountains Great Plains Northeast Southeast Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Report SDAM Version 3.0.1 Release Date: October 2025 https: //wNvw. epa. gov/streamflow-dur ation-assessment Visit date: 2026-05-14 Report generated date: 2026-05-18 Project name: Haskell Canyon Site code: Crossing 2 downstream Arid West SDAM classification: EPHEMERAL 11 Pacific orthwest Arid West km General site information Project name or number: Haskell Canyon Site code or identifier: Crossing 2 downstream Regional SDAM: Arid West Adjacent SDAM1 Regions within 10 miles: None Assessor(s): A. Cruz, L. Pliego Guzman AVaterwav name: Unnamed Visit date: 2026-05-14 Current weather conditions: Clear/Sunny Notes on current or recent weather conditions: Location: 34.476324,-118.508256 Surrounding land use within 100 in: openspace, Other Natural Notes on land use: Surrounding reach are dirt access roads for utilities as well as an archery range and other open space/recreational trails, such as bike paths. Description of reach boundaries: The top of the reach boundary begins from the road and underground culvert and extends 40rn downstream. The, reach is confided by the project site boundaries. Assessment reach length (in): 40 Disturbed or difficult conditions: Other (explain in notes) Notes on disturbances or difficult site conditions: Tire marks within the feature bottom. No other difficult conditions or obvious disturbances. Observed hydrology Percent of reach with surface flow: 0 Percent of reach with surface and sub -surface flows: 0 Number of isolated pools: 0 Notes on observed hydrology: No recent or current hydrology observed. Site photos SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 2 of 11 Top of reach looking downstream: - ,� '- .. AFL-:M �• .'�::� ... .. , Middle of reach upstream: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 3 of 11 Middle of reach looking downstream: s + � Bottom of reach upstream: � �, .� _ � � • ` .ate "' � � � . -. SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 4 of 11 Site sketch Indicators Mean bankfull channel width (m): 7.4333333 Notes on mean bankfull channel width: The bankfull widths are mostly consistent along the reach. The mid point is wider than the top and bottom, but the bankfull indicators remain the same. Mean bankfull channel width photos and descriptions: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 5 of 11 Description: Mid point bankfull measurement. Perennial indicator taxes: No perennial indicator taxes detected Aquatic macroinvertebrates in assessment area: Aquatic macroinvertebrates absent Notes on aquatic macroinvertebrates: Macroinvertebrate photos and photo descriptions: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 6 of 11 Slope (to the nearest half -percent: 100 Notes about slope: Slope photos and descriptions: Number of hydrophytic plant species: 0 Vegetation in assessment area: Notes on hydrophytic plants: No hydrophytic vegetation was within the reach. There were FAC and UPL species on the banks and within the strcambed. Hydrophyte photos and photo descriptions: Description i Tamarix ramosissima, not a hydrophyte, on bank near mid point. SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 7 of 11 Prevalence of upland rooted plants in streambed: 2 (Moderate) There are a few rooted upland plants present within the streambed/thalweg. Notes about upland rooted plants: Baccharis salicifolia, Tamarix ramosissima, Nicotiana glauca, Hirschfeldia incana, and nonnative grasses occurred in greater densities along the riparian corridor of the reach, while small saplings and upland weeds were found within the channel invert. Upland rooted plants photos and descriptions: X y b: s Description: Typical density of upland plants within the streambed. Algal cover: Not Detected Check here if algae exclusively appears to have been deposited from an upstream source, and no local growth is evident: Not checked SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 8 of 11 Notes about algal cover: Algal cover photos and descriptions: Differences in vegetation: 1 (Weak) Vegetation growing along the reach may occur in greater densities or grow more vigorously than vegetation in the adjacent uplands, but there are no dramatic compositional differences between the two. Notes about differences in vegetation: Few saplings and trees are growing along the reach, none of which would qualify as high quality riparian vegetation. The compositional difference between the riparian corridor and adjacent uplands is mostly unchanged as nonnative grasses dominate both communities. Vegetation differences photos and descriptions: Riffle -pool sequence: 0 (Poor) No riffle -pool sequences observed. Notes about riffle -pool sequence: Riffle -pool photos and descriptions: Supplemental information Additional notes about the assessment: Supplemental information photos and descriptions: SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 9 of 11 b i • SY il _ tl G 7 � ML Description: Culverts and riprap upstr eam of reach and underneath road crossing. The feature continues upstream beyond the road. SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 10 of 11 SDAM resources End of Report SDAM Version 3.0.1 October 2025, Date of site visit: 2026-05-14 Page 11 of 11 Appendix E Antecedent Precipitation Tool Result 10 8 D7 (v U C .. 6 ro 4— C— ro 4 2 0 HIILCL.CUCIIL r'ICLlPlLCILIUII V5 IVUlllldl McIll u UdSCU UII IVVHH5 Udlly 171UUdl r1ltLUIlLcIl LIIIIIdLUIUYy NUMUIK — Daily Total F-I 30-Day Rolling Total 30 Year Normal Range 2026-03-15 2026-04-14 2026-05-14 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 2025 2025 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026 Coordinates 34.47639,-118.50829 Observation Date 2026-05-14 Elevation (ft) 1443.978 Drought Index (PDSI) Mild drought (2026-04) WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season Figures and tables made by the Antecedent Precipitation Tool �0 Verson 3.0 11 US Army Carps 7r.-t�<'7peG by: of Engineers. �+ U.S. Army Corps or =ngi ie -rs and ERY4 U.S. Army Eng racer 12=Dn—h and °cif DevelCpr7ierL Center 30 Days Ending 30111 %ile (in) 70' %ile (in) Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2026-05-14 0.079134 0.703937 0.082677 Normal 2 3 6 2026-04-14 0.466142 2.55 0.830709 Normal 2 2 4 2026-03-15 1.268898 5.212205 3.181102 Normal 2 1 2 Result Normal Conditions - 12 Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation A Weighted A Days Normal Days Antecedent SAUGUS PWR PLT 1 34.59,-118.4542 2161.089 8.432 717.111 9.841 10868 87 LANCASTER 34.7411,-118.2125 2337.927 17.253 176.838 10.815 485 3 APPENDIX C: CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT INTERNATIONAL June 8, 2026 Mr. Dan Duncan City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Duncan: In 2025, the City of Santa Clarita (City) published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project. The IS/MND concluded that impacts to unanticipated cultural resources may be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level by implementing certain mitigation measures adopted in a Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Subsequently, as a modification to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project, the City proposed the Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project (Project) to improve access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park by improving Haskell Canyon Road from Copper Hill Drive north to the City Archery Range. The Project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the City is the CEQA lead agency. This Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment is produced compliant with CEQA, and is intended to support an Addendum to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project IS/MND. In support of the Project, Michael Baker International completed a paleontological records search; South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search; literature, aerial photograph, and historical map review; Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search; archaeological and paleontological survey; archaeological and paleontological sensitivity assessments; and a resource impact assessment to determine whether the Project could result in significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. Based on the findings herein, one resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, P-19-003131, is mapped as overlapping the Project site. However, no elements of the resource will be impacted by the Project. As a result, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under CEQA (Section 15064.5[b][11). Table 1 summarizes the eligibility and impact conclusions for the Project. As a result, the existing mitigation measures for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park are sufficient for the proposed Project. Methods, results, and recommendations are detailed below. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 627-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION AND IMPACT CONCLUSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is intended to improve existing access roads associated with Haskell Canyon Bike Park. The Project would install approximately 4 inches of asphalt concrete over an approximately 1.4-mile-long dirt access road from Copper Hill Drive north to the City Archery Range. Two approximately 0.25-mile spur roads that divert off of the main dirt road to provide access to the Haskell Canyon Bike Park and the City Archery Range would also be paved. Two dip crossings over the Haskell Canyon Wash would also be constructed, one for each of the spur roads. PROJECT SITE The Project site is located along Haskell Canyon Road north of Copper Hill Drive, within the City of Santa Clarita, in Los Angeles County (Attachment 1 ). It is located in Township 4 North, Range 16 West, Section 1, and in Township 5 North, Range 16 West, Section 36, and is mapped in the Newhall, California, 1:24,000 scale United States Geological Survey (USGS) map. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state's public agencies (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14[3] Section 15002[i]). CEQA conditions that it is the policy of the State of California to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this State with historic environmental qualities and preserve for future generations examples of the major periods of California history" (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001 [b], [c]). Under the provisions of CEQA, "a project with an effect 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" (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[b]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register. Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined in PRC Section 5020.1 [k]). Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting PRC Section 5024.1(g) requirements. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[a]). A historical resource consists of "any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which 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.... Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources" (CCRTitle 14[3] Section 15064.5[a][31). The CEQA planning process requires considering historical resources and unique archaeological resources (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5; PRC Section 21083.2). If feasible, adverse effects to the significance of historical resources must be avoided or mitigated (CCRTitle 14[3] Section 15064.5[b][4]). The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters adversely those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its eligibility for the California Register. If there is a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the preparation of an environmental impact report may be required (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15065[a]). If the cultural resource in question is an archaeological site, CEQA (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15064.5[c][1 ]) requires that the lead agency first determine if the site is a historical resource as defined in CCR Title 14(3) Section 15064.5(a). If the site qualifies as a historical resource, potential adverse impacts must be considered in the same manner as a historical resource (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 2001a). If the archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but does qualify as a unique archaeological site, then the archaeological site is treated in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15069.5[c][3]). In practice, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource. CEQA defines a "unique archaeological resource" as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2[g]). If an impact to a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible mitigation measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14[3] Section 15126.4[a][1]). Mitigation must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource. Generally, drawings, photographs, and/or displays do not mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by the demolition or the destruction of a historical resource. However, CEQA (PRC Section 21002.1 [b]) requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate impacts to a less than significant level (OHP 2001 b: 9). MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In 2025, the City published an IS/MND for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project. The IS/MND concluded that impacts to unanticipated cultural resources may be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures, which were presented in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Archaeological monitoring shall occur in the project area during all soil -disturbing and grubbing/grading/excavation/trenching activities, which could impact archaeological resources. The monitor will observe construction activities to determine if cultural resources are present below the surface. The Principal Investigator (PI) will submit a request to the City during construction, requesting a modification to the monitoring program when field conditions occur that could reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. Such field conditions may include modern disturbance post-dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered. Ground -disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, geotechnical boring, trenching, grading, excavating, and the demolition of building foundations. Monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological monitor who is working under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738). The archaeological monitor shall observe ground -disturbing activities in all areas with the potential to contain significant cultural deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain and submit monitoring logs at the conclusion of monitoring. If discoveries are made during ground -disturbing activities, additional work may be required in accordance with the terms specified in the cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground -disturbing activities on the site, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the City that documents monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist within 60 days of completion of monitoring. This report shall document the daily archaeological monitoring results; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the qualified archaeologist. Final monitoring reports will be submitted to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center. If a federal agency (e.g., the US Army Corps of Engineers) is involved in the project due to a federal nexus, monitoring reports may also be shared with that agency. Any unanticipated archaeological finds and subsequent evaluation or data recovery efforts will be documented in the report. CUL-2: Evaluation of Unanticipated Finds; Phase II Testing In the event an archaeological resource is unearthed during excavation, all excavations shall be halted within 50 feet of the find. Work shall stop immediately, and the discovery shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738), pursuant to the procedures set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II archaeological MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL RAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California testing plan. As the lead agency, the City shall make a determination of significance on the basis of the recommendations of the qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined not to be significant, then resource -specific work shall be completed, and construction may proceed. If the resource is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, then a resource -specific archaeological resources treatment plan shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 prior to recommencing ground -disturbing activities that may impact the resource. CUL-3: Treatment of Significant Resources Avoidance and preservation -in -place are the preferred treatment for historical resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. In the event that a historical resource is discovered and disturbance to such a resource cannot be avoided, one of the following treatments shall be implemented: avoidance, site capping, creation of conservation easements, or archaeological data recovery. If avoidance, site capping, or creation of a conservation easement is determined infeasible, then a Phase III data recovery excavation will be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 106 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.13, to document the resource's scientifically consequential information. The Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the consulting tribe(s) if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The Phase III study shall consist of the recovery and analysis of a statistically significant sample of the site through archaeological excavation, radiocarbon dating of organic materials or other kinds of dating, cataloging, specialist analysis, and report writing designed to document the resource in perpetuity. During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on -site or at the offices of the qualified archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project area for cataloging and analysis during evaluation and analysis will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non -human remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City with evidence of final disposition of the cultural material collection: Accommodate the process for on -site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting tribe(s). This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in Los Angeles County that meets federal standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 79, and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in Los Angeles County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. • If more than one Native American tribe is involved with the project and the tribes cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at an appropriate qualified repository determined by the City. CUL-4: Treatment of Unanticipated Finds of Human Remains If human skeletal remains are found during earth -moving activities, work shall be suspended and the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office shall be notified. Standard guidelines set by California law provide for the treatment of skeletal material of Native American origin (California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.98 et seq.; Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the remains are found to be archaeological, then after the coroner releases the site, the qualified professional archaeologist, in consultation with the most likely descendant, shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 that also incorporates the guidance in "A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated Grave Goods," published by the California Native American Heritage Commission. In compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires tribal consultation as part of the CEQA process, the City initiated consultation in April 2024 with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). Based on consultation with the FTBMI, which concluded on April 18, 2025, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-5 were incorporated into the IS/MND to reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less -than -significant -level. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Document Release Any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan In the event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP will provide details regarding the process for in -field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non -funerary resources. Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor The Project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California activity during the initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of which it will be disturbed). If cultural resources are not encountered after observing the initial pass of all ground -disturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If cultural resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, Project archaeologist, and the City to ensure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the Project applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by Project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the Project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. Mitigation Measure TCR-4: In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery If 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 retained by the Project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be contacted about any pre -contact and/or post -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Mitigation Measure TCR-5: Human Remains In the inadvertent discovery of human remains or funerary objects 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 shall be enforced for the duration of the Project. Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION METHODS The results of the paleontological records search, SCCIC records search, archival research, literature, historical map and aerial photograph review, NAHC Sacred Lands File search, field survey, and archaeological and paleontological site sensitivity analysis are presented below. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California PALEONTOLOGICAL ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival research included a consultation of documented paleontological localities held by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC). At the request of Michael Baker International, NHMLAC staff searched its holdings for information regarding documented paleontological resources. Michael Baker International staff supplemented the information received from the NHMLAC with data from a review of geological maps. The geology of the Santa Clarita area was mapped by Campbell et al. (2016) at a scale of 1:100,000 and by Dibblee and Ehrenspeck (1996) at a scale of 1:24,000. Geologic units underlying the Project area are mapped as alluvial gravel, sand, and clay of the valley area that date to the Holocene epoch (Qa of Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1996). The Mint Canyon formation consists of terrestrial sedimentary deposits ranging from conglomerate through sandstone to claystone that date to the Miocene epoch (Tmc of Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1996). Natural History Museum of Los Angeles On May 19, 2026, Michael Baker International staff requested the NHMLAC search its holdings for documented paleontological resources within and near the Project site. The NHMLAC responded in a letter dated May 23, 2026 (Attachment 2). The records search showed one previously identified fossil locality within the Project site. Additionally, fossil localities were recorded, either at the surface or at depth, near the Project site from geologic units similar to those underlying the Project site (Table 2). TABLE 2. PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED NHMLAC FOSSIL LOCALITIES Collection Taxa Formation Chronological Number IP Invertebrates (primarily Castaic Formation Haskell Canyon 17899 mollusks) (surface) Late Miocene north of Copper Hill Drive LACM VP 7772; Carnivore (Carnivora) Between Haskell LACM IP and invertebrates Castaic Formation Late Miocene Canyon and 17900, (primarily mollusks) (very fine sands) Kathleen Avenue 17901, 17902, 7758 Ridge west of LACM VP Pettinger 5461; LACM Tapir (Tapiridae); Castaic Formation Canyon Road and IP 7770, Invertebrates (4 Late Miocene north of 10271, 404, (uncatalogued) m thick shell bed) N. Rock Canyon 7754 Drive Saugus Formation Five Knolls LACM VP Numerous specimens of (paleosol bounded development, 7988, rodent (Rodentia) by Plio-Pleistocene Golden Valley Road, 7989 conglomerate Santa beds) Clarita MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Taxa Formation ChronologicalCollection Number Unit LACM VP Horse clade (Equidae) Saugus formation Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Elementary 6804 School South of Vasquez Canyon Road, east of Invertebrates Mint Canyon the junction of LACM IP 3922 (gastropods and others) formation Miocene Vasquez Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road LACM VP West side of Cruzan 6363, Primitive horse Mint Canyon Miocene Mesa, north of (Pliohippus) formation 5150, CIT566 Solemint Notes: LACM IP = Natural History Museum of Los Anaeles Countv Invertebrate Paleontoloav Department Localitv LACM VP = Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Vertebrate Paleontology Department Locality SOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL INFORMATION CENTER On May 18, 2026, Michael Baker International Archaeologist Marc Beherec, PhD, RPA, conducted a records search at the SCCIC. The records search included the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius. The SCCIC, located at California State University, Fullerton, is part of the California Historical Resources Information System, an affiliate of the California OHP. It is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Los Angeles County. As part of the records search, the following federal and California inventories were reviewed: • National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 2020). • California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP 1976). • Archaeological Resources Directory (OHP 2022). The directory includes the OHP determinations of eligibility for archaeological resources in Los Angeles County. • California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 2026a). • California Historical Landmarks (OHP 2026a). • Built Environment Resources Directory for Los Angeles County (OHP 2026b). The directory includes built resources reviewed for eligibility for the National Register and the California Historical Landmarks programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, and built resources nominated under federal and state registration programs, including the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. Records Search Results Previous Studies The records search results identified 17 previous cultural resource studies completed within the records search limits (Table 3). Five of these reports partially overlap the Project area, primarily for transmission line projects. Less than 5 percent of the Project site has been previously surveyed. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California In addition to the previous studies documented at the SCCIC, a cultural resources study was conducted for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park (Daniels and Young 2024). An additional monitoring report was prepared after the Bike Park construction (Daniels 2026). TABLE 3. PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Report No. Report Title Author, Date LA-00615 Cultural Resources Investigation Re: Tentative Minor Land Division Map Robinson, R. Number 11518 W, 1979 LA-02447 Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey Seco Canyon Development IV Project Tartaglia, Tentative Tracts: 47447, 37539 and 46908 Louis J., 1991 LA-02500 Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey Wildwood Hills II Project Tentative Tartaglia, Tract 46183 Louis J., 1991 Singer, Clay Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for Vesting Tentative Tract A., John E. LA-02775 Map No. 47657, Haskell Canyon, Los Angeles County, California Atwood, and Shelley Marie Gomes, 1992 Archaeological Survey and Impact Assessment of Tentative Tract No.51789, an Dillon, Brian LA-03105 80 Acre Parcel in Haskell Canyon, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California D., 1994 Cultural Resources Evaluation City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR Los Wlodarski, LA-03690 Angeles County, California Robert J., 1997 LA-04104* Cultural Resource Evaluation of the LADWP Power Plant 1--olive Line 1 Macko, Transmission Line Maintenance Project Los Angeles County, California Michael E., 1993 LA-05523 Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-LAN-2245 and CA-LAN-2246, Located in McKenna, the Haskell Canyon Area of Los Angeles County, California Jeanette A., 2000 LA-08993* SCE Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, Shoofly Corridor, Santa Clarita Schmidt, Area, Los Angeles County, California James J., 2007 LA-09764 Supplemental Archaeological Assessment, Antelope to Pardee Segment 1 (Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project), Variance 5, Los Angeles County, Gust, Sherri, California 2008 LA-09920* Results of the Class III Cultural Resources Investigation for the Southern Schmidt, California Edison Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) Segment 1, JamesJ.,June Angeles National Forest and Adjacent Lands, Los Angeles County, California, A. Schmidt, ARR No. 05-01-01079 and Gwen R. Romani, 2008 LA-09866 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate Bonner, SV01537T (Copper Hill Site), Santa Clarita, CA Wayne H., 2008 MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Report No. Report Title Author, Date LA-10205* Archaeological Investigation for Meadow Peak Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Messick, Map 47760 with Final Report Peter, 2003 LA-10210* Cultural Resources Survey Report for Antelope -Pardee 500-kV Transmission Ahmet, Koral Project and Roger D. Mason, 2006 LA-10236 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Bonner, Candidate SV01537C(XR) (Copper Hill/SCE Santa Clara -Vincent 500kV M25-T1), Wayne H. and Vacant Land -Edison Tower, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Arabesque Said, 2009 LA-10559 Archaeological Impact Analysis: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 43589, 7.5 Acres in Schmidt, Bouquet Canyon Area, Los Angeles County James J., 2000 LA-11593 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results AT&T Mobility, LLC Bonner, Candidate NLO442-01 (SCE Glen Canyon), 28655 Rock Canyon Drive, Santa Wayne H. and Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Kathleen A. Crawford, 2011 *Indicates a study partially overlapping the Project site. Previously Recorded Resources The SCCIC records search results indicated that seven previously recorded cultural resources have been identified and recorded within the half -mile radius of the Project area, one of which overlaps the Project site and is described below. In addition to the resources identified during the records search, one additional resource, a twentieth-century mining operation (Bluecloud-MBI-01 H), was documented during the initial survey for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Daniels and Young 2024). All of the resources identified within the search area were historic -aged resources. No prehistoric -aged sites were identified. TABLE 4. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA -- r Number(P-Description Date,..- 002132 2132H High voltage electric transmission lines, 1992, Cole, McDowell, Shelton supported on four legs, rocket ship shaped 1993, M. Macko carrying two 3-line circuits, constructed in 2004, Whitley 1917 2007, Koji Tsunoda, Jones and Stokes 2010, J. M. Simon 003131* 3131 H The site consists of a mid-20th century 2003, Peter Messick historic refuse dump, a refuse scatter, a 2013, M. Vader and V. Ortiz corral, vegetation growing in linear patterns, a fence line, possible livestock pens, a concrete foundation, a wood platform, a MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Resource Trinomial Number(P-Description Date,..- house foundation, and a leveled trailer pad associated with hog farm 003132 3132H Concrete floor/foundation, mound, and 2003, Peter Messick scattered refuse 004420 4420H River cobble stacked dry rock wall 2013, M. Vader and V. Ortiz 004720 4720H Refuse deposit and foundations associated 2014, Michael Dice with middle 20t" century hog farm 186912 - Approximately seven -mile -long dirt road 2001, D. W. Vance 2007, David S. Peebles and Joanna Huckabee 188492 - Angeles National Forest maintained dirt road 2007, David S. Peebles and Joanna Huckabee *Indicates a resource that overlaps the Project site. P-19-003131 One documented resource, P-19-003131, overlaps the Project site. The resource consists of the remains of a twentieth-century hog farm, including a refuse dump, a refuse scatter, a corral, vegetation growing in linear patterns, a fence line, possible livestock pens, a concrete foundation, a wood platform, a house foundation, and a leveled trailer pad. The features were located on either side of Haskell Canyon Road. Although the Project site passes through the site boundaries, none of the features were identified within the Project site itself. In 2014, resource P-19-003131 was individually determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by consensus through the Section 106 process. The resource is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The site forms for resource P-19-003131 are included as Attachment 3. HISTORICAL MAPS, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, AND ARCHIVES RESEARCH Michael Baker International consulted historical topographic maps, aerial imagery (NETR Online and UC Santa Barbara [UCSB]), and Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office (BLM GLO) records to gather additional information regarding past land use and disturbances and the potential presence of historic -period structures within the Project area. Below is a list of sources reviewed: • Historicaerials.com • Township 5 North, Range 16 West, San Bernardino Meridian Plat map (BLM 1880a) • Township 4 North, Range 16 West, San Bernardino Meridian Plat map (BLM 1880b) • Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1900a) • San Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1900b) • Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1903) MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California • Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1929) • Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1933) • San Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1940) • Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1941) • Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1943) • Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1952) • Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1960) • Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1995a) • Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 1995b) • Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 2012a) • Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle (USGS 2012b) Results The earliest USGS maps —Fernando 1900, San Fernando 1900, and Santa Susana 1903—show the Project area as undeveloped. Haskell Canyon has a series of dirt roads, while Deadman Canyon has a mapped roadway that connects to Dry Canyon to the southeast (USGS 1903). The Santa Clara River lies to the south with the Southern Pacific Railroad line adjacent to its natural course. The San Gabriel Mountains are south of the Project's footprint, and the Project area sits in between the north and south portions of the Angeles National Forest (USGS 1900a, 1900b, 1903). The 1929 Saugus topographic map depicts a power transmission line running north to south through the whole sheet, near the Project site (USGS 1929, 1933). In 1933, two structures were mapped outside the Project area to the west and northwest, likely related to the area's cattle and hog ranching. The building directly west of the Project area had a road leading to it; however, the area remained undeveloped (USGS 1933, 1940, 1941, 1943). The 1952 Newhall map reveals two structures east of the Project area, within the Haskell Canyon Bike Park (USGS 1952). These two structures correspond to the site boundary for CA-LAN-3132H and the historical structure foundations recorded there. A 1952 aerial shows several structures that were likely associated with pig ranching in the area and the site of CA-LAN-3131 H. The 1959 aerial shows an expansion of the pig ranching facility. In the 1969 aerial, it appears that by that time, the pig ranch had been abandoned. In the same 1969 aerial, a mining operation is also visible along Blue Cloud Road. The remnants of that operation are visible in aerial imagery up to the present day. INTERESTED PARTIES CONSULTATION Native American Consultation The NAHC maintains a confidential Sacred Lands File, which contains sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. The NAHC was contacted on May 18, 2026, to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project site. The NAHC responded on June 3, 2026, stating, "a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed based on the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California positive. Please contact the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the attached list for more information." The NAHC request and response are included as Attachment 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY On May 28, 2026, Michael Baker International Archaeologist Marcel Young conducted an archaeological and paleontological pedestrian survey of the Project site. The entire Project site, including the road and a 5-meter buffer, was walked over in transects spaced 15 meters or less. The purpose of the survey was to identify any resources, including archaeological resources and fossils or potentially fossiliferous sediments, located within the Project site. Results The Project site has been developed as a roadway at least since the early twentieth century. Ongoing road maintenance has severely disturbed the Project site. Soil is clayey sandy silt varying in colors from grayish brown, pale brown to olive brown, with inclusions of parent and imported gravels. Little native soil was observed in the vicinity of the road. Within the 5-meter buffer surveyed on either side of the road, thick vegetation including invasive grasses and other native and non-native vegetation severely obscured the ground surface, reducing visibility to less than 5 percent in much of the buffer. No archaeological or paleontological resources were observed within the Project site, including that part of the Project site that overlaps resource P-19-003131. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The sensitivity for paleontological resources within the three-dimensional Project site is low. Fossil shell has been documented within or near the Project site, and significant vertebrate fossil localities have been recovered from similar geologic units near the Project site. There is high potential to encounter paleontological resources within undisturbed geologic contexts (i.e., undisturbed bedrock or subsurface geologic deposits in previously undisturbed areas) within the Project vicinity. However, the field survey confirmed that the Project site is highly disturbed and, in many places, covered in imported gravel. The Project, which involves grading, improving, and paving an existing roadway, is not anticipated to impact undisturbed sensitive deposits. BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Archaeological sensitivity is determined based on the general presence and/or absence of Native American occupation sites, isolated prehistoric Native American artifacts and burials, and historic archival and archaeological materials exposed during various construction projects. The Project site has a low sensitivity for archaeological resources. Roadways have been developed in Haskell Canyon since the nineteenth century, and the existing roadway topographic maps, aerial photographs, and archival records have indicated that historic - period homesteads and mining operations were established within or near the Project area during the early to mid -twentieth century. One historic -period archaeological site (P-19-003131), comprising foundation remains and refuse, has been identified within the Project area, but it does not appear to be a significant resource, and no elements of the site have been identified within the Project site itself. The soils of the Project site have been heavily impacted by the roadway's development from the surface to unknown but significant depths. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results, the archaeological sensitivity for potentially unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the area of potential effect is low, and the potential for significant buried historic period resources is also considered low. IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Paleontological The sensitivity for unknown, buried paleontological resources within the three-dimensional Project site is low. The Project is not anticipated to impact paleontological resources. No further work is recommended. Archaeological One resource that is listed in the California Register, P-19-003131, is mapped as overlapping the Project site. However, the resource represents the remnants of a hog farm that was established alongside Haskell Canyon Road, and so was deliberately placed to avoid being within the roadway. None of the features associated with the resource were mapped within the Project site, and the archaeological survey failed to identify any artifacts or features associated with the resource within the Project site. The site is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources due to its data potential. The resource's data potential will not be impacted by the Project. The Project will have no impact on the resource. The sensitivity for unknown, buried resources within the three-dimensional Project site is Iow.The existing mitigation measures, cited above, are sufficient to reduce impacts to unknown resources to a less than significant level. No resources of Native American origin were identified within the Project site as a result of the records search, archival research, and survey. The NAHC SLF search for the project vicinity was positive, and the FTBMI were identified as potentially having information about resources of Native American significance in the vicinity of the Project site. The FTBMI were consulted during the preparation of the existing IS/MND and provided mitigation measures which were adopted. The existing mitigation measures, cited above, are sufficient to reduce impacts to unknown resources to a less than significant level. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 15 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS This memorandum was prepared by Michael Baker International Archaeology Practice Lead, Marc Beherec, PhD, RPA. Dr. Beherec is an archaeologist who has been involved in the field of cultural resources management for nearly 25 years. He has worked throughout California on projects within federal and state regulatory frameworks, and is experienced in the identification and analysis of both prehistoric and historic era artifacts. He has worked with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies within both federal and state frameworks. He has overseen all phases of archaeological work, including Phase I cultural resources assessments, to satisfy requirements of both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act; Phase 11 eligibility testing for both the California Register and the National Register; Phase III data recovery excavations; and archaeological construction monitoring. Dr. Beherec meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic and prehistoric archaeology and is certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists. Sincerely, Marc A. Beherec, PhD, RPA Archaeology Practice Lead Attachments: Attachment 1 - Figures Attachment 2 - NHMLAC Records Search Results Letter Attachment 3 — P-19-003131 Site Forms (Confidential) Attachment 4 - Native American Heritage Commission correspondence MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 16 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California REFERENCES BLM (Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office). 1880a. Plat Map. Township 4 North, Range 16 West, San Bernardino Meridian. https:Hcilorecords.blm.ciov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria =type=survey1st=CA1ct =1twp nr=41twp dir=N1mg nr=161mg dir=W. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office). 1880b. Plat Map. Township 5 North, Range 16 West, San Bernardino Meridian. https:Hcilorecords.blm.ciov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria =type=survey1st=CA1ct =1twp nr=51twp dir=N1mg nr=161mg dir=W. Campbell, R. H., C. J. Willis, P. J. Irvine, and B. J. Swanson. 2016. 'Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30 minute by 60-minute quadrangle, California: Version 2.1." California Geological Survey. https:Hngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_109250.htm. Daniels, James T., Jr., and Marcel Young. 2024. Phase / Cultural Resources Assessment for the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Carlsbad, CA: Michael Baker International. Daniels, James T., Jr. 2026. ArchaeologicalMonitor/nq Report for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project, Santa Clarita, California. Prepared by Michael Baker International for the City of Santa Clarita. Dibblee, T. W., and H. E. Ehrenspeck. 1996. "Geologic map of the Mint Canyon quadrangle, Los Angeles County California. Scale 1:24,000." Dibblee Geological Foundation. https://ncimdb.uscis. ciov/Prodesc/proddesc 71700.htm. HistoricAerials.com. n.d. https://historicaerials.com/ National Park Service. 2020. National Register of Historic Places. https://www.nps.clov/subjects/ national register/index.htm OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 1997. California Inventory of Historic Resources. OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2001 a. "California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources." In Technical Assistance Series No. /. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2001 b. "California Register of Historical Resources: Q&A for Local Governments." In Technical Assistance Series No. 4. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2022. Archaeological Resources Directory. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center. OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2026a. California Historical Resources. https://ohp. parks.ca.ciov/ListedResou rces/ MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum, Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2026b. Built Environment Resources Directory for Los Angeles County. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1900a. Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1900b. San Fernando, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1903. Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1929. Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1933. Saugus, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1940. San Fernando, California. 1:24,000. Electronic resource map. https:Hncimdb.uscis.ciov/topoview/viewer/#. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1941. Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1943. Santa Susana, Calif. 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1952. Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1960. Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1995a. Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1995b. Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2012a. Mint Canyon, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2012b. Newhall, Calif. 1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle. MBAKER INTL.COM 801 S. Grand Avenue, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 267-8645 Attachment 1 Figures Santa Clarita e SANTA SUSANNA MOUNTQiNS \ Simi Valley SIMI HILLS Legend Project Location F1 San SAN FERNANDO VALLEY N L /SOLEDAD-CANYON �r Los Ange es VEROUGO MOUNTAINS HASKELL CANYON OPEN SPACE SHARED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SANTA CLARITA, CA O 0 2.5 5 I N T E R N A T I O N A L Miles Regional Vicinity Source: Esn, ArcGIS Online, National Geographic World Map: Santa Clarita, California Figure 1 dW u F Fl, OWN �l��C r ta��3�''N��'�+"•'�r .r`^• '! • Ir '��� �"'��1�' # ,„�{ I r• •ra' w jRI �1�rr) 7ff(( !r��i 74 tt�C/'✓ter rT�r �'c< 7' � a � ✓r. "�tr L'r �► J4 J,,� � � r rJ f 41r µ 1ST Q • •C4,f f.'r f'�,. ��/J �+17/ ' w�,}i.�"'ltr�l�Mii�r \� �l"►vP 1� f�� t 1 i *r'`� �r -'sti :, va., r vY'' '•-^`+ r (/,R+N j"tlir [o IL i �� ,. } 1 ��y„� •4+ �'`, ` /' J d "%r+��atV21 �'��,'��`�,�',�• � � � _��� � _ ..i�4��C�� . Via:: Michael Baker I[A 4 1�7 Michael Baker Attachment 2 NHMLAC Records Search Results Letter Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County goo Exposition Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90007 tel213.763.DINO www.nhm.org Research & Collections e-mail: naleorecords(i�nhm.ore May 23, 2026 Michael Baker International Attn: Marc Beherec re: Expedited paleontological resources records search for the Haskell Canyon Addendum Proj ect Dear Marc: I have conducted a search of our paleontology collection records for the proposed development at the Haskell Canyon Addendum project area as outlined on the portion of the Newhall USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on May 18, 2026. The collections of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA) include fossil localities that have been recorded or georeferenced within the bounds of the project area, as shown in the table below: Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth Haskell Canyon, north LACM IP 17899 of Cooper Hill Dr. Castaic Formation Invertebrates (primarily mollusks) Surface IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface Additionally, we have other localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth, as shown in the table below:Saugus Castaic Mint canyon Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth LACM VP 7772; Carnivore (Carnivora) LACM IP 17900, Between Haskell Canyon Castaic Formation and invertebrates 17901, 17902, 7758 and Kathleen Ave (very fine sands) (primarily mollusks) Unknown LACM VP 5461; Ridge west of Pettinger Tapir (Tapiridae); LACM IP 7770, Canyon Rd and north of Castaic Formation (4 Invertebrates 10271, 404, 7754 N Rock Canyon Dr. m thick shell bed) (uncatalogued) Unknown Unknown (collected Five Knolls development, Saugus Formation during grading for LACM VP 7988, Golden Valley Rd., Santa (paleosol bounded by Numerous specimens of housing 7989 Clarita conglomerate beds) rodent (Rodentia) development) Saugus Elementary LACM VP 6804 School Saugus Formation Horse clade (Equidae) Surface South of Vasquez Mint Canyon Invertebrates LACM IP 3922 Canvon Road, east of Formation (gastropods and others) Surface Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth the junction of Vasquez Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road West side of Cruzan LACM VP 6363, Mesa, north of Solemint, Mint Canyon Primitive horse 5150, CIT566 Ca Formation (Pliohippus) Unknown VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface This records search is limited to the records of the NHMLA. It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Potentially fossil -bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a paleontological assessment be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Federal (43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 49.110) or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards for compliance with applicable regulations, such as CEQA or NEPA. Sincerely, Alyssa Bell, Ph.D. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County PROPOSALFORM Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS CITY: In accordance with CITY's NOTICE INVITING BIDS, the undersigned BIDDER hereby proposes to furnish all materials, equipment, tools, labor, and incidentals required for the above -stated project as set forth in the plans, specifications, and contract documents therefore, and to perform all work in the manner and time prescribed therein. BIDDER declares that this proposal is based upon careful examination of the work site, plans, specifications, INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS, and all other contract documents. If this proposal is accepted for award, BIDDER agrees to enter into a contract with CITY at the unit and/or lump sum prices set forth in the following BID SCHEDULE, BIDDER understands that failure to enter into a contract in the manner and time prescribed will result in forfeiture to CITY of the proposal guarantee accompanying this proposal. BIDDER understands that a bid is required for the entire work that the estimated quantities set forth in BID SCHEDULE are solely for the purpose of comparing bids, and that final compensation under the contract will be based upon the actual quantities of work satisfactorily completed. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF ANY QUANTITY SHOWN AND TO DELETE ANY ITEM FROM THE CONTRACT. It is agreed that the unit and/or lump sum price(s) bid include all appurtenant expenses, taxes, royalties, and fees for the project's duration. In case of discrepancies in the amounts bid, unit prices shall govern over extended amounts, and words shall govern over figures. If awarded the contract, the undersigned further agrees that in the event of the Bidder's default in executing the required contract and filing the necessary bonds and insurance certificates within ten working days after the date of the CITY's notice of award of contract to the BIDDER, the proceeds of the security accompanying this bid shall become the property of the CITY and this bid and the acceptance hereof may, at the CITY's option, be considered null and void, Company Name: R.C. Becker Inc. Company Address: 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Phone: (661) 259-4845 Email: jbecker, C@rcbecker,corn By: John Becker Print Name Title: President r Signature: Date: 6/11 /2026 NOTICE TO BIDDERS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California SUMMARY OF INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. These are the Indemnity and Insurance Requirements for Contractors providing services or supplies to City of Santa Clarita (City). By agreeing to perform the work or submitting a proposal, you verify that you comply with and agree to be bound by these requirements. If any additional Contract documents are executed, the actual Indemnity language and Insurance Requirements may include additional provisions as deemed appropriate by City's Purchasing Agent. The City reserves the sole right to accept or reject any requests for modifications to these terms. 2. You should check with your Insurance advisors to verify compliance and determine if additional coverage or limits may be needed to adequately insure your obligations under this agreement. These are the minimum required and do not in any way represent or imply that such coverage is sufficient to adequately cover the Contractor's liability under this agreement. The full coverage and limits afforded under Contractor's policies of Insurance shall be available to Buyer and these Insurance Requirements shall not in any way act to reduce coverage that is broader or includes higher limits than those required. The Insurance obligations under this agreement shall be:1—all the Insurance coverage and limits carried by or available to the Contractor; or 2—the minimum Insurance requirements shown in this agreement, whichever is greater. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits and coverage required, which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to City. 3. Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins. City reserves the right to require full -certified copies of all Insurance coverage and endorsements. I. INDEMNIFICATION: City and its respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (individually and collectively, "Indemnitees") shall have no liability to CONTRACTOR or any other person for, and CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless Indemnitees from and against, any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, "Claims"), which Indemnitees may suffer or incur or to which Indemnitees may become subject by reason of or arising out of any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss, or otherwise occurring as a result of or allegedly caused by the CONTRACTOR'S performance of or failure to perform any services under this Agreement, or by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of CONTRACTOR, its agents, officers, directors, or employees, committed in performing any of the services under this Agreement. If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any of the matters against which CONTRACTOR has agreed to indemnify Indemnitees as provided above, CONTRACTOR, upon notice from City, shall defend Indemnitees at its expense by counsel acceptable to City, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. Indemnitees need not have first paid for any of the matters to which Indemnitees are entitled to indemnification in order to be so indemnified. The limits of the insurance required to be maintained by CONTRACTOR in this Agreement shall not limit the liability of CONTRACTOR hereunder. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this agreement. The provisions of this section do not apply to Claims occurring as a result of the City's active negligence or acts of omission. II. INSURANCE CONTRACTOR shall maintain and submit certificates of all applicable insurance including, but not limited to, the following and as otherwise required by law. The terms of the insurance policy or policies issued to provide the above insurance coverage shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or canceled by the carrier, for non-payment of premiums or otherwise, without thirty (30) days prior written notice of amendment or cancellation to the CITY. In the event the said insurance is canceled, the CONTRACTOR shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit to the City Clerk new evidence of insurance in the amounts established. Liabilitv Insurance During the entire term of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR agrees to procure and maintain General Liability insurance at its sole expense to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury, including death therefrom, suffered or alleged to be suffered by any person or persons whomsoever, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or activities, errors or omissions, of the CITY, or CONTRACTOR or any person acting for the CITY, or under its control or direction, and also to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages to any property of any person caused directly or indirectly by or from acts or activities of the CITY, or CONTRACTOR or any person acting for the CITY, or under its control or direction. Such public liability and property damage insurance shall also provide for and protect the CITY against incurring any legal cost in defending claims for alleged loss. Such General, Public and Professional liability and property damage insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect throughout the term of the Agreement and any extension thereof in the amount indicated above or the following minimum limits: Commercial General Liability Insurance, including coverage for Premises and Operations, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury Liability, Products/Completed Operations Liability, and Independent Contractors' Liability (if applicable), in an amount of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence, four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) annual aggregate, written on an occurrence form. Products/Completed Operations coverage shall extend a minimum of three (3) years after project completion. Coverage shall be included on behalf of the CONTRACTOR for covered claims arising out of the actions of independent contractors. If the CONTRACTOR is using subcontractors, the policy must include work performed "by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR. Policy shall contain no language that would invalidate or remove the CONTRACTOR'S duty to defend or indemnify for claims or suits expressly excluded from coverage. Policy shall specifically provide for a duty to defend on the part of the CONTRACTOR. Worker's Compensation Insurance The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, Worker's Compensation Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence or in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both the CONTRACTOR and the CITY against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases happening to any worker employed by the CONTRACTOR in the course of carrying out the work within the Agreement. Such insurance shall also contain a waiver of subrogation naming the City of Santa Clarita. Automotive Insurance The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, throughout the term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof, public liability and property damage insurance coverage for automotive equipment with coverage limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. All such insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City of Santa Clarita as an additional insured. Waiver of Subrogation All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONTRACTOR or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. CONTRACTOR hereby waives its own right of recovery against the CITY, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. Separation of Insureds A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross -liability exclusions. Pass Through Clause CONTRACTOR agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONTRACTOR, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. CONTRACTOR agrees that upon request, all Agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to the CITY for review. Self -Insured Retentions Any self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. The CITY reserves the right to require that self -insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by the CITY. Primary and Additional Insured All of such insurance shall be primary and shall name the City of Santa Clarita as additional insured. A Certificate of Insurance and an additional insured endorsement (for general and automobile liability), evidencing the above insurance coverage with a company acceptable to the City's Purchasing Agent shall be submitted to the CITY prior to execution of this Agreement on behalf of the CITY. Requirements Should CONTRACTOR, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain coverage at CONTRACTOR'S expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement or terminate. In the alternative, should CONTRACTOR fail to meet any of the insurance requirements under this Agreement, CITY may cancel the Agreement immediately with no penalty. Should CONTRACTOR'S insurance required by this Agreement be canceled at any point prior to expiration of the policy, CONTRACTOR must notify CITY within 24 hours of receipt of notice of cancelation. Furthermore, CONTRACTOR must obtain replacement coverage that meets all contractual requirements within 10 days of the prior insurer's issuance of notice of cancelation. CONTRACTOR must ensure that there is no lapse in coverage. If the operation under this Agreement results in an increased or decreased risk in the opinion of the City's Purchasing Agent, then the CONTRACTOR agrees that the minimum limits herein above designated shall be changed accordingly upon request by the City's Purchasing Agent. The CONTRACTOR agrees that provisions of this paragraph as to maintenance of insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the CONTRACTOR may be held responsible for the payment of damages to persons or property resulting from the CONTRACTOR'S activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the CONTRACTOR is otherwise responsible. I have read and understand the above requirements and agree to be bound by them for any work performed for the City. r Authorized Signature: ✓,. f �' pate: 6/11/2026 Printed Name: John Pecker, President BIDDER'S INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, CA Bidder certifies that the representations of the bid are true and correct and made under penalty of perjury. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE Bidder certifies that in all previous contracts or subcontracts, all reports which may have been due under the requirements of any CITY, State, or Federal equal employment opportunity orders have been satisfactorily filed, and that no such reports are currently outstanding. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION Bidder certifies that affirmative action has been taken to seek out and consider minority business enterprises for those portions of the work to be subcontracted, and that such affirmative actions have been fully documented, that said documentation is open to inspection, and that said affirmative action will remain in effect for the life of any contract awarded hereunder. Furthermore, Bidder certifies that affirmative action will be taken to meet all equal employment opportunity requirements of the contract documents. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DIR CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR REGISTRATION By my signature hereunder, as the Contractor, I certify that Contractor, and all Subcontractors listed on the Subcontractor Designations form are the subject of current and active contractor registrations pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. Contractor's registration number is indicated below. Subcontractors' registration numbers are indicated on the Subcontractor Designations form. Bidder's Name: R.C. Becker Inc. Business Address: 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Telephone No.: (661) 259-4845 State CONTRACTOR'S License No. & Class: 258762/ A DIR No.: 1000001096 Original Date: 7/22/1969 Expiration Date: 6/30/2027 The following are the names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest in this proposal: John Becker, President, 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy, Santa Clarita CA 91355, (661) 259-4845 Randy Becker, Vice President, 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy, Santa Clarita CA 91355, (661) 259-4845 Lorraine Martinez, Secretary, 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy, Santa Clarita CA 91355, (661) 259-4845 The dates of any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy judgments against any principal having an interest in this proposal, or any firm, corporation, partnership or joint venture of which any principal having an interest in this proposal was an owner, corporate officer, partner or joint venture are as follows:. None All current and prior DBAs, alias, and/or fictitious business names for any principal having an interest in this proposal are as follows: NIA IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BIDDER executes and submits this proposal with the names, title, hands, and seals of all aforementioned principals this 1 L ay of MaY 20 26 . BIDDER: 1 Signatu John Becker, President Name and Title of Signatory R.C. Becker Inc. Legal Name of Bidder 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Address (661) 259-4845 Telephone Number 95-2567499 Federal Tax I.D. No. BIDDER'S QUESTIONNAIRE Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California 1. Submitted by: R.C. Becker Inc. Telephone: (661) 259-4845 Principal Office Address: 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 2. Type of Firm: ❑ C Corporation U( S Corporation ❑ Individual/Sole Proprietor or Single —Member LLC ❑ Partnership ❑ Limited Liability Company "C" C-Corp ❑ Limited Liability Company "S" S-Corp ❑ Limited Liability Company "P" Partnership ❑ Other 3a. If a corporation, answer these questions: Date of Incorporation: 12/18/1968 State of Incorporation: California President's Name: John Becker vice -President's Name: Randy Becker Secretary or Clerk's Name: Lorraine Martinez Treasurer's Name: Randy Becker 3b. If a partnership, answer these questions: Date of organization: N/A State Organized in: Name of all partners holding more than a 10% interest: Designate which are General or Managing Partners. BIDDER'S QUESTIONNAIRE (cont'd) Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California 4. Name of person holding CONTRACTOR's license: John Becker License number: 258762 Class: A Expiration Date: 6/30/2027 D.I.R. Registration # 1000001096 5. CONTRACTOR's Representative: Vince Tellez Title: Chief Estimator Alternate: Alyssa Molina Title: Bid Coordinator 6. List the major construction projects your organization has in progress as of this date: A. Owner: City of Lancaster Project Location: 44501 5th St. East., Lancaster, CA 93535 Renovation of existing Samaritan's Purse Park (Formerly El Dorado Park) and renovations to existing comma 1center twildfng, Type of Project: recreational features,and upgrades to the existing park Including new landscaping and vegetation providing ADA access to B. Owner: Ravello West Project Location: E Palmdale Blvd & 55th Palmdale, CA 93552 Type of Project: Street Improvements C. Owner: City of Lancaster Project location: Ave J- from 30th St. to 25th St. W. and 20th St. W. - from Ave. K. to Ave J-8 Type of Project: Road Rehabilitation CERTIFICATION OF NON -SEGREGATED FACILITIES Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California The BIDDER certifies that it does not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not permit its employees to perform their services at any location, under its control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The BIDDER certifies further that it will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it will not permit its employees to perform their services at any location, under its control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The BIDDER agrees that a breach of this certification is a violation of the Equal Opportunity clause in this Contract. As used in this certification, the term "segregated facilities" means any waiting rooms, work areas, rest rooms, and wash rooms, restaurants and other eating areas, time clocks, locker rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees which are segregated by explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin, because of habit, local custom, or otherwise. The BIDDER agrees that (except where it has obtained identical certifications from proposed subcontractors for specific time periods) it will obtain identical certifications from proposed subcontractors prior to the award of subcontracts exceeding $10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity clause, and that it will retain such certifications in its files. R.C. Becker Inc. -x John Becker - President BIDDER Required by the May 19, 1967 order on Elimination of Segregated Facilities, by the Secretary of Labor — 32 F.R. 7439, May 19, 1967 (F.R. Vol. 33, No. 33 — Friday, February 16, 1968 — p. 3065). DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of % of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets If needed. Subcontractor Interstate Striping & Signs, Inc. I DIR Registration No.* 1000007945 Dollar Value of Work $95,510.00 Location and Place of Business 2802 N Ventura Ave Ste A, Ventura, CA 93001 Bid Schedule Item No's: 6-21, 23, 26 Description of Work Striping License No. 838618 Exp. Date: / / 5/31 /2028 Phone ( ) (805) 558-5384 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Location and Place of Business Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) Subcontractor DIR Registration No. Dollar Value of Work Location and Place of Business Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone { ) NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20203.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER Is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1(commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. REFERENCES Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three public agencies for which bidder has performed and completed work of a similar scope and size within the past 3 years. If the scope of work/specifications requests references different than instructions above, the scope of work/specifications shall govern: 1. City of Lancaster - 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534 Name and Address of Owner / Agency Monique Carriere (661) 723-5978 Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project $2,001,216.30 Road Rehabilitation In Progress Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed 2. City of Lancaster - 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, CA 93534 Name and Address of Owner / Agency Kenji Stiles (661) 945-6883 Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project $1,923,195.11 Preventative Road Maintenance In Progress Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed 3, City of Palmdale - 38300 Sierra Hwy, Palmdale, CA 93550 Name and Address of owner/ Agency Marc Zuber (661) 267-5354 Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project $3,665,807.47 Construct a Roundabout 6/30/2025 Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all brokers and sureties from whom bidder intends to procure insurance bonds: Broker. Kevin Honaker, The Liberty Company Insurance Brokers, LLC - 26701 McKean Pkwy #130, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 - (661) 554-0401 Surety: Jodie Doner, The Liberty Company Insurance Brokers, LLC - 21 S California St, Suite 308, Ventura, CA 93001 - (818) 483-0747 IRAN CONTRACTING ACT CERTIFICATION (Public Contract Code Sections 2200 et seq.) Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California As required by California Public Contract Code section 2204, Proposer certifies that the option checked below relating to Proposer's status in regard to the Iran Contracting Act of 2010 (Public Contract Code sections 2200 et seq.) is true and correct: Ed Proposer is not: (i) identified on the current list of persons and entities engaging in investment activities in Iran prepared by the California Department of General Services in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code section 2203; or (ii) a financial institution that extends, for 45 days or more, credit in the amount of $20,000,000 or more to any other person or entity identified on the current list of persons and entities engaging in investment activities in Iran prepared by the California Department of General Services in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code section 2203, if that person or entity uses or will use the credit to provide goods or services in the energy sector in Iran. ❑ Los Angeles County has exempted Proposer from the requirements of the Iran Contracting Act of 2010 after making a public finding that, absent the exemption, Los Angeles County will be unable to obtain the goods and/or services to be provided pursuant to the Contract. ❑ The amount of the Contract payable to Proposer for the Project is less than $1,000,000. CERTIFICATION I, the official named below, CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that I am duly authorized to legally bind the Proposer to the above selected option. This certification is made under the laws of the State of California. Contractor R.C. Becker Inc. Firm Signed 6/11/2026 John Becker, President Date Name/Title Note: In accordance with Public Contract Code section 2205, false certification of this form shall be reported to the California Attorney General and may result in civil penalties equal to the greater of $250,000 or twice the Contract amount, termination of the Contract and/or ineligibility to bid on contracts for three years. END OF DOCUMENT BIDDER'S BOND Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California Proposals must be accompanied by a proposal guarantee consisting of a certified check, cashier's check or BIDDER's bid bond payable to the CITY or cash deposit in the amount not less than ten (10) percent of the total amount bid. Certified check, cashier's check or Bidder's bid bond must be received at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA 91355, Attn: Purchasing, Suite 120, and marked with the words "BID BOND FOR" and the bid #, no later than the bid closing date and time, for the BIDDER to be considered responsive. NOTE: The following form shall be used in case check accompanies bid. Accompanying this Proposal is a *certified/cashier's check payable to the order of the City of Santa Clarita for: -T-QVI PoceKr dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the bid. The proceeds of this check shall become the property of said CITY provided this Proposal shall be accepted by said CITY through action of its legally constituted contracting authorities, and the undersigned shall fail to execute a contract and furnish the required bonds within the stipulated time; otherwise, the check shall be returned to the undersigned. Project Name: Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Bid No. CIP-25-26-M4016 Project No. M4016 Bidder's Signature .- R.C. Becker Inc. CONTRACTOR/BIDDER 28355 Kelly Johnson P Address Santa Clarita, CA 91355 City, State, Zip Code * Delete the inapplicable work. NOTE: If the bidder desires to use a bond instead of a check, the following form shall be executed. The sum of this bond shall be not less than ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the bid. PROPOSAL GUARANTEE BID BOND Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that R.C. Becker Inc. , as BIDDER, and as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the Ten Percent of City of Santa Clarita, as CITY, in the penal sum of Amount Bid dollars ($ 10% }, which is ten percent (10%) of the total amount bid by BIDDER to CITY for the above -stated project, for the payment of which sum, BIDDER and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that, whereas BIDDER is about to submit a bid to CITY for the above -stated project, if said bid is rejected, or if said bid is accepted and the contract is awarded and entered into by BIDDER in the manner and time specified, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect in favor of CITY. IN WITNESS WHEREAS, the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals, this 14th Day of May , 20 26. CONTRACTOR. V *1 16 ( e,1 : 1 Ike 5'd C /"11 SURETY*: Name and Title of Signatory. Signature t R.C. Becker Inc. Legal Name of Bidder 28355 Kelly Johnson Pkwy., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Bidder Address 661-259-4845 95-2567499 Telephone --Number Federal Tax I.D. No. Fidelity and De o t Cmany of Maryland Name Maria Pena, Attorney -in -Fact 213-443-2476/ mpena[ar)_aliiant.com Phone Number and Email 777 S Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Address *Provide BIDDER and SURETY name, phone number, email, and the name, title, address, and phone number for authorized representative. IMPORTANT - Surety Companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570, as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. Surety signatures must be notarized prior to submittal. as Opp SW 1 - aid K..-. nw: to .60100 jo 5. QM unsoj"IMly azo& ""own I J No% oc nvow j"Sp US ARA wQF.Jlv')i_W..o P!--i bw bl! by nv_n& w"00M lov bris Win F j wvL.KwlQVQ ?Idj •o :11 A nForqu waN V .: %wnsu; ON 'A 73. 5V a% no, man" VK70 nit QXQ 11 QN, As A vow -"Lv:!c 'WqsG bus VARR son am 0005 Awkwa owQ j;-iinft o" t­.od not. of: ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validit of that document. State of California County of Los Angeles On 6/10/26 before me, Alyssa Nicole Molina, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared John Becker who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personks} whose name{s4 is/afe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heiGheAhey executed the same in hisyhegth 9 authorized capacityOeO, and that by his!hegthei signature¢e} on the instrument the person(s3, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons} acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ALYSSA)OICOLEMOU" Notary Public - CAMOfnla i s - Los Angetes County S i COTmlfslon 2472954 + My Comm. Expires Oct 23. 2016 ,t Signature �!f I : 4 i ' `'' (Seal) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT Civil Code § 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. State of California ) ss County of Los Angeles ) M0 l 4 On before me, Patricia Arana„ Notary Public, personally appeared Maria Pena who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons} whose names) is�&% subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that # she{-h_e_y executed the same in 4s/her/4hei authorized capacity4e54, and that by higher A signatures on the instrument the person{, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons-} acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) _ PATRlC1AARANA Notary Public • California z .-W;17"Y Qal !os Angeles CaunryCommission; 255t22b Comm. Expires Apr 23, 2030 Signature: Patricia Arana, Notary Public ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Illinois, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND a corporation of the State of Illinois (herein collectively called the "Companies"), by Christopher Nolan, Vice President, in pursuance of authority granted by Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies, which are set forth on the reverse side hereof and are hereby certified to be in full force and effect on the date hereof, do hereby nominate, constitute, and appoint C.K. NAKAMURA, Lisa L. THORNTON, E.S. ALBRECHT, JR, Maria PENA, Noemi QUIROZ, Natalie K. TROFIMOFF, Patricia S. ARANA, Tim M. TOMKO of Los Angeles, California, Jessica ROSSER of Dallas, Texas, its true and lawful agent and Attorney -in -Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for, and on its behalf as surety, and as its act and deed: any and all bonds and undertakings, and the execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Companies, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at its office in New York, New York., the regularly elected officers of the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY at its office in Owings Mills, Maryland., and the regularly elected officers of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at its office in Owings Mills, Maryland., in their own proper persons. The said Vice President does hereby certify that the extract set forth on the reverse side hereof is a true copy of Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies, and is now in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Vice -President has hereunto subscribed his/her names and affixed the Corporate Seals of the said ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this Ist day of August A.D. 2025. ATTEST: ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND v ,t NCon, A �QPogp�`°;- camOQFo�� ;a0eo F°Ry�o'= uSEALm oSEAL�" nhhn1,110%",+ n'r"r,.,u1%, ""hm 11101 By: Christopher Nolan Tice President By: Daniel Lutes Secretary State of Maryland County of Baltimore On this Ist day of August A.D. 2025, before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly commissioned and qualified, Christopher Nolan, Vice President and Daniel Lutes, Secretary of the Companies, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly swom, deposeth and saith, that he/she is the said officer of the Company aforesaid, and that the seals affixed to the preceding instrument are the Corporate Seals of said Companies, and that the said Corporate Seals and the signature as such officer were duly, affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporations. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and vear first above written. y1 at "•., Genevieve M. Maison Notary Public My Commission Expire January 27, 2029 Authenticity of this bond can be confirmed at bondvalidator zurichnn.com or 410-559-8790 EXTRACT FROM BY-LAWS OF THE COMPANIES "Article V, Section 8, Attorneys -in -Fact. The Chief Executive Officer, the President, or any Executive Vice President or Vice President may, by written instrument under the attested corporate seal, appoint attorneys -in -fact with authority to execute bonds, policbs, recognizances, stipulations, undertakings, or other like instruments on behalf of the Company, and may authorize any officer or any such attorney -in -fact to affix the corporate seal thereto; and may with or without cause modify of revoke any such appointment or authority at any time." CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Vice President of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney is still in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of the Companies is still in force. This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 15th day of December 1998. RESOLVED: "That the signature of the President or a Vice President and the attesting signature of a Secretary or an Assistant Secretary and the Seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile on any Power of Attorney ... Any such Power or any certificate thereof bearing such facsimile signature and seal shall be valid and binding on the Company." This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 5th day of May, 1994, and the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on the 10th day of May, 1990. RESOLVED: "That -the, facsimile or mechanically reproduced seal of the company and facsimile or mechanically reproduced signatue of any Vice -President, Secretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Company, whether made heretofore or hereafter, wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Company, shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seals of the said Companies, this day of 6— �,,,,,r,....,,,,•• G�O� , �,�uuuyyV �•••4 �`�� 9U COO, �•4 90 anp _� 40 0 pQoP �� SEAL 5 "SEAL`" _= ON Saz EAL •••••qnn nuq"`��` '`q�„IVYOP, o`'�` ''�••ippuu�rW`a°`: -%? P.�A;I-L Mary Jean Pethick Vice President TO REPORT A CLAIM WITH REGARD TO A SURETY BOND, PLEASE SUBMIT A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL ON THE BOND, THE BOND NUMBER, AND YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION TO: Zurich Surety Claims 1299 Zurich Way Schaumburg, IL 60196-1056 renortsfclaimsa,zurichna. com 800-626-4577 Authenticity of this bond can be confirmed at bondvalidator.zurichna.com or 410-559-8790 NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT (Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code Section 7106) Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California To the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA: In conformance with Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code 7106, the Bidder declares that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the Bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the Bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the Bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. THE BIDDER'S EXECUTION ON THE SIGNATURE PORTION OF THE "BIDDER'S CERTIFICATION" SHALL ALSO CONSTITUTE AN ENDORSEMENT AND EXECUTION OF THOSE CERTIFICATIONS WHICH FORM A PART OF THE PROPOSAL. BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT MAKING A FALSE CERTIFICATION MAY SUBJECT THE CERTIFIER TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT Bid #CIP-25-26-M4016 Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements City Project No. M4016 City of Santa Clarita, California TO BE EXECUTED BY EACH BIDDER OF A PRINCIPAL CONTRACT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) John Becker being first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she is the President (sole owner, a partner, president, etc.) of R.C. Becker Inc. the party making the foregoing bid; that such bid is not made in the interest of or behalf of any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization or corporation, that such bid is genuine and not collusive or sham, that said BIDDER has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other BIDDER to put in a false or sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding, that said BIDDER has not in any manner, directly or indirectly sought by agreements, communication or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of said BIDDER or of any other BIDDER, or to fix the overhead, profit, or cost element of such bid price, or of that of any other BIDDER, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the Contract or anyone interested in the proposed Contract; that all statements contained in such bid are true, and further, that said BIDDER has not, directly or indirectly, submitted its bid price, or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or date relative thereto, or paid and will not pay any fee in connection, therewith to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or CITY thereof, or to any other individual information or date relative thereto, or paid and will not pay any fee in connection, therewith to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or CITY thereof, or to any other individual, except to such person or persons as have a partnership or other financial interest with said BIDDER in his general business. Bidder; Signature Title Jahn Becker, President Haskell Canyon Open Space Shared Access Improvements Bid Schedule R.C. Becker Inc. Item No Description UOM Quantity Price Total Cost 1 Mobilization / Demobilization Lump -Sum 1 $8,410.01 $8,410.01 2 Water Pollution Control, Implementation, and Maintenance of BMP's Lump -Sum 1 $2,048.00 $2,048.00 3 Stabilization Allowance Square Foot/Feet 18566 $3.68 $68,322.88 4 Regrade and Recompact Square Foot/Feet 185663 $0.23 $42,702.49 5 Place 4" Asphalt Concrete Square Foot/Feet 185663 $3.58 $664,673.54 6 Install Speed Cushions Each 26 $3,500.00 $91,000.00 7 Clearing and Grubbing Square Foot/Feet 181480 $0.01 $1,814.80 8 Type B Trasnverse Keycut Linear Foot/Feet 60 $29.22 $1,753.20 9 12' White Crosswalk w/ Limit Line (Thermo) Linear Foot/Feet 35 $7.50 $262.50 10 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking ("HUMP") Each 26 $187.50 $4,875.00 11 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking ("AHEAD") Each 26 $250.00 $6,500.00 12 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking ("STOP") Each 2 $187.50 $375.00 13 Install 2"x6" Headerboard Linear Foot/Feet 50 $18.00 $900.00 14 Install Stop Sign Each 2 $468.75 $937.50 15 Install Speed Cushion and Speed Limit Signs Each 26 $593.75 $15,437.50 16 Install K-Rail Each 5 $2,855.27 $14,276.35 17 Regrade and Recompact w/ Tapering Each 2 $847.10 $1,694.20 Total $925,982.97 Balancing the Natural and Built Environment "Via E-Mail" ccallahanksanta-clarity. com June 12, 2026 Ms. Carla Callahan City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Subject: Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon - Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-046OR1 Dear Ms. Callahan: Psomas is submitting the attached proposal for professional services for the subject project. Based on our knowledge of the site and the information provided to us, we have developed the attached Scope of Services and associated fee to meet the project requirements, as we understand them, as described in Exhibit "A" and Schedule "A" respectively (attached). We look forward to working with you on this important project. Sincerely, Jeremy Johnson, PE Sr. Project Manager JJ:bh Enclosures (5) — Exhibit "A": Scope of Services — Schedule "A": Fee Schedule — Hourly Rates — Billing Procedures — Exhibit "A- I" Work Limit EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon — Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-046OR1 June 12, 2026 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Santa Clarita (city) is proposing the development of two Arizona crossings at Haskell Creek, north of Copper Hill Drive. Crossing 1 is between the main canyon road and the city's archery facility and will replace an existing temporary culvert crossing. Crossing 2 is south of Crossing 1 and will be between the main canyon road and the city's proposed mountain bike park. The civil engineering scope is to perform hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of Haskell Creek and design of a paved Arizona crossing with cutoff walls. Surveying scope is also included to support the civil engineering design. Psomas was provided with information via phone conferences with Carla Callahan and an email on April 15t''. Please see attached Exhibit "A- I" for the proposed limits of surveying and civil engineering work. SCOPE OF WORK Psomas agrees to furnish and perform the various professional services pertinent to the project specifically outlined as follows: Surveying Services The Consultant agrees to prepare a Design Survey for the project. Specific items of service are as follows: • Prepare a survey map situated on NAD83 state plane coordinate system at a scale of 1" = 10' over the site shown on attached Exhibit "A- I" delivered in both hardcopy (scaled PDF plot) and AutoCAD format. • Property lines established from field surveyed information, available county record. It is assumed that deed/title review is not required. Plotting of easements is excluded. • Horizontal location, size and description of driveways, roads, fences, signs, poles, site trees over 4" in diameter, and other permanent surface visible features. • Topography situated on presiding municipal datum as established by city benchmarks at a 1-foot contour interval, and spot elevations on a grid pattern in level areas. • Elevations on roads, dirt, and other built improvements as depicted on attached Exhibit "A- I". EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon — Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-046OR1 June 12, 2026 Civil Engineering Services Hvdraulic Analvsis The Haskell Canyon wash is currently mapped by FEMA as a Zone AO with a three foot flood depth for the 100-year storm event, and has also been mapped by LA County for the Capitol Storm event. Both floodplains are wide, extending west, beyond the dirt roadway limits. An "Arizona Crossing" is a low water crossing typically designed for ephemeral flows that allows vehicles to cross when flows rates and depths are small through construction of a stabilized crossing. The stabilized crossing is typically a widened concrete structure that is superelevated in the direction of flow and has concrete toe downs/ford walls along its upstream and downstream edges that extend below a calculated scour depth. The length of the structure is determined by the floodplain width to which the protection is desired and can range from a 90t1i percentile storm event to a 100-year or larger storm event. Crossings can also be constructed with small culverts to maintain a dry road during minor storm events and allow overtopping during large storm events. The County capitol storm design flow is 12,800cfs with a 2-year storm event design flow rate of —4,900 cfs based on the ratios for different storm events provided in the LA County Hydrology Manual. The FEMA 100- year design storm flow rate for its floodplain mapping purposes is 3,320cfs for a 9.8 sq.mi. drainage area and has a 10-year flow rate of 730 cfs. Psomas recommends designing the low flow crossing for a flow rate no less than the FEMA 10-year storm event value, and will prepare hydraulic analyses and design for a single storm event with flow rates based on the values available in the FEMA FIS or approved capitol storm flow rate with a factor from the LA County Hydrology Manual applied. Alternatively, Psomas can evaluate a single flow of the City's choosing or establish a flow rate based on any county observations and/or existing crossing and channel topography. Psomas will prepare a 1D or 2D hydraulic model using HEC-RAS and a steady state flow condition. The model will be prepared using the best available elevation data for the area as obtained online from the USGS or can use an existing model if available from the City. Psomas will initially model LA County 2-year event and the FEMA 10-year event to determine floodplain extents during those two events which will be presented to the City to choose one for design, or decide on an alternative flow rate between the two values. Results from the hydraulic model for the chosen design storm flow rate will be used to evaluate general scour available equations and the flow depths, velocities and other hydraulic parameters. Should an equation rely on sediment size, a typical grain size from available nearby study or based on observed site conditions will be assumed. The crossing design will be at or below existing grade in order to ensure no impact to the FEMA Floodplain mapped depths, which makes construction of low flow culverts beneath the roadway impossible without development of a CLOMR and LOMR. Results of the hydraulic analyses and recommendations for design, which include floodplain widths, flow depths and velocities, scour depths, cross slope recommendations, toe down depth recommendations, and concrete width and length recommendations will be summarized in a technical memorandum for review and acceptance by the City of Santa Clarita and included with the construction document submittal. EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon — Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-0460R1 June 12, 2026 Arizona Crossing Design Psomas will prepare civil engineering design and construction documents for the proposed Arizona crossings at Haskell Canyon based on the approved hydraulic design criteria. The design will incorporate a paved low-water crossing constructed at or near existing grade and will include appropriate cutoff (toe -down) walls to address anticipated scour depths and velocities. Design elements will consider floodplain extents, flow depths, cross slopes, and constructability while avoiding impacts to the FEMA-mapped floodplain. Construction documents will include cover and general notes, plan and profile sheets, typical sections, construction details, and design cross sections (for reference only) necessary to support bidding and construction of the improvements in accordance with City standards. Specifications and Engineer's Estimate Psomas will prepare specifications and an engineer's cost estimate. The specifications will be in a format consistent with the 2018 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC) and the city's specification templates. The engineer's cost estimate shall include a breakdown of costs for each item of work and match the bid schedule, item by item, included in the specifications. Meetings and Coordination Psomas will provide project -related meetings and coordination services in support of the design efforts of the Arizona crossings. Services include participation in meetings with the City and project stakeholders to discuss project status, design progress, and technical issues, as well as ongoing coordination with City staff as needed throughout the design phase. EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon — Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-046OR1 June 12, 2026 EXCLUSIONS • Utility Design • Coordination with LADWP • Geotechnical Engineering • Signage and striping • Parking lot design • Parking/traffic Studies • Traffic engineering • Design of facilities outside of the project site • Legal descriptions, government fees, permits and assessments • Preparation and approval of plans for work within the public right-of-way • Construction staking • Bid and Construction Support Services • Permit Processing • Design of fence walls • Water quality monitoring • Assembly, advertisement, and distribution of bid package • Fire department coordination • Preparation or revisions to a SWPPP • Environmental evaluations or report • Submittal to, review by or coordination with LA County • Preparation of any hydrologic analyses or reports • Preparation of a CLOMR/LOMR and its associated fees and coordination with FEMA • Other analyses not explicitly described herein. EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon — Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-046OR1 June 12, 2026 ASSUMPTIONS • The Project Limits identified on Exhibit "A-1", attached are approximate and based on the previous discussions with the city. The project limits shall be verified with the city prior to the start of work and the scope of services and fee schedule presented herein shall be adjusted as needed to accommodate changes to the project limits. • No provisions have been made for permitting or processing plans through the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, or any other agency. It is assumed that the city will review the plans internally and Psomas will address minor plan check corrections. • Changes in design precipitated by the city will be addressed for an additional fee. Changes in design due to normal design coordination are anticipated and included in this proposal. Revision of documents at city direction when such revisions are inconsistent with previous approvals or direction, including adjustments made necessary by adjustments in city's budget or program, or by major unforeseen field conditions will be addressed for an additional fee. • A geotechnical report will not be given to Psomas for geotechnical recommendations of the paving section and Arizona crossing walls. Psomas will use available standards and best engineering judgment for the design of the improvements. SCHEDULE "A" FEESCHEDULE Proposal for Professional Engineering Services Haskell Canyon - Arizona Crossings Santa Clarita, CA Psomas Proposal No. 26-0460R1 June 12, 2026 Client agrees to pay Consultant as compensation for the professional services described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the below schedule. Description Budget Basic Services Surveying Services (fixed fee) $ 17,300 Hydraulic Analysis (fixed fee) $ 16,700 Arizona Crossing Design (fixed fee) $ 24,000 Specifications and Engineer's Estimate $ 4,000 Meetings and Coordination (fixed fee) $ 5,000 TOTAL FEE $ 67,000 • Services will be performed in accordance with the provisions of our current agreement of which Exhibit `A" and Schedule `A" will become part. • The attached Hourly Rate Schedule is valid through December 31, 2026. • This proposal is valid for period of 90 days, after which, consultant's proposed fees will be revaluated. 2026 FEE SCHEDULE Los Angeles and Santa Clarita Offices Engineering, Land Use Entitlements, and Surveying IN -OFFICE SERVICES Effective from January 1, 2026 - December 31, 2026 Administrative/Project Administrator Drafter/Design Drafter Civil Engineering Designer/Engineer Surveyor/Project Surveyor/GIS Specialist/Photogrammetrist Planners/Assistant Planner/Expeditor/Senior Planner Project Designer/Professional Engineer/Project Engineer Sr. Project Engineer/Sr. Project Surveyor/Sr. GIS Specialist Project Management Principal/Director SURVEY HOURLY RATES - FIELD SERVICES Effective from October 1, 2025 — September 30, 2026 $110 - $150 $130 - $160 $130 - $160 $115 - $190 $125 - $205 $160 - $190 $185 - $235 $185 - $295 $250 - $350 One -Person Survey Party $240 Two -Person Survey Party $400 Three -Person Survey Party $530 Hourly rates for field survey parties include normal usage of field equipment and are fully equipped rates. Per Diem is calculated at current State Department of Transportation rates (or other appropriate Agency rate). REIMBURSABLES Mileage at current IRS allowable rate and parking expenses incurred by office employees are charged at cost. Prints, plots, messenger service, subsistence, air travel, and other direct expenses will be charged at cost plus ten percent. The services of outside consultants will be charged at cost plus fifteen percent. The above rate schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 135 percent of the standard hourly rates. Work performed on Sundays and holidays will be charged at 170 percent of the standard hourly rates. Billing Policies and Procedures The relationship with our client works best when there is a mutual understanding about fees and payment terms. You are encouraged to discuss with us any questions you may have concerning these policies. Billing The value of our services is determined primarily by the time spent on each client matter. Our time records are kept on a weekly basis and invoices are prepared every four or five weeks, depending on our accounting calendar. Payments As there is a time lag between rendering professional services and mailing our bills, all invoices are due upon presentation. Any bills that are not paid within thirty days are classified as "delinquent," and a late charge of 1-1/2 % per month will be added. Work Stoppage Work will be stopped on any job that has invoices outstanding for more than 60 days. Due to the costs and inefficiencies that results from stopping and restarting a job, an additional "start-up charge" will be assessed. Retainers It is our policy to obtain an advance retainer from all new clients and from exiting clients under certain circumstances. Also, it occasionally may be appropriate to require an advance retainer after the commencement of a project or to require an increase in a prior retainer. This depends in part on our client's payment history and the scope of the work involved. Reimbursable Expenses Costs, other than time charges, are based on usage. Therefore, the cost of blueprinting, messenger service, transportation, and other specific j ob related costs are charges as "reimbursable expenses." Generally, these are a very small portion of the total cost of a project. If requested, we will provide a computer printout which details these costs. We do not provide any additional backup for these generally nominal expenses. PSOMAS Nick Tarditti, CFA Chief Financial Officer .416 ■ Ci#y Arch!ry Range telo, _4 4 R z p / Fir,fighters Memorial _ CROSSING 1 rig, WORK LIMITS ;rulton Par[€ * t } kk yy ii a .are ,:. '� • '�. °� ,��.' -�` h ��_, .�Witt- sit,.�� red ! -:P, �,',% 4 Parkin El HH� bai �. Co ntractors•I����� HAPPY 6uiI'de�s �,_.. * SaritaClait",- �l fika i t' r CROSSING 2 Mpp,,rWORK LIMITS a. rWa reens F EiPI Dark •� '�i q� 7 / e � w tf E