Appendix a AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS Caleemod Version: Caleemod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/27/2015 3:14 PM

Appendix A AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/27/2015 3:14 PM

South Norco Channel, Stage 6

South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 10.80 0.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.70 Acre 1.70 74,052.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2014

Utility Company

CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N2O Intensity 0

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Land Use - Based on input from Project engineer Construction Phase - Construction Schedule based on input from Project engineer. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on input from project engineer. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 196.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/28/2016 10/31/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/21/2016 10/31/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/11/2016 1/28/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2016 2/1/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/1/2016 10/11/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/22/2016 1/8/2016 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 26,600.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 10.80 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cranes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Utility Trenching tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Utility Trenching tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Site Preparation tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e YearPM10 lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day 2016 8.7923 95.3724 50.5818 0.1104 1.3218 4.1629 5.4847 0.2680 3.8321 4.1001 0.0000 11,276.96 11,276.965 2.8933 0.0000 11,337.72 Total 8.7923 95.3724 50.5818 0.1104 1.3218 4.1629 5.4847 0.2680 3.8321 4.1001 0.0000 11,276.9654 11,276.9654 2.8933 0.0000 11,337.7239 54 4 39 Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day 2016 8.7923 95.3724 50.5818 0.1104 1.0217 4.1629 5.1846 0.2352 3.8321 4.0673 0.0000 11,276.96 11,276.965 2.8933 0.0000 11,337.72 Total 8.7923 95.3724 50.5818 0.1104 1.0217 4.1629 5.1846 0.2352 3.8321 4.0673 0.0000 11,276.9654 11,276.9654 2.8933 0.0000 11,337.7239 54 4 39

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM1022.70PM10 0.00Ttl 5.47PM2 12.23 5 PM2 0.00 5 Ttl 0.80 0.00CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rd ti 3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description 1 Utility Trenching Trenching 1/1/2016 1/21/2016 5 15 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/8/2016 1/28/2016 5 15 3 Grading Grading 2/1/2016 10/31/2016 5 196 4 Paving Paving 10/11/2016 10/31/2016 5 15

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 98

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 2 8.00 162 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Paving Paving Equipment 0 8.00 130 0.36 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Scrapers 0 8.00 361 0.48 Utility Trenching Off-Highway Trucks 1 6.00 400 0.38 Utility Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks 2 6.00 400 0.38 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Cranes 1 4.00 226 0.29 Grading Off-Highway Trucks 3 6.00 400 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 3 8.00 199 0.36 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Signal Boards 2 8.00 6 0.82 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Off-Highway Trucks 1 6.00 400 0.38

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Utility Trenching C 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_MixC HDT_MixC HHDT C Site Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 11 28.00 0.00 3,325.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Utility Trenching - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Off-Road 1.0470 11.3940 6.2031 0.0130 0.5577 0.5577 0.5131 0.5131 1,348.810 1,348.8107 0.4069 1,357.354 Total 1.0470 11.3940 6.2031 0.0130 0.5577 0.5577 0.5131 0.5131 1,348.8107 1,348.8107 0.4069 1,357.3545 7 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0213 0.0287 0.2995 6.6000e- 0.0559 4.7000e- 0.0564 0.0148 4.3000e- 0.0153 55.7858 55.7858 3.0500e- 55.8498 Total 0.0213 0.0287 0.2995 6.6000e-004 0.0559 4.7000e-004 0.0564 0.0148 4.3000e-004 0.0153 55.7858 55.7858 3.0500e-003 55.8498 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Off-Road 1.0470 11.3940 6.2031 0.0130 0.5577 0.5577 0.5131 0.5131 0.0000 1,348.810 1,348.8107 0.4069 1,357.354 Total 1.0470 11.3940 6.2031 0.0130 0.5577 0.5577 0.5131 0.5131 0.0000 1,348.8107 1,348.8107 0.4069 1,357.3545 7 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0941 22.7880 12.4062 0.0260 1.1154 1.1154 1.0261 1.0261 2,697.621 2,697.6214 0.8137 2,714.709 Total 2.0941 22.7880 12.4062 0.0260 0.0000 1.1154 1.1154 0.0000 1.0261 1.0261 2,697.6214 2,697.6214 0.8137 2,714.7090 4 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0427 0.0573 0.5989 1.3300e- 0.1118 9.3000e- 0.1127 0.0296 8.6000e- 0.0305 111.5715 111.5715 6.1000e- 111.6997 Total 0.0427 0.0573 0.5989 1.3300e-003 0.1118 9.3000e-004 0.1127 0.0296 8.6000e-004 0.0305 111.5715 111.5715 6.1000e-003 111.6997 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0941 22.7880 12.4062 0.0260 1.1154 1.1154 1.0261 1.0261 0.0000 2,697.621 2,697.6214 0.8137 2,714.709 Total 2.0941 22.7880 12.4062 0.0260 0.0000 1.1154 1.1154 0.0000 1.0261 1.0261 0.0000 2,697.6214 2,697.6214 0.8137 2,714.7090 4 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0427 0.0573 0.5989 1.3300e- 0.1118 9.3000e- 0.1127 0.0296 8.6000e- 0.0305 111.5715 111.5715 6.1000e- 111.6997 Total 0.0427 0.0573 0.5989 1.3300e-003 0.1118 9.3000e-004 0.1127 0.0296 8.6000e-004 0.0305 111.5715 111.5715 6.1000e-003 111.6997 003 004 004 003 3.4 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.5456 0.0000 0.5456 0.0596 0.0000 0.0596 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.1057 70.5682 32.5652 0.0708 3.0458 3.0458 2.8021 2.8021 7,350.559 7,350.5594 2.2172 7,397.120 Total 6.1057 70.5682 32.5652 0.0708 0.5456 3.0458 3.5914 0.0596 2.8021 2.8617 7,350.5594 7,350.5594 2.2172 7,397.1204 4 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Hauling 0.3066 4.8190 3.7705 0.0125 0.2956 0.0740 0.3696 0.0809 0.0681 0.1490 1,257.706 1,257.7062 9.0800e- 1,257.896 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002 0.0000 0.0000003 0.00009 Worker 0.1194 0.1605 1.6770 3.7200e- 0.3130 2.6200e- 0.3156 0.0830 2.4000e- 0.0854 312.4003 312.4003 0.0171 312.7591 Total 0.4260 4.9795 5.4475 0.0162003 0.6086 0.0766003 0.6852 0.1639 0.0705003 0.2344 1,570.106 1,570.1065 0.0262 1,570.656 5 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2455 0.0000 0.2455 0.0268 0.0000 0.0268 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.1057 70.5682 32.5652 0.0708 3.0458 3.0458 2.8021 2.8021 0.0000 7,350.559 7,350.5594 2.2172 7,397.120 Total 6.1057 70.5682 32.5652 0.0708 0.2455 3.0458 3.2913 0.0268 2.8021 2.8289 0.0000 7,350.5594 7,350.5594 2.2172 7,397.1204 4 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Off-Road 1.8997 19.7386 11.6708 0.0215 1.0391 1.0391 0.9582 0.9582 2,188.942 2,188.9422 0.6408 2,202.398 Paving 0.2969 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.00000 Total 2.1967 19.7386 11.6708 0.0215 1.0391 1.0391 0.9582 0.9582 2,188.942 2,188.9422 0.6408 2,202.398 2 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0640 0.0860 0.8984 1.9900e- 0.1677 1.4000e- 0.1691 0.0445 1.2900e- 0.0458 167.3573 167.3573 9.1500e- 167.5495 Total 0.0640 0.0860 0.8984 1.9900e-003 0.1677 1.4000e-003 0.1691 0.0445 1.2900e-003 0.0458 167.3573 167.3573 9.1500e-003 167.5495 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Off-Road 1.8997 19.7386 11.6708 0.0215 1.0391 1.0391 0.9582 0.9582 0.0000 2,188.942 2,188.9422 0.6408 2,202.398 Paving 0.2969 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 0.00000 Total 2.1967 19.7386 11.6708 0.0215 1.0391 1.0391 0.9582 0.9582 0.0000 2,188.942 2,188.9422 0.6408 2,202.398 2 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category PM10lb/dayPM10 Ttl PM2 5 PM2 5 Ttl CO2 lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0640 0.0860 0.8984 1.9900e- 0.1677 1.4000e- 0.1691 0.0445 1.2900e- 0.0458 167.3573 167.3573 9.1500e- 167.5495 Total 0.0640 0.0860 0.8984 1.9900e-003 0.1677 1.4000e-003 0.1691 0.0445 1.2900e-003 0.0458 167.3573 167.3573 9.1500e-003 167.5495 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 1/27/2015 3:13 PM

South Norco Channel, Stage 6

South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 10.80 0.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.70 Acre 1.70 74,052.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2014

Utility Company

CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N2O Intensity 0

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Based on input from Project engineer Construction Phase - Construction Schedule based on input from Project engineer. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on input from project engineer. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on input from project engineer. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on input from project engineer. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on input from project engineer. Grading - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 196.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/28/2016 10/31/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/21/2016 10/31/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/11/2016 1/28/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2016 2/1/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/1/2016 10/11/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/22/2016 1/8/2016 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 26,600.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 10.80 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cranes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Utility Trenching tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Utility Trenching tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Site Preparation tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e YearPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr 2016 0.6799 7.8180 3.9637 9.0100e- 0.1145 0.3264 0.4409 0.0223 0.3003 0.3226 0.0000 838.4071 838.4071 0.2122 0.0000 842.8638 003 Total 0.6799 7.8180 3.9637 9.0100e- 0.1145 0.3264 0.4409 0.0223 0.3003 0.3226 0.0000 838.4071 838.4071 0.2122 0.0000 842.8638 003 Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e YearPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr 2016 0.6799 7.8180 3.9637 9.0100e- 0.0851 0.3264 0.4115 0.0191 0.3003 0.3194 0.0000 838.4063 838.4063 0.2122 0.0000 842.8630 003 Total 0.6799 7.8180 3.9637 9.0100e- 0.0851 0.3264 0.4115 0.0191 0.3003 0.3194 0.0000 838.4063 838.4063 0.2122 0.0000 842.8630 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM1025.67PM10 0.00Ttl 6.67PM2 14.39 5 PM2 0.00 5 Ttl 1.00 0.00CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rd ti 3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description 1Nb Utility Trenching Trenching 1/1/2016 1/21/2016Wk 5 15 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/8/2016 1/28/2016 5 15 3 Grading Grading 2/1/2016 10/31/2016 5 196 4 Paving Paving 10/11/2016 10/31/2016 5 15

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 98

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Utility Trenching C 2Nb 5.00Nb 0.00Ti N 0.00 b Lh 14.70 Lh6.90Lh 20.00 LD_MixCl HDT_MixVhil Cl HHDTVhil Cl Site Preparation 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 11 28.00 0.00 3,325.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Utility Trenching - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Off-Road 7.8500e- 0.0855 0.0465 1.0000e- 4.1800e- 4.1800e- 3.8500e- 3.8500e- 0.0000 9.1772 9.1772 2.7700e- 0.0000 9.2353 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 7.8500e- 0.0855 0.0465 1.0000e- 4.1800e- 4.1800e- 3.8500e- 3.8500e- 0.0000 9.1772 9.1772 2.7700e- 0.0000 9.2353 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e- 2.2000e- 2.3000e- 1.0000e- 4.1000e- 0.0000 4.1000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.3855 0.3855 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.3859 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Total 1.5000e- 2.2000e- 2.3000e- 1.0000e- 4.1000e- 0.0000 4.1000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.3855 0.3855 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.3859 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Off-Road 7.8500e- 0.0855 0.0465 1.0000e- 4.1800e- 4.1800e- 3.8500e- 3.8500e- 0.0000 9.1771 9.1771 2.7700e- 0.0000 9.2353 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 7.8500e- 0.0855 0.0465 1.0000e- 4.1800e- 4.1800e- 3.8500e- 3.8500e- 0.0000 9.1771 9.1771 2.7700e- 0.0000 9.2353 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0157 0.1709 0.0931 1.9000e- 8.3700e- 8.3700e- 7.7000e- 7.7000e- 0.0000 18.3543 18.3543 5.5400e- 0.0000 18.4706 004 003 003 003 003 003 Total 0.0157 0.1709 0.0931 1.9000e- 0.0000 8.3700e- 8.3700e- 0.0000 7.7000e- 7.7000e- 0.0000 18.3543 18.3543 5.5400e- 0.0000 18.4706 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 4.4000e- 4.6000e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7709 0.7709 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7718 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 3.0000e- 4.4000e- 4.6000e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7709 0.7709 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7718 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 4.4000e- 4.6000e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7709 0.7709 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7718 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 3.0000e- 4.4000e- 4.6000e- 1.0000e- 8.2000e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7709 0.7709 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7718 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0535 0.0000 0.0535 5.8400e- 0.0000 5.8400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5984 6.9157 3.1914 6.9300e- 0.2985 0.2985003 0.2746 0.2746003 0.0000 653.4949 653.4949 0.1971 0.0000 657.6344 003 Total 0.5984 6.9157 3.1914 6.9300e- 0.0535 0.2985 0.3520 5.8400e- 0.2746 0.2805 0.0000 653.4949 653.4949 0.1971 0.0000 657.6344 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Hauling 0.0296 0.4803 0.3631 1.2300e- 0.0285 7.2400e- 0.0357 7.8200e- 6.6600e- 0.0145 0.0000 111.9698 111.9698 8.0000e- 0.0000 111.9866 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000003 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000004 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0110 0.0162 0.1684 3.7000e- 0.0301 2.6000e- 0.0304 8.0000e- 2.4000e- 8.2300e- 0.0000 28.2049 28.2049 1.5200e- 0.0000 28.2368 004 004 003 004 003 003 Total 0.0406 0.4965 0.5314 1.6000e- 0.0586 7.5000e- 0.0661 0.0158 6.9000e- 0.0227 0.0000 140.1747 140.1747 2.3200e- 0.0000 140.2234 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0241 0.0000 0.0241 2.6300e- 0.0000 2.6300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5984 6.9157 3.1914 6.9300e- 0.2985 0.2985003 0.2746 0.2746003 0.0000 653.4941 653.4941 0.1971 0.0000 657.6336 003 Total 0.5984 6.9157 3.1914 6.9300e- 0.0241 0.2985 0.3226 2.6300e- 0.2746 0.2772 0.0000 653.4941 653.4941 0.1971 0.0000 657.6336 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Off-Road 0.0143 0.1480 0.0875 1.6000e- 7.7900e- 7.7900e- 7.1900e- 7.1900e- 0.0000 14.8933 14.8933 4.3600e- 0.0000 14.9849 Paving 2.2300e- 004 0.0000003 0.0000003 0.0000003 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000003 0.0000 0.0000 003 Total 0.0165 0.1480 0.0875 1.6000e- 7.7900e- 7.7900e- 7.1900e- 7.1900e- 0.0000 14.8933 14.8933 4.3600e- 0.0000 14.9849 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e- 6.6000e- 6.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.1564 1.1564 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.1577 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.6000e- 6.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.1564 1.1564 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.1577 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CategoryPM10 tons/yrPM10 Total PM2 5 PM2 5 Total CO2 MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e- 6.6000e- 6.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.1564 1.1564 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.1577 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 4.5000e- 6.6000e- 6.9000e- 2.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.1564 1.1564 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.1577 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Appendix B GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project

General Biological Resources Analysis

February 27, 2015

W. Larry Sward Principal Biologist

Prepared for: Prepared by: Riverside County Flood Control HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and Water Conservation District 7578 El Cajon Boulevard 1995 Market Street La Mesa, CA 91942 Riverside, CA 92501 South Norco Channel Project General Biological Resources Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Location ...... 1 1.2 Land Use/Site History ...... 2 1.3 Proposed Project ...... 2

2.0 METHODS ...... 3 2.1 Nomenclature and Literature Review ...... 3 2.2 Vegetation Mapping ...... 4 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...... 4 2.4 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment ...... 5 2.5 Sensitive Plants ...... 8 2.6 Sensitive Animals ...... 8 2.7 Burrowing Owl ...... 8 2.8 Critical Habitat ...... 9

3.0 RESULTS ...... 9 3.1 Soils ...... 9 3.2 Vegetation Communities ...... 9 3.2.3 Seasonal Basin ...... 10 3.2.4 Disturbed Habitat ...... 11 3.2.5 Developed ...... 11 3.3 Jurisdictional Areas ...... 11 3.3.1 USACE (Federal) Jurisdiction...... 11 3.3.2 CDFW (State) Jurisdiction Habitats ...... 12 3.3.3 Waters of the State ...... 12 3.4 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool ...... 12 3.4.1 Birds ...... 13 3.4.2 Invertebrates ...... 13 3.4.3 Fish ...... 13 3.4.4 Plants ...... 14 3.5 Sensitive Plants Species ...... 14 3.6 Sensitive Animal Species ...... 15 3.7 Burrowing Owl ...... 20 3.8 Critical Habitat ...... 20

i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT INCLUDING MSHCP COMPLIANCE ...... 21 4.1 Federal Government...... 21 4.2 State of California ...... 22 4.3 Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 22

5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ...... 23 5.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 23 5.2 Jurisdictional Waters Impacts ...... 24 5.2.1 Federal Jurisdictional Waters ...... 24 5.2.2 State Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters ...... 24 5.3 MSHCP Impacts/Consistency ...... 25 5.3.1 Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan ...... 25 5.3.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) ...... 25 5.3.3 Plants ...... 26 5.3.4 Burrowing Owl ...... 26 5.3.5 Sensitive Plants...... 26

6.0 MSHCP CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26 6.1 Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 ...... 26 6.2 Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.3 ...... 27 6.3 Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4 ...... 27 6.4 Consistency with MSHCP Policy Section 6.3.2 ...... 27

7.0 MITIGATION ...... 27 7.1 Mitigation Fees ...... 27 7.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ...... 28

8.0 CERTIFICATION ...... 28

9.0 REFERENCES ...... 29

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Memorandum of Understanding B Federal Jurisdictional Information C State Jurisdictional Information D Plant Species Observed E Animal Species Observed F Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page No.

1 Regional Location ...... 2 2 Project Vicinity - USGS Quadrangle ...... 2 3 Aerial Photograph ...... 2 4 Soils ...... 10 5a Vegetation ...... 10 5b Vegetation ...... 10 6a Waters of the U.S...... 12 6b Waters of the U.S...... 12 7a CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State ...... 12 7b CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State ...... 12 8a Site Plan ...... 24 8b Site Plan ...... 24 LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Area ...... 1 2 Existing and Affected Vegetation Communities within the Project Area ...... 10 3 Existing Waters of the U.S...... 12 4 Status of Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the South Norco Channel Project Site ...... 15 5 Status of Sensitive Animal Species on the South Norco Channel Project Site ...... 16 6 Impacts to Waters of the U.S...... 24

iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (District’s) proposed South Norco Channel Project (Project) is located in the City of Norco (City), Riverside County, California. A preliminary consistency analysis of the Project with the County of Riverside’s (County’s) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is provided in this report. While the Project area is within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, none of the parcels that compose the study area are within any Criteria Cell, Cell Group, or Sub Unit. There is no proposed Core, Linkage, or Constrained Linkage within the Project area. Since the Study Area is not within any Sub Unit, there are no Planning Species to be addressed. The proposed Project is not expected to affect implementation of the MSHCP.

The 19.5-acre study area is comprised of all or portions of 13 parcels that are within an urban residential area of the City. The Study Area is mostly linear and traverses along the edge of the parcels.

Although the Norco Channel is an intermittent drainage that is both Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed, it is a maintained flood channel and is essentially unvegetated. The channel is artificially created and is not the redirection of a naturally occurring stream, and as such, the Norco Channel is not considered to be a Riparian/Riverine resource pursuant to the MSHCP. Further, a habitat assessment determined that the intermittent drainage channel does not contain suitable habitat for listed riparian bird species such as the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) or southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus).

The seasonal basins located at the southern terminus of the project study area have potential to support sensitive fairy shrimp. Focused fairy shrimp surveys began in January 2015. As the basins are an artificial creation from past grading, they are not a Riparian/Riverine habitat. However, if the basins support sensitive fairy shrimp, they will then be considered a Riparian/Riverine habitat and require avoidance or mitigation of impacts under the MSHCP. Preliminary results of the surveys have not documented any sensitive fairy shrimp species. If that proves to be the case, the Project would not affect any Riparian/Riverine resource and a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would not be required. A DBESP will only be required if sensitive fairy shrimp are present and the basins are not 100 percent avoided.

None of the study area is identified by the MSHCP as within the Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) and Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). Surveys for NEPSSA or CASSA species are not required. No NEPSSA or CASSA species was observed on the Project site and none would be affected. In addition, special status plant species not covered by the MSHCP were not observed and are not expected to occur within the survey area as a result of the absence of suitable habitat.

The project occurs on 13 assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) and the MSHCP identifies one of those APNs as requiring a habitat assessment for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 ES-1 surveys if potential habitat occurs. The habitat assessment was negative for the project site and therefore focused burrowing owl surveys are not recommended.

Based on an analysis of preliminary design concepts, the Project is expected to be consistent with the MSHCP based on the following:

x No MSHCP criteria cell would be affected by the proposed Project.

x The Project would be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 because no Riverine/Riparian resources, including vernal pools, occur within the proposed Project footprint.

x Fairy shrimp surveys commenced in January 2015 and are thus far negative for sensitive species.

x The Project would be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.3 because NEPSSA species are not expected to occur on site and were not observed during surveys.

x The Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.4 as the project occurs adjacent to residential areas and is not adjacent to the MSHCP preserve.

x The Project would be consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2 because no burrowing owls, active burrow locations, or suitable habitat characteristics were observed on the property during the habitat assessment.

Impacts to upland habitats and associated species will be addressed through participation in the MSHCP, which for public projects is typically addressed through payment of a fee calculated as 5 percent of the total cost of the project, which is subject to adjustment or elimination as appropriate for District projects.

The proposed project would likely result in project effects to areas under state and federal jurisdiction for which permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW would be required.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 ES-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide biological data available on Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (District)’ proposed South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project (Project) located in the City of Norco (City), Riverside County, California. This report provides the County of Riverside (County), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the public with information necessary to satisfy review of the proposed Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other federal, state, and County regulations.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The 19.5-acre Project study area is located within the City and bounded to the west by Corona Avenue, to the east by Hillside Avenue, to the north by Hillside Lane, and to the south by Second Street (Figures 1 and 2). The study area is situated in Sections 7 and 18 of Township 3 South, Range 6 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Corona North quadrangle (Figure 2). Elevations within the study area range from approximately 640 to 705 feet above mean sea level. The study area sits on all or part of 13 parcels that total 59.43 acres (Table 1). The actual Project study area occupies only 19.5 acres.

Table 1 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS (APNs) AND AREA (acre)

APN AREA* 123100001 26.59 123130010 2.11 123160025 0.02 123160026 1 123160028 0.24 123160029 0.58 123190035 0.07 123200007 0.8 123220001 19.24 125130014 0.27 125130015 0.13 125140025 0.69 125160005 7.69 TOTAL ACRES 59.43** * Acreage shown is from Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) website. **Total acres is for list of APNs wholly or partly affected by the project, and not the project or study area acreage.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 1 The Project is located in the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) but not with a subunit or criteria cell (Dudek and Associates [Dudek] 2003). There is no proposed Core, Linkage, or Constrained Linkage within the Project area. There are no Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)-conserved, Public/Quasi Public lands, or conservation easements in the project area. Since the Project Area is not within any Sub Unit, there are no Planning Species to be addressed. APN 123100001 requires a habitat assessment for burrowing owl (Table 1).

1.2 LAND USE/SITE HISTORY

The entire study area and surrounding areas have been developed or disturbed by human activities (Figure 3). The proposed Project is within an area that is primarily residential. Other land uses in the Project area include Norco Intermediate School, Norco High School, a constructed flood control channel that conveys storm water and nuisance water, and equestrian and agricultural uses (i.e., plant nurseries along the south side of Hillside Lane).

The District has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the CDFW to maintain the channel (Appendix A). As a result, the channel is barren when soil and hydrological conditions appear to be suitable for riparian vegetation.

1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT

The primary objective of the Project is to stabilize the existing earthen channel. The existing channel is open and extends from the intersection of Second Street and Corona Avenue, northeasterly to the southwestern corner of the Norco Intermediate School property adjacent to Temescal Avenue. Improvements to the South Norco Channel Stage 6 consist of lining approximately 1,160 lineal feet (LF) of trapezoidal channel with concrete side slopes and bottom and an impervious bottom of concrete and grouted riprap. A concrete box will also be installed along 700 LF of the channel, beginning the channel crossing at Temescal Avenue and extending 700 feet upstream. Channel construction elsewhere will consist of non-grouted cobbles in the bottom along 2,610 LF with concrete sides. The sections that are entirely concrete will be at the southern and northern ends, and at road crossings. The cobble-lined channel bottom will be 4 feet wide, except in the southern most section where it is 12 feet wide. The overall channel width increases north to south: in the north, the channel is 25 feet wide; the middle channel sections are 30 feet wide; and in the south, the channel is 35 feet wide. Overall, the channel will be shifted to the west and an access road would be constructed on the east side of the channel. Access to this road from city streets will be provided on the north and south ends of the channel. Access into the channel will also be constructed at the north and south ends, and at Temescal and 3rd Streets.

Line S-1 is a below-ground storm drain extending from the South Norco Channel Stage 6 crossing of Third Street easterly within Third Street approximately 2,330 LF to Hillside Avenue, then northerly and southerly within Hillside Avenue approximately 150 and 70 LF respectively. Line S-1 sizes range from 18-inch to 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Lateral S-1B is a below-ground storm drain extending from Line S-1 within Third Street approximately 110 LF southerly within Golden West Lane. Lateral S-1B consists of 18-inch and 24-inch diameter RCP.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 2 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ?q RIVERSIDE COUNTY Riverside !"a$ Desert Hot Springs Project Site ?q Banning ?u ! Norco Moreno Valley !"`$ A» Lake Perris Beaumont Corona Lake %&h( Mathews Aª AÀ Palm Springs Perris !"a$ San Jacinto AÌ A¦ A¦ Aª Hemet Palm Desert Lake Elsinore Coachella Diamond Valley Lake Hemet Lake Lake Elsinore %&h( A¦ Lake !"a$ Aª Cahuilla A¦ A³ Lake Skinner

ORANGE COUNTY Murrieta AÚ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Aw AÌ Temecula Vail Lake Salton Sea Aª !"a$ ³ RIVERSIDE COUNTY A SAN DIEGO COUNTY I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig1_Regional.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Regional Location

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

010 N Miles Figure 1 Study Area

Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed; Corona North USGS 7.5' Quadrangles I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig2_Vicinity_USGS.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK 01/05/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig2_Vicinity_USGS.mxd Project Vicinity - USGS Quadrangle

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

02,000 N Feet Figure 2 Garden Grove Avenue

e nu ve A w ie V Norco y e Intermediate ll a School Hillside Lane V

Ridgecrest Avenue

e u n Reservoir Drive e v 3rd Street A e d i

s l

H Pinto Lane Pinto

3rd Street

Lane

Buckboard

Lane

Golden West

Study Area

Hillside Avenue

Norco High Corona Avenue School

Temescal Avenue Temescal

2nd Street I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig3_Aerial.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Aerial Photograph

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 650 N Feet Figure 3 Line S-5 is a below-ground storm drain extending from the upstream end of South Norco Channel Stage 6, northeasterly across the Norco Intermediate School, along Hillside Lane, a private street, and then northerly within Hillside Avenue. This facility ranges in size from 36-inch RCP to a 6- by 4-foot reinforced concrete box (RCB), and is approximately 3,250 LF. An additional reach of 30-inch and 24-inch RCP extends southerly approximately 140 LF within Hillside Avenue from the intersection with Hillside Lane.

The project also includes pavement repair due to excavation and trenching along the channel and storm drain alignment, and additional street improvements along: 1) Temescal Avenue, where an existing discontinuity in the travel width will be replaced with a smooth transition over a length of approximately 175 feet, including new asphalt concrete, and concrete curb and gutter; and 2) Hillside Lane, where the existing asphalt concrete pavement will be replaced with new asphalt concrete pavement over the full travel width (approximately 16 feet) and length (approximately 1,000 feet).

Construction of this project will require relocation of several existing utilities. There are six waterline relocations consisting of two 6-inch, two 8-inch, one 10-inch, and one 30-inch waterline(s). There are nine gas line relocations consisting of three 2-inch, four 3-inch, and two 4-inch gas lines. There will be two utility pole relocations and one 10-inch concrete pipe (utility type unknown) to be relocated. Lastly, buried telephone, cable, and/or electric lines at two locations may be relocated if required. Relocation of these dry lines is being evaluated and will be determined at a later date. The estimated cost of this project is $5,500,000.

2.0 METHODS

The evaluation of the Project study area involved a literature review, including a review of previous reports prepared for the project, a delineation of jurisdictional waters, a Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool habitat assessment, a burrowing owl habitat assessment, and vegetation mapping, along with a general biological habitat assessment of the potential for sensitive species to occur on the property. A fairy shrimp survey is currently being conducted as of the writing of this report. The methods used to evaluate the biological resources present on the property are discussed in this section.

2.1 NOMENCLATURE AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Nomenclature for this report follows Baldwin, et al. (2012) for plants and the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) for vegetation community classifications, with additional vegetation community information taken from and Holland (1986). Animal nomenclature follows Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies, Center for North American Herpetology (Collins and Taggart, 2012) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithologists’ Union (2010) for birds, and Baker, et al. (2003) for mammals. Sensitive plant and animal status is taken from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) of the CDFW (2013a thru e). Sensitive plant species habitats and blooming periods are taken from the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). Soils mapping is from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; 2013). The CDFW CNDDB (2014a), California

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 3 Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) online database (2014), and HELIX’s in-house database were searched to obtain a list of sensitive animal and plant species with potential to occur on the property.

2.2 VEGETATION MAPPING

Vegetation communities were mapped in accordance with the MSHCP. The original mapping occurred during the field visits conducted in 2012, and was updated during the field visits in 2014.

2.3 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION

A jurisdictional delineation was previously conducted on May 21, 2012 by HELIX biologist W. Larry Sward. The delineation was updated on December 23, 2014 by Mr. Sward and HELIX biologist Rob Hogenauer. Prior to beginning fieldwork, aerial photographs (1"=200' scale) and topographic maps (1"=200' scale) were reviewed to determine the location of potential jurisdictional areas that may be affected by the proposed project.

Waters of the U.S. (WUS) wetland boundaries were determined using the three criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) established for wetland delineations, as described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 2008a).

The results presented here are also discussed in light of court decisions (i.e., Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County [SWANCC] v. USACE), as outlined and applied by the USACE (USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007), USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 2007), and EPA and USACE (2007). These publications explain that the EPA and USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are relatively permanent water bodies (RPWs), which have year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation must be conducted to determine whether the non-RPW is jurisdictional. As an alternative to the significant nexus evaluation process, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation (PJD) may be submitted to the USACE. The PJD treats all waters and wetlands on a site as if they are jurisdictional WUS (USACE 2008b).

Wetland affiliations of plant species follow the USACE wetland plant list (Lichvar et. al., 2014). Soils information for the Project area was taken from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) website (2013). Soil samples were evaluated for hydric soil indicators (e.g., hydrogen sulfide [A4], sandy redox [S5], depleted matrix [F3], redox dark surface [F6], redox depressions [F8], and vernal pools [F9]). Soil chromas were identified according to Munsell’s Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen 1994).

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 4 invertebrates [B13], hydrogen sulfide odor [C1], and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots [C3]) and secondary (e.g., water marks [riverine, B1], sediment deposits [riverine, B2], drift deposits [riverine, B3], drainage patterns in wetlands [B10], shallow aquitard [D3], and positive FAC neutral test [D5]) wetland hydrology indicators.

Areas were determined to be non-wetland WUS if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank) but the vegetation and/or soils criterion was not met. Jurisdictional limits for these areas were defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined in 33 CFR Section 329.11 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 the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The USACE has issued further guidance on the OHWM (Riley 2005; Lichvar and McColley 2008), which also has been used for this delineation. An expanded explanation of WUS jurisdictional parameters are presented in Appendix B.

The CDFW jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses with a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFW jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species (e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). Jurisdictional limits for CDFW streambeds were defined by the top of bank. Vegetated CDFW habitats were mapped at the limits of jurisdictional vegetation. Definitions of CDFW jurisdictional areas are presented in Appendix C. CDFW has published a review of stream processes that was also used to better understand and map CDFW streambeds (Vyverberg 2010)

All jurisdictional areas were measured and mapped in the field using a Global Positioning System. Suspected jurisdictional areas were traversed within or along the drainage, and the limits and length of the ordinary high water mark and/or wetland and riparian habitat were mapped. Suspected jurisdictional areas, which after closer inspection were found to be non-jurisdictional, were also noted.

2.4 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL HABITAT ASSESSMENT

The delineation conducted by HELIX biologists on December 23, 2014 included an assessment for Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool resources pursuant to the requirements of the MSHCP. The on-site evaluation consisted of a directed search for field characteristics indicative of Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool habitats. Field indicators include certain plants, drainage courses, drainage patterns, ponded water, changes in soil character, changes in vegetation character, and deposits of water-borne debris. All Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool habitats were mapped on an aerial photograph (1"=200'scale).

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 5 Areas were assessed to determine if Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool habitats are present on site consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool assessment was conducted according to the following MSHCP definitions:

x Riparian/Riverine areas are lands that contain habitat predominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or depend upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year; and

x Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetland plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology must be made on a case-by-case basis. Such determinations should consider the length of time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. Evidence concerning the persistence of an area’s wetness can be obtained from its history, vegetation, soils, drainage characteristics, uses to which it has been subjected, and weather and hydrologic records.

The MSHCP states that “with the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands Habitat or resulting from human actions to create open waters or from the alteration of natural stream courses, areas demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.”

All waters deemed to be jurisdictional to the CDFW were also considered to be Riparian/Riverine resources except for those waters that are artificially created as described above.

Birds

The property was assessed for habitat that could support the least Bell’s vireo (LBV; Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (WIFL; Empidonax traillii extimus), and western yellow- billed cuckoo (YBCU; Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Typical habitat for LBV consists of well-developed riparian scrub, woodland, or forest dominated by willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and western cottonwood (Populus fremontii). The LBV will also use small patches of trees adjacent to dense riparian habitat. The WIFL and YBCU require mature riparian forest with a stratified canopy and nearby water. The MSHCP requires surveys to be conducted for projects that have impacts to suitable habitat for the aforementioned riparian birds.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 6 Both the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) occur primarily in and adjacent to open water habitats, with the peregrine falcon possibly occurring in riparian areas. The peregrine falcon nests on large cliffs that are generally 200 to 300 feet in height.

Fairy Shrimp

There are three species of sensitive fairy shrimp that occur in western Riverside County: Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). The property was surveyed for habitat, such as vernal pools or seasonal basins, which could support fairy shrimp. Indicators of potential fairy shrimp habitat that were searched for include basins, ruts, cracked mud, algal mats, and drift lines. A fairy shrimp survey is currently being conducted by permitted HELIX biologist Jason Kurnow (TE-778195-12).

Riparian/Riverine Plants

The MSHCP lists 23 sensitive plant species that have potential to occur in Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool habitats. These species are:

x California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), x Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), x Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri), x San Miguel savory (Satureja chandleri), x spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), x graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata), x California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), x prostrate navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), x San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), x Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), x thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), x Fish’s milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae), x lemon lily (Lilium parryi), x San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior), x ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum), x Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis), x vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens), x Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes alba (gracilis) ssp. parishii), x slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), x Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium spp. sanctorum), x Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris),

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 7 x mud nama (Nama stenocarpum), and x smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens)

The Riparian/Riverine assessment conducted by Mr. Sward and Mr. Hogenauer included a search for Riparian/Riverine plants. If these species occur, then they are required to be mapped and avoided. If avoidance is not feasible, then a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required to quantify impacts and establish mitigation for the impacted species.

2.5 SENSITIVE PLANTS

The property is not within an area identified by the MSHCP as occurring within the Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) or the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). Based upon the specific parcels that the proposed Project may affect, surveys for NEPSSA or CASSA species are not required. Although a focused rare plant survey was not conducted, biologists did search for the Riparian/Riverine plant species and compiled a list of plants (Appendix D) observed during the general habitat assessments and delineation of jurisdictional waters. The biologists also conducted a habitat assessment on the potential for rare plants to occur in the study area.

2.6 SENSITIVE ANIMALS

The property is not within an area identified by the MSHCP as requiring focused animal surveys with the exception of burrowing owl that is discussed below. Although the MSHCP does not specifically require focused animal surveys the biologist did conducted a habitat assessment of the potential for sensitive animal species to occur in the study area. The biologists compiled a list of animal species observed during the 2014 field surveys (Appendix E).

2.7 BURROWING OWL

Of the 13 parcels that comprise the study area, only one is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. That one parcel, which covers a total of 26.59 acres, requires a habitat assessment for burrowing owl (Table 1).

Mr. Sward conducted a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment on May 21, 2012, and Mr. Hogenauer updated the assessment during the field work conducted on December 10 and 22, 2014. Mr. Sward and Mr. Hogenauer looked for habitat that met the basic requirements of burrowing owl habitat that include:

x Open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas (less than 30 percent canopy cover for trees and shrubs), x Gently rolling or level terrain, x An abundance of small mammal burrows, especially those of California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and x Fence posts, rock, or other low perching locations.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 8 The biologist also searched for evidence of burrowing owl sign (pellets/castings, white wash, and feathers) throughout the study area.

2.8 CRITICAL HABITAT

As described by the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), critical habitat is the geographic area occupied by a threatened or endangered species essential to species conservation and may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat may also include specific areas not occupied by the species but that have been determined to be essential for species conservation.

The USFWS Critical Habitat Portal was searched for critical habitat that may occur on or adjacent to the study area (USFWS 2014).

The property is not within any designated critical habitat. The property is also not within the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Fee Plan Area (County Board of Directors 1996) for the federally listed endangered/state listed threatened Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR; Dipodomys stephensi).

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 SOILS

Soils mapped in the study area represent three soil series: Placentia, Ramona, and Greenfield (NRCS 2015; Figure 4). The Greenfield series is comprised of well drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces that are derived from granitic materials. The Ramona series is also comprised of well drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces that developed in granitic alluvium. The Placentia series consists of moderately well-drained sandy loams that are found on alluvial fans and terraces that developed in alluvium comprised of granitic material. The specific soils present in the study area are: Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes; Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded, and Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded (Knecht 1971). The soils within jurisdictional areas are almost exclusively Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.

3.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Most of the 19.5-acre study area is either developed or disturbed habitat. The project area also includes seasonal basins in the disturbed open lot at the southern terminus and small amounts of herbaceous wetland and disturbed wetland within the channel (Table 2, Figures 5a and b). The existing open soft bottom channel occurs primarily within the disturbed habitat.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 9 Table 2 EXISTING AND AFFECTED VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

HABITAT TYPE ACRE(S) Herbaceous wetland 0.02 Disturbed wetland 0.04 Seasonal basins 1.06 Disturbed habitat 9.99 Developed 8.39 TOTAL 19.5

3.2.1 Herbaceous Wetland

This vegetation community often occurs in habitats that are subject to frequent or regular flooding. This community is often dominated by low growing herbaceous species that are adapted to an anaerobic environment but can also include species that obtain a height of up to 2 meters. This habitat on the Project site is dominated by the native Mexican sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca ssp. uninervia), with a few emergent cattails (Typha sp.). A total of 0.02 acre of herbaceous wetland was observed in the study area.

3.2.2 Disturbed Wetland

This vegetation community is dominated by exotic wetland species that invade areas that have been disturbed or have undergone periodic disturbances. These non-natives become established more readily following natural or human-induced habitat disturbance than the native wetland flora. Characteristic species of disturbed wetlands include giant reed (Arundo donax), bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). Disturbed wetlands are usually considered sensitive and declining by the USFWS, USACE, and CDFW. In the study area, this community is dominated by the non-native water speedwell (Veronica anagalis-aquiatica) and also includes small numbers of willow weed (Persicaria lapathifolia), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). A total of 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland was observed in the study area.

3.2.3 Seasonal Basin

Seasonal basins are depressions that periodically hold water. Several seasonal basins were present at the southern end of the study area during the December 23, 2014 site visit (Figure 4b). A review of historical photographs shows that the area of the basin is an incidental artifact of the grading and compaction of the soils that likely occurred during the construction of the flood control channel. The area of the basins is used for storage of materials, including those materials removed from various flood control facilities (mud, vegetation, and other debris that clog flood

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 10 Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded

Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded

Placentia fine sandy loam, Vista coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Placentia fine sandy loam, Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded

Study Area Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Fallbrook sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded

Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes

Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded

Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig4_Soils.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Soils

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 600 N Feet Figure 4 Figure 5a a Vegetation

SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL Hillside Avenue Hillside b

Hillside Lane Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal Pinto Lane Pinto Feet

200 Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest 0

N Corona Avenue Corona

3rd Street Study AreaStudy Disturbed Wetland Disturbed Habitat Developed

Habitat I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig5a_Vegetation.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig5a_Vegetation.mxd Figure 5b Vegetation SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL

Corona Avenue Temescal Avenue Temescal

Willow Drive Corona Avenue Corona Feet 200 a

2nd Street 0

N b Study AreaStudy Disturbed Wetland Herbaceous Wetland BasinSeasonal Disturbed Habitat Developed

Habitat I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig5b_Vegetation.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK 01/05/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig5b_Vegetation.mxd control drains). The basins are mostly unvegetated, and no vernal pool indicator plants were present. The seasonal basins are not vernal pools. Fairy shrimp were observed within a small area near the western end. A fairy shrimp survey is currently being conducted to determine the species present in the pools. A total of 1.06 acres of seasonal basin is present in the Project area (Table 2).

3.2.4 Disturbed Habitat

Disturbed habitats are areas that have been physically disturbed and are no longer recognizable as native or naturalized vegetation. Disturbed habitat either lacks any vegetation or supports only non-native species. The disturbed habitat in the study area includes the unlined portion of Norco channel and the area with the seasonal basins that exist near the southern terminus of the channel. A total of 9.99 acres of disturbed habitat occurs within the Norco Channel and at the southern terminus of the Project (Table 2).

3.2.5 Developed

Developed land within the study area includes the school site’s paved roads and adjacent residential lots. Portions of the existing Norco channel that are concrete-lined or that occur as a culvert are also included as developed land. The total amount of developed land within the Project study area is 8.39 acres (Table 2).

3.3 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS

Jurisdictional habitats within the study area include intermittent streambed that occurs within the existing man-made Norco Channel. Several small areas of wetland habitat also occur within the existing channel. Given the District’s MOU with the CDFW to maintain the channel, these vegetation types are not regarded as CDFW jurisdictional habitats. Notwithstanding this MOU, the maintained channel is regarded as a CDFW streambed. The wetlands and streambed in the channel are regarded as WUS.

3.3.1 USACE (Federal) Jurisdiction

USACE jurisdictional waters in the study area are comprised of intermittent streambed within the existing Norco Channel. No naturally occurring USACE jurisdictional waters occur in the study area. The delineation conducted on December 23, 2014 showed that a small portion of the channel supported several patches of sparse wetland vegetation. Data was collected at 2 areas that had wetland vegetation, and it was determined that these area met the USACE wetland definition. The study area included a total of 0.92 area of WUS, comprised of 0.06 acre wetland WUS and 0.86 acre of non-wetland WUS (Table 3; Figures 6a and b).

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 11 Table 3 EXISTING WATERS OF THE U.S.

WUS AREA (acres ) LENGTH (feet) Wetlands Herbaceous wetland 0.02 148 Disturbed wetland 0.04 390 Subtotal 0.06 538 Non-wetlands Intermittent drainage (Constructed flood 0.86 3,201 control channel) TOTAL 0.92 3,739

3.3.2 CDFW (State) Jurisdiction Habitats

CDFW jurisdictional habitats in the study area consist of the streambed within the existing Norco Channel. The channel was artificially created in an area that historically did not have any drainage features. In other words, no naturally occurring CDFW jurisdictional habitats occur in the study area. A total of 2.05 acre of CDFW streambed occurs along 3,739 LF in the study area (Figures 7a and b).

3.3.3 Waters of the State

The basins near the southern end of the Project are regarded as Waters of the State (WS) and jurisdictional pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Figure 7b). These basins are not regarded as WUS or CDFW jurisdictional habitat due to their isolation from any WUS or lake or streambed. These basins may occupy up to 1.06 acres in a wet year.

3.4 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL

The identification of Riparian/Riverine habitats is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or are tributary to habitat that support, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species, which are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

As stated above, areas—with the exception of those that are artificially created and are not an alteration of a natural stream course—that are deemed to be under CDFW jurisdiction area are also considered to be Riparian/Riverine habitat. A review of historical photographs of the area (NETR 2014) does not show a naturally occurring stream in the vicinity in which the Norco channel was constructed. The channel is clearly visible in the 1980 photos but absent from the 1967 photos. No stream or drainage is visible in the 1967 photos. Based on this information and the definition of Riparian/Riverine habitat from the MSHCP, the Norco channel is not considered to be a Riparian/Riverine resource.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 12 Figure 6a

a  SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL

 Hillside Avenue Hillside

 Waters of the U.S. b



Hillside Lane Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal

Pinto Lane Pinto



7' Feet

200

 ! ( 

! ( Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest

 10'

 /

Drain Inlet Drain

(Width shown in feet) in shown (Width  

  2' CMP Outlet 2' 11'

10' 0 10' 4' 6'  N

3rd Street Corona Avenue Corona Study AreaStudy Roadside Ditch Diameter3' Culvert Sheet Flow from Street Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. feet) in shown (Width    

Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Waters of the U.S. I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig6a_USACE.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig6a_USACE.mxd 10' Figure 6b (Width shown in feet) in shown (Width SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL (Width shown in feet) in shown (Width

Waters of the U.S. 

Corona Avenue  Study AreaStudy Point Sampling 3 - 2' Diameter Squashed Corrugated Metal Pipes Basin Seasonal Concrete andRiprap Concrete-lined Channel Herbaceous Wetland Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. feet) in shown (Width     ! ( Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Waters of the U.S.

Concrete and Riprap and Concrete 9' SP 1 !(

10' 



10' SP 3

!(



10' Temescal Avenue Temescal

SP 2



 

Willow Drive

16' 

13.5' 

11' Corona Avenue Corona

 Feet 200 7' a

2nd Street 0

b I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig6b_USACE.mxd RCF-02.03 01/06/15 -RK 01/06/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig6b_USACE.mxd Figure 7a

a  SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL



 Avenue Hillside b



Hillside Lane

CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal

Pinto Lane Pinto

 3'

Feet

200 22' Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest



! ( 

! (

 25'



6' /

Drain Inlet Drain 19'

(Width shown in feet) in shown (Width

 

2' CMP Outlet 2' 

19'

25' 0 25' 6'  N

3rd Street Corona Avenue Corona Study AreaStudy Disturbed Wetland Roadside Ditch Diameter3' Culvert Sheet Flow from Street feet) in shown Streambed (Width    

Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Habitats Jurisdictional CDFW I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig7a_CDFW.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig7a_CDFW.mxd 25' Figure 7b (Width shown in feet) in shown (Width SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL (Width shown in feet) in shown (Width

(Width shown in feet) in shown (Width 

Corona Avenue  Study AreaStudy Point Sampling Disturbed Wetland Herbaceous Wetland 3 - 2' Diameter Squashed Corrugated Metal Pipes Concrete andRiprap Concrete-lined Channel Streambed Basin Seasonal     ! ( Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Habitats Jurisdictional CDFW Waters of the State

Concrete and Riprap and Concrete

25'

 24' SP 1 !(

28'  CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State



22' SP 3

!(

16'



22' Temescal Avenue Temescal

SP 2



19'

 

Willow Drive

25' 

23'



25' Corona Avenue Corona

 Feet 200 19.5' a

2nd Street 0

b I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig7b_CDFW.mxd RCF-02.03 01/06/15 -RK 01/06/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig7b_CDFW.mxd No vernal pools were observed on site, but seasonal basins are present at the southern terminus of the study area. The review of historical photographs also shows that these seasonal basins are man-made and came into being during the same time as the Norco Channel. As stated previously, the basins are an incidental artifact that resulted from the grading and compaction of the soils during the construction of the south Norco channel. As artificially created depressions that were not created for the purpose of creating a wetland or diversion of a natural watercourse, the seasonal basins do not meet the definition of Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool habitat.

3.4.1 Birds

The LBV, WIFL, and YBCU are found in riparian habitats such as southern willow scrub, cottonwood forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvial woodland, and arroyo willow riparian forest habitats that typically feature dense cover. These habitats do not occur in or adjacent to the study area. No habitat for LBV, WIFL, or YBCU occurs, therefore, no surveys are required and no impacts will occur.

The study area lacks open water, vegetated riparian habitats, and large cliffs that would be habitat for the bald eagle and/or peregrine falcon. No focused surveys for these species are required and no impacts are anticipated.

3.4.2 Invertebrates

Vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs throughout the Central Valley and in several disjunct populations in Riverside County. This species exists in vernal pools and other seasonal basins often located in patches of grassland and agriculture interspersed in Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Riverside fairy shrimp occurs in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties, as well as in northern Baja, Mexico. This species is typically found in deeper vernal pools and other seasonal basins that hold water for long periods (30 or more days). Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp are limited to the Santa Rosa Plateau. Fairy shrimp (species unknown) were visually observed in December 2014 in one of the seasonal basins that occurs at the southern terminus of the study area.

A focused wet season fairy shrimp survey began on January 8, 2015 to determine the species present in the seasonal basins. The results of the survey will be presented in a separate report, but as of the writing of this report, only the non-sensitive versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) has been observed.

3.4.3 Fish

The Santa Ana sucker (Catastomus santaanae) is restricted to the Santa Ana River watershed with year-round flows. The Norco channel is intermittent and lacks surface flow for most of the year. This species is not expected to occur in the study area, no surveys are required, and no impacts are expected.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 13 3.4.4 Plants

The Norco channel is primarily an unvegetated natural bottom channel. The vegetation that was observed in the channel was a mix of native and non-native species dominated by Mexican sprangletop and water speedwell. None of the 23 Riparian/Riverine plant species was observed or are expected to occur.

The 23 plant species associated with Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool areas were confirmed to be absent from the site. These species were not observed during the general habitat assessment and the Riparian/Riverine surveys conducted by HELIX in 2004 and 2014. Several species such as Coulter’s matilija poppy, California black walnut, Engelmann oak, and San Miguel savory are shrubs/trees that are visible year-round and are not present in the study area. A number of the species, including California Orcutt grass, spreading navarretia, thread-leaved brodiaea, San Miguel savory, graceful tarplant, prostrate navarretia, San Diego button-celery, Orcutt’s brodiaea, Fish’s milkwort, lemon lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Brand’s phacelia, Santa Ana River woolly-star, vernal barley, and Parish’s meadowfoam, occur in habitats that do not occur on the property (e.g., vernal pools) or have distributions well outside of the property. The seasonal basins in the study area are not vernal pools. The remaining species have a distribution that includes the property or occur in habitats found on the property and are discussed in greater detail below.

Mud nama is restricted to muddy embankments of marshes and swamps and within lake margins and riverbanks (CNPS 2013).

3.5 SENSITIVE PLANTS SPECIES

As noted above, neither CASSA nor NEPSSA surveys were required. No NEPSA or CASSA species were observed on the Project site and none would be affected. Five sensitive plant species, 1 of which is federally listed, were determined to have potential to occur in the Project vicinity (Table 4). The listed species is the Santa Ana River woolystar (Eriastrum densifolium sanctorum). None of the sensitive plant species were observed and none are expected to occur in the study area.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 14 Table 4 STATUS OF SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON THE SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

SENSITIVITY SPECIES HABITAT STATUS ON SITE STATUS* Section 1-Listed Species Santa Ana River FE/SE Santa Ana River, Lytle Not expected. Project site woolystar CNPS List 1B.1 Creek, and Cajon creek does not include known (Eriastrum flood plains. Usually in habitat of species. Study densifolium spp. areas with less than area is mostly developed. sanctorum) 50 percent cover. Section 2-Non-Listed Sensitive Species Chaparral sand --/-- Sandy soils, requires Not expected. Soils are verbena (Abronia CNPS List 1B.1 bare ground, not tolerant loamy, and land is villosa var. aurita) of weeds. developed and disturbed. smooth tarplant --/-- Riparian/watercourses, Not expected. Alkali scrub (Centromadia CNPS List 1B.1 grassland, alkali scrub not present. Study area pungens spp. mostly developed. laevis) many-stemmed --/-- Clay soils in barren, Not expected. No clay dudleya CNPS List 1B.2 rocky areas with limited soils. Study area mostly (Dudleya vegetation developed. multicaulis) Robinson’s --/-- Openings in chaparral Not expected. No pepper-grass CNPS List 4.3 and sage scrub, typically chaparral or sage scrub (Lepidium dry sites habitat in study area. virginicum var. Study area mostly robinsonii) developed.

3.6 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES

There are 30 sensitive animal species, 11 of which are listed at federal and/or state level, that are known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project (Table 5). Two of the federal or state listed species have low potential to occur; the remaining 9 species are not expected to occur in the study area due to a lack of habitat. The 2 species with potential to occur are both fairy shrimp: Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Neither species is known to occur in the vicinity. Focused surveys began in January 2015 and will be documented in a separate report. The developed nature of the study area and the surrounding area combine to drastically reduce the potential for sensitive species to occur. Only 1 of the sensitive species, the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) has potential to occur in the study area. This species is tolerant of disturbance and has low potential to use the agricultural areas (horse paddocks) that occur immediately adjacent to the study area for foraging.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 15 Table 5 STATUS OF SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT SITE

SENSITIVITY SPECIES HABITAT STATUS ON SITE STATUS* Section 1 – Listed Species Invertebrates Riverside fairy shrimp FE/-- Deep seasonal vernal Low. Seasonal basin (Streptocephalus MSHCP pools, seasonal basins occurs in study area. woottoni) Covered that are long lasting. Soils are not typical for All known populations species. Species not occur on clay or clay known to occur in loam soils. vicinity. Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT/-- Seasonal vernal pools Low. Seasonal basin (Branchinecta lynchi) MSHCP that are often short occurs in study area. Covered lived. Species not known to occur in vicinity. Delhi sands flower- FE/SSC Loose sandy Delhi Not expected. No Delhi loving fly (Rhaphiomidas series soils with less series soils in study terminatus abdominalis) than 50 percent native area. cover. Birds least Bell’s vireo (Vireo FE/SE Riparian areas with Not expected. No bellii pusillus) MSHCP dense ground cover and vegetated riparian Covered. stratified canopy, habitat in study area. prefers willows. southwestern willow FE/SE Dense mature riparian Not expected. No flycatcher MSHCP woodland with willows vegetated riparian (Empidonax traillii Covered. and/or cottonwoods. habitat in study area. extimus) western yellow-billed FT/SE Dense, thick riparian Not expected. No cuckoo MSHCP with willows, dense dense riparian habitat (Coccyzus americanus Covered. understory, slow- in study area. occidentalis) moving watercourses. Coastal California FT/SSC Coastal sage and other Not expected. No sage gnatcatcher MSHCP low scrub. scrub in study area. (Polioptila californica Covered. californica)

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 16 Table 5 (cont.) STATUS OF SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT SITE

SENSITIVITY SPECIES HABITAT STATUS ON SITE STATUS* Section 1 – Listed Species Birds (cont.) Santa Ana sucker FT/SSC Shallow permanent Not expected. No (Catostomus santaanae) MSHCP streams. permanent streams in Covered. study area. Only water course is flood control channel. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo --/ST Open desert, sparse Not expected. Desert swainsoni) MSHCP scrub with large trees. habitat not present. Tall Covered. trees in area are part of ornamental landscaping. Mammals Stephens’ kangaroo rat FE/ST Open areas with sparse Not expected. Study (Dipodomys stephensi) MSHCP perennial cover and area occurs in mostly Covered. loose soil. developed area. Study area not in SKR fee area. San Bernardino kangaroo FE/CSC Sage scrub, sandy soils, Not expected. Study rat (Dipodomys merriami MSHCP alluvial fans, area primarily parvus) Covered. floodplains. comprised and surrounded by developed habitat. Section 2 – Non-listed Sensitive Species FISH Arroyo chub --/SSC Occurs in the Los Not expected. No (Gila orcuttii) MSHCP Angeles basin south permanent streams in Covered. coastal stream, in slow study area. Only water water stream sections course is flood control with mud or sand channel. bottoms.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 17 Table 5 (cont.) STATUS OF SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT SITE

SENSITIVITY SPECIES HABITAT STATUS ON SITE STATUS* Section 2 – Non-listed Sensitive Species (cont.) REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Coast horned lizard --/SSC Grassland, scrub, Not expected. No (Phrynosoma coronatum MSHCP chaparral, and native vegetation in blainvillei) Covered. woodland. study area. Northern red-diamond --/SSC Heavy brush, boulders, Not expected. Study rattlesnake (Crotalus MSHCP can use a variety of area surrounded by ruber) Covered. habitats; prey density residential determining factor. development. No habitat in study area. Orange-throated whiptail --/SSC Chaparral, sage scrub, Not expected. Study (Cnemidophorus MSHCP grassland, woodland, area does not have the hyperthrus) Covered. and riparian areas. species preferred habitat. Two-striped garter snake --/SSC Stream course with Not expected. No (Thanmophis adjacent dense vegetated stream hammondii) vegetation. habitat in study area. San Diego banded gecko --/-- Deserts scrub to Not expected. Desert (Coleonyx variegates MSHCP chaparral; micro- and other native abbotti) Covered. habitat desert species. habitats absent from study area. BIRDS Burrowing owl (Athene --/SSC Grassland, fallow Not expected. Species cunicularia) MSHCP agriculture, and areas preferred habitat does Covered. of sparse cover, not occur within the preferably with study area. burrows of fossorial mammals. Northern harrier (Circus --/SSC Meadows, grassland, Not expected. Study cyaneus) MSHCP scrub, rarely in area mostly disturbed, Covered. woodland. Roosts on surrounded by ground. residential development. Tricolored blackbird --/SSC Wetland with dense Not expected. No (Agelaius tricolor) MSHCP cattails, tall grasses or potential habitat occurs Covered. low thickets of in the study area. willows.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 18 Table 5 (cont.) STATUS OF SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT SITE

SENSITIVITY SPECIES HABITAT STATUS ON SITE STATUS* Section 2 – Non-listed Sensitive Species (cont.) BIRDS (cont.) Yellow warbler --/SSC Riparian woodland and Not expected. No (Dendroica petechia MSHCP scrub. vegetated riparian brewsteri) Covered. habitats in study area. Yellow-breasted chat --/SSC Wide riparian Not expected. No (Icteria virens) MSHCP woodland, dense vegetated riparian Covered. willow thickets, with habitat in study area. well-developed understory. Bell’s sage sparrow --/-- Evenly spaced sage Not expected. No sage (Amphispiza belli belli) MSHCP scrub. scrub in study area. Covered. California horned lark --/-- Grassland, agriculture Low. Study area (Eremophila alpestris MSHCP fields, and disturbed mostly developed. actia) Covered. fields. Species may forage in adjacent horse paddocks. Southern California --/-- Hillsides, with Not expected. Study rufous-crowned sparrow MSHCP grassland, sage scrub, area lacks hillsides. (Aimophila ruficeps Covered. or chaparral. Only ornamental canescens) vegetation is present. MAMMALS Pocketed free-tailed bat --/SSC Desert scrub, roosts in Not expected. No (Nyctinomops cliffs, rocky crevices in desert scrub, cliffs or femorosaccus) small colonies. rocky crevices in study area. San Diego black-tailed --/SSC Primarily open scrub Not expected. No open jackrabbit (Lepus MSHCP with short grasses. scrub habitat in study califonrinicus bennettii) Covered. area. San Diego desert --/SSC Scrub and desert, rock Not expected. No woodrat (Neotoma MSHCP outcrops, or areas of scrub habitat or rock lepida) Covered. dense cover. outcrops in study area.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 19 Table 5 (cont.) STATUS OF SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT SITE

SENSITIVITY SPECIES HABITAT STATUS ON SITE STATUS* Section 2 – Non-listed Sensitive Species (cont.) MAMMALS (cont.) Western mastiff bat --/SSC Rocky areas, cliff Not expected. Study (Eumops perotis faces, known to roost in area does not include californicus) buildings rocky areas, cliff faces or buildings. Western yellow bat --/SSC Desert grassland and Not expected. No (Lasiurus xanthinus) scrub with an grassland or scrub associated water habitat in study area. feature. *Explanation of Sensitivity Status is included as Appendix F

3.7 BURROWING OWL

The MSHCP specifies a habitat assessment be conducted on 1 parcel of the 13 that is included in the study area. This parcel is developed as a school. The study area crosses the southern and eastern portions of this parcel. The entire study area was included in the burrowing owl habitat assessment. The study area is comprised of developed and disturbed habitat, along with the existing flood channel. No burrowing owl habitat or burrowing owl sign was observed in the study area. The portion of the school parcel that the study area crosses consists of an oval running track and open field. The field and track were observed to be actively used by students. The fields lack shrubs, is regularly mowed, and lacks fossorial mammal burrows. No owl burrows or ground squirrel burrows were observed; the site is not able to provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species. Protocol surveys for burrowing owl are not recommended.

3.8 CRITICAL HABITAT

The search of the USFWS critical habitat portal shows that critical habitat does not occur in the study area. The nearest critical habitat occurs along the Santa Ana River to the north and west of the Project. This critical habitat occurs 4 kilometers to the northwest at its closest point to the study area. The proposed flood control improvement project will not result in any impacts (direct or indirect) to critical habitat.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 20 4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT INCLUDING MSHCP COMPLIANCE

4.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Administered by the USFWS, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a “take” under the ESA. Section 9(a) of the ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” and “harass” are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns.

Sections 4(d), 7, and 10(a) of the federal ESA regulate actions that could jeopardize endangered or threatened species. Section 7 describes a process of federal interagency consultation for use when federal actions may adversely affect listed species. A biological assessment is required for any major construction activity if it may affect listed species. In this case, take can be authorized via a letter of Biological Opinion (BO), issued by the USFWS for non-marine related listed species issues. A Section 7 consultation is required when there is a nexus between federally listed species’ use of the site and impacts to USACE jurisdictional areas. Section 10(a) allows issuance of permits for “incidental” take of endangered or threatened species. The term “incidental” applies if the taking of a listed species is incidental to and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. The MSHCP is the Section 10(a) permit for this portion of Riverside County, including the subject property.

All migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as amended under the MBTA of 2004 (FR Doc. 05-5127). This law is generally protective of migratory birds from the direct physical take of the species.

Federal wetland permitting for the proposed Project will be required by the USACE. Potential areas under USACE jurisdiction consist of wetland and non-wetland WUS and are located in the existing Norco Channel. They constitute approximately 0.06 acre of wetland and 0.86 acre of non-wetland WUS or drainage (Table 3).

Projects may be permitted on an individual basis or may be covered under one of several approved Nationwide Permits, based on the type of action, amount of fill, and size and length of impact. Individual Permits (IPs) typically require substantial time (often longer than 12 months) to review and approve, while Nationwide Permits are pre-approved if a project meets appropriate conditions. This Project will likely require an Individual Permit. The applicable NWPs or need for an IP would be determined by the USACE.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 21 4.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The California ESA is similar to the federal ESA in that it contains a process for listing of species and regulating potential impacts to listed species. Section 2081 of the California ESA authorizes the CDFW to enter into a memorandum of agreement for the take of listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. The MSHCP is the regional 2081 for this portion of the County, including the subject property. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) are considered State Fully Protected Species. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no state licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species necessary for scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).

The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted a process by which plants are listed as rare or endangered. The NPPA regulates collection, transport, and commerce of plants that are listed.

The California ESA followed the NPPA and covers both plants and animals that are determined to be endangered or threatened with extinction. Plants listed as rare under NPPA were designated threatened under the California ESA.

The California Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et seq.) requires an agreement with CDFW for projects affecting riparian and wetland habitats through issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). It is assumed that the Project will require a 1602 Agreement from CDFW.

4.3 WESTERN RIVERSIDE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

The MSHCP is a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional effort that includes Riverside County and multiple cities, including the City of Norco in western Riverside County. Rather than address sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system (Dudek 2003). Most importantly, the MSHCP allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from the USFWS and/or CDFW. The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003, by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Incidental Take Permit for species covered in the MSHCP was issued by both the USFWS and CDFW on June 22, 2004. As the Riverside County Flood Control District (District) is a signatory of the MSHCP, the District is the lead agency/permitee.

As noted above, the Project is located within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan of the MSHCP but is not with a subunit or criteria cell (Dudek 2003). The site is not subject to the Owner Initiated Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process. The site is still required to show MSHCP compliance through specific habitat assessments, applicable biological surveys, and the provision of an MSHCP compliance analysis.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 22 In compliance with the MSHCP, capital improvement projects like this one are typically required to pay a mitigation fee in the amount of 3 percent of the total cost of the project.

5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS

This section describes potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposed Project. Direct impacts immediately alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are eliminated temporarily or permanently. Indirect impacts consist of secondary effects of a project, including noise, decreased water quality (e.g., through sedimentation, urban contaminants, or fuel release), fugitive dust, colonization of non-native plant species, animal behavioral changes, and night lighting. The magnitude of an indirect impact can be the same as a direct impact; however, the effect usually takes a longer time to become apparent.

According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, project impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if they would:

x Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW and or USFWS. x Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. x 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. x Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. x Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

5.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

The proposed Project would substantially alter the existing Norco Channel (Figures 8a and b). Nearly all of the impacts would be to areas that were previously disturbed or developed. A small amount of wetland vegetation would also be impacted, including 0.02 acre of herbaceous wetland and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland. The Project would also impact 0.06 acre of seasonal basin from a proposed access road. The entire study area may be affected by the Project and the remaining 1.00 acre of the basins are expected to be impacted, albeit temporarily, as that area will be used as a staging area for the Project.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 23 5.2 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS IMPACTS

Because the purpose of the Project is to line the existing Norco flood control channel with concrete and rock, avoidance of impact to the channel is not feasible.

5.2.1 Federal Jurisdictional Waters

The proposed Project would result in impacts to 0.92 acre WUS. The WUS are comprised of 0.06 acre of wetland WUS and 0.86 acre of non-wetland WUS (Table 6; Figures 6a and b). These impacts will require a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and are considered significant.

Table 6 IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.

IMPACTS HABITAT Acreage Linear Feet Wetland Waters of the U.S. Disturbed Wetland 0.02 148 Herbaceous Wetland 0.04 390 Subtotal 0.06 538 Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Streambed 0.86 3,201 TOTAL 0.92 3,739

5.2.2 State Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters

The proposed Project results in impacts to 2.05 acres of CDFW jurisdictional habitat comprised entirely of intermittent streambed (Figure 7a and b). The channel (i.e., streambed) is disturbed habitat that lacks vegetation except for several small patches of herbaceous and disturbed wetland. These small patches of wetland habitat are part of the intermittent streambed acreage due to the MOU the District has with CDFW; that allows the District to maintain the channel. Impacts to CDFW habitat will require a Section 1602 SAA from the CDFW.

The Project will directly impact WS where channel improvements directly impact and project staging temporarily impact WS subject to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. Permitting under this act will occur along with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts to 3.11 acres of WS are considered significant.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 24 Figure 8a Site Plan a

SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL Hillside Avenue Hillside b

Hillside Lane Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal Pinto Lane Pinto Feet

200 Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest 0 N

3rd Street Corona Avenue Corona

Study AreaStudy I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig8a_SitePlan.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig8a_SitePlan.mxd Figure 8b Site Plan SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL

Corona Avenue Temescal Avenue Temescal

Willow Drive Corona Avenue Corona Feet 200 a

2nd Street 0

N b

Study AreaStudy I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig8b_SitePlan.mxd RCF-02.03 01/06/15 -RK 01/06/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\GBRA\Fig8b_SitePlan.mxd 5.3 MSHCP IMPACTS/CONSISTENCY

5.3.1 Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan

The study area is located within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan of the MSHCP but is not within a subunit or Criteria Cell. No proposed Core, Linkage, or Constrained Linkage occur within the study area. The study area does not include any Public/Quasi Public Lands or previously conserved lands. Because the Project area is not within any Sub Unit, there is no Planning Species to be addressed. No impacts are proposed to occur to MSHCP targeted conservation or to the MSHCP reserve lands.

5.3.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)

Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and vernal pools, states:

The purpose of the procedures described in this section is to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas throughout the MSHCP Plan Area are maintained such that Habitat values for species inside the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained.

The definition of Riparian/Riverine and vernal pools are discussed in Section 2.4 of this document. The MSHCP states that:

With the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands Habitat or resulting from human actions to create open waters or from the alteration of natural stream courses, areas demonstrating characteristics [of Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool habitat] which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.

Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pool habitats capable of supporting MSHCP covered species, particularly within the identified Conservation Area.

The Norco Channel and the seasonal basins do not include habitat that is considered Riparian/Riverine because both the channel and basins are artificially created, and were not created from the alteration of a natural stream course or for the purpose of providing wetland habitat. The seasonal basins have potential to support Riverside fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp, both of which are species protected under MSHCP Section 6.1.2 as species associated with Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool habitats. The seasonal basins would be a MSHCP protected habitat if the fairy shrimp survey results demonstrate that one or more species of sensitive fairy shrimp are present. Surveys for fairy shrimp began in January 2015. The result of the survey will be presented in a separate report.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 25 5.3.3 Plants

The study area is not within an area that requires surveys for NEPSSA or CASSA plant species. No surveys are required and no impacts are anticipated.

5.3.4 Burrowing Owl

The study area includes a parcel that requires a burrowing owl habitat assessment and surveys if habitat exists. The habitat assessment revealed that burrowing owl habitat does not occur in the study area. No surveys are required and non-impacts to burrowing owl are anticipated.

5.3.5 Sensitive Plants

No sensitive plant species were observed in the project area. No impact to NEPSSA or CASSA plant and animal species would occur.

6.0 MSHCP CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATIONS

As noted earlier, the Project is within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan but not within any Criteria Cell, Cell Group, or Sub Unit. There is no proposed Core, Linkage, or Constrained Linkage within the Project area. Because the Project is not within any Sub Unit, there are no Planning Species to be addressed. There is no biological issue or conservation consideration related to any Criteria Cell because none would be affected.

Based on this assessment, the Project is consistent with the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan.

6.1 CONSISTENCY WITH MSHCP SECTION 6.1.2

The proposed Project complies with the policies of Section 6.1.2 that protect species associated with vernal pools and Riparian/Riverine areas because neither is present within the Project area. The seasonal basins that occur in the study area are artificially created and not considered a Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool resource. USFWS protocol fairy shrimp surveys are currently being conducted for the seasonal basins. As of the writing of this report, no sensitive fairy shrimp have been found in the basins; only the non-sensitive versatile fairy shrimp occurs on site.

A DBESP is required for impacts to Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool resources. As the waters on site do not appear to meet the definition of Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool and do not support sensitive species associated with Riparian/Riverine and vernal pools a DBESP is not required.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 26 6.2 CONSISTENCY WITH MSHCP SECTION 6.1.3

In compliance with Section 6.1.3, this Project would not affect any Narrow Endemic Plant Species, because no species are present on site.

6.3 CONSISTENCY WITH MSHCP SECTION 6.1.4

The following measures as part of the Project are designed to minimize the identified potential indirect impacts, including:

x Because the Project involves the lining of an existing channel, the flows within the channel will not be altered by the Project. No new flows will be introduced into the channel. x The Project is not adjacent to a conservation area; therefore, any lighting that may be associated with the Project will not affect the MSHCP reserve. x No plants included on the California Invasive Plant Council’s list of invasive species (or in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP) should be used anywhere on the site, and only native species or non-invasive non-native species would be used in erosion control. x The Project is designed so that no take of conserved habitat would be necessary for fuel modification purposes. x The Project is not adjacent to an MSHCP conservation area and as such will not result in impacts to the MSHCP reserve.

The above measures would serve to minimize the adverse effects of the Project on MSHCP conservation configuration.

6.4 CONSISTENCY WITH MSHCP POLICY SECTION 6.3.2

In compliance with MSHCP Section 6.3.2, the burrowing owl habitat assessment demonstrates that there is no potential for this species to occur, and therefore, focused surveys are not required. Focused surveys for CASSA plant species are not required.

7.0 MITIGATION

7.1 MITIGATION FEES

Impacts to upland habitats and associated species will be addressed through participation in the MSHCP, which for public projects is typically addressed through payment of a fee calculated as 3 percent of the total cost of the project. The fee is subject to adjustment or elimination as appropriate for District projects.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 27 7.2 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS

As the Project is related to the lining of an existing earthen bottom channel that is not considered to be a Riparian/Riverine habitat under the MSHCP, a DBESP is not required.

The mitigation for impacts to WUS, CDFW jurisdictional habitat, and WS will be determined in consultation with the agencies during the permitting process. It is anticipated that the wetlands will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 and non-wetland WUS/Streambed will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The finished channel will retain some of the functions and values of the existing channel and should figure into the mitigation. The improved channel bottom will include a pervious surface over 0.45 acre along 2,610 LF. The mitigation for impacts to the WUS, CDFW jurisdictional habitat, and WS would also cover the mitigation that would be required if these waters met the definition of Riparian/Riverine or vernal pool resources under the MSHCP.

8.0 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATE: February 27, 2015 SIGNED: W. Larry Sward

Fieldwork Performed By:

W. Larry Sward Biologist, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. M.S., Biology, San Diego State University, 1979 B.S., Biology, San Diego State University, 1975

Robert Hogenauer Biologist, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. B.S. Biology, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2004

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 28 9.0 REFERENCES

American Ornithologists’ Union. 2010. Fifty-First Supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List of North American Birds. URL: http://www.aou.org/checklist/suppl/AOU_checklist_suppl_51.pdf

Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 223.

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.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014a. Rare Find Database Program, Version 5. Online database updated December 2 (Accessed December 17).

2014b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Resource Management and Planning Division, Biogeographic Data Branch. URL: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEPlants.pdf. October.

2014c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 125 pp. October.

2014d. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. URL: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf. October.

2014e. Special Animals (900 taxa). State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. URL: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf. September.

CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 29 December 2014].

County of Riverside Environmental Programs Department. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. URL: http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/epd/documents/Burrowing_Owl_Survey_ Instructions.pdf. March 29.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 29 Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, With Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Hepetological Circular No. 29. 101 pp. August.

Dudek and Associates. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Final MSHCP, Volume I. Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. Approved June 17.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices.

Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Wodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. Unites States and Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 pp.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 2012. South Norco Channel, Line S1 Project Jurisdictional Delineation Report. June 12.

Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 156 pp.

Knecht, A.A. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, USDI, and Bureau of Indian Affairs in cooperation with UC Agriculture Experiment Station, Washington D.C. 158 pp. plus appendices and maps.

Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation (Kollmorgen). 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition. Baltimore, MD.

National Resource Conservation Service. 2014. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov

NETR. 2014. Historical Aerial Photos. http://www.historicaerials.com/default.aspx. Accessed December 2014.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decisions. June 5. 21 pp.

2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

2008b. Jurisdictional Delineations. RGL No. 08-02. 26 June. 11 pp.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE. 2007. Joint Guidance to Sustain Wetlands Protection under Supreme Court Decision. 2 pp.

Vyverberg, K. 2010. A Review of Stream K Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds. CDFG. Sacramento. December. 32 pp.

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 31 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

General Biological Resources Analysis for South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / February 27, 2015 32 Appendix A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Appendix B

FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION Appendix A FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION

Wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.” Definitions

Wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; Federal Register 1982) and the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as “[t]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Waters of the U.S. The official definition of “Waters of the U.S.” and their limits of jurisdiction (as they may apply) are defined by the USACE’ Regulatory Program Regulations (Section 328.3, paragraphs [a] 1-3 and [e], and Section 328.4, paragraphs [c] 1 and 2) as follows:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) , mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters, i. which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreation or other purposes; or ii. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate commerce; or iii. which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of waters …; 6. The territorial seas; 7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)…

Non-tidal Waters of the U.S. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters: In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or when adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the adjacent wetlands.

The term ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation (scouring), the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.

A-1 Waters of the U.S. must exhibit an OHWM or other evidence of surface flow created by hydrologic physical changes. These physical changes include (Riley 2005): x Natural line impressed on the bank x Sediment sorting x Shelving x Leaf litter disturbed or washed away x Changes in the character of soil x Scour x Destruction of terrestrial vegetation x Deposition x Presence of litter and debris x Multiple observed flow events x Wracking x Bed and banks x Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent x Water staining x Change in plant community

Further guidance on identifying the OHWM in the Arid Southwest (Lichvar and McColley 2008). This publication provided geomorphic and vegetation OHWM indicators specific to the Arid Southwest.

.Jurisdictional areas also must be connected to Waters of the U.S. (Guzy and Anderson 2001; U.S. Supreme Court 2001).

As a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, a memorandum was developed regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction (Grumbles and Woodley 2007). The memorandum states that the EPA and the USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW), wetlands adjacent to TNW, tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), and wetlands adjacent to TNW. An RPW has year round flow or continuous seasonal flow (i.e., typically for three months or longer). Jurisdiction over other waters (i.e., non TNW and RPW) will be based on a fact specific analysis to determine if they have a significant nexus to a TNW.

Pursuant to the USACE Instructional Guidebook (USACE and EPA 2007), the significant nexus evaluation will cover the subject reach of the stream (upstream and downstream) as well as its adjacent wetlands (Illustrations 2 through 6, USACE and EPA 2007). The evaluation will include the flow characteristics, annual precipitation, ability to provide habitat for aquatic species, ability to retain floodwaters and filter pollutants, proximity of the subject reach to a TNW, drainage area, and the watershed.

Wetland Criteria

Wetland boundaries are determined using three mandatory criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil) established for wetland delineations and described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008). Following is a brief discussion of the three criteria and how they are evaluated.

A-2 Vegetation

“Hydrophytic vegetation is defined herein as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

The wetland indicator status (obligate upland, facultative upland, facultative, facultative wetland, obligate wetland, or no indicator status) of the dominant plant species of all vegetative layers is determined. Species considered to be hydrophytic include the classifications of facultative, facultative wetland, and obligate wetland as defined in the current list of wetland plants of the Arid Southwest (Lichvar, et. al. 2014; Table A-1). The percent of dominant wetland plant species is calculated. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is considered to be met if it meets the “Dominance Test,” “Prevalence Index,” or the vegetation has morphological adaptations for prolonged inundation.

Table A-1 DEFINITIONS OF PLANT INDICATOR CATEGORIES

INDICATOR ABBREVIATION QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION CATEGORIES Obligate OBL Almost always occur in wetlands Usually occur in wetlands but may occur in Facultative Wetland FACW non-wetlands Facultative FAC Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands Usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in Facultative Upland FACU wetlands Upland UPL Almost never occur in wetlands

Hydrology

“The term ‘wetland hydrology’ encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic reducing conditions, respectively” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year (approximately 18 days for most of low-lying southern California). Hydrology criteria are evaluated based on the characteristics listed below (USACE 2008). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are present, the limit of the OHWM (or the limit of adjacent wetlands) is noted and mapped. Evidence of wetland hydrology is met by the presence of a single primary indicator or two secondary indicators.

A-3 Primary x surface water (A1) x salt crust (B11) x high water table (A2) x biotic crust (B12) x saturation (A3) x aquatic invertebrates (B13) x water marks (B1; non-riverine) x hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) x sediment deposits (B2; non-riverine) x oxidized rhizospheres along living roots x drift deposits (B3; non-riverine (C3) x surface soil cracks (B6) x presence of reduced iron (C4) x inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) x recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) x water-stained leaves (B9) x thin muck surface (C7)

Secondary x watermarks (B1; riverine) x crayfish burrows (C8) x sediment deposits (B2; riverine) x saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) x drift deposits (B3; riverine) x shallow aquitard (D3) x drainage patterns (B10) x FAC-neutral test (D5) x dry-season water table (C2)

In the absence of all other hydrologic indicators and in the absence of significant modifications of an area’s hydrologic function, positive hydric soil characteristics are assumed to indicate positive wetland hydrology. This assumption applies unless the site visit was done during the wet season of a normal or wetter-than-normal year. Under those circumstances, wetland hydrology would not be present.

Soils

The USACE and Environmental Protection Agency, in their administration of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, rely on the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) for a definition of hydric soils. According to the NTCHS “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 part.” (Federal Register 1994)

Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation. Soil matrix and mottle colors are identified at each sampling plot using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen 1994). Generally, an 18-inch or deeper pit is excavated with a shovel at each sampling plot unless refusal occurs above 18 inches.

Soils in each area are closely examined for hydric soil indicators, including the characteristics listed below. Hydric soil indicators are presented in three groups. Indicators for “All Soils” (A) are used in any soil regardless of texture, indicators for “Sandy Soils” (S) area used in soil layers with USDA textures of loamy fine sand or coarser, and indicators for “Loamy and Clayey Soils” (F) are used with soil layers of loamy very fine sand and finer (USACE 2008).

A-4 x histosols (A1) x stripped matrix (S6) x histic epipedons (A2) x loamy mucky mineral (F1) x black histic (A3) x loamy gleyed matrix (F2) x hydrogen sulfide (A4) x depleted matrix (F3) x stratified layers (A5) x redox dark surface (F6) x 1 cm muck (A9) x depleted dark surface (F7) x depleted below dark surface (A11) x redox depressions (F8) x thick dark surface (A12) x vernal pools (F9) x sandy mucky mineral (S1) x 2 cm muck (A10) x sandy gleyed matrix (S4) x reduced vertic (F18) x sandy redox (S5) x red parent material (TF2)

Hydric soils may be assumed to be present in plant communities that have complete dominance of obligate or facultative wetland species. In some cases, there is only inundation during the growing season and determination must be made by direct observation during that season, recorded hydrologic data, testimony of reliable persons, and/or indication on aerial photographs.

Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

The non-wetland Waters of the U.S. designation is met when an area has periodic surface flows but lacks sufficient indicators to meet the hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydric soils criteria. For purposes of delineation and jurisdictional designation, the non-wetland Waters of the U.S. boundary in non-tidal areas is the OHWM as described in the Section 404 regulations (33 CFR Part 328).

USGS Mapping

The USGS Quad maps are one of the resources used to aid in the identification and mapping of jurisdictional areas. Their primary uses include understanding the subregional landscape position of a site, major topographical features, and a project’s position in the watershed.

In our experience the designation of watercourse as a blue-line stream (intermittent or perennial) on USGS maps has been unreliable and typically overstates the hydrology of most streams. This has also been the experience of others, including the late Luna Leopold. Leopold was a hydrologist with USGS from 1952 to 1972, Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics, and Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley from 1972 to 1986, and Professor Emeritus from 1987 until his death in 2006. In regard to USGS maps, Dr. Leopold wrote “I tried to devise a way of defining hydrologic criteria for the channels shown on topographic maps and developed some promising procedures. None were acceptable to the topographers, however. I learned that the blue lines on a map are drawn by nonprofessional, low-salaried personnel. In actual fact, they are drawn to fit a rather personalized aesthetic.” (1994)

A-5 REFERENCES

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States

Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 pp.

Guzy, G.S. and R.M. Anderson. 2001. Memorandum: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning CWA Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters. U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition. Baltimore, MD.

Leopold, Luna B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 298 pp.

Lichvar, R., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. Arid West, 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42. http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/docs/lists_2014/Regions/pdf/reg_A W_2014v1.pdf

Lichvar, R. and S. 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. August. 68 pp., plus Appendices.

Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4pp

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

U.S. Supreme Court. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178 (SWANCC). January 9.

A-6 Appendix C

STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION Appendix B STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Regulations

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; Department) regulates alterations or impacts to streambeds or lakes (wetlands) under Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 for any private, state, or local government or public utility-initiated projects. The Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any entity to notify the Department 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. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers and streams as well as lakes in the state. In order to notify the Department, a person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility must submit a complete notification package and fee to the Department regional office that serves the county where the activity will take place. A fee schedule is included in the notification package materials. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections 65920 et seq.), the Department has 30 days to determine whether the package is complete. If the requestor is not notified within 30 days, the application is automatically deemed to be complete. Once the notification package is deemed to be complete, the Department will determine whether the applicant will need a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for the activity, which will be required if the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. If an SAA is required, the Department will conduct an on-site inspection, if necessary, and submit a draft SAA that will include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while conducting the project. If the applicant is applying for a regular SAA (less than five years), the Department will submit a draft SAA within 60 calendar days after notification is deemed complete. The 60-day time period does not apply to notifications for long-term SAAs (greater than 5 years). After the applicant receives the SAA, the applicant has 30 calendar days to notify the Department whether the measures in the draft SAA are acceptable. If the applicant agrees with the measures included in the draft SAA, the applicant will need to sign the SAA and submit it to the Department. If the applicant disagrees with any measures in the draft SAA, the applicant must notify the Department in writing and specify the measures that are not acceptable. Upon written request, the Department will meet with the applicant within 14 calendar days of receiving the request to resolve the disagreement. If the applicant fails to respond in writing within 90 calendar days of receiving the draft SAA, the Department may withdraw that SAA. The time periods described above may be extended at any time by mutual agreement. After the Department receives the signed draft SAA, the Department will make it final by signing the SAA; however, the Department will not sign the SAA until it both receives the notification fee and ensures that the SAA complies with the California Environmental Quality

B-1 Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). After the applicant receives the final agreement, the applicant may begin the project the agreement covers, provided that the applicant has obtained any other necessary federal, state and/or local authorizations. Water Resource Control Board Regulations Section 401 Water Quality Certification Whenever a project requires a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, it must first obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the 401 Certification program. Federal CWA Section 401 requires that every applicant for a Section 404 permit must request a Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB regulate the discharge of waste to waters of the State via the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter- Cologne) as described in the California Water Code (SWRCB 2008). The California Water Code is the State’s version of the Federal CWA. Waste, according to the California Water Code, includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. State waters that are not federal waters may be regulated under Porter-Cologne. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB for projects that result in discharge of waste into waters of the State. The RWQCB will issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver. The WDRs are the Porter-Cologne version of a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification. REFERENCES California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the State of California. Available at URL: http://www.carcd.org/permitting/pguide.pdf. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616. Date unknown. Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification Guidelines.

B-2 Appendix D

PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED Appendix D PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT AREA

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

DICOTS

Anacardiaceae Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree Asteraceae Corethrogyne filaginifolia California aster Asteraceae Helianthus annuus annual sunflower Asteraceae Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium luteo- Weedy cudweed album* Asteraceae Sonchus asper* prickly sow-thistle Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus Common sowthistle Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii var. common fiddleneck intermedia Brassicaceae Brassica nigra* black mustard Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana * short pod mustard Brassicaceae Sisymbrium irio* London rocket Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album * lamb's quarter Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus* prickly Russian thistle Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha* bur-clover Geraniaceae Erodium spp. * filaree Hydrophyllaceae Phacelia distans wild heliotrope Malvaceae Malva parviflora * cheeseweed Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp.* eucalyptus Plantaginaceae Veronica anagallis-aquatica* water speedwell Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia willow weed Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco

MONOCOTS

Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm Poaceae Avena barbata * slender wild oat Poaceae Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass Poaceae Bromus madritensis ssp. red brome rubens* Poaceae Hordeum murinum* mouse barley Poaceae Leptochloa univernia Mexican sprangletop Poaceae Schismus barbatus * Mediterranean schismus Poaceae Vulpia myuros * foxtail fescue Typhaceae Typha sp. cattail

D-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

D-2 Appendix E

ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED Appendix E ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED – SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

INVERTEBRATES Branchinectidae Branchinecta lindahli Versatile fairy shrimp Nymphalinae Vanessa cardui painted lady butterfly

VERTEBRATES

Reptiles/Amphibians Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard Birds

Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Cathartidae Cathartes aura turkey vulture Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus killdeer Columbidae Zenaida macroura mourning dove Corvidae Aphelocoma californica western scrub jay Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvidae Corvus corax common raven Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Icteridae Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole Icteridae Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Recurvirostridae Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt Trochilidae Calypye anna Anna’s hummingbird Tyrannidae Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Tyrannidae Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Tyrannidae Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird

E-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

E-2 Appendix F

EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES Appendix F EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

FE Federally listed endangered SE State listed endangered FT Federally listed threatened ST State listed threatened SSC California species of special concern SR State Rare SFP State Fully Protected

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) COVERED

MSHCP Covered Species indicates that the species is part of a proposed list of species (146 total) considered at this time to be adequately conserved by the Western Riverside MSHCP, provided that participants meet all conditions listed in the Final MSHCP. Some of these species require surveys.

MSHCP Not Covered

Not Covered refers to species that are not among the 146 species conserved under the MSHCP. Impacts to such species are assessed on an individual basis. If impacts are considered significant, additional mitigation may be required.

MSHCP Special Species Acronyms/Abbreviations

NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area species – Plant species that are highly restricted by their habitat affinities, edaphic requirements, or other ecological factors, and for which specific conservation measures have been identified in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, Volume I.

CASSA Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Species for which existing available information is not sufficient and for which specific conservation measures have been identified in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Volume I.

Planning Species Refers to species for which conservation requirements of a Subunit or Linkage are specifically designed to provide long-term conservation for the species. Planning species are also MSHCP covered species.

F-1 Appendix F (cont.) EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES

Federal Forest Service Code

Federal:

FS U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Sensitive

The USDA Forest Service defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution. Regional foresters shall identify sensitive species occurring within the region. More information is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/sensitive-species.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Ranks

Ranks Threat Ranks

1A Plants Presumed Extirpated in 0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80 California and Either Rare or Extinct percent of occurrences threatened / high Elsewhere degree and immediacy of threat)

1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or 0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20 to Endangered in California and 80 percent occurrences threatened / Elsewhere moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

2A Plants Presumed Extirpated in 0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than California, But Common Elsewhere 20 percent of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or current threats known) Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere A “CA Endemic” entry corresponds to those taxa that only occur in California. 3 Plants About Which More Information is Needed All List 1A (presumed extinct in California) and some List 3 (need more information; a review list) 4 Plants of Limited Distribution plants lacking threat information receive no extension. Threat Code guidelines represent only a starting point in threat level assessment. Other factors, such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are considered in setting the Threat Code.

F-2 Appendix C JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project

Jurisdictional Delineation Report

June 18, 2015

W. Larry Sward Principal Biologist

South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project Jurisdictional Delineation Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. METHODS ...... 2

III. RESULTS ...... 4 A. Site Description ...... 4 B. Jurisdictional Habitats ...... 5 1. Wetland WUS/Herbaceous Wetland ...... 5 2. Wetland WUS/Disturbed Wetland ...... 5 3. Seasonal basin ...... 6 4. Non-wetland WUS/Streambed ...... 6 C. Sampling Points...... 6 D. Jurisdictional Summary ...... 7

IV. CONCLUSION ...... 8 A. Federal Permitting ...... 8 B. State Permitting ...... 9

V. REFERENCES ...... 10

LIST OF APPENDICES

Letter Title

A Federal Jurisdictional Information B State Jurisdictional Information C Wetland Determination Data Forms D Sample Point and Site Photos E Memorandum of Understanding

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES

Follows Number Title Page

1 Regional Location Map ...... 2 2 Project Vicinity - USGS Quadrangle ...... 2 3 Aerial Photograph ...... 4 4 Soils...... 4 5a Vegetation ...... 6 5b Vegetation ...... 6 6 National Wetlands Inventory ...... 6 7a Waters of the U.S...... 6 7b Waters of the U.S...... 6 8a CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State ...... 6 8b CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State ...... 6

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1 Waters of the U.S...... 7 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdictional Habitats ...... 8

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a jurisdictional delineation for the proposed South Norco Channel, Stage 6 project (Project). The Project is being undertaken by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and consists of a 10-year flood underground storm drain system (underground storm drain pipes, S-1 and S-5, that would connect from the South Norco Channel) and a 100-year flood open channel. This delineation was conducted to identify and map existing areas within the study area that are wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WUS) under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1344); wetland and streambed habitats under California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code; and Waters of the state (WS) pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This information is necessary to evaluate effects on jurisdictional areas and determine permit requirements for the proposed Project. This report presents HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.’s (HELIX’s) best efforts to quantify the amount of WUS and state jurisdictional habitats in the study area using the current regulations, written policies, and guidance from the agencies. The results presented here are subject to confirmation by the USACE, CDFW, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located within the City of Norco and bounded to the west by Corona Avenue, to the east by Hillside Avenue, to the north by Hillside Lane, and to the south by Second Street (Figures 1 and 2). The study area is situated within the La Sierra Land Grant as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Corona North quadrangle. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 640 to 705 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The downstream limit of the Project is at the intersection of Second Street and Corona Avenue. The channel portion of the Project extends northeasterly from this intersection to the southwesterly corner of the Norco Intermediate School property adjacent to Temescal Avenue. Underground storm drains extend east and northeast of the channel along 3rd Avenue and through Norco Middle School and Hillside Lane. The 470-acre watershed from this location extends to the northwest. Most of the Project is along the existing channel alignment. The channel passes through Norco High School and mostly rural residential land uses.

A review of historical photographs of the area (NETR 2014) does not show a naturally occurring stream in the vicinity in which the Norco channel was constructed. The channel is clearly visible in the 1980 photos but absent from the 1967 photos. No stream or drainage is visible in the 1967 photos. It appears the channel was constructed in uplands to manage urban runoff. The channel was built in 1968 and is subject to ongoing maintenance by the District. Maintenance of the channel is covered by a Memorandum of Understanding between the CDFW and the District.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The primary objectives of the Project are to stabilize the existing earthen channel. Improvements to the South Norco Channel Stage 6 consist of lining approximately 3,200 linear feet (LF) of trapezoidal channel with concrete side slopes and a cobble lined, natural bottom. A 700-foot length of the existing open channel through the high school will be replaced with an underground box culvert.

Line S-1 is a below-ground storm drain extending from the South Norco Channel Stage 6 crossing of Third Street easterly within Third Street approximately 2,330 LF to Hillside Avenue, then northerly and southerly within Hillside Avenue approximately 150 and 70 LF, respectively. Line S-1 sizes range from 18-inch to 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Lateral S-1B is a below-ground storm drain extending south from Line S-1 approximately 110 LF within Golden West Lane. Lateral S-1B consists of 18-inch and 24-inch diameter RCP.

Line S-5 is a below-ground storm drain extending from the upstream end of South Norco Channel Stage 6, east and then north along the southern and eastern boundary of the Norco Intermediate School; east along Hillside Lane, a private street; and northerly and southerly within Hillside Avenue, 275 LF and 137 LF, respectively. This facility ranges in size from a 36-inch RCP to a 6-foot by 4-foot reinforced concrete box (RCB), and is approximately 3,250 LF.

The Project also includes pavement repair due to excavation and trenching along the channel and storm drain alignment, and additional street improvements along 1) Temescal Avenue, where an existing discontinuity in the travel width will be replaced with a smooth transition over a length of approximately 175 feet, including new asphalt concrete, and concrete curb and gutter; and 2) Hillside Lane, where the existing asphalt concrete pavement will be replaced with new asphalt concrete pavement over the full travel width (approximately 16 feet) and length (approximately 1,000 feet).

Construction of this Project will require relocation of several existing utilities. There are six waterline relocations consisting of two 6-inch, two 8-inch, one 10-inch, and one 30-inch waterline(s). There are nine gas line relocations consisting of three 2-inch, four 3-inch, and two 4-inch gas lines. There will be two utility pole relocations and one 10-inch concrete pipe (utility type unknown) to be relocated. Lastly, at two locations, buried telephone, cable, and/or electric lines may be relocated if required. Relocation of these dry lines is being evaluated and will be determined at a later date. The estimated cost of this Project is $5,500,000.

II. METHODS

The project area was preliminarily evaluated for jurisdictional resources in 2012 (HELIX 2012). Since then the project design has been refined. This report provides an updated jurisdictional delineation based on a revised project footprint.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 2 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ?q RIVERSIDE COUNTY Riverside !"a$ Desert Hot Springs Project Site ?q Banning ?u ! Norco Moreno Valley !"`$ A» Lake Perris Beaumont Corona Lake %&h( Mathews Aª AÀ Palm Springs Perris !"a$ San Jacinto AÌ A¦ A¦ Aª Hemet Palm Desert Lake Elsinore Coachella Diamond Valley Lake Hemet Lake Lake Elsinore %&h( A¦ Lake !"a$ Aª Cahuilla A¦ A³ Lake Skinner

ORANGE COUNTY Murrieta AÚ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Aw AÌ Temecula Vail Lake Salton Sea Aª !"a$ ³ RIVERSIDE COUNTY A SAN DIEGO COUNTY I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig1_Regional.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Regional Location

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

010 N Miles Figure 1 Study Area

Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed; Corona North USGS 7.5' Quadrangles I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig2_Vicinity_USGS.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Project Vicinity - USGS Quadrangle

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 2,000 N Feet Figure 2

All areas with depressions, drainage channels, or wetland vegetation were evaluated for the presence of WUS, including jurisdictional wetlands, on December 23, 2014, by HELIX biologists W. Larry Sward and Robert Hogenauer.

The USACE wetland boundaries were determined using three criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) established for wetland delineations as described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008a). Other references included memoranda (USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007) that help clarify the wetland manual and recent court decisions.

The results presented here are also consistent with recent court decisions (i.e., Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. USACE), as outlined and applied by the USACE (USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007); and USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 2007); and EPA and USACE (2007). These publications explain that the EPA and USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), which has year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation is used to determine if the non-RPW is jurisdictional. As an alternative to the significant nexus evaluation process, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation may be submitted to the USACE. The preliminary jurisdictional delineation treats all waters and wetlands on a site as if they are jurisdictional WUS (USACE 2008b). An overview of USACE wetlands and jurisdictional WUS definitions is presented in Appendix A.

Plants were identified according to The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Baldwin, et. al., 2012). Wetland affiliations of plant species follow the USACE’ wetland plant list (Lichvar et., al. 2014). Soils information for the Project area was taken from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) website (2013). Soil samples were evaluated for hydric soil indicators (e.g., hydrogen sulfide [A4], sandy redox [S5], depleted matrix [F3], redox dark surface [F6], redox depressions [F8], and vernal pools [F9]). Soil chromas were identified according to Munsell’s Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen 1994).

Sampling points were inspected for primary (e.g., surface water [A1], saturation [A3], water marks [non-riverine, B1], sediment deposits [non-riverine, B2], drift deposits [non-riverine, B3], surface soil cracks [B6], inundation visible on aerial imagery [B7], salt crust [B11], aquatic invertebrates [B13], hydrogen sulfide odor [C1], and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots [C3]) and secondary (e.g., water marks [riverine, B1], sediment deposits [riverine, B2], drift deposits [riverine, B3], drainage patterns in wetlands [B10], shallow aquitard [D3], and positive FAC neutral test [D5]) wetland hydrology indicators.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 3

The USACE has issued further guidance on the OHWM (Riley 2005; Lichvar and McColley 2008), which also has been used for this delineation.

The CDFW jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses with surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFW jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species (e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). Jurisdictional limits for CDFW streambeds were defined by the top of bank. Vegetated CDFW habitats were mapped at the limits of jurisdictional vegetation. Definitions of CDFW jurisdictional areas are presented in Appendix B.

The WS jurisdictional boundaries encompass areas that are of interest to the RWQCB but are not subject to a 404 Permit. These typically include significant isolated water bodies, such as vernal pools.

Three sample points were evaluated and the data sheets for these are included as Appendix C. Photos of the data points, along with other site photos, are included in Appendix D.

III. RESULTS

A. SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project facilities are within an area that is primarily rural residential, with two schools, Norco Intermediate School and Norco High School (Figure 3). Other land uses in the Project area include agricultural (i.e., plant nurseries along the south side of Hillside Lane) and vacant land, which does not exhibit any apparent land uses.

Soils in the study area are mapped as sandy loams and represent 3 soil series: Placentia, Ramona, and Greenfield (Figure 4; NRCS 2013). Their Map Unit names are: Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes; Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded, and Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded. The Greenfield series is comprised of well drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces that are derived from granitic materials. The Ramona series is also is comprised of well drained soils on alluvial fans and terraces that developed in granitic alluvium. The Placentia series consists of moderately well-drained sandy loams that are found on alluvial fans and terraces that developed in alluvium comprised of granitic material. The soils within jurisdictional areas are almost exclusively Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.

The Placentia series has hydric inclusions as unnamed ponded soils in depressional landscape settings. The other soil types mapped in the study area are not hydric soils nor do they have known hydric inclusions (NRCS 2013); the study area soils are upland soils.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 4 Garden Grove Avenue

e nu ve A w ie V Norco y e Intermediate ll a School Hillside Lane V

Ridgecrest Avenue

e u n Reservoir Drive e v 3rd Street A e d i

s l

H Pinto Lane Pinto

3rd Street

Lane

Buckboard

Lane

Golden West

Study Area

Hillside Avenue

Norco High Corona Avenue School

Temescal Avenue Temescal

2nd Street I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig3_Aerial.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Aerial Photograph

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 650 N Feet Figure 3 Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded

Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded

Placentia fine sandy loam, Vista coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Placentia fine sandy loam, Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded

Study Area Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Fallbrook sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded

Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes

Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded

Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig4_Soils.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK Soils

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 600 N Feet Figure 4

The entire study area has is either developed or disturbed due to human activities (Figures 5a and 5b). Small portions of the site have also been mapped as ephemeral basin. The areas mapped as ephemeral basin were inundated at the time of this survey; their mapping, however, is based on our observations, and recent and historical aerial photographs.

Portions of the channel are included in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; Figure 6; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2015). The NWI mapping for the channel is riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded, excavated (R4SBCx).

The existing channel is an unlined, trapezoidal channel, except for culverts under road crossings. The channel immediately east of the intersection Corona Street and Second Avenue is lined with concrete or riprap. Several sections of the channel are culverted, including at Temescal Avenue, near the high school, just north of the high school, 3rd Street, and at two places not associated with a street. One is approximately half way between Corona and Temescal Avenues, and the other is approximately half way between Temescal Avenue and 3rd Street. The channel ends at the Norco Intermediate School property. The Project sections along Third Street, Hillside Lane, Hillside Avenue, and Golden West Lane are in previously developed areas.

B. JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS

The study area includes WUS (Figures 7a and 7b), CDFW jurisdictional habitat and WS (Figures 8a and 8b). The wetland WUS are comprised of herbaceous wetland, disturbed wetland, and non-wetland streambed. Typically the CDFW jurisdictional habitat would include the same types of jurisdictional habitats but encompass a slightly larger area due to a less restrictive definition of jurisdictional habitats. However, because the District has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFW allowing them to maintain Norco Channel (Appendix E), the small amount of wetland vegetation observed during the delineation is not considered as jurisdictional wetland habitat. The underlying streambed and non-vegetated streambed elsewhere, however, is considered jurisdictional. The WS includes the seasonal basins. The description of the various jurisdictional areas observed in the Project area is provided below.

1. Wetland WUS/Herbaceous Wetland

This vegetation community often occurs in habitats that are subject to frequent or regular flooding. This community is often dominated by low-growing herbaceous species that are adapted to an anaerobic environment, but can also include species that obtain a height of up to 2 meters. This habitat on the project site occurs within the south Norco channel and is dominated by the native Mexican sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca uninervia), with a few emergent cattails (Typha sp.).

2. Wetland WUS/Disturbed Wetland

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 5

cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). In the project area, this habitat occurs within the south Norco channel and is dominated by the non-native water speedwell (Veronica anagalis-aquiatica), and also includes small numbers of willow weed (Persicaria lapathifolia), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora).

3. Seasonal Basin

Seasonal basins are depressions that periodically hold water. A review of historical photographs shows that the basins did not exist in 1967 (see photo in Appendix D of HELIX 2012). Further evidence that these basins were recently created is the underlying topography on the channel’s construction plans. The plans show a low ridge through the two eastern basins. These manmade features are an artifact of grading and soil compaction from the District’s use of this lot. The area of the basins is used for storage of materials, including those materials removed from various flood control facilities (mud, vegetation, and other debris that clog flood control drains). The basins are mostly unvegetated and no vernal pool indicator plants were present. The seasonal basins are not vernal pools. Versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) were observed in the basins this spring (Helix 2015).

4. Non-wetland WUS/Streambed

The South Norco channel is regarded as non-wetland WUS (see site photos in Appendix D). The earthen sections of the South Norco channel are also regarded as CDFW streambed. The drainage is intermittent and is essentially unvegetated, supporting sparse amounts of upland species such as prostrate amaranth (Aphanisma blitoides) and several wetland species in such a low density that the channel is regarded by the Arid West Supplement (2008a) as unvegetated over most of its length.

C. SAMPLING POINTS

Three sample points were evaluated within the study area (Figures 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b) and are described below.

Sample Point 1. This sample point was located in an earthen channel at the central part of the study area (Figures 7b and 8b). This section of the channel is included in the NWI mapping as Riverine (USFWS 2015). Wetland hydrology was present but hydric soil was not and the channel is unvegetated. The absence of wetland vegetation may be the result of periodic channel maintenance. This area met only one of the three USACE wetland criteria and is therefore not a USACE wetland; however, it is a non-wetland WUS and CDFW jurisdictional streambed.

Sample Point 2. This sample point was located in the earthen channel near the southern end of the channel (Figures 7b and 8b). This section of the channel is included in the NWI mapping as Riverine (USFWS 2015). Wetland hydrology (A2, A3, B3-riverine, and D5), hydric soils (F6), and wetland vegetation (Dominance Test) were all present. The vegetation was dominated by Mexican sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca uninervia), a FACW native species. The vegetation

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 6 Figure 5a Figure a Vegetation

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL Hillside Avenue Hillside b

Hillside Lane Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal Pinto Lane Pinto Feet

200 Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest 0

N Corona Avenue Corona

3rd Street Study Area Study Wetland Disturbed Habitat Disturbed Developed

Habitat I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig5a_Vegetation.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig5a_Vegetation.mxd Figure 5b Vegetation SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL

Corona Avenue Temescal Avenue Temescal

Willow Drive Corona Avenue Corona Feet 200 a 2nd Street 0

N b Study Area Developed Disturbed Habitat Basin Seasonal

Habitat I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig5b_Vegetation.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK 01/05/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig5b_Vegetation.mxd Study Area Palustrine/Forested/Scrub-Shrub/Seasonally Flooded Riverine/Intermittent/Streambed/Temporary Flooded Riverine/Intermittent/Streambed/Temporary Flooded/Artificial Substrate Riverine/Intermittent/Streambed/Seasonally Flooded/Artificial Substrate Riverine/Intermittent/Streambed/Seasonally Flooded/Excavated Riverine/Intermittent/Streambed/Intermittently Flooded

Hillside Lane

3rd Street Hillside Avenue

3rd Street

Study Area

Temescal Avenue

Hillside Avenue I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig6_NWI.mxd RCF-02.03 01/05/15 -RK National Wetlands Inventory

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 600 N Feet Figure 6 Figure 7a

a  SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL

 Hillside Avenue Hillside

 Waters of the U.S. b



Hillside Lane Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal

Pinto Lane Pinto



7' Feet

200 Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest



! ( 

! (

 10'

 6'

Drain Inlet Drain 

  

2' CMP Outlet 2' 11'

10' 10' 4' 6'  0 N

3rd Street Corona Avenue Corona Study Area Roadside Ditch Diameter3' Culvert Sheet Flow from Street Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.    

Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Waters of the U.S. I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig7a_USACE.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig7a_USACE.mxd 10' Figure 7b SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL

Waters of the U.S. 

Corona Avenue  Study Area Point Sampling 3 - 2' Diameter Squashed Corrugated Metal Pipes Basin Seasonal Concrete andRiprap Concrete-lined Channel Herbaceous Wetland Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.     ! ( Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Waters of the U.S.

Concrete and Riprap and Concrete 9' SP 1 !( 

10' 



10' SP 3

!(



10' Temescal Avenue Temescal

SP 2



 

Willow Drive

16' 

13.5' 

11' Corona Avenue Corona

 Feet 200 7' a 2nd Street 0

b I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig7b_USACE.mxd RCF-02.03 01/06/15 -RK 01/06/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig7b_USACE.mxd Figure 8a

a  SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL



 Avenue Hillside b



Hillside Lane

CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats and Waters of the State Citation Drive Citation

3rd Street

Temescal Avenue Temescal

Pinto Lane Pinto

 3'

Feet

22' 200 Ridgecrest Avenue Ridgecrest

 ! ( 

! (

25'





Drain Inlet Drain 19'

 

2' CMP Outlet 2' 

25' 25' 6' 19'  0

N Corona Avenue Corona

3rd Street Study Area Roadside Ditch Diameter3' Culvert Sheet Flow from Street Disturbed Wetland Streambed    

CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats Jurisdictional CDFW Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig8a_CDFW.mxd RCF-02.03 12/30/14 -RK 12/30/14 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig8a_CDFW.mxd 25' Figure 8b

SOUTH NORCOCHANNEL 

Corona Avenue  Study Area Point Sampling 3 - 2' Diameter Squashed Corrugated Metal Pipes Concrete andRiprap Concrete-lined Channel Herbaceous Wetland Disturbed Wetland Streambed Basin Seasonal     ! ( Non-juridictional Features Non-juridictional Habitats Jurisdictional CDFW Waters of the State

Concrete and Riprap and Concrete

25'

 24' SP 1 !( 

28'  Waters of the State and CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats



22' SP 3

!(

16'



22' Temescal Avenue Temescal

SP 2

 

19'

 

Willow Drive

25' 

23'



25' Corona Avenue Corona

 Feet 200 19.5' a

2nd Street 0

b I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig8b_CDFW.mxd RCF-02.03 01/06/15 -RK 01/06/15 RCF-02.03 I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\JD\Fig8b_CDFW.mxd

community was determined to be herbaceous wetland. This area met all three of the USACE wetland criteria and is therefore a USACE wetland and is also a CDFW jurisdictional streambed.

Sample Point 3. This sample point was located in the south central portion of the earthen channel (Figures 7b and 8b). This section of the channel is included in the NWI mapping as Riverine (USFWS 2015). Wetland hydrology (A1, A2, A3, B3-riverine, and D5), hydric soils (F3), and wetland vegetation (Dominance Test) were all present. The vegetation was dominated by water speedwell (Veronica anagalis-aquatica), an obligate non-native species. The vegetation community was determined to be disturbed wetland. This area met all three of the USACE wetland criteria and is therefore a USACE wetland and is also a CDFW jurisdictional streambed.

D. JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY

Areas within the study area that are under federal jurisdiction occur in the on-site drainage channel, and total 0.92 acre, including 0.06 acre wetland WUS and 0.86 acre of non-wetland WUS (Figures 7a and 7b; Table 1).

Table 1 WATERS OF THE U.S.

WUS AREA (acres ) LENGTH (feet) Wetlands Herbaceous wetland 0.02 148 Disturbed wetland 0.04 390 Subtotal 0.06 538 Non-wetlands Intermittent drainage (Constructed flood control 0.86 3,201 channel) TOTAL 0.92 3,739

Areas within the study area that are under CDFW jurisdiction also occur within the on-site drainage channel, and total 2.05 acres, all of which is regarded as unvegetated streambed (Figures 8a and 8b; Table 2).

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 7

Table 2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS

HABITAT AREA (acres ) LENGTH (feet) Herbaceous wetland 0.02 148 Disturbed wetland 0.04 390 Subtotal 0.06 538 Streambed (Constructed flood 1.99 3,201 control channel) TOTAL 2.05 3,739

The basins near the southern end of the Project are potentially WS and jurisdictional pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. These basins are not regarded as WUS or CDFW jurisdictional habitat due to their isolation from any WUS or lake or streambed. These basins may occupy up to 1.06 acres in a wet year.

IV. CONCLUSION

A. FEDERAL PERMITTING

Federal jurisdictional areas occurring within the study area total 0.92 acre, comprised of 0.06 acre wetland WUS and 0.86 acre of intermittent non-wetland WUS. Impacts to WUS are regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 401 et seq.; 33 USC 1344; USC 1413; and U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 323). A federal CWA Section 404 Permit would be required for the Proposed Project. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board must be issued prior to any 404 Permit.

Projects may be permitted on an individual basis or may be covered under one of several approved Nationwide Permits, based on the type of action, amount of fill, and size and length of impact. Individual Permits typically require substantial time (often longer than 12 months) to review and approve, while Nationwide Permits are pre-approved if a project meets appropriate conditions. This project will likely require an Individual Permit (IP). The applicable NWPs or need for an IP would be determined by the USACE. It appears that federal permitting for impacts to WUS would be an Individual Permit.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 8

B. STATE PERMITTING

The CDFW jurisdictional areas occurring within the study area total 2.05 acres comprised entirely of streambed. The CDFW regulates alterations or impacts to streambeds or lakes under California Fish and Game Code 1602, and requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for projects that will divert or obstruct the natural flow of water; change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream; or use any material from a streambed. The SAA is a contract between the applicant and CDFW stating what activities can occur in the riparian zone and stream course (California Association of Resource Conservation Districts 2002). Any impacts to CDFW habitat would be regulated under California Fish and Game Code 1602 (Appendix B) and require an SAA.

Areas subject to regulation under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act consist of 1.06 acres of unvegetated basins. A report of Report of Waste Water Discharge may be issued with the 401 Certification from the RWQCB.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 9

V. REFERENCES

Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil D. J., Patterson R., Rosatti, T. J. and Wilken, D. H. (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 pp.

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the State of California. URL: http://www.carcd.org/permitting/pguide.pdf.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices.

Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 pp.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 2012. South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project, Jurisdictional Delineation Report. July 20. 7 pp., plus figures and appendices

2015. South Norco Channel Project Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report. May 28. 3 pgs., plus figures and appendices.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California Resources Agency.

Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore, MD.

Lichvar, R., M. Butterwick, N. Melvin, and W. Kirchner. 2014. Arid West 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List. http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2013. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Last updated December 6.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decisions. June 5. 21 pp.

2008b. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02. June 26.

--- and EPA. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 10

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE. 2007. Joint Guidance to Sustain Wetlands Protection under Supreme Court Decision. 2 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Updated January 26. Accessed February 6.

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project / RCF-02.03 / June 18, 2015 12 Appendix A

FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION Appendix A FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION

Wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.” Definitions

Further guidance on identifying the OHWM in the Arid Southwest (Lichvar and McColley 2008). This publication provided geomorphic and vegetation OHWM indicators specific to the Arid Southwest. .Jurisdictional areas also must be connected to Waters of the U.S. (Guzy and Anderson 2001; U.S. Supreme Court 2001).

Wetland Criteria

Vegetation

“Hydrophytic vegetation is defined herein as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently

A-2 or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Table A-1* DEFINITIONS OF PLANT INDICATOR CATEGORIES

ESTIMATED INDICATOR QUALITATIVE PROBABILITY ABBREVIATION CATEGORIES DESCRIPTION of OCCURING in WETLANDS Occur almost always under >99% Obligate OBL natural conditions in wetlands Facultative Usually occur in wetlands, but 67%-99% FACW Wetland may occur in non-wetlands Equally likely to occur in 34%-66% Facultative FAC wetlands or non-wetlands Usually occur in non-wetlands 1%-33% Facultative FACU but occasionally found in Upland wetlands Occur in wetlands in another >1% region, but occur almost always Upland UPL under natural conditions in non- wetland in the region specified *From USFWS 1996

Hydrology

Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year (approximately

A-3 18 days for most of low-lying southern California). Hydrology criteria are evaluated based on the characteristics listed below (USACE 2008). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are present, the limit of the OHWM (or the limit of adjacent wetlands) is noted and mapped. Evidence of wetland hydrology is met by the presence of a single primary indicator or two secondary indicators.

Primary x surface water (A1) x salt crust (B11) x high water table (A2) x biotic crust (B12) x saturation (A3) x aquatic invertebrates (B13) x water marks (B1; non-riverine) x hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) x sediment deposits (B2; non-riverine) x oxidized rhizospheres along living roots x drift deposits (B3; non-riverine (C3) x surface soil cracks (B6) x presence of reduced iron (C4) x inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) x recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) x water-stained leaves (B9) x thin muck surface (C7)

Soils

Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation. Soil matrix and mottle colors are identified at each sampling plot using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen 1994). Generally, an 18-inch pit is excavated with a shovel at each sampling point unless refusal occurs above 18 inches.

A-4 with USDA textures of loamy fine sand or coarser, and indicators for “Loamy and Clayey Soils” (F) are used with soil layers of loamy very fine sand and finer (USACE 2008).

x histosols (A1) x stripped matrix (S6) x histic epipedons (A2) x loamy mucky mineral (F1) x black histic (A3) x loamy gleyed matrix (F2) x hydrogen sulfide (A4) x depleted matrix (F3) x stratified layers (A5) x redox dark surface (F6) x 1 cm muck (A9) x depleted dark surface (F7) x depleted below dark surface (A11) x redox depressions (F8) x thick dark surface (A12) x vernal pools (F9) x sandy mucky mineral (S1) x 2 cm muck (A10) x sandy gleyed matrix (S4) x reduced vertic (F18) x sandy redox (S5) x red parent material (TF2)

Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

USGS Mapping

A-5 REFERENCES

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States

Guzy, G.S. and R.M. Anderson. 2001. Memorandum: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning CWA Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters. U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition. Baltimore, MD.

Leopold, Luna B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 298 pp.

Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4pp

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/WetlandsandWaterways/DocumentsandInfo rmation/Documents/www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/plants/l96_intro. pdf

A-6 U.S. Supreme Court. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178 (SWANCC). January 9.

A-7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A-8 Appendix B

STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION Appendix B STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Regulations

In order to notify the Department, a person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility must submit a complete notification package and fee to the Department regional office that serves the county where the activity will take place. A fee schedule is included in the notification package materials. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections 65920 et seq.), the Department has 30 days to determine whether the package is complete. If the requestor is not notified within 30 days, the application is automatically deemed to be complete.

Once the notification package is deemed to be complete, the Department will determine whether the applicant will need a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for the activity, which will be required if the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. If an SAA is required, the Department will conduct an on-site inspection, if necessary, and submit a draft SAA that will include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while conducting the project. If the applicant is applying for a regular SAA (less than five years), the Department will submit a draft SAA within 60 calendar days after notification is deemed complete. The 60-day time period does not apply to notifications for long-term SAAs (greater than 5 years).

After the applicant receives the SAA, the applicant has 30 calendar days to notify the Department whether the measures in the draft SAA are acceptable. If the applicant agrees with the measures included in the draft SAA, the applicant will need to sign the SAA and submit it to the Department. If the applicant disagrees with any measures in the draft SAA, the applicant must notify the Department in writing and specify the measures that are not acceptable. Upon written request, the Department will meet with the applicant within 14 calendar days of receiving the request to resolve the disagreement. If the applicant fails to respond in writing within 90 calendar days of receiving the draft SAA, the Department may withdraw that SAA. The time periods described above may be extended at any time by mutual agreement.

After the Department receives the signed draft SAA, the Department will make it final by signing the SAA; however, the Department will not sign the SAA until it both receives the notification fee and ensures that the SAA complies with the California Environmental Quality

Water Resource Control Board Regulations

Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Whenever a project requires a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, it must first obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the 401 Certification program. Federal CWA Section 401 requires that every applicant for a Section 404 permit must request a Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB regulate the discharge of waste to waters of the State via the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter- Cologne) as described in the California Water Code (SWRCB 2008). The California Water Code is the State’s version of the Federal CWA. Waste, according to the California Water Code, includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. State waters that are not federal waters may be regulated under Porter-Cologne. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB for projects that result in discharge of waste into waters of the State. The RWQCB will issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver. The WDRs are the Porter- Cologne version of a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification.

REFERENCES

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the State of California. Available at URL: http://www.carcd.org/permitting/pguide.pdf.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616.

Date unknown. Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification Guidelines.

B-2 Appendix C

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: ^ŽƵƚŚEŽƌĐŽŚĂŶŶĞů City/County: EŽƌĐŽ ͬ ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞ Sampling Date: ϮϭDĂ Ǉ ϮϬϭϮ Applicant/Owner: ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽ͘&ůŽŽĚŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ͖ Z&ͲϬϮ State: Sampling Point: ϭ Investigator(s): t͘>͘^ǁĂƌĚ Section, Township, Range: ^ϳĂŶĚϭϴ ͕ dϯƐŽƵƚŚ ͕ ZϲǁĞƐƚ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ĚƌĂŝŶĂ Ő Ğ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ŶŽŶĞ Slope (%): Ϯй Subregion (LRR): Lat: ϯϯ͘ϵϭϯϰ Long: Ͳϭϭϳ͘ϱϰϴϬ Datum: t'^ϴϰ Soil Map Unit Name: WůĂĐĞŶƚŝĂĨŝŶĞƐĂŶĚ Ǉ ůŽĂŵ ͕ ϬͲϱй ; Wů Ϳ NWI classification: hŶĚĞĨŝŶĞĚ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ✔ , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✔ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔ within a Wetland? Yes No ✔ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: ^ĂŵƉůĞƉŽŝŶƚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůďŽƚƚŽŵĞĚ͕ƚƌĂƉĞǌŽŝĚĂůĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞĚŝƚĐŚ͘Et/ŵĂƉƐƐŚŽǁĂŶƵŶĚĞĨŝŶĞĚ ƉŽůǇŐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞƐĂŵƉůĞƉŽŝŶƚ͘ VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status ϮϱΖyϲϬΖ Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Ϭй = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ϭϱΖyϯϬΗ ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Ϭй = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ƌсϱΖ ) UPL species x 5 = 1. 'ƌĂƐƐƐĞĞĚůŝŶ Ő ; >Ğ Ɖ ƚŽĐŚůŽĂĨƵƐĐĂ͍ Ϳ н EŽ &t͍ Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ɖ ŚĂŶŝƐŵĂďůŝƚŽŝĚĞƐ Ϯй EŽ hW> 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is 3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Ϯй = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ϭϬΖyϭϬΖ ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Ϭй = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks: ŚĂŶŶĞůŝƐŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽ͘&ůŽŽĚŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌŽŶ ƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝƐƵŶͲǀĞŐĞƚĂƚĞĚ͘ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽĂŶDKhǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ&';d͘ZŚĞŝŶĞƌ͕ƉĞƌƐ͘ĐŽŵŵ͘Ϳ͘

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: ϭ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks ϬͲϭ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ Ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă ĐŽĂƌƐĞƐĂŶĚ ϭͲϯ ϭϬzZϮ ͬ ϭ ϭϬϬй ^Ă ĐŽĂƌƐĞƐĂŶĚ ͖ Śŝ Ő ŚŽƌ Ő ĂŶŝĐĐŽŶƚĞŶ ƚ ϯͲϱ ϱzϰ ͬ ϭ ϭϬϬй ^Ă> ϱͲϭϬ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ Ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă> ϭϬͲϭϮ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ Ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă>

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks:

EŽŚǇĚƌŝĐƐŽŝůŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌƐ͘

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ✔ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔ Saturation (A3) ✔ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✔ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϰΗ Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϬΗ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: ƋƵĂƚŝĐŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ͗ĐůĂŵƐŚĞůůĨƌĂŐŵĞŶƚƐ͘

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

Project/Site: ^ŽƵƚŚEŽƌĐŽŚĂŶŶĞů>ŝŶĞ^Ͳϭ City/County: EŽƌĐŽ ͬ ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞ Sampling Date: ϮϯĞĐϮϬϭϰ Applicant/Owner: ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽ͘&ůŽŽĚŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ͬ Z&ͲϬϮ͘Ϭϯ State: Sampling Point: Ϯ Investigator(s): >^ǁĂƌĚΘZ,Ž Ő ĂŶĂƵĞƌ Section, Township, Range: >Ă^ŝĞƌƌĂ>ĂŶĚ'ƌĂŶƚ ; ƵŶƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĞĚ Ϳ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): dƌĂ Ɖ ĞǌŽŝĚĂůĚƌĂŝŶĂ Ő ĞĚŝƚĐŚ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ŶŽŶĞ Slope (%): Ϯй Subregion (LRR): ͗DĞĚŝƚĞƌƌĂŶĞĂŶĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: ✔ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: ^WĐĞŶƚĞƌĞĚŝŶĚĞŶƐĞƐƚƉĂƚĐŚŽĨǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘th^ĂŶĚ^ƚĂƚĞůŝŵŝƚƐ'W^ΖĚ͘^WŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶŵĂŶŵĂĚĞ͕ĞĂƌƚŚĞŶ ƚƌĂƉĞǌŽŝĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů͘ VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status ϮϬΖyϲϬΖ Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ϭ (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: ϭ (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Ϭ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ϭϬϬ (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ϮϬΖyϮϬΗ ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Ϭ = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ϱΖyϱΖ ) UPL species x 5 = 1. >Ğ Ɖ ƚŽĐŚůŽĂĨƵƐĐŽĞƵŶŝŶĞƌǀĂ ϰϬ Ǉ ĞƐ &t Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ő ƌĂƐƐƐĞĞĚůŝŶ Ő н ŶŽ ͍ 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔ 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is 3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) ϰϬй = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ϭϬΖyϭϬΖ ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Ϭ = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ϲϬй % Cover of Biotic Crust Ϭ Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: ,ĞƌďĂĐĞŽƵƐǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͘ ^ƉĂƌƐĞdǇƉŚĂƐƉ͘ƐƉƌŽƵƚƐĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵ͘

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Ϯ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks ϬͲϰΗ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă

ϰΗͲϴΗ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ ϭ ϵϱй ϱzZϰ ͬ ϲϱйZDD^Ă>

ϴΗͲϭϬΗ Ϯ͘ϱzϯ ͬ Ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă>

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ✔ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ,ĂƌĚ Ɖ ĂŶ Depth (inches): ϴΗͲϭϬΗ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: tĂƚĞƌŝŶƉŝƚĂƚϴΗ͘

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ✔ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔ Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✔ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) ✔ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϴΗ Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϰΗ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: &ͲŶĞƵƚƌĂůdĞƐƚ͖ǁ͗Ƶсϭ͗Ϭ

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

Project/Site: ^ŽƵƚŚEŽƌĐŽŚĂŶŶĞů>ŝŶĞ^Ͳϭ City/County: EŽƌĐŽ ͬ ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞ Sampling Date: ϮϯĞĐϮϬϭϰ Applicant/Owner: ZŝǀĞƌƐŝĚĞŽ͘&ůŽŽĚŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ͬ Z&ͲϬϮ͘Ϭϯ State: Sampling Point: ϯ Investigator(s): >^ǁĂƌĚΘZ,Ž Ő ĂŶĂƵĞƌ Section, Township, Range: >Ă^ŝĞƌƌĂ>ĂŶĚ'ƌĂŶƚ ; ƵŶƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĞĚ Ϳ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): dƌĂ Ɖ ĞǌŽŝĚĂůĚƌĂŝŶĂ Ő ĞĚŝƚĐŚ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ŶŽŶĞ Slope (%): Ϯй Subregion (LRR): ͗DĞĚŝƚĞƌƌĂŶĞĂŶĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: ✔ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: ^WŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶŵĂŶŵĂĚĞ͕ĞĂƌƚŚĞŶƚƌĂƉĞǌŽŝĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů͘

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status ϭϮΖyϲϬΖ Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ϭ (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: ϭ (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Ϭ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ϭϬϬй (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ϭϮΖyϮϬΖ ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Ϭ = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ϱΖyϱΖ ) UPL species x 5 = 1. sĞƌŽŶŝĐĂĂŶĂ Ő ĂůŝƐͲĂ Ƌ ƵĂƚŝĐĂ ϮϮй K> Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. WƐĞƵĚŽ Ő ŶĂ Ɖ ŚĂůŝƵŵůƵƚĞŽĂůďƵŵ Ϯй ŶŽ & 3. DĞĚŝĐĂ Ő Ž Ɖ Žů Ǉ ŵŽƌ Ɖ ŚĂ ϭй ŶŽ &h Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. WĞƌƐŝĐĂƌŝĂůĂ Ɖ ĂƚŚŝĨŽůŝĂ н ŶŽ &t Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔ 5. DĂůǀĂ Ɖ ĂƌǀŝĨůŽƌĂ н ŶŽ hW> Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. ^ŽŶĐŚƵƐŽůĞƌĂĐĞŽƵƐ н ŶŽ hW> Prevalence Index is 3.0 1 7. ^ŝƐ Ǉ ŵďƌŝƵŵŝƌŝŽ н ŶŽ hW> Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Ϯϱй = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ϭϬ ͖ yϭϬΖ ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Ϭ = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ϳϱй % Cover of Biotic Crust Ϭ Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: ŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚ͘

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: ϯ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks ϬͲϰΗ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă ĐŽĂƌƐĞƐĂŶĚ

ϰΗͲϳΗ ϭϬzZϯ ͬ Ϯ ϭϬϬй ^Ă>

ϳΗͲϭϭΗ Ϯ͘ϱzZϰ ͬ ϭ ϲϬй ϳ͘ϱzZϰ ͬ ϲ ϰϬй D

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ✔ Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ✔ Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ✔ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔ Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✔ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) ✔ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϭΗͲϮΗ Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϵΗ Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): ϰΗ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: tĂƚĞƌƉŽŶĚĞĚŝŶĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϱйŽĨŚĞƌďĂĐĞŽƵƐƐƚƌĂƚƵŵƐĂŵƉůŝŶ ŐĂƌĞĂ͕ŝŶƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƉĂƌƚŽĨĂƌĞĂ͘ &ͲŶĞƵƚƌĂůdĞƐƚ͖ǁ͗Ƶсϭ͗Ϭ

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 Appendix D

SAMPLE POINT AND SITE PHOTOS Sample Point 1. This sample point is located in the channel, just upstream from Temescal Avenue. Wetland hydrology was present but hydric soil and wetland vegetation were not. Channel is maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and is unvegetated. Maintenance is conducted pursuant to an MOU with the CDFG (T. Rheiner, pers. comm.). Three squashed, 2-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes, visible downstream from the sample point, convey water under Temescal Avenue. 21 May 2012

Sample Point 2. This sample point is located in the channel, just upstream from a culverted crossing in the southern part of the channel. All three wetland parameters, vegetation, soil, and hydrology, were present. The vegetation at this location was dominated by native wetland species. 23 December 2014

G/PROJECTS/Biology/R/RCF-02.03/BIO/BIO Reports/JD/Appendices/Appx D photo pages Representative Site Photos SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT A p p e n d i x D Sample Point 3. This sample point is located in the channel, just downstream from Temescal Avenue. All three wetland parameters, vegetation, soil, and hydrology, were present. The vegetation at this location was dominated by non-native wetland species. 23 December 2014

G/PROJECTS/Biology/R/RCF-02.03/BIO/BIO Reports/JD/Appendices/Appx D photo pages Representative Site Photos SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT A p p e n d i x D Appendix E

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Appendix D WET SEASON FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEY REPORT South Norco Channel Project

Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report

May 28, 2015

Prepared for: Prepared by: Riverside County Flood Control HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and Water Conservation District 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 1995 Market Street La Mesa, CA 91942 Riverside, CA 92501

I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represent my work:

Jason Kurnow

Amy Mattson South Norco Channel Project Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Species Information ...... 1

2.0 METHODS ...... 1

3.0 RESULTS ...... 2

4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 2

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 3

LIST OF APPENDICES

A USFWS Wet Season Survey Data Sheets B Representative Site Photos

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page No.

1 Regional Location Map ...... 2 2 Project Vicinity Map – USGS Quadrangle ...... 2 3 Sampled Basins ...... 2

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Follows Page No.

1 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Sampling Results ...... 2

i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of the 2014-2015 wet season fairy shrimp survey conducted for the South Norco Channel Project, which encompasses an approximately 19.5-acre study area located within the City of Norco, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The study area is situated within Sections 7 and 18 of Township 3 South, Range 6 West as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Corona North quadrangle map (Figure 2). The study area is located within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan, of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). However, none of the parcels that compose the study area are within any Criteria Cell, Cell Group, or Sub Unit.

The purpose of this survey was to determine presence/absence of federally listed threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and federally listed endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) within water-holding basins occurring within the study area.

1.1 SPECIES INFORMATION

There are 3 species of fairy shrimp with potential to occur on site: Riverside fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli). The Riverside fairy shrimp is federally listed as endangered, vernal pool fairy shrimp is federally listed as threatened, and versatile fairy shrimp is relatively common and is not listed or considered sensitive. Riverside fairy shrimp can be found in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties, and occur in vernal pools and other ephemeral basins. Vernal pool fairy shrimp occur throughout the Central Valley and in several disjunct populations in Riverside County. The versatile fairy shrimp is common in pools throughout California and can co-occur with both vernal pool and Riverside fairy shrimp. Federally listed endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (B. sandiegonensis) can be found in San Diego and Orange counties but are not known to occur in Riverside County and are not expected to occur within the study area.

2.0 METHODS

HELIX permitted biologists Jason Kurnow and Amy Mattson (Permit TE778195) conducted the wet season survey according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol (USFWS 1996) to determine presence/absence of vernal pool and Riverside fairy shrimp. Five site visits were conducted within the study area during this survey. Ponding was noted at the site on December 23, 2014. A request to conduct surveys was submitted to the USFWS on December 24, 2014 and the initial survey occurred on January 8, 2014. This was approximately 5 weeks after the initial rain event of the 2014-2015 rain season1. Subsequent visits occurred on January 23, February 6, March 18, and May 26, 2015.

Samples were taken in water-holding basins using fine mesh aquarium nets. When possible, fairy shrimp were identified in the field and immediately returned to their pool of origin. In

1 * The initial rain event occurred from November 30, 2014 to December 4, 2014. The rainfall total for this event according to the nearest NOAA weather station (Yorba Linda) was 3.23 inches.

Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report for the South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / May 28, 2015 1 some instances, fairy shrimp were collected and identified using the key in Eriksen and Belk (1999) with aid of a dissecting scope. When “take” of fairy shrimp occurred, no more than 3 male specimens were collected from pools having no less than 10 fairy shrimp. Care was taken to ensure that nets were cleaned after each basin was sampled. Basin depth, area, water temperature, air temperature, habitat condition, and species present were noted and recorded on USFWS vernal pool data sheets (Appendix A). Data sheets were not filled out when a basin was dry during a survey visit. Representative site photos are included in Appendix B.

3.0 RESULTS

No federally listed threatened or endangered fairy shrimp were observed in this wet season fairy shrimp survey. Three basins were observed to hold water during this survey. The non-listed versatile fairy shrimp was observed in Basins 1 and 2 (Table 1; Figure 3).

Table 1 WET SEASON FAIRY SHRIMP SAMPLING RESULTS

2015 BASIN 1/8 1/23 2/6 3/18 5/26* 1 BRLI BRLI Dry Dry Dry 2 BRLI Dry Dry Dry Dry 3 --- Dry Dry Dry Dry BRLI: Branchinecta lindahli --- : Basin sampled, but no fairy shrimp observed * Pond check triggered by a storm event occurring May 15, 2015.

4.0 DISCUSSION

The start date of the wet season survey in the study area likely resulted in one or two fewer sampling events than otherwise would have been done. This is based on the basins being ponding by December 4, 2014. Given that date for ponding, the initial survey would have been done one week earlier. If the surveys were conducted one week earlier, there may have been sufficient ponding for one more survey before the pools dried out. However, it is likely that the outcome would be the same if the survey effort began earlier. This is because the initial rain event of the 2014-2015 rain season was significant, yielding a rain fall total of 3.23 inches. This is enough to cause ponding in all 3 basins. Since the initial rain event, two other rain events occurred prior to the initial wet season survey: one occurring December 12-13, 2015, with the second occurring December 16-17, 2015. Rainfall totals for these two events were 1.74 inches and 0.47 inch. It is unlikely that any of the basins dried out from the time of initial inundation to the time of the initial survey visit. Fairy shrimp hatching as a result of initial inundation would likely still be present during the initial survey, although their densities might have differed from what was observed. Thus, the number of versatile fairy shrimp may have been different, but no additional species would have been present.

Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report for the South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / May 28, 2015 2 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ?q RIVERSIDE COUNTY Riverside !"a$ Desert Hot Springs Project Site ?q Banning ?u ! Norco Moreno Valley !"`$ A» Lake Perris Beaumont Corona Lake %&h( Mathews Aª AÀ Palm Springs Perris !"a$ San Jacinto AÌ A¦ A¦ Aª Hemet Palm Desert Lake Elsinore Coachella Diamond Valley Lake Hemet Lake Lake Elsinore %&h( A¦ Lake !"a$ Aª Cahuilla A¦ A³ Lake Skinner

ORANGE COUNTY Murrieta AÚ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Aw AÌ Temecula Vail Lake Salton Sea Aª !"a$ A³ RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\FS_WetSeason\Fig1_Regional.mxd RCF-02.03 05/01/15 -RK Regional Location

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

010 N Miles Figure 1 Study Area

Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed; Corona North USGS 7.5' Quadrangles I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\FS_WetSeason\Fig2_Vicinity_USGS.mxd RCF-02.03 05/01/15 -RK Project Vicinity - USGS Quadrangle

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0 2,000 N Feet Figure 2 Sampled Basins Study Area Boundary

Corona Avenue 2

3 1

2nd Street I:\PROJECTS\R\RCF\RCF-02.03_SoNorcoChannel\Map\FS_WetSeason\Fig3_Basins.mxd RCF-02.03 05/01/15 -RK Sampled Basins

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL

0150 N Feet Figure 3 5.0 REFERENCES

Eriksen, C.H. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press. Eurkea, California. 196pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Brachiopods. April 19.

Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report for the South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / May 28, 2015 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report for the South Norco Channel Project / RCF-02.03 / May 28, 2015 4 Appendix A

USFWS WET SEASON SURVEY DATA SHEETS

Appendix B

REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOS Basin 1 - looking souteast-1/8/15-JK

Basin 2 - looking east-1/8/15-JK

Basin 3 - looking northwest-1/8/15-JK

J/PROJECTS/Biology/H/HDL-05/Reports/Year 5 (2010)/Yr5 Appx E site photos Representive Site Photos SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL PROJECT 2015 WET SEASON FAIRY SHRIMP REPORT Appendix B Appendix E CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL, LINE S-1 IN THE CITY OF NORCO, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

USGS Corona North, CA 7.5' Quadrangle

Prepared for: Larry Sward HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942

Prepared by: Tiffany Clark, Ph.D., RPA and Josh Smallwood, M.A., RPA Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 133 N. San Gabriel Boulevard, Suite 201 Pasadena, CA 91107

January 2015

National Archaeological Database (NADB) Type of Study: Literature Search, Intensive Pedestrian Survey and Evaluation Cultural Resources Recorded: P-33-024099 and P-33-024100 USGS 7.5ҿ Quadrangle: Corona North Acreage: 19 acres Level of Investigation: Section 106 of the NHPA Key Words: Norco; Riverside County; Section 106; CEQA; Phase 1 area; 19 acres surveyed; two cultural resources; historical irrigation feature; historical storm channel CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... iv

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Location ...... 1 1.2 Project Background and Description ...... 1 1.3 Area of Potential Effects ...... 1 1.4 Regulatory Context ...... 4 1.4.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ...... 4 1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ...... 6 1.5 Report Organization ...... 6

2 SETTING ...... 8 2.1 Introduction ...... 8 2.2 Current Natural Environment ...... 8 2.3 Prehistoric Setting ...... 9 2.4 Ethnographic Setting ...... 11 2.4.1 Gabrielino ...... 11 2.4.2 Luiseño ...... 13 2.5 Ethnohistorical Setting ...... 13 2.6 Historical Setting ...... 13 2.6.1 California History ...... 13 2.6.2 Local History ...... 14

3 SOURCES CONSULTED ...... 16 3.1 Eastern Information Center Records Search ...... 16 3.2 Native American Communication ...... 19

4 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY METHODS ...... 20

5 SURVEY RESULTS AND RESOURCE EVALUATION ...... 23 5.1 Cultural Resource Descriptions ...... 23 5.1.1 P-33-024099 ...... 23 5.1.2 P-33-024100 ...... 23 5.2 Cultural Resource Evaluations ...... 25 5.2.1 P-33-024099 ...... 25 5.2.2 P-33-024100 ...... 27

6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 28

7 REFERENCES ...... 29

APPENDIX A: CONFIDENTIAL SITE RECORDS APPENDIX B: NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION

ii List of Figures

1-1 Project vicinitymap ...... 2 1-2 Project location map ...... 3 1-3 Project APE map on aerial photograph ...... 5 4-1 View of existing detention basin, facing south ...... 20 4-2 Portion of South Norco Channel, facing southwest ...... 21 4-3 APE running along southern boundary of Norco Intermediate School, facing east ...... 22 4-4 View of APE along Hillside Lane, facing west ...... 22 5-1 Project APE showing location of Cultural Resources ...... 24 5-2 A segment of the concrete-lined open-top South Norco Channel (P-33-024099) At Corona Avenue, view to the west ...... 25 5-3 A concrete weir box (P-33-024100) next to the property fence line at the north side of the existing retention basin, view to the north ...... 26

Lis t of Tables

3-1 Previous Cultural Studies within One Mile of the Project Area ...... 16 3-2 Previous Cultural Resources Identified within One-Mile of the Project Area ...... 18

iii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

At the request of HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., on behalf of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) performed an intensive cultural resources survey for the proposed Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District South Norco Channel, Line S-1 Project (Project) located within the City of Norco, Riverside County, California. The survey examined a total of approximately 19 acres (ac) of land that encompass Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 123-100-001, -130-010, -160-026, -220- 001; 125-130-014, -015; and 125-140-025, -160-005. The District proposes the stabilization of the existing South Norco interim earthen flood control channel, along with the construction of two underground storm drain pipes. The proposed Project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. In anticipation of future Project review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the cultural resource investigation was also conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA, 36 CFR, 63, and 800).

A cultural resources literature and records search carried out at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on May 11, 2012, indicated that no archaeological or historical cultural resources had been previously recorded within Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). An intensive-level Phase I survey of the APE carried out on December 8, 2014, resulted in the documentation of two newly identified historical built-environment resources that include a segment of the South Norco Channel (P-33-024099) and an irrigation weir box feature (P-33-024100). Neither of these resources is recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Ground disturbance associated with the relining of the channel and existing detention basin will primarily occur along the sides and bases of the flood control structures, which have been previously disturbed by construction and maintenance activities. The potential for encountering intact cultural deposits in these areas is relatively low. As such, no further cultural resources management is recommended for these areas at this time.

Due to a lack of ground visibility, the eastern portions of the APE that run along the paved roadways of Hillside Lane, Hillside Avenue, and 3rd Street could not be examined for cultural resources during the Phase I survey. However, the presence of several large bedrock milling sites immediately southeast of the Project area suggests that archaeological sensitivity in this portion of the APE is moderate to high. Trenching and excavation associated with the construction of underground drainage pipes may extend to a depth of 3.0 meters (m) (10 feet [ft]) and as such, have the potential to disturb buried archaeological deposits. It is therefore recommended that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during any Project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with the installation of the underground drainage pipes that extend into undisturbed sediments.

Field notes documenting the current investigation are on file at Æ’s Hemet office. A copy of this report will be placed on file at the EIC of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

iv 1 INTRODUCTION

At the request of Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., on behalf of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), Applied EarthWorks Inc. (Æ), performed a cultural resources assessment for the South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project (Project), Riverside County, California (Figure 1-1). The study consisted of records searches, Native American coordination, and a Phase I survey of the approximately 19-acre (ac) Project area. The proposed Project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. In anticipation of future Project review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the cultural resource investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (NHPA, 36 CFR, 63, and 800). This report summarizes the methods and results of the cultural resources study and provides Project-specific management recommendations.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

Located within the city of Norco in western Riverside County, California, the Project area is bounded on the west by Corona Street, on the east by Hillside Avenue, on the north by Fourth Street, and on the south by Second Street. Specifically, it is mapped within Township 3 South, Range 6 West, Sections 7 and 18 of the Corona South, CA U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle (Figure 1-2). The Project site is approximately 19 ac in size and encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 123- 100-001, -130-010, -160-026, -220-001; 125-130-014, -015; and 125-140-025, -160-005.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION

The District proposes the stabilization, maintenance, and operation of a segment of the existing South Norco interim earthen flood control channel, as well as construction, maintenance, and operation of two underground storm drain pipes, S-1 and S-5, that would connect from the South Norco channel. The primary objective of the Project is to stabilize the existing earthen channel. The desired method of stabilization is to convert the earthen channel to a concrete-lined channel thereby eliminating the erosion problems currently experienced within the channel and downstream areas and reducing the frequency and need of sediment and plant material removal. In addition to stabilization of the main channel segment, the District also proposes to construct underground drainage pipes to transmit storm flows in place of existing surface flow facilities. Ground-disturbing activities related to Project development will likely include trenching and excavation.

1.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Because USACE’s jurisdictional areas are present within the Project area, the proposed Project is considered an “undertaking” per Section 301(7) of the NHPA. For this reason, it was necessary to define an Area of Potential Effects (APE), or the geographic area within which the Project has the potential to directly or indirectly cause alternations to historic properties per 36 CFR § 800.16(d). In defining the APE, both direct and indirect impacts anticipated by the proposed Project were considered. Because the Project involves construction and modifications to a below-grade channel, drainage pipes, and detention basins, the indirect effects, such as visual intrusion or noise, are

1 PROJECT AREA

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,

SCALE 1:250,000 5 05 Miles PROJECT 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Feet AREA 505 Kilometers °

Figure 1-1 Project vicinity map.

2 CORONA NORTH

Legend Project Area

SCALE 1:24,000 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet

0.5 00.51 ° Kilometers La Sierra (Sepulveda) Land Grant Corona North (1953-PR1979), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle Figure 1-2 Project location map.

3 considered temporary. As such, the APE for this Project is defined as the area of direct impacts, which includes the Project footprint, staging areas, and temporary impact areas. The APE defined for the proposed Project encompasses an area of 19 ac as depicted in Figure 1-3; depth of anticipated disturbance ranges from 2.4 m (8 ft) to 3.0 m (10 ft).

1.4 REGULATORY CONTEXT

1.4.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) As previously mentioned, portions of the Project area contain jurisdictional areas that are regulated by the USACE. As such, the Project is considered a federally licensed “undertaking” per 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 800.2 (o) and subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended. The NHPA established a national policy for historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes in preserving their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NHPA of 1966 established the NRHP as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60.4):

A) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR § 60.4).

If a cultural resource is determined to be an eligible historic property under 36 CFR § 60.4, then Section 106 requires that the effects of the proposed undertaking be assessed and considered in planning the undertaking. Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties

4 Legend

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

0500 Feet 050100150 Meters Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors

Figure 1-3 Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map.

5 owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.

1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The proposed Project is also subject to compliance with CEQA. Therefore, cultural resources management work conducted as part of the proposed Project shall comply with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (OPR 2012), which directs lead agencies to first determine whether cultural resources are “historically significant” resources. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Generally, a cultural resource shall be considered “historically significant” if the resource is 45 years old or older, possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meets the requirements for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under any one of the following criteria:

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

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

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

4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (Title 14 CCR, § 15064.5)

The cited statutes and guidelines specify how cultural resources are to be managed in the context of construction projects, such as the proposed South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project. Briefly, archival and field surveys must be conducted, and identified cultural resources must be inventoried and evaluated in prescribed ways. Prehistoric and historical archaeological resources, as well as historical resources such as buildings, structures, and other built-environment features, deemed “historically significant” must be considered in project planning and development. In addition, any proposed project that may affect “historically significant” cultural resources must be submitted to the SHPO for review and comment prior to project approval by the responsible agency and prior to construction.

1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report documents the results of a Phase I cultural resources investigation for the proposed Project. Chapter 1 introduced the scope of the work and regulatory context. Chapter 2 synthesizes the natural and cultural setting of the Project area and surrounding region. Chapter 3 presents the results of the background research, including a cultural resources literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), housed at the University of California, Riverside. Chapter 4 details the cultural

6 resources study methods. Chapter 5 presents the results of the Phase I survey and the evaluation of the significance of the cultural resources identified within the Project area. Management recommendations are included in Chapter 6, followed by bibliographic references in Chapter 7. DPR recording forms for the two resources located within the Project boundaries are provided in Appendix A. Results of Native American Communication are found in Appendix B.

7 2 SETTING

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environmental and cultural setting of the Project area to provide background information and context for how historical and archaeological resources in the area developed and were used. The discussion is based on a review of existing data and literature. The nature and distribution of past cultural activities in the Project region have been influenced by such factors as topography, climate change, water availability, and access to biological resources. Therefore, prior to discussing the cultural setting, aspects of the regional environment are briefly summarized below.

2.2 CURRENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The Project is located in the eastern portion of the city of Norco, in western Riverside County. The city is situated in the Corona Valley, which is bounded on the south and west by the Santa Ana Mountains, on the northwest by the Prado Basin and Chino Hills, on the north by the Santa Ana River, and on the east by a group of low-lying hills. The region is located in the Peninsular Ranges and Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Provinces of southern California.

The Santa Ana River watershed is the principal drainage through the area, fed by numerous smaller drainages, such as Temescal Wash which is located west of the Project. The highest elevations (upper reaches) of the watershed occur in the San Bernardino Mountains (San Gorgonio Peak— 11,485 ft above mean sea level [amsl] in elevation), in the eastern San Gabriel Mountains (Transverse Ranges Province; Mt. Baldy—10,080 ft amsl in elevation), and in the San Jacinto Mountains (Peninsular Ranges Province, Mt. San Jacinto—10,804 ft amsl). Further downstream, the river flows through the Santa Ana Mountains and the Chino Hills before descending into the Coastal Plain of Orange County, and into the Pacific Ocean. Primary slope direction is northeast to southwest, with secondary slopes controlled by local topography.

The climate of the Santa Ana River watershed and surrounding area is Mediterranean with hot, dry summers and cooler, wetter winters. Average annual precipitation ranges from 12 inches (in.) per year in the coastal plain to 18 in. per year in the inland alluvial valleys, reaching 40 in. or more in the San Bernardino Mountains. Most of the precipitation occurs between November and March in the form of rain with variable amounts of snow in the higher elevations. The climatological cycle of the region results in high surface water flows in the spring and early summer, followed by low flows during the dry season. Winter and spring floods generated by storms are not uncommon in wet years. Similarly, during the dry season, infrequent summer storms can cause torrential floods in local streams.

Due to its proximity to the Santa Ana River and Prado Basin, the Project region is located within a hydrologically active area. Sediments and geological formations underlying the Project area are largely alluvial. They derived from those water systems and were deposited during the Quaternary period (1.8 million years ago to the present). Rock outcrops in the general area are derived from marine and non-marine sediments, primarily sandstone and conglomerates. Farther south, the

8 Santiago Peak Volcanic formation outcrops along the upper ridges of the Santa Ana Mountains. This formation is composed of andesitic basalt, andesite, dacite, and rhyolite, which were often quarried by prehistoric Native American groups for use as toolstone material. West of the Project area, in the Chino Hills, outcrops consist of several sandstone-conglomerate formations. Along the Santa Ana River, very old fan deposits, consisting of gravels, sands, and silts, are incised, and in- filled with redeposited sediments of Holocene-age. Quaternary period alluvial fan sediments exist along the margins of the surrounding hills.

Prior to the extensive development of the Project area and surrounding region, the native flora and fauna population was likely composed of species characteristic of the Riversidian Sage Scrub/Coastal Sage Scrub communities, with riparian wetland species present along the Santa Ana River drainage. The majority of the Project area at present appears disturbed from previous development and use of the parcels.

2.3 PREHISTORIC SETTING

It is generally believed that human occupation of the southern California coastal region and the southern California desert regions dates back to at least 10,000 before present (B.P.). Recent archaeological studies for the Eastside Reservoir Project and the Inland Feeder Pipeline Project, suggests that human occupation of the inland valley regions of southern California may date to as early as 7000 to 9000 B.P. (Goldberg et al. 2001; Horne and McDougall 2008). Four broad cultural periods of human settlement and subsistence strategies are believed to have operated in southern California during the past 10,000 years: the Early Holocene Interval (ca. 10,000–7500 years B.P.); the Middle Holocene Interval (ca. 7500 to 5000 B.P.); the Middle to Late Holocene Interval (ca. 5000 to 1500 B.P.); and the Late Horizon Period (ca. 2000 years B.P. to the initial period of European contact).

Both coastal and desert region designations (Wallace 1978; Warren 1980, 1984) for the early Holocene Interval refer to a long period of human adaptation to environmental changes brought about by the transition from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene geologic periods. As climatic conditions became warmer and more arid, Pleistocene megafauna perished abruptly between 13,000 and 10,000 B.P. Human populations responded to these changing environmental conditions by focusing their subsistence efforts on the procurement of a wider variety of faunal, as well as floral, resources. 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.

Although sites assigned to the Middle Holocene Interval are similar in many respects, their content, structure, and age can vary. This variability is largely due to geographical differences between the coast and interior. The primary difference between the archaeological assemblages of coastal and inland sites appears to be related to subsistence. Coastal occupants gathered fish and plant resources, and hunting was generally less important (projectile points are rare). The inland occupants primarily collected hard seeds and hunted small mammals; therefore, projectile points are more common in inland assemblages. King (1967:66–67) suggests that the coastal sites probably represent more permanent occupations than are found in the interior, since coastal inhabitants were sustained by more reliable and abundant food resources. A more mobile subsistence collection strategy was likely

9 necessary for inland inhabitants. It is also possible that inland and coastal sites of this period represent seasonal movement by the same groups of people.

Overall, the general settlement-subsistence patterns of the Middle Holocene Interval were exemplified by a greater emphasis on seed gathering, with coastal and inland sites exhibiting shallow midden accumulations, suggesting seasonal camping. 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, central-based wandering pattern with an inferred shift toward enhanced logistical settlement organization (Binford 1980; Warren 1968). In this semi-sedentary pattern, a base camp was occupied during a portion of the year, while satellite camps were occupied by smaller groups of people to exploit seasonally available floral resources such as grass seeds, berries, tubers, and nuts. The exploitation of terrestrial faunal resources was also an important economic pursuit, especially in the inland and desert regions of southern California. The degree of population sedentism was based upon the availability of reliable water sources and the abundance of exploitable resources in the general locale; coastal occupants of this period are believed to have practiced a higher degree of sedentism than other southern California groups because of a more reliable and abundant resource base.

During the Middle to Late Holocene Interval, the subsistence base in southern California broadened. The technological advancement of the mortar and pestle may indicate the use of acorns, an important storable subsistence resource. Hunting presumably also gained in importance. An abundance of broad, leaf-shaped blades and heavy, often stemmed or notched, projectile points have been found in association with large numbers of terrestrial and aquatic mammal bones. Other characteristic features of this period include the appearance of bone and antler implements and the occasional use of asphaltum and steatite. Most chronological sequences for southern California recognize the introduction of the bow and arrow by 1500 B.P., marked by the appearance of small arrow points and arrow shaft straighteners.

In general, cultural patterns remained similar in character to those of the preceding horizon. However, the material culture at many coastal sites became more elaborate, reflecting an increase in sociopolitical complexity and increased efficiency in subsistence strategies (e.g., the introduction of the bow and arrow for hunting). The settlement-subsistence patterns and cultural development during this period are not well understood because of a lack of large amounts of data; however, the limited data do suggest that the duration and intensity of occupation at the base camps increased, especially toward the latter part of this period. However, through time, southern California populations became increasingly diversified and economically specialized, especially among the coastal southern California cultures. Adaptation to various ecological niches and further population growth typify the subsequent periods of cultural history in southern California. This subsistence orientation, characterized by a heavy dependence on both hunting and plant gathering, continues into the historic period.

The Post-1500 B.P. Interval (Late Holocene to the time of Spanish settlement [approximately 1769 A.D.]) is characterized by a reliance on the bow and arrow for hunting, along with the use of bedrock mortars and milling slicks. Late prehistoric coastal sites are numerous. Diagnostic artifacts include small triangular projectile points, mortars and pestles, steatite ornaments and containers, perforated stones, circular shell fishhooks, and numerous and varied bone tools, as well as bone and shell ornamentation. Elaborate mortuary customs, as well as generous use of asphaltum and the

10 development of extensive trade networks, are also characteristic of this period. During the latter half of this period in the southern coastal region, pottery, ceramic smoking pipes, cremation urns, rock paintings, and some European trade goods were added to the previous cultural assemblage (Meighan 1954). Increased hunting efficiency (through use of the bow and arrow) and widespread exploitation of acorns and other hard nuts and berries (indicated by the abundance of mortars and pestles) provided reliable and storable food resources. This, in turn, promoted greater sedentism. Related to this increase in resource utilization and sedentism are sites with deeper middens, suggesting central-based wandering or permanent habitation. These would have been the villages, or rancherias, noted by the early non-native explorers (True 1966, 1970). By about 500 B.P., strong ethnic patterns developed among native populations in southern California. This may reflect accelerated cultural change brought about by increased efficiency in cultural adaptation and diffusion of technology from the central coastal region of California and the southern Great Basin (Douglas et al. 1981:10).

2.4 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Project area is situated in a region that in prehistory may have been shared to some extent by four different tribal entities: the coastal groups of the Gabrielino/Tongva, the Luiseño, and the Juaneño, and to a lesser extent, the interior Cahuilla groups. However, ethnographic data suggests a strong Gabrielino/Tongva presence, while the Luiseño were more prevalent to the south, the Juaneño to the southwest, and the Cahuilla were situated primarily to the east. The nearest Luiseño presence was in Temescal Canyon to the south of the Project area. A brief discussion of the ethnography of the Gabrielino/Tongva and Luiseño peoples is presented below.

2.4.1 Gabrielino During the protohistoric period, the greater Los Angeles plain and extending eastward into the inland valley region area was inhabited by the Gabrielino peoples. The Gabrielino, a Uto-Aztecan (or Shoshonean) group, may have entered the region as recently as 1500 B.P. from the southern Great Basin or interior California deserts; it is also possible that the Gabrielino peoples migrated into the region in successive waves over a lengthy period of time beginning as early as 4000 B.P. Gradually, these Uto-Aztecan peoples began to displace the previous Hokan occupants of the southern coastal region (Kroeber 1925:578–580). In the protohistoric period, the Gabrielino were flanked by speakers of Hokan languages: the Chumash to the north and the Diegueño to the south (Kroeber 1925:578– 580).

It is believed that the total Gabrielino territory covered more than 1,500 square miles and included the watersheds of the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Santa Ana River, and Rio Hondo. The Gabrielino also occupied the islands of Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and San Nicolas. Within this large territory were more than 50 residential communities with populations that ranged from approximately 50 to 150 individuals. Each community consisted of one or more lineages which maintained a permanent geographic territory that included a permanent settlement and a variety of hunting and gathering areas as well as ritual sites.

A typical Gabrielino settlement contained a variety of structures used for religious, residential, and recreational purposes. In the larger communities, a sacred enclosure surrounded by the houses of the chief and other members of the elite community was generally located near the center of the community. Surrounding those structures were the smaller homes occupied by the rest of

11 community. Other features common at residential sites were sweathouses and level clearings used as playing fields and dance grounds as well as cemeteries (McCawley 1996:32–33).

Gabrielino territory offered rich and diverse resources. Subsistence items described in ethnohistorical sources include large numbers of native grass seeds, six or more types of acorns, pinyon pine nuts, seeds and berries from various shrubs, fresh greens and shoots, mule deer, pronghorn, mountain sheep, rabbits and rodents, quail and waterfowl, snakes, lizards, insects, and freshwater fish, plus a wide variety of marine fish, shellfish, and sea mammals in coastal zones. This wealth of resources, coupled with an effective technology and a well-developed trade and ritual system, resulted in a society that was among one of the most materially wealthy and culturally sophisticated cultural groups in California (McCawley 1996:141). The management of food resources by the chief was the heart of the Gabrielino economy; a portion of each day’s hunting, fishing, or gathered food resources was given to the chief who was responsible for managing the community’s food reserves. Each family also kept a food supply for use in lean times.

The material culture of the Gabrielino is elaborate and in many ways comparable to that of the Chumash. An excellent descriptive source is Blackburn’s (1963) compendium of Gabrielino material culture, which is intended for an archaeological audience and exhaustively summarizes Padre Geronimo Boscana’s accounts of the Juaneño farther south in the vicinity of San Juan Capistrano, Hugo Reid’s (1852) letters to the Los Angeles Star, and Harrington’s (n.d.) early twentieth-century interviews, among a number of other sources. Shell ornaments and beads, baskets, bone tools, flint weapons and drills, fishhooks, mortars and pestles, wooden bowls and paddles, shell spoons, wooden war clubs, and a variety of steatite items (cooking vessels, comals, ornaments) are among the many artifact types common in descriptions of Gabrielino culture (Blackburn 1963). Highly developed artisanship is particularly evident in the many technomic implements inlaid with shell (using asphaltum) and in the steatite items from production centers on Catalina Island.

Trade was an important element of the Gabrielino economy. While the principal Gabrielino- produced commodity—steatite vessels from centers on Catalina Island—originated well outside the defined study region, trade in steatite items was conducted throughout the local territory and involved external relations with cultural groups beyond Gabrielino borders, including the Cahuilla, Serrano, Luiseño, Chumash, and Mojave. Additionally, Olivella shell callus beads, manufactured on the northern Channel Islands by the Chumash and their predecessors, were reportedly used frequently as a currency by the Gabrielino and other southern California groups, particularly in situations when bartering methods were inappropriate or ineffective.

In general, the Gabrielino cultivated alliances with other groups (a Chumash-Salinan-Gabrielino alliance, for one [Bean 1976:104]) and also maintained cult or ritual centers (such as the village Povongna, presumed to be located in the vicinity of Long Beach) where trade fairs, mourning ceremonies, and other types of social and economic interaction linked villages of many environmental zones into exchange and social partnerships. Strong (1929:98) indicates that there was a “loose ceremonial union” among the Cahuilla, Luiseño, Serrano, and Gabrielino, manifested in gifts of shell money sent by all to leaders of clans in which a death had occurred. Blackburn (1976:240) notes that ceremonialism in general provided a context for far-ranging social interaction, especially between the Gabrielino and several neighboring groups, and resulted in strong unity against external enemies. However, Bean and Smith (1978:546) conclude that the Gabrielino peoples quarreled constantly among themselves and that inter-village conflict was frequent and

12 deadly, although rarely extended. Marriage ties usually dictated affiliations during conflicts.

2.4.2 Luiseño The Luiseño belonged to a cultural nationality speaking a language belonging to the Takic branch of the Shoshonean family, a part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock. The territory of the Luiseño encompassed approximately 1,500 square miles of coastal southern California (White 1963). Along the coast, Luiseño lands extended from about Agua Hedionda Creek in the south to Aliso Creek in the northwest. From there, the boundary extended inland to Santiago Peak, then across to the eastern side of the Elsinore Valley, then southward to the east of Palomar Mountain and around the southern slope of Palomar Mountain to the valley of San Jose. The boundary then turned west and returned to the sea along Agua Hedionda Creek. The Luiseño were, for the most part, hunters and gatherers. Luiseño groups often had fishing and gathering sites on the coast in addition to their inland sites, providing them with the resources of many different ecological niches. Villages were usually located in sheltered coves or canyons on the side of slopes in a warm thermal zone near good water supplies and in defensible locations (Bean and Shipek 1978).

2.5 ETHNOHISTORICAL SETTING

The first direct contact between the Europeans and the Gabrielino is thought to have occurred in 1542 with the arrival of Cabrillo’s small fleet at Santa Catalina Island, and later in 1602 when the Sebastian Vizcaino expedition visited San Clemente and Santa Catalina islands and the mainland near present-day San Pedro (McCawley 1996:207). Later in 1769, the Gaspar de Portolá expedition crossed the Gabrielino homeland twice. Mission San Gabriel was founded on September 8, 1771, at a location near the Whittier Narrows. Because of conflict, recruitment and conversion of the Native Americans remained slow for the first few years of the existence of the mission. Sometime around 1774, Mission San Gabriel was moved to its present location to obtain more suitable land for agriculture. A second mission, San Fernando, was established within Gabrielino territory in 1797.

Mission life was highly regimented and contrasted sharply with the traditional Gabrielino lifestyle; as a result, colonization had a dramatic and negative effect on Gabrielino society, including fugitivism. The traditional Native American communities were depopulated and epidemics caused by the introduction of European diseases further reduced the Native American population. Between 1832 and 1834, the Mexican government implemented a series of Secularization Acts that were theoretically designed to turn over the mission lands to the native populations; however, most of this land was taken over by Mexican civilians. Thus, the primary result of secularization was increased fugitivism among the Gabrielino (McCawley 1996:208). The later American takeover of California brought further hardships to the Gabrielino who eventually settled at small Native American and Mexican settlements in the Eagle Rock and Highland Park districts of Los Angeles as well as on Indian Reservations at Pauma, Pala, Pechanga, and Soboba.

2.6 HISTORICAL SETTING

The history of the Project vicinity and surrounding region provides a context for understanding local settlement from the time that Spanish explorers first laid claim to the territory, to the development of the modern urban landscape. It is the basis for the identification of the historic property types constructed during this period, and the evaluation of their significance as historical resources.

13 2.6.1 California History Exploration of the California coast in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the basis for the Spanish claim to the region. In the eighteenth century, Spain recognized that to strengthen its claim, it would have to settle Alta California to preclude encroachment by the Russians and British. Therefore, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, Spain and the Franciscan Order founded a series of presidios, or military camps, and missions along the California coast, beginning at San Diego in 1769. In 1796, Father Juan Santiago explored the Temescal Valley, east of the Santa Ana Mountains in Riverside County and west of Lake Mathews, in an attempt to find a location for an inland asistencia for the mission at San Juan Capistrano. Asistencias and mission ranchos were established to further the influence of the Catholic Church and the Missions by using vast lands in the interior for cattle ranching, operated by Mexican and Indian rancheros, and thereby creating a self-sustaining system to support the Mission.

In 1821, Mexico opened the ports of San Diego and Monterey to foreign trade (Crouch et al. 1982:200). American ships docked at California ports to purchase tallow and hides, which were known as California banknotes. The vast landholdings (ranchos) of the Catholic Church were divided and granted to honorable soldiers, political supporters, and wealthy elites by the various Mexican governors who ruled Alta California. Americans also settled in California, some of them becoming citizens and owners of large ranchos. The nearest of these was the Rancho La Sierra (Yorba). Granted to Bernardo Yorba in 1846 by the Mexican Governor Pio Pico, it comprised the western half of the 17,774-ac Rancho La Sierra de Santa Ana. Conflicts between the Californios and the central government in Mexico City led to a series of uprisings culminating in the Bear Flag Revolt of June 1846.

With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, California formally became an American territory, and two years later, on September 9, 1850, California became the thirty-first state in the Union. Between those two years came a large influx of Americans seeking their fortunes; the catalyst for this influx was James Marshall’s 1848 discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill (Starr 2005). The population and wealth in the early statehood years were concentrated in the northern part of the state. Ranching was the main occupation in the southern counties; the flood and drought of the 1860s brought that era to a close, and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 opened California to agricultural settlement.

Southern California was promoted as an ideal agricultural area, with fertile soil and a mild climate. Books on California painted beautiful pictures that appealed to both Americans and Europeans. There were three land booms tied to railroad construction: (1) after the transcontinental railroad was completed, enabling easy travel to California; (2) late 1870s after the Southern Pacific was completed; and, (3) 1886–1888, when the Santa Fe transcontinental line was completed. Competition between the lines incited a rate war, and both tourists and potential settlers took advantage of the low fares to come to California (Lech 2004:222).

2.6.2 Local History In 1846, the area that is now Norco was part of the large land grant that was given to Vicenta Sepulveda by the Mexican governor Pio Pico. Known as La Sierra de Santa Ana, the rancho encompassed a 17,774-ac area in western Riverside County. During the late 1800s, the land passed through several owners including the San Jacinto Land Company. In 1908, James W. Long

14 purchased property in the Norco area and subsequently formed the Orange Heights Water Company. In the 1910s, the area began to be subdivided for citrus growing. Although the high winds and warm temperatures proved to be the wrong climate for citrus cultivation (Bitetti 2005:16), numerous small farms were established in the Norco area in the following decades. These farms produced a variety of agricultural products including peaches, apricots, and alfalfa, as well as hogs and chickens (Bitetti 2005:19).

In the early years, the Norco area was known by a variety of names including “Citrus Belt” and “Orchard Heights.” In 1921, Rex Brainerd Clark of the North Corona Land Company bought some of the property and in the following years laid out a street grid and constructed an improved water system. This community was named Norco after the North Corona portion of the company name.

During the construction of the irrigation wells for the Norco development, an underground hot sulfur spring was discovered. Aware of the health benefits of mineral springs, Clark decided to build a high class resort around the springs known as the Lake Norconian Club. Construction of the resort began in 1926 on 900 ac in the center of town and included a 55-ac lake, a casino, Olympic-sized pools, mineral baths, golf course, tennis courts, and a private landing field. Opened in 1929, the resort was initially a great success, drawing a number of film and sports stars, as well as regular visitors. With the onset of the Great Depression, visitation at the Lake Norconian Club diminished and the resort was closed in 1933. Clark sold the land and buildings to the federal government in 1941. During World War II, the U.S. Navy used the resort as a naval hospital. In March 1962, the property was given to the State of California for use as a correctional facility for narcotics offenders. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Corona Division is located on part of the property separated by a fence from the prison.

Amid the post World War II (WWII)-era development boom across southern California, the City of Norco experienced a period of growth that forever changed the economy and character of the region. As agriculture moved out of the area, former fields were developed into residential, commercial, and light industrial zones. Improvements in infrastructure also occurred, including the channelization of Temescal Wash bordering Norco on the north and west. State Route 91 was constructed south of Norco in 1962, followed by completion of Interstate 15 in the 1980s. Development of commerce and industry in the Norco area has increased with the quality of transportation routes linking it with other parts of southern California. Housing and land prices in the area are considerably less than those in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Since the 1980s, Norco has also evolved into a “bedroom community” for many people who commute to work in Orange County, Los Angeles, and other cities of the Inland Empire region.

15 3 SOURCES CONSULTED

3.1 EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER RECORDS SEARCH

An archaeological literature and records search was conducted at the EIC at the University of California, Riverside, on May 11, 2012. The objective of this records search was to determine whether any prehistoric or historical cultural resources had been recorded previously within a one- mile radius of the Project area.

The results of the records search indicate that 25 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project area (Table 3-1); none of these studies intersected the Project area. These studies resulted in the documentation of 24 cultural resources that include 16 prehistoric archaeological resources and eight historical built-environment resources (Table 3-2). Thirteen of the 16 prehistoric cultural resources are archaeological sites with the remaining three resources composed of isolated artifacts. Most of the prehistoric archaeological sites consist of bedrock milling features and/or artifact scatters. The recorded prehistoric resources are concentrated within the vicinity of the Norco Hills southeast of the Project area.

All eight of the built-environment resources have also been documented in the area west of Hamner Avenue and southwest of the Project APE. Although most of these resources consist of single- family residences, P-33-019906 includes the remains of several chicken houses associated with the Norco Egg Ranch. None of the 24 previously identified cultural resources are located within the boundary of the Project area.

Table 3-1 Previous Cultural Resources Studies within One-Mile of the Project Area EIC Reference # Year Author Title John Bean Lowell, Sylvia Brakke Vane, Matthew C. Hall, Harry Cultural Resources and the Devers-Mira 500 kV Lawton, Richard Logan, RI-00535 1979 Transmission Line Route (Valley to Mira Loma Lee Gooding Massey, Section) John Oxendine, Charles Rozaire, and David P. Whistler Archaeological Assessment of Woodlake Village RI-00608 1982 Beth Padon General Plan Amendment Thomas Holcomb, Results of Test Excavations at CA-RIV-1443, Norco RI-00609 1979 James D. Swenson, and Hills, Riverside County, California Phillip J. Wilke An Archaeological Assessment of the North Hills RI-00610 1979 Christopher E. Drover Proposed Subdivision Near Norco, California Addendum To: An Archaeological Assessment of the RI-00736 1979 James D. Swenson North Hills Proposed Subdivision Near Norco, California

16 Table 3-1 (continued) EIC Reference # Year Author Title Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Riverside Community RI-01108 1987 Christopher E. Drover College District Site and Dean Homes Residential Development, Norco, California Devers-Serrano-Villa Park Transmission System Supplement to the Cultural Resources Technical Report RI-01665 1983 Wirth Associates – Public Review Document and Confidential Appendices Letter report: Cultural Resources Assessment for Pacific RI-01743 2000 Phillipe Lapin Bell Wireless Facility Cm 266-01, County of Riverside, California Cultural Resources Assessment of the I-15 Freeway RI-02886 1989 Michael K. Lerch Corridor Land Gateway Specific Plan, City of Norco, Riverside County, California Mark T. Swanson and The Prado Dam and Reservoir, Riverside and San RI-02902 1989 Roger G. Hatheway Bernardino Counties, California An Intensive Survey of the Corona Ranch Project Area, RI-02905 1988 Jeanette McKenna City of Corona, Riverside County, California Negative Archaeological Survey Report (08-RIV-I15, RI-03544 1992 Robert Wlodarski PM 42.3/43.4) Phase III Archaeological Investigations of CA-RIV- RI-03565 1998 McKenna et al. 4947 (McKenna 216-3), Located in the Norco Area of Riverside County, California Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Tozai RI-03727 1993 Ronald M. Bissell Property, Norco, Riverside County, California Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Hidden RI-03728 1993 Ronald M. Bissell Valley Golf Course, Norco, Riverside County, California A Phase II Archaeological Testing Program for Site RI-03730 1996 Jeanette McKenna within the Proposed Hidden Valley Golf Course, Norco, Riverside County, California An Archaeological Assessment of the South Norco RI-03919 1995 Robert S. White Channel Line SA, Stage 2, Located in the City of Norco, Riverside County Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Wireless RI-03964 2000 Curt Duke Facility CM 306-01, County of Riverside, California Cultural Assessment and Survey for the Proposed South RI-03974 1995 Joan C. Brown Norco Line Channel Line SB, Stage 2 Project, Located in the City of Norco, Riverside County, California Luiseno Rock Art and Sacred Landscape in Late RI-04014 1996 Richard Starr Shepard Prehistoric Southern California A Phase I Archaeology Study: Norco Senior Housing RI-04087 1998 Robert J. Wlodarski Project (Phase II) (2 Acre Parcel of Land), City of Norco, Riverside County, California Cultural Resources Monitoring for the Norco Hills Anna Hoover and RI-04569 2000 Project, Tract 25779, City of Norco, Riverside County, Patrick Maxon California Bruce Love, Bai “Tom” Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, RI-05409 2001 Tang, Michael Hogan, Arlington Desalter and Pipeline, City of Riverside, and Mariam Dahdul Corona, and Norco, Riverside County, California

17 Table 3-1 (continued) EIC Reference # Year Author Title Bruce Love, Bai “Tom” Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, RI-05840 2001 Tang, Michael Hogan, Rossland Norco Project, City of Corona, Riverside and Mariam Dahdul County, California Cultural Resources Assessment Public Safety Jennifer M. Sanka and Enterprise Communication Project Riverside, Orange, RI-08171 2008 Marnie Aislin-Kay San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties, FM 04174400010

Table 3-2 Previous Cultural Resources Identified within One-Mile of the Project Area Primary Trinomial Description P-33-001258 CA-RIV-1258 Prehistoric bedrock milling site; site destroyed with housing development P-33-001259 CA-RIV-1259 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-001443 CA-RIV-1443 Prehistoric site containing manos, metates, cores, flakes, and fire affected rock; site destroyed with housing development P-33-001449 CA-RIV-1449 Prehistoric site containing multiple bedrock milling features, ground stone bowl rim fragment, scrapers, cores, and flakes P-33-001450 CA-RIV-1450 Prehistoric site containing a pictograph, bedrock milling feature, ground stone bowl rim fragment, and mano P-33-004947 CA-RIV-4947 Prehistoric site containing debitage, partial granitic bowl, cores, and manos; site destroyed with housing development P-33-005159 CA-RIV-5159 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-005162 CA-RIV-5162 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-005171 CA-RIV-5171 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-005176 CA-RIV-5176 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-009024 Isolated artifact: metasedimentary flake P-33-009025 Isolated artifact: metasedimentary hammerstone and granitic bifacial mano P-33-009026 Isolated artifact: granitic mano fragment P-33-012561 CA-RIV-7133 Prehistoric lithic scatter P-33-012615 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-012616 Prehistoric bedrock milling site P-33-019900 2214 Second Street; one-story vernacular single family residence P-33-019901 2138 Second Street; one-story vernacular single family residence P-33-019902 2266 Second Street; one-story ranch-style single family residence P-33-019905 1500 Mountain Avenue; one-story vernacular commercial building P-33-019906 Norco Egg Ranch P-33-019907 1751 Mountain Avenue; one-story vernacular single family residence P-33-019913 1619 Pacific Avenue; one-story vernacular single family residence P-33-019937 1661 Mountain Avenue; one-story vernacular single family residence

Other sources consulted during the archaeological literature and records search include the Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE), and the Office of

18 Historic Preservation Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File. Additionally, the 1947 Corona 15' USGS topographic map was consulted to determine if historical buildings or structures were present within the Project area. One property (P-33-001259/CA-RIV-1259), a prehistoric bedrock milling site, was found to be listed on the ADOE as not evaluated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No historical properties or landmarks have been recorded within or immediately adjacent to the Project area.

3.2 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION

As part of the cultural resources assessment, Æ also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) located in Sacramento, California in November 11, 2014. The NAHC responded on November 24, 2014 and stated that no SLF resources were known to exist within the Project APE. However, the NAHC cautioned that the absence of specific site information does not indicate the absence of such resources. The NAHC provided a list of regional Native Americans who have interest in the region and recommended that these individuals be contacted for additional information on Native American cultural resources in the area. These individuals and groups include:

x San Manuel Band of Mission Indians x Morongo Band of Mission Indians x Ernest Siva, Tribal Elder, Morongo Band of Mission Indians x Goldie Walker, Chairwoman, Serrano Nation of Mission Indians

Scoping letters were sent on December 9, 2014, to each of the listed tribes and individuals that requested information regarding Native American cultural resources within the survey area. Two responses were received as a result of these letters.

x Daniel McCarthy, Director-CRM Department for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians emailed on December 9, 2014, and stated that the Project is outside of Serrano ancestral territory. He requested that Æ contact other tribes who had ancestral ties to the Project area.

x On December 10, 2014, Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources Manager for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians sent an email stating that the Project is outside of Tribe’s current reservation boundaries, but within an area that may be considered a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties. Therefore, she stated that the Tribe requests the following: (1) proper procedures to be followed if human remains are encountered during construction activities; (2) if Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction, work will cease in the immediate area until the find can be assessed by a qualified archaeologist; (3) and if significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

Æ also conducted follow-up telephone calls to Ms. Walker and Mr. Siva on December 23, 2014. Æ was unsuccessful in contacting Ms. Walker by phone; however, a detailed message was left for Mr. Siva. An example of the letter sent, the list of contacts, and responses received, and a Table of Responses summarizing communication with Native American groups and/or individuals contacted is located in Appendix B.

19 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY METHODS

A Phase I cultural resources survey was conducted by Æ archaeologist Mitch Evans on December 8, 2014. The Project area consists of four distinct portions that differed considerably in character: (1) the existing detention basin; (2) the earthen flood control channel; (3) the landscaped area around Norco Intermediate School; and (4) paved roadways of Hillside Lane, Hillside Avenue, and 3rd Street. A summary of the field methods used within each of these areas is provided below.

The earthen detention basin is located in the southwestern portion of the Project area (see Figure 1-3). The ground surface in this area was intensively inspected by the archaeologist who walked a series of parallel transects spaced at no more than 15 m (50 ft) apart. Ground visibility ranged from good to excellent with portions of the detention basin obscured by spoil piles, standing water, and concentrations of vegetation debris (Figure 4-1).

Figure 4-1 View of existing detention basin, facing south.

The South Norco Channel alignment constituted the largest portion of the Project area and was surveyed by walking two transects, one on either side of the earthen flood control channel drainage channel. Ground visibility ranged from moderate to excellent. Although small segments of the sides and bottom of the channel were obscured by concrete and rock rubble, much of the alignment was earthen in construction (Figure 4-2). Due to recent rains, standing water was found along portions of the channel bottom. 20 Figure 4-2 Portion of South Norco Channel, facing southwest.

The northern extent of the Project area runs along the southern and eastern boundary of the Norco Intermediate School. This portion of the APE was examined by the archaeologist walking two parallel transects spaced no more than 15 m (50 ft) apart. Ground visibility was poor as much of the survey area ran along the edge of the school’s athletic fields which was covered with turf grass (Figure 4-3).

Finally, a reconnaissance survey was employed to examine the northern and eastern portions of the APE that ran along Hillside Lane, Hillside Avenue, and 3rd Street. The APE in both of these areas was centered on paved roadways. Ground visibility in this area was poor as much of the ground surface was covered with concrete and asphalt pavement (Figure 4-4). Due to the lack of visibility, a pedestrian survey of this portion of the APE was not conducted.

21 Figure 4-3 APE running along southern boundary of Norco Intermediate School, facing east.

Figure 4-4 View of APE along Hillside Lane, facing west.

22 5 SURVEY RESULTS AND RESOURCE EVALUATION

Two newly identified historical cultural resources were located within the Project APE. These include a segment of the South Norco Channel (P-33-024099) and a concrete irrigation weir box (P-33-024100) (Figure 5-1). Descriptions of the two built-environment resources are first provided followed by a significance evaluation of each resource.

5.1 CULTURAL RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

5.1.1 P-33-024099 This approximately 4,100-ft-long segment of the Riverside County Flood Control’s South Norco Channel consists of an earthen flat-bottomed cut channel with sloping sides. The channel prism along this segment measures approximately 25–30 ft wide across the top, 10 ft wide across the flat bottom, and is approximately 3 to 4 ft deep. This segment features hard-earth, sloped embankments, and is flanked by dirt access roads that measure as much as 15 ft wide.

Building plans for the South Norco Channel were drawn in January 1968, with construction following soon thereafter. The construction of the storm channel was undoubtedly prompted by the frequent flooding events that had occurred in the area in November 1965 and December 1966. An article in the Corona Daily Independent dated March 6, 1969, reported, “In all of Norco only portions of two main channels have been completed—the North Norco Channel from the west end of Wraymar Lane to Second Street and Parkridge, and the South Norco Channel from Third near Temescal to Valley View just north of First” (Corona Daily Independent 1969:1). Following the devastation and damages to the Norco area as a result of the January–February 1969 flood, the District proposed to construct and extend existing flood control channels throughout the town. A photograph in the newspaper article shows Norco City Manager Nick Poppelreiter pointing to a drawing of the existing and proposed channels, revealing that the majority of the portion of the South Norco Channel within the Project area had already been completed by March 1969, but not the segment extending west of Valley View to its present terminus. As-built designs indicate that the southern extension of the channel, which measured 2,725 ft in length, was completed by September 1969, with the 1,375-ft-long northern extension constructed by July 1971. A fence was installed along these segments in 1977–1978. No apparent alterations have been made to the subject segment of the channel.

There are a number of associated structures along this segment of the South Norco Channel. These include: a culvert at the 3rd Street crossing; a culvert at an unnamed street crossing (south of 3rd Street); a pedestrian crossing bridge at Norco High School (between a parking lot and the school campus); a culvert at the Temescal Avenue crossing; a culvert at an unnamed crossing adjacent to a modern retention basin; and a 135-ft-long concrete-lined open-top canal where the channel approaches a culvert at Corona Avenue near Second Street (Figure 5-2).

5.1.2 P-33-024100 This concrete weir box is located at the northern edge of an Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s retention basin, and immediately adjacent to a chain link fence and

23 South Norco Channel (33-024099)

Concrete Weir Box (33-024100) Legend

Cultural Resource

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

Figure 5-1 Cultural resources within Project APE.

24 Figure 5-2 A segment of the concrete-lined open-top South Norco Channel (P-33-024099) at Corona Avenue, view to the west. residential neighborhood. It is situated south of Willow Drive and east of Corona Avenue in the southern portion of Norco. Elevation is about 662 ft amsl.

The feature consists of a board-formed, poured concrete irrigation weir box that is rectangular in shape and measures approximately 3.5 ft long by 2 ft wide by 4 ft tall (Figure 5-3). The walls are roughly 6 in. thick and constructed of course concrete. A brass water depth gauge is embedded into the west wall, and the direction of pipe flow appears to be east-west, although the structure appears to be an abandoned remnant of a former agricultural landscape. Fragments of concrete pipe are scattered about the base of the weir box as if the underground portion may have been demolished. The parcel on which this weir box is located is owned by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, who maintains the earthen retention basin as a flood control feature. The immediate surrounding parcels are developed with residential property, and there is no agricultural land within close proximity that this weir box could irrigate. Determining the construction history of these irrigation features is difficult given that these types of irrigation features were built by individual farmers following standard designs and traditional practice with no necessary permits.

5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS

5.2.1 P-33-024099 The South Norco Channel is a flood control feature that functions to reduce the possibility of property damages from periodic flooding. The entire channel measures less than 5 mi long,

25 Figure 5-3 A concrete weir box (P-33-024100) next to the property fence line at the north

side of the existing retention basin, view to the north. draining into the Prado Flood Control Basin, and it only serves the southeastern portion of the Norco community, which primarily consists of residential, commercial, and light industrial development. The Channel does not stand out within the history of the Riverside County Flood Control District as an important engineering project in Riverside County, and it is not known to be directly associated with any other important historical events. Although the flood control feature has aided the successful growth and development of the southeastern Norco community, the South Norco Channel does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1. As the National Park Service (NPS) explains, “mere association with historic events is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the property’s specific association must be considered important as well” (NPS 1991:12). The Channel’s contribution to the area’s growth and development is minor and insufficient to have any significant, direct association with twentieth-century development of the area. Similarly, none of the individual structures along the subject portion of the South Norco Channel appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, or the CRHR under Criterion 1.

The South Norco Channel also does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2 for any direct associations with the productive lives of persons important in local, state, or national history. The Channel was constructed by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and not individuals. The District likely hired various contractors and workers to cut and prepare the Channel. There is no evidence that the South Norco Channel has any known direct association with the productive lives of important individuals in local, regional, state, or national history under NRHP Criterion B/CRHR Criterion 2. Similarly, none of the individual structures along the subject portion of the South Norco Channel appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2.

26 The South Norco Channel does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3 for “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction,” and does not stand out from other similar earthen flood control channels as having any architectural or engineering merits. Rather, the Channel is of standard design and construction, and not unlike any other simple earthen flood control channel. The South Norco Channel does not appear to employ any ingenious or technologically innovative and scientifically significant engineering in its construction. As such, the South Norco Channel does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3, and similarly, none of the individual structures along the subject segment of the Channel exhibits any architectural or engineering merits on their own that would be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Finally, the South Norco Channel does not appear to meet NRHP Criterion D or CRHR Criterion 4 for any potential to provide information important to the study of late twentieth-century flood control systems. Similarly, none of the individual structures along the subject segment of the Channel appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D or the CRHR under Criterion 4. This criteria is typically reserved for archaeological resources, ruins, or rare built environments of which little is already known, and that are considered the sole source of historical data. None of the structures recorded during this study, or the Channel as a whole would be able to yield any information important to the study of flood control systems of their particular type or vintage in local, state, or national history. The structures themselves are not the primary sources of this information, but rather, the physical manifestation of the knowledge and practice of this technology, which was widely applied throughout Riverside County and other parts of southern California.

In conclusion, the South Norco Channel does not appear to meet any of the criteria of the NRHP or CRHR for historical significance. Consequently, it is recommended that this resource is ineligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR.

5.2.2 P-33-024100 While P-33-024100 undoubtedly dates to the mid twentieth century, this isolated remnant weir box has no known direct association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history nor is it associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. As such, the resource is not recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A or B or to the CRHR under Criterion 1 or 2. In addition, it does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and thus is not recommended eligible under Criterion C/3. Finally, the isolated weir box does not have potential to yield any information important to the study of irrigation systems of their particular type or vintage in local, state, or national history. Therefore, it is recommended that the resource is ineligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D or Criterion 4, respectively.

27 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The historical South Norco Channel (P-33-024099) and irrigation feature (P-33-024100) that were identified within the Project area were documented and evaluated for historical significance as part of the cultural resources study. Neither of these built-environment features is recommended as eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. Therefore, neither of them qualifies as a “historic property” under the NHPA or a “historical resource” under CEQA.

An intensive-level Phase I field survey of the existing channel and detention basin did not encounter any potentially significant archaeological resources of prehistoric or historic age, and the results of this study indicate that the archaeological sensitivity of these areas is considered to be low. Ground disturbance associated with the relining of the channel and detention basin will primarily occur along the sides and bases of the flood control structures, which have been previously disturbed by construction and maintenance activities. As the potential for encountering intact cultural deposits in these areas is relatively low, no further cultural resources management is recommended for the existing channel and detention basin at this time.

Due to the lack of ground visibility, much of the APE along Hillside Lane, Hillside Avenue, and 3rd Street could not be inspected for archaeological resources. However, thepresence of several large bedrock milling sites in the nearby Norco Hills area suggests that archaeological sensitivity in the eastern portion of the Project area is moderate to high. Trenching and excavation associated with the construction of underground drainage pipes may extend to a depth of 3.0 m (10 ft) and as such, have the potential to disturb deeply buried archaeological deposits. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during any Project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with the installation of the underground drainage pipes that extend into undisturbed sediments.

28 7 REFERENCES

Bean, L. J. 1976 Social Organization in Native California. In: Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by L. J. Bean and T. C. Blackburn, pp. 99B123. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.

Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538B549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In: Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8 California. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Robert F. Heizer, volume editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.

Bitetti, Marge 2005 Norco. Arcadia Publishing, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

Blackburn, T. 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Reports 5:1–50.

1976 Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Aboriginal California. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, pp. 225–243. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.

Corona Daily Independent 1969 “Norco Flood Victims Girding for Session…Will Report Trouble to Commission Tomorrow.” By Bette Reincke, staff writer, March 6, page 1. Available through NewspaperArchive.com.

Crouch, D. P., D. J. Garr, and A. I. Mundigo 1982 Spanish City Planning in North America. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Douglas, R. D., J. Cooper, D. Burkenroad, E. Gardner, and T. Mabry 1981 Archaeological, Historical/Ethnohistorical, and Paleontological Assessment, Weir Canyon Park-Road Study, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman Associates, Tustin. Ms. on file, University of California Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California.

29 Goldberg, S. K., C. J. Klink, J. A. Onken, W. G. Spaulding, M. C. Robinson, M. C. Horne, and R. L. McKim 2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Synthesis of Findings. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet California. Submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Harrington, John P. n.d. Ethnographic Field Notes. Copies on file at Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, California.

Horne, M. C., and D. P. McDougall 2008 Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Riverside County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Draft report in preparation for The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

King, T. F. 1967 Test Excavations at MRN-375, the Palo Marin Site in Point Reyes National Seashore. Society for California Archaeology, R. E. Schenk Memorial Archives of California Archaeology 17. San Francisco, California.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C.

Lech, Steve 2004 Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–1893. Steve Lech, Riverside, California.

McCawley, W. 1996 The First Angelinos. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication.

Meighan, C. W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215–227.

National Park Service (NPS) 1991 National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2012 CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, Statutes and Guidelines. State of California, Sacramento.

Reid, Hugo 1852 Letters about the Los Angeles County Indians. Los Angeles Star 1(41), 2(11).

30 Starr, K. 2005 California: A History. The Modern Library, New York.

Strong, W. D. 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1). Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

True, D. L. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

1970 Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs No. 1, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

Wallace, W. J. 1978 Post Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In: California Indians, edited by R.F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple, pp. 186–210. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.

Warren, C. N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Archaeology 1(3):1–15.

1980 The Archaeology and Archaeological Resources of the Amargosa–Mojave Basin Planning Units. In A Cultural Resources Overview for the Amargosa–Mojave Basin Planning Units, by C. N. Warren, M. Knack, and E. von Till Warren. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publications, Anthropology–History, Riverside, California.

1984 The Desert Region. In: California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339–430. Academic Press, New York and London.

White, R. C. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91–194. Berkeley, California.

31 APPENDIX A

CONFIDENTIAL SITE RECORDS

A-1 APPENDIX B

NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION

B-1 Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 657-5390 – Fax [email protected]

Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search

Date: November 11, 2014

Project: South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project (AE #3000)

County: Riverside

USGS Quadrangle Name: Corona North, CA

Township 3S/Range 6W, Sections 7 and 18

Company/Firm/Agency: Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Contact Person: Joan George

Street Address: 3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H

City: Hemet Zip: 92544

Phone: (951) 766-2000

Fax: (951) 766-0020

Email: [email protected]

Project Description: The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District proposes to stabilize the existing earthen channel by lining it with concrete.

3550 E. Florida Ave., Suite H Hemet, CA 92544-4937 O: (951) 766-2000 | F: (951) 766-0020

December 9, 2014

Daniel McCarthy Director – CRM Department San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 26569 Community Center Drive Highland, CA 92346

Re: Cultural Resources Investigation for South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project, Riverside County, California

Dear Mr. McCarthy:

On behalf of HELIX Environmental Planning, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is conducting a cultural resources study of the South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project (Project) located within the city of Norco and bounded to the west by Corona Street, to the east by Hillside Avenue, to the north by Fourth Street, and to the south by Second Street. The Project proposes the stabilization, maintenance, and operation of a segment of the existing South Norco interim earthen flood control channel within the Project area, indicated on the attached map, located on the Corona North, CA 7.5' USGS quadrangle map within T3S/R6W, Sections 7 and 18, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (S.B.B.M.).

The archaeological literature and records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center housed at the University of California, Riverside, indicates that 24 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a one- mile radius of the Project area. None of these studies involved the Project area. Twenty-four cultural resources have been recorded within a one-mile radius of the Project area; however, no cultural resources have been recorded within the boundaries of the Project area.

Æ was contracted to perform an intensive archaeological survey of the Project area. The survey was completed on December 8, 2014 and transect spacing ranged from 10 to 15 meters. One historical resource (the Channel) and one isolated modified cobble were identified during the survey.

As part of the cultural resources assessment of the Project area, Æ requested a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC responded on November 24, 2014 stating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate Project area. Should cultural properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, or if you have any concerns regarding Native American issues related to the overall Project, please contact me at (951) 766-2000 or [email protected] expressing your concerns. If I do not hear from you within in the next two weeks, I will contact you with a follow-up phone call or email.

Please be aware that your comments and concerns are very important to us, as well as to the successful completion of this Project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to review this request.

Respectfully yours,

Joan George Associate Archaeologist Applied EarthWorks, Inc. ARCHAEOLOGY CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com CORONA NORTH

Legend Project Area

SCALE 1:24,000 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet

0.5 00.51 ° Kilometers La Sierra (Sepulveda) Land Grant Corona North (1953-PR1979), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle Project location mapIRUWKH6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW.

3 3 3 From: Daniel McCarthy To: Joan George Subject: RE: Cultural Resources Investigation for the South Norco Channel Project Date: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:56:04 PM Attachments: image001.jpg

Joan, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. However, this project is outside Serrano ancestral territory. Please contact another tribe who has ancestral ties there. //daniel

Daniel McCarthy, MS, RPA Director Cultural Resources Management Department San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 26569 Community Center Drive Highland, CA 92346 Office: 909 864-8933 x 3248 Cell: 909 838-4175 [email protected]

From: Joan George [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:27 PM To: Daniel McCarthy Subject: Cultural Resources Investigation for the South Norco Channel Project

Good Afternoon,

Attached please find a scoping letter and map for the South Norco Channel Project, in the City of Norco, Riverside County.

Thank you, Joan

Joan George | Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Associate Archaeologist

3550 E. Florida Ave., Ste. H Hemet, CA 92544-4937 951.766.2000 x-24 office http://www.appliedearthworks.com

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You December 10, 2014

. SUBJECT:

Dear Joan George Associate Archaeologist Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Thank you for contacting the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding the above referenced project. The Tribe greatly appreciates the opportunity to review the project and, respectfully, offer the following comments.

The project is outside of the Tribe’s current reservation boundaries but within an area that may be considered a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties (e.g. Cahuilla/Serrano territory). However, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians asks that you impose specific conditions regarding cultural and/or archaeological resources and buried cultural materials on any development plans or entitlement applications as follows:

o If human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5.

o In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period.

If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians

(“Tribe”)1. If requested by the Tribe, the developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return of artifacts to tribe, etc.).

If I may be of further assistance with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 The Morongo Band of Mission Indians realizes that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural affiliation to the area; however, Morongo can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no objection if the archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes and if the city wishes to revise the condition to recognize other tribes. LIST OF NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS AND RECORD OF RESPONSES

Name Date & Time of Calls Responses Denisa Torres December 9, 2014 Scoping letter sent via email. Cultural Heritage Program Assistant Morongo Band of Mission Indians Letter dated Received letter from Ms. Torres via email. Ms. Torres stated that the December 10, 2014 Project is outside of Tribe’s current reservation boundaries, but within an area that may be considered a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties. Therefore the Tribe requests the following: (1) proper procedures to be followed if human remains are encountered during construction activities; (2) if Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction, work will cease in the immediate area until the find can be assessed by a qualified archaeologist; (3) and if significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

Daniel McCarthy December 9, 2014 Scoping letter sent via email. Director – CRM Department San Manuel Band of Mission Indians December 9, 2014 Received email response from Mr. McCarthy thanking me for the opportunity to comment. He said the Project is outside of Serrano ancestral territory and asked us to contact other tribes who have ancestral ties to the Project area.

Ernest H. Siva December 10, 2014 Scoping letter sent via United States Postal Service. Tribal Elder Morongo Band of Mission Indians Message left Left detailed voicemail message describing the Project. No response December 23, 2014 received.

Goldie Walker December 10, 2014 Scoping letter sent via United States Postal Service. Chairwoman Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Call made Attempted to call Ms. Walker, but no one answered the phone. No December 23, 2014 response received. Appendix F PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Paleontological Resource Assessment for the South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project, City of Norco, Riverside County, California

(APNs 123-100-001, -130-010, -160-026,-220-001; 125-130-014, -015; and 125-140-025, -160-005)

Heather L. Clifford and Jessica L. DeBusk

Prepared By

Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 133 North San Gabriel Boulevard, Suite 201 Pasadena, CA 91107-3414

Prepared For HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942

and

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, Ca 92501

December 2014

Corona North, CA USGS 7.5-min. quadrangle 19 acres Results: No paleontological resources were recovered from the Project area SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

At the request of HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., on behalf of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) performed a paleontological resource assessment for the South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project (Project) located in the city of Norco, in Riverside County, California. The Project proposes the stabilization, maintenance, and operation of a segment of the existing South Norco interim earthen flood control channel as well as construction, maintenance, and operation of two underground storm drain pipes, S-1 and S-5, that would connect from the South Norco channel. This report summarizes the methods and results of the paleontological resource assessment and provides Project-specific management recommendations.

This assessment included a comprehensive review of published and unpublished literature and museum collections records maintained by the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM). The museum records were supplemented by a search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online collections database. The purpose of the literature review and museum records search was to identify the geologic units underlying the Project area and to determine whether previously recorded paleontological localities occur either within the Project boundaries or within the same geologic units elsewhere. The museum records search was followed by a field survey, during which the ground was visually inspected for exposed fossils and the geologic exposures were evaluated for their potential to contain preserved fossil material at the subsurface. Using the results of museum records search and field survey, the paleontological resource potential of the Project area was determined in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010).

Published geologic mapping indicates that the Project area is underlain by sedimentary deposits of Pliocene to Pleistocene age and Cretaceous plutonic igneous rocks. Museum records found no previously recorded paleontological localities directly within Project boundaries; however, UCMP records indicate that at least four previously documented fossil localities have been reported in Riverside County from within the same or similar geologic units as those that underlie the Project area.

As a result of this study, the Project area is determined to have a paleontological resource potential ranging from none to high, and the likelihood of impacting scientifically significant vertebrate fossils as a result of Project development is low to high. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified paleontologist be retained to develop and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program during construction. At the conclusion of all Project-related ground disturbances, all significant fossils found during the course of on-site monitoring should be permanently curated at the Western Science Center and a final technical report of findings should be drafted and submitted to the District. By implementing these mitigation measures during Project development, adverse impacts to paleontological resources can be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project ii CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 1 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION ...... 4 1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 4

2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 5 2.1 STATE ...... 5 2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 5 2.1.2 California Public Resources Code ...... 5 2.2 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ...... 6

3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ...... 7 3.1 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ...... 7 3.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ...... 7

4 METHODS ...... 9 4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND RECORDS SEARCH ...... 9 4.2 FIELDWORK ...... 9 4.3 KEY PERSONNEL ...... 9

5 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY ...... 10 5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...... 10 5.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA ...... 10

6 PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ...... 14

7 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 18 7.1 MUSEUM RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ...... 18 7.2 FIELDWORK RESULTS ...... 18 7.3 DETERMINATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL FOR GEOLOGIC UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 19

8 FINDINGS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 22 8.1 WORKER’S ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS TRAINING ...... 22 8.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING ...... 22 8.3 FOSSIL PREPARATION, CURATION, AND REPORTING ...... 23

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project iii 9 CONCLUSIONS ...... 24

10 REFERENCES CITED ...... 25

APPENDICES

A Résumé B Record Search Results

FIGURES

1-1 Project vicinity map ...... 1 1-2 Project location map ...... 3 5-1 Regional geology in the vicinity of the Project area ...... 11 5-2 Geology of the Project area...... 12 7-1 Paleontological Sensitivity of the Project area ...... 20 7-2 Paleontological Sensitivity of the Project, area as shown on the Riverside County General Plan map (2008)...... 21

PHOTOS

6-1 Overview of a portion of the storm channel network in the southwestern Project area ...... 15 6-2 District ROW along Hillside Avenue in the Project area...... 15 6-3 The District ROW at the Norco Intermediate School in the Project area...... 16 6-4 Pleistocene age alluvial deposits completely obscured in the Project area ...... 16 6-5 Gully erosion on the earthen storm channel in the Project area ...... 17

TABLES

3-1 Paleontological Sensitivity Categories ...... 8 7-1 Vertebrate Localities Reported in the Vicinity of the Project Area in Riverside County ...... 18 7-2 Geologic Units in the Project Area and Their Paleontological Sensitivity ...... 19

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project iv 1 INTRODUCTION

At the request of HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., on behalf of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) performed a paleontological resource assessment for the South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project (Project) in Riverside County, California (Figure 1-1). The study consisted of a museum records search, a comprehensive literature and geologic map review, and a field reconnaissance survey. This report summarizes the methods and results of a paleontological resource assessment and provides Project-specific management recommendations.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located within the city of Norco, California, and is bounded on the west by Corona Street, to the east by Hillside Avenue, to the north by Fourth Street, and on the south by Second Street. Specifically, it is mapped within Township 3 South, Range 6 West, Sections 7 and 18 of on the Corona South, CA, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle (Figure 1-2). The Project site is approximately 19 acres in size and encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 123-100- 001, -130-010, -160-026, and -220-001; 125-130-014 and -015; and 125-140-025 and -160-005. The District proposes the stabilization, maintenance, and operation of a segment of the existing South Norco interim earthen flood control channel as well as construction, maintenance, and operation of two underground storm drain pipes, S-1 and S-5, that would connect from the South Norco channel.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION

The primary objective of the Project is to stabilize the existing earthen channel. The desired method of stabilization is to convert the earthen channel to a concrete lined channel. This would eliminate the erosion problems currently experienced within the channel and downstream areas and would also reduce the frequency and need of sediment and plant material removal. In addition to stabilization of the main channel segment, the District also proposes to construct underground drainage pipes to transmit storm flows in place of existing surface flow facilities. The improvements may also include construction of two detention basins. Locations under consideration for the detention basins are the southwest corner of the Norco Intermediate School property adjacent to the existing earthen channel and downstream of the Norco High School property between Temescal Avenue and Second Street on property owned by the District. Ground-disturbing activities related to Project development will likely include trenching and excavation.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 1 PROJECT AREA

SCALE 1:250,000 5 05 Miles PROJECT 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Feet AREA 505 Kilometers °

Figure 1-1 Project vicinity map.

3DOHRQWRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH$VVHVVPHQW±6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW CORONA NORTH

Legend Project Area

SCALE 1:24,000 0.500.51 Miles

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet

0.5 0 0.5 1 ° Kilometers La Sierra (Sepulveda) Land Grant Corona North (1953-PR1979), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle Figure 1-2 Project location map.

3DOHRQWRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH$VVHVVPHQW±6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW 1.3 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION

The purpose of this paleontological resource assessment is to (1) identify the geologic units within the Project area, (2) assess their paleontological resource potential (i.e., “sensitivity”), (3) evaluate whether the Project has the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources, and (4) provide Project-specific mitigation measures to be implemented during Project development (as necessary). This assessment was performed to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was conducted in accordance with professional standards and guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010).

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report documents the results of Æ’s paleontological resource assessment of the Project area. Chapter 1 has introduced the scope of work, identified the Project location, described the Project, and defined the purpose of the investigation. Chapter 2 outlines the regulatory framework governing the Project. Chapter 3 presents the paleontological resource guidelines and professional standards used for this assessment and Chapter 4 presents the methods. The geology and paleontology of the Project area is discussed in Chapter 5, and the results of the field survey are presented in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 provides analysis, and management recommendations are provided in Chapter 8. The results and conclusions are discussed in Chapter 9, followed by a list of references in Chapter 10.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 4 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are considered to be nonrenewable scientific resources because once destroyed, they cannot be replaced. As such, paleontological resources are afforded protection under the various state and local laws and regulations briefly discussed in this chapter.

2.1 STATE

2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000–21177) encourages the protection of all aspects of the environment by requiring state and local agencies to prepare multidisciplinary analyses of the environmental impacts of a project and to make decisions based on the findings of those analyses. CEQA also takes into account the laws and procedures of local California jurisdictions.

The Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines; 14 CCR 15000 et seq.) include a definition of historical resources as “any object [or] site . . . that has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory” (14 CCR 15064.5[3]), which is typically interpreted as including fossil materials and other paleontological resources. More specifically, destruction of a “unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature” constitutes a significant impact under CEQA, as indicated by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2014, p. 277).

Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in the project; assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources; and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include avoidance, monitoring, or data recovery excavation.

2.1.2 California Public Resources Code

PRC Section 5097.5 affirms that no person shall willingly or knowingly excavate, remove, or otherwise destroy a vertebrate paleontological site or paleontological feature without the express permission of the overseeing public land agency. It further states under PRC Section 30244 that any development that would adversely impact paleontological resources shall require reasonable mitigation. These regulations apply to projects located on land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or city, county, district, or other public agency (California Office of Historic Preservation, 2005).

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 5 2.2 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Paleontological resources are addressed under the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the Riverside County General Plan (2008), policy OS 19.9, which states the following:

This policy requires that when existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain paleontological resources, a paleontologist shall monitor site grading activities, with the authority to halt grading to collect uncovered paleontological resources, curate any resources collected with an appropriate repository, and file a report with the Planning Department [Riverside County Planning Department, 2008].

The Safeguard Artifacts Being Excavated in Riverside County (SABER) policy enacted in October 2011 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors mandates that any paleontological resources found or unearthed in the County of Riverside be curated at the Western Science Center in the city of Hemet. This new policy will be included as an amendment to the Multipurpose Element of the General Plan Update.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 6 3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

3.1 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Paleontological resources are the evidence of once-living organisms as preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). In general, fossils are considered to be greater than 5,000 years old (older than Middle Holocene) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks formed under certain conditions (SVP, 2010).

Significant paleontological resources are defined as “identifiable” vertebrate fossils, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, or biochronological data (SVP, 2010). These data are important because they are used to examine evolutionary relationships, provide insight on the development of and interaction between biological communities, establish time scales for geologic studies, and for many other scientific purposes (Scott and Springer, 2003; SVP, 2010).

3.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY

Absent specific agency guidelines, most professional paleontologists in California adhere to guidelines set forth by SVP in “Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources” (SVP, 2010). These guidelines establish detailed protocols for the assessment of the paleontological resource potential (i.e., “sensitivity”) of a project area and outline measures to follow in order to mitigate adverse impacts to known or unknown fossil resources during project development. In order to prevent project delays, SVP highly recommends that the owner or developer retain a qualified professional paleontologist in the advance planning phases of a project to conduct an assessment and to implement paleontological mitigation during construction, as necessary.

Using baseline information gathered during a paleontological resource assessment, the paleontological resource potential of the geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) underlying a Project area can be assigned to one of four categories defined by SVP (2010). These categories include high, undetermined, low, and no potential. The criteria for each sensitivity classification and the corresponding mitigation recommendations are summarized in Table 3-1 below.

If a project area is determined to have high or undetermined potential for paleontological resources following the initial assessment, then SVP recommends that a paleontological resource mitigation plan be developed and implemented during the construction phase of a project. The mitigation plan describes, in detail, when and where paleontological monitoring will take place and establishes communication protocols to be followed in the event that an unanticipated fossil

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 7 discovery is made during project development. If significant fossil resources are known to occur within the boundaries of the Project and have not been collected, then the plan will outline the procedures to be followed prior to the commencement of construction (i.e., preconstruction salvage efforts or avoidance measures, including fencing off a locality). Should microfossils be known to occur in the geologic unit(s) underlying the Project area or suspected to occur, then the plan will describe the methodology for matrix sampling and screening.

Table 3-1 Paleontological Sensitivity Categories Resource Potential Criteria Mitigation Recommendations No Potential Rock units that are formed under or exposed to No mitigation required. immense heat and pressure, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks. Low Potential Rocks units that have yielded few fossils in the Mitigation is not typically required. past, based upon review of available literature and museum collections records. Geologic units of low potential also include those that yield fossils only on rare occasion and under unusual circumstances. Undetermined In some cases, available literature on a particular A field survey is required to further Potential geologic unit will be scarce and a determination of assess the unit’s paleontological whether it is fossiliferous or potentially potential. fossiliferous will be difficult to make. Under these circumstances, further study is needed to determine the unit’s paleontological resource potential (i.e., field survey). High Potential Geologic units with high potential for Typically, a field survey as well as onsite paleontological resources are those that have construction monitoring will be required. proven to yield vertebrate or significant Any significant specimens discovered invertebrate, plant or trace fossils in the past or are will need to be prepared, identified, and likely to contain new vertebrate materials, traces, or curated into a museum. A final report trackways. Rock units with high potential also may documenting the significance of the finds include those that contain datable organic remains will also be required. older than late Holocene (e.g., animal nests or middens). Adapted from SVP (2010).

The paleontological mitigation plan should be prepared by a qualified professional paleontologist and developed using the results of the initial paleontological assessment and survey. Elements of the plan can be adjusted throughout the course of a project as new information is gathered and conditions change, so long as the lead agency is consulted and all parties are in agreement. For example, if after 50 percent of earth-disturbing activities have occurred in a particular unit or area, and no fossils whatsoever have been discovered, then the project paleontologist can reduce or eliminate monitoring efforts in that unit or area.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 8 4 METHODS

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND RECORDS SEARCH

Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether a particular study area has the potential to contain significant fossil resources at the subsurface, it is necessary to review relevant scientific literature and geologic mapping to determine the geology and stratigraphy of the area. Further, to delineate the boundaries of an area of paleontological sensitivity, it is necessary to determine the extent of the entire geologic unit because paleontological sensitivity is not limited to surface exposures of fossil material.

To determine whether fossil localities have been previously discovered within the Project area or a particular rock unit, a search of pertinent local and regional museum repositories for paleontological localities within and near the Project was performed. For this Project, a museum records search was conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) and supplemented by a search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database.

4.2 FIELDWORK

A field visit to the Project area was conducted on December 8, 2014. The purpose of the field survey was to visually inspect the ground surface for exposed fossils and to evaluate geologic exposures for their potential to contain preserved fossil material at the subsurface.

4.3 KEY PERSONNEL

This paleontological resource assessment was prepared under the direction of Æ’s Paleontology Program Manager, Jessica DeBusk. She requested the museum records searches, served as Principal Investigator, and provided quality control for this report. Associate Archaeologist, Joan George, served as Project Manager. Associate Paleontologist Heather Clifford conducted the literature and geologic map review, produced all graphics, and was the primary author of the geology and paleontology sections of this report. Ms. DeBusk has more than 11 years of professional experience as a consulting paleontologist and meets the SVP’s definition of a qualified professional paleontologist. Her résumé is provided in Appendix A.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 9 5 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Project area is located in an alluvial plain within the Norco Hills area of the Temescal Mountains, south of the Santa Ana River and north of Temescal Creek (Morton and Miller, 2006). The Temescal Mountains are a range within the northern part of the geologically complex Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. A geomorphic province is a region of unique topography and geology that is distinguished from other regions based on its landforms and diastrophic history (Norris and Webb, 1976). The Peninsular Ranges are a northwest-southeast oriented complex of blocks that extend 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and Los Angeles Basin to the tip of Baja California. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded to the east by the Colorado Desert and range in width from 30 to 100 miles (Norris and Webb, 1976). The Project area is situated within the Perris Block; a relatively stable rectangular structural unit positioned between the Santa Ana Mountains of the Peninsular Ranges and San Jacinto Fault Zone. The Project area is just east of the Chino fault, a right-lateral/reverse fault that extends northward along the west side of the Chino Basin (Morton and Miller, 2006). The Chino fault is a splay from the Elsinore Fault Zone, located further to the south. The geology in the vicinity of the Project area includes Mesozoic metasedimentary rocks intruded by Cenozoic igneous rocks, which are unconformably overlain by mainly Pleistocene age fluvial and alluvial fan deposits (Morton and Miller, 2006) (Figure 5-1).

5.2 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA

According to Morton and Miller (2006), the Project area is directly underlain by Cretaceous age rocks of the Cajalco pluton (Kcg, Kmpc) and Pliocene to Pleistocene age nonmarine deposits, including the sedimentary rocks of Norco area (QTn), very old alluvial-fan deposits (Qvof), and very old axial-channel deposits (Qvof) (Figure 5-2). The rocks of the Cajalco pluton are composed of weathered porphyritic monzogranite and granodiorite, which were emplaced during the Cretaceous Period and are characteristic of the Peninsular Range (Morton and Miller 2006). The Pliocene to Pleistocene age sedimentary rocks of the Norco area consist of a nonmarine fluvial deposit composed of brownish-gray conglomerate with lithologically diverse pebble to boulder clasts derived from local granitic sources as well as quartzite clasts derived from the San Bernardino Mountains. The very old alluvial fan and channel deposits of Middle to Early Pleistocene age consist of moderately consolidated tan to orange or reddish-brown sand and silt with subordinate cobbles and pebbles, up to 50 feet thick in the vicinity of the Project area (Anderson et al., 2002). The Pleistocene age sediments are moderately to well indurated, contain angular to well-rounded clasts, display local pebble conglomerate interbeds, show localized soil formation, and contain abundant dissection (Morton and Miller, 2006). In general, the alluvial deposits were derived from erosion in the San Gabriel-San Bernardino Mountains and subsequent deposition along the south-facing bajada and nearby washes and streams, including the Santa Ana River.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 10 Qoa Qow

Qyf3

Qyw Kqd Kgb Qvof

Klst Qw PROJECT AREA Krg Kt Qof3

Kmpc QTn Qvoa QTs Kmhg Tns

Kmp QTc Kd Qya Qyf Qov Qof1 Kcgb

Tc ga

Tvs Kvspi Kcgq

Qof Qaf Kwl Tvss Qvof1 Kvem Kcg Kgu Qyf1 Kcto Kl Tp Qyls Klbc Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, EsriTlm? China Kvsp Tt Ts i (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapTrmu Jbc contributors,Tf and the GIS User Community Kvs Legend

Qya, Quaternary alluvium Tf, Fernando Formation Kqd, Quartz diorite - undifferentiated Qaf, Artificial fill Tvss, Vaqueros - Sespe - Santiago - and Silverado Formations - undifferentiated Kmp, Micropegmatite granite - undifferentiated Qoa, Quaternary older alluvium Tlm?, Lake Mathews Formation? Kmhg, Mount Hole Granodiorite Qvoa, Quaternary very old alluvium Tcga, Conglomerate of Arlington Mountain Klst, La Sierra Tonalite QTc, Conglomeratic sedimentary rocks of Riverside West 7.5 quadrangle' Tsi, Silverado Formation Kgu, Granite - undifferentiated QTn, Sedimentary rocks of Norco area Kwl, Williams and Ladd Formations - undifferentiated Kgb, Gabbro - undifferentiated QTs, Unnamed sedimentary rocks in Riverside and Corona areas Kvspi, Intrusive rocks associated with Santiago Peak Volcanics Kd, Diorite - undifferentiated Tns, Sandstone of Norco area Kvsp, Santiago Peak Volcanics Kcg, Cajalco Pluton Trms, Rocks of Menifee Valley- undifferentiated Kvem, Estelle Mountain volcanics Jbc, Bedford Canyon Formation - undifferentiated Tt, Topanga Group - undifferentiated Kt, Tonalite - undifferentiated Tp, Puente Formation; Tpsc, Puente Formation Krg, Granite of Riverside area

Geology: Morton and Miller (2006). SCALE 1:100,000

303 ° Miles 10,000 0 10,000 Feet

202 Kilometers

Figure 5-1 Regional geology in the vicinity of the Project area.

3DOHRQWRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH$VVHVVPHQW±6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW Klst QTn Klst

QTn Klst QTn Klst

Klst

Qof3 Qof3 Klst Kcg

Klst QTn

Kmp Qvoa Kmhg Qof3 Qvof Qvof QTn Klst Kmpc Klst Kcg

QTn QTn Qvoa Klst Klst Qof3 QTn QTn

Kcg Kcg Klst QTn Klst Kcg Kcg

Kcg Klst QTn Kcg Klst QTn Klst Tns Klst Klst Qov

Tns QTn Legend Kcg Klst QTn Project Area Sandstone of Norco area (Tns) Klst Qof3 YoungKmp axial-channel depositsQof3 (Qya) Granodiorite of Cajalco Pluton (Kmpc) Old alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 (Qof3) Micropegmatite granite (Kmp) Old alluvial-valley depositsSources: (Qov) Esri, HERE, DeLorme,Mount Hole TomTom, Granodiorite Intermap, (Kmhg) increment P Kcg Qov Very old alluvial-fan depositsCorp., (Qvof) GEBCO, USGS, FAO,Cajalco NPS, Pluton NRCAN, (Kcg) GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,Kd METI, Esri China Very old axial-channel depositsKcg (Qvoa) La Sierra Tonalite (Klst) (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Qya Sedimentary rocks of Norco area (QTn) Qvoa contributors, and the GIS User CommunityQof3 Geology: Morton and Miller (2006) SCALE 1:24,000 0.500.51 Miles

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet

0.5 0 0.5 1 ° Kilometers

Figure 5-2 Geology of the Project area.

3DOHRQWRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH$VVHVVPHQW±6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW Alluvial, fluvial, and lacustrine deposits of Pliocene to Pleistocene age have proven to yield scientifically significant paleontological resources throughout Southern California, from the coastal areas to the inland valleys; however, the intrusive igneous bedrock within the Project area is not fossiliferous due to the high heat during its formation (Springer et al., 2009). Pleistocene age alluvial deposits in the vicinity of the Project area are potentially highly fossiliferous and localities identified within these deposits have yielded significant fossils of extinct Ice Age mammals (Scott, 2012). Southeast of the Project near Lake Mathews, Ustatochoerus cf. californicus (ground dwelling herbivore) and fossilized camel remains were recovered within Pliocene fluvial and alluvial deposits (Woodford et al., 1971). To the southwest, near Lakeview, a diverse assemblage of fossil resources have been recovered including Mammuthus sp. (mammoth), Smilodon sp. (sabre-toothed cat), Equus sp. (extinct horse), Bison sp. cf. B. antiquus (bison), and numerous small mammals, reptiles, invertebrates, and plant remains (Springer et al., 2009). Further south, the largest known open-environment non-asphaltic late Pleistocene fossil assemblage has been documented in Diamond and Domenigoni valleys. Discovered during excavations of the Diamond Valley Lake, which is approximately 40 miles southeast of the Project area and within a similar Quaternary depositional environment as the Project area, this locality has yielded nearly 100,000 identifiable fossils representing over 105 vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant taxa. The vertebrate taxa recovered includes reptiles such as frogs, turtles, and lizards; birds such as robins, swallows, jays, ravens, hawks, and ducks; small mammals such as rabbit, squirrel, mice, and weasels; and large mammals such as fox, bear, coyote, deer, bison, mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths (Springer et al., 2009). The invertebrate taxa recovered includes ostracodes, snails, termites, slugs, beetles, and bivalves and the plant taxa recovered includes well-preserved diatoms, pollen, and wood debris (Springer et al., 2009; Anderson et al., 2002).

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 13 6 PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD RECONNAISSANCE

A field survey of the Project area was conducted by Æ Associate Paleontologist Heather Clifford on December 8, 2014. A pedestrian walkover was performed utilizing evenly spaced zigzagged transects and the entire Project area was surveyed for paleontological resources. During the course of fieldwork, a windshield survey of the geology and topography surrounding the Project area was accomplished and all rock outcrops were examined for surface fossils. Project areas that obscured by pavement or asphalt (i.e., roadways) were subject to a windshield survey. Project areas underlain by Pliocene to Pleistocene age sedimentary units and Cretaceous igneous bedrock were found to be 100 percent obscured by vegetation, soil development, refuse and spoil dumping, levee and channel construction, flood debris, culvert installation, grading, and road pavement. In the field, Ms. Clifford utilized a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, topographic maps, and aerial photographs to locate geologic formation and Project area boundaries. Notes were taken on the regional geology and lithology of exposed sediments and photographs were taken to document the survey (Photo 6-1).

The topography of the Project area consists of a lowland drainage area at the base of the Norco Hills. The Project area encompasses an earthen and concrete storm channel canal and retention basin as well as District rights-of-way (ROWs) along school district property and private and public roadways (Photos 6-2 and 6-3). The underlying geologic units in the Project area have been completely obscured by anthropogenic developments, vegetation, and soil development (Photos 6-4). Relict stream channel or catchment basin morphology is not visible in the Project area, further indicating that the Project area has been heavily modified and disturbed from its natural geologic setting. The levees of the earthen channel system have been eroded by a moderately well-developed gully network to depths of approximately 6 to 36 inches below ground surface (bgs). The gully erosion has exposed buried sediments, which consist of red clay soil with scant amounts (1 to 10 percent) of fine to coarse sand and angular pebbles (Photo 6-5). Exposures in several of the gullies indicate that the red clay soil has been removed and replaced with imported fill, probably following localized erosion or a larger flood event. The Pliocene to Pleistocene sedimentary deposits mapped within the Project area were not visible beneath the red clay soil, which was observed to be at least to 0.5 to 1.5 feet thick. Although native sediments were not visible on the levees, channel, or retention basin in the Project area, they are likely present at shallow depth below.

No fossil resources were discovered during the course of fieldwork. However, 100 percent of the survey area was obscured by vegetation, soil development, or anthropogenic disturbances that limited surface visibility. The Pleistocene age deposits, which underlie the majority of the Project area, are characterized by fine to medium-grained sediments that have proven to be conducive to the preservation of vertebrate remains. Therefore, these rock units may contain an unknown number of fossil resources at the subsurface.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 14

Photo 6-1 Overview of a portion of the storm channel network in the southwestern Project area, near Corona Ave., looking west.

Photo 6-2 The District ROW along Hillside Avenue in the Project area, view to the east. The underlying Pleistocene age alluvium is completely obscured by the paved road.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 15

Photo 6-3 The District ROW at the Norco Intermediate School in the Project area, view to the west. The underlying Pleistocene age alluvium is completely obscured by the athletic field.

Photo 6-4. Pleistocene age alluvial deposits are completely obscured in the Project area by storm channel construction and grading, vegetation, soil development, recent channel sedimentation, and culvert installation. View to the south.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 16

Photo 6-5 Gully erosion on the levee has exposed buried red clay soil, which is unevenly covered and truncated with imported gravel fill. View to the northeast.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 17 7 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

7.1 MUSEUM RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS

To determine whether fossil localities have been previously discovered within the Project area, a museum records search was performed at the SBCM on May 18, 2012. The SBCM reports that there are no previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities directly within Project boundaries or within a 1-mile buffer around the Project area. A supplemental review was conducted of the UCMP online collections database, which identified four localities from within unnamed Pleistocene age deposits in Riverside County. Records retrieved from the UCMP database do not provide the exact location of recovered fossil specimens, only a rough description of the locality is given. As such, locality queries were performed for the entire County of Riverside. The UCMP localities yielded approximately 13 vertebrate fossil specimens, including mammal, rodent, and reptile (UCMP, 2014). The results of the museum records search are summarized below in Table 7-1 and provided in Appendix B.

Table 7-1 Vertebrate Localities Reported in the Vicinity of the Project Area within Riverside County Locality No. Geologic Unit Age Taxa UCMP RV8601 Pleistocene age Pleistocene Microtus californicus (California vole) and deposits Neotoma sp. (packrat) UCMP V7006-V7007 Pleistocene age Pleistocene Gopherus sp. (gopher tortoise) and deposits unspecified vertebrates UCMP V65248 Pleistocene age Pleistocene Mammuthus sp. deposits Source: UCMP online database (2014)

7.2 FIELDWORK RESULTS

The field survey established that shallow grading will likely not impact the Pliocene to Pleistocene age sedimentary rocks of the Norco area and Pleistocene alluvium mapped within the Project area because the deposits have been previously disturbed to a depth of approximately 3 feet; however, significant excavations in the Project area may impact native sediments. Exposures of Cretaceous plutonic rock have been previously disturbed by road building and will not be impacted by Project-related ground disturbance.

No fossil resources were discovered during the course of fieldwork; however, 100 percent of the survey area was obscured by levee and channel construction, imported fill, vegetation, and anthropogenic disturbances, limiting surface visibility. The Pleistocene age alluvium that underlies portions of the Project area is characterized by fine- to course-grained sediments that have proven to be conducive to the preservation of vertebrate remains. Therefore, these rock units may contain an unknown number of fossil resources at the subsurface.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 18 7.3 DETERMINATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL FOR GEOLOGIC UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

Based on the literature review, museum records search results, and field survey, the geologic units underlying the Project area are determined to have a paleontological sensitivity ranging from none to high in accordance with criteria set forth by SVP (2010). The Early to Middle Pleistocene age alluvium mapped in the Project area has a high potential to contain intact paleontological resources because similar deposits have yielded significant vertebrate fossils in Riverside County. The lithology of the Pliocene to Pleistocene sedimentary rocks of the Norco area is coarse-grained, which is typically not conducive to the preservation of fossil remains. However, similar deposits of Pliocene age have yielded vertebrates in the vicinity of the Project area; therefore, a high paleontological resource potential is assigned. The rocks of the Cajalco pluton have been determined to have no paleontological resource potential due to their high heat of formation. As a result, further paleontological resource management is recommended during Project development as discussed in Chapter 8. Refer to Table 7-2 and Figure 7-1 for the sensitivity ratings of the geologic unit underlying the Project area. In addition, Figure 7-2 presents the paleontological sensitivity of the Project area as shown on Riverside County’s official paleontological sensitivity map (Riverside County Planning Department, 2008).

Table 7-2 Geologic Units* in the Project Area and Their Paleontological Sensitivity Paleontological Map Resource Geologic Unit Abbreviation Age Typical Fossils Potential Rocks of the Cajalco Kcg, Kmpc Cretaceous None None pluton Sedimentary rocks of the QTn Pliocene to Pleistocene None High Norco area Pleistocene age Qvoa, Qvof Early to Middle Vertebrate; mammal, High alluvium: very old axial- Pleistocene rodent channel and alluvial fan deposits * Geology taken from Morton and Miller (2006).

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 19 Klst QTn Klst

QTn Klst QTn Klst

Klst

Qof3 Qof3 Klst Kcg

Klst QTn

Kmp Qof3 Qvoa Kmhg Qvof

QTn Klst Kmpc Klst Kcg

QTn QTnQvoa Klst Klst Qof3

QTn QTn

Kcg Kcg Klst QTn Klst Kcg Kcg

Kcg Klst Kcg QTn Legend Klst QTn KlstProject Area Sedimentary rocks of Norco area (QTn) Tns Klst KlstHigh Paleontological Sensitivity Sandstone of Norco area (Tns)

No Paleontological Sensitivity Granodiorite of Cajalco Pluton (Kmpc) Tns QTn Kcg QTn Klst Young axial-channel depositsQof3 (Qya) Micropegmatite graniteQof3 (Kmp) Klst Kmp Old alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 (Qof3) Mount Hole Granodiorite (Kmhg)

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, incrementQov P Very old alluvial-fan depositsCorp., (Qvof) GEBCO, USGS,Kcg FAO,Cajalco NPS, Pluton NRCAN, (Kcg) GeoBase, IGN, KcgKadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,Kd METI, Esri China Very old axial-channel deposits (Qvoa) La Sierra Tonalite (Klst) Qya (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap Qvoa contributors, and the GIS User CommunityQof3 Geology: Morton and Miller (2006) SCALE 1:24,000 0.500.51 Miles

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet

0.5 0 0.5 1 ° Kilometers

Figure 7-1 Paleontological Sensitivity of the Project area.

3DOHRQWRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH$VVHVVPHQW±6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW Legend

Project Area Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P High A (Ha) Paleontological Sensitivity Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China Low Paleontological Sensitivity (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

SCALE 1:24,000 0.500.51 Miles

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet

0.5 0 0.5 1 ° Kilometers

Figure 7-2 Paleontological Sensitivity of the Project Area, as shown on the Riverside County General Plan map (2008).

3DOHRQWRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH$VVHVVPHQW±6RXWK1RUFR&KDQQHO/LQH63URMHFW 8 FINDINGS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, the potential for a given project to result in adverse impacts to paleontological resources is directly proportional to the amount of ground disturbance associated with the project. Since this Project entails construction of underground drainage pipes, considerable new ground disturbances are anticipated. Ground disturbance is planned for portions of the Project area that are underlain by the highly sensitive Pliocene age sedimentary rocks of the Norco area and Pleistocene age very old alluvial-fan and axial-channel deposits, which may impact previously undisturbed lithology in those deposits that have proven to yield vertebrate remains in Riverside County. Significant ground disturbance is not likely to adversely impact paleontological resources in portions of the Project area underlain by the rocks of the Cajalco pluton, because intrusive igneous rocks have no potential to yield paleontological resources. Further, should any surficial ground disturbances (less than 3 feet in depth) occur in the Pliocene to Pleistocene age sedimentary deposits, those activities would likely not impact paleontological resources due to previous ground disturbance and soil development.

By implementing the management recommendations outlined in the following sections, including worker’s environmental awareness training and on-site construction monitoring, adverse impacts to paleontological resources can be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These measures have been used by professional paleontologists for many years and have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating adverse impacts to paleontological resources as a result of private and public development projects throughout California and elsewhere.

8.1 WORKER’S ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS TRAINING

Prior to the start of construction, all field personnel will be briefed regarding the types of fossils that could be found in the Project area and the procedures to follow should paleontological resources be encountered. This training will be accomplished at the pre-grading kick-off meeting or morning tailboard meeting and will be conducted by the Project Paleontologist or his/her representative. Specifically, the training should provide a description of the fossil resources that may be encountered in the Project area, outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project Paleontologist and on-site monitor(s). The training will be developed by the Project Paleontologist and may be conducted concurrent with other environmental training (e.g., cultural and natural resources awareness training, safety training, etc.). The training may be videotaped or presented in an informational brochure for future use by field personnel not present at the start of the Project.

8.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING

Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified professional paleontologist will be retained to prepare and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. Initially, full-time monitoring is recommended for

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 22 grading and excavation activities that extend to 3 feet bgs, which will disturb previously undisturbed very old axial-channel deposits (Qvoa), very old alluvial fan deposits (Qvof), and sedimentary rocks of the Norco area (QTn), which have a high paleontological sensitivity, according to the criteria set forth by SVP (2010). Monitoring will not be required in Project areas underlain by geologic units with no paleontological resource potential (i.e., the rocks of the Cajalco pluton [Kcg, Kmpc]).

Monitoring will entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas and trench sidewalls. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor will have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected. In areas of high sensitivity, monitoring efforts can be reduced or eliminated at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist if no fossil resources are encountered after 50 percent of the excavations are completed.

8.3 FOSSIL PREPARATION, CURATION, AND REPORTING

Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant fossils collected will be prepared in a properly equipped paleontology laboratory to a point ready for curation. Preparation will include the careful removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing and repairing specimens, as necessary. Following laboratory work, all fossils specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level, cataloged, analyzed, and delivered the Western Science Center for permanent curation and storage. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the District.

At the conclusion of laboratory work and museum curation, a final report will be prepared describing the results of the paleontological mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the Project. The report will include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the Project area geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report will also be submitted to the Western Science Center.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 23 9 CONCLUSIONS

This assessment is based on the results of a museum records search, review of available geologic and paleontological literature, and a pedestrian survey of exposed geologic units within the Project area. No fossils were observed during the reconnaissance survey, therefore, only fossils that have already been inventoried or collected are available for this analysis. Based on this analysis, the Project area is in part underlain by geologic units determined to have a high paleontological sensitivity and high potential for buried fossils resources. These nonrenewable scientific resources may be at risk of being adversely impacted by earth-disturbing activities during the development of the Project. By implementing the management recommendations presented in Chapter 8, adverse impacts to paleontological resources can be reduced to a less than significant level pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 24 10 REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, R.S., Power, M.J., Smith, S.J., Springer, K., and Scott, E., 2002, Paleoecology of a middle Wisconsin deposit from southern California: Quaternary Research, v. 58, p. 310-317.

Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), 2012, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines, http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2012_wo_covers.pdf (accessed November 2014).

California Office of Historic Preservation, 2005, California State Law & Historic Preservation - Statutes, Regulations & Administrative Policies Regarding the Preservation & Protection of Cultural & Historical Resources: California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation Technical Assistance Series 10.

Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, scale 1:100,000.

Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1976, Geology of California: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 378p.

Pajak III, A.F., Scott, E., and Bell, C.J., 1996 , A review of the biostratigraphy of Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments in the Elsinore Fault Zone, Riverside County, California: PaleoBios, v. 17, no. 2-4, p. 28-49.

Riverside County Planning Department, 2008, County of Riverside General Plan, Updated 2008, General Plan Amendment No. 960, Public Review Draft, March 2014, http://planning.rctlma.org/ZoningInformation/GeneralPlan.aspx (accessed December 2014).

Scott, E., 2012, Unpublished museum collections records. San Bernardino County Museum.

Scott, E., and Springer, K., 2003, CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California: The Environmental Monitor Fall 2003, Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento, California.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee, http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/8f/8fe02e8f-11a9-43b7-9953-cdcfaf4d69e3.pdf.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 25 Springer, K., Scott, E., Sagebiel, J.C., and Murray, L.K., 2009, The Diamond Valley Lake Local Fauna - Late Pleistocene Vertebrates from Inland Southern California, in Albright, L.B., III, ed., Papers on Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Biostratigraphy in Honor of Michael O. Woodburne, Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65, Flagstaff, Arizona.

University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2014, Paleontological database, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ (accessed December 2014).

Woodford, A.O., Shelton, J.S., Doehring, D.O., and Morton, R.K., 1971, Pliocene-Pleistocene History of the Perris Block, Southern California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 3421-3448.

Paleontological Resource Assessment – South Norco Channel Line S-1 Project 26 APPENDIX A

Résumé

JESSICA L. DEBUSK 133 N. San Gabriel Blvd., Suite 201 Pasadena, CA 91107 (626) 578-0119 MGHEXVN#DSSOLHGHDUWKZRUNVFRP

EXPERTISE

PDOHRQWRORJLFDO UHVRXUFHV PDQDJHPHQW ILHOG VXUYH\ DQG DVVHVVPHQWV PLWLJDWLRQ PRQLWRULQJ IRVVLO SUHSDUDWLRQ DQG LGHQWLILFDWLRQ PXVHXP FXUDWLRQ DQG UHSRUWLQJ PXOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\ SURMHFW PDQDJHPHQW FXOWXUDOSDOHRQWRORJLFDODQGQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHV VHUYLFHV)&DOLIRUQLDJHRORJ\DQGSDOHRQWRORJ\1HYDGD JHRORJ\DQGSDOHRQWRORJ\

EDUCATION

B.S. *HRORJ\(PSKDVLVLQ3DOHRELRORJ\8QLYHUVLW\RINevada, 5HQR.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2012– 3DOHRQWRORJ\ 3URJUDP 0DQDJHU 6HQLRU 3URMHFW 0DQDJHU $SSOLHG (DUWK:RUNV ,QF Pasadena&DOLIRUQLD 2004-2012 3DOHRQWRORJ\7HDP/HDGHUDQG 6HQLRU0DQDJHU - 3URMHFW0DQDJHUDQG/HDG 3DOHRQWRORJLVW - $VVLVWDQW 3URMHFW 0DQDJHU DQG 6WDII 3DOHRQWRORJLVW 004- 6:&$(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVXOWDQWV0LVVLRQ9LHMRDQG3DVDGHQD&DOLIRUQLD 2003-2004 6WDII3DOHRQWRORJLVW%ULDQ)6PLWKDQG$VVRFLDWHV3RZD\&DOLIRUQLD

TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS

0V 'H%XVN KDV PRUH WKDQ 11 \HDUV RI H[SHULHQFH DV D SURIHVVLRQDO SDOHRQWRORJLVW LQ &DOLIRUQLD $V $SSOLHG(DUWK:RUNV¶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

0V 'H%XVN KDV H[WHQVLYH H[SHULHQFH SURYLGLQJ SDOHRQWRORJLFDO UHVRXUFH PDQDJHPHQW LQ VXSSRUW RI SRZHUJHQHUDWLRQDQGWUDQVPLVVLRQSURMHFWVKDYLQJVHUYHGDV6HQLRU 3DOHRQWRORJLVWIRUPRUHWKDQVXFK SURMHFWV WKURXJKRXW &DOLIRUQLD DQG WKH ZHVWHUQ 86 ,Q DGGLWLRQ VKH KDV SURYLGHG SDOHRQWRORJLFDO UHVRXUFHVH[SHUWLVHIRUDYDULHW\RISURMHFWW\SHV LQFOXGLQJUHVLGHQWLDODQGFRPPHUFLDOGHYHORSPHQWVRLO DQGJDVLQIUDVWUXFWXUHJHRSK\VLFDOVHLVPLFH[SORUDWLRQWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGHQYLURQPHQWDOSODQQLQJ As 3ULQFLSDO,QYHVWLJDWRURQ$SSOLHG(DUWK:RUNV¶ VWDWHZLGH%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW3DOHRQWRORJLFDO 5HVRXUFH8VH3HUPLWVLQ&DOLIRUQLDLQ1HYDGDVKHKDVH[WHQVLYHH[SHULHQFHZLWKDJHQF\FRRUGLQDWLRQ DQG LV ZHOO YHUVHG LQ WKH UHJXODWRU\ IUDPHZRUN JRYHUQLQJ SDOHRQWRORJLFDO UHVRXUFHV PDQDJHPHQW UHTXLUHPHQWVIRUVPDOODQGODUJHVFDOHZLQGDQGVRODUSRZHUSURMHFWV

0V'H%XVNUHFHLYHGKHU%DFKHORURI6FLHQFHGHJUHHLQJHRORJ\ZLWKDQHPSKDVLVLQSDOHRELRORJ\IURP WKH8QLYHUVLW\RI1HYDGD5HQR0DFND\6FKRRORI0LQHVLQDQGKHU3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW&HUWLILFDWH DW&DOLIRUQLD,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\ in 2012. 3ULRUWRKHUFDUHHULQFRQVXOWLQJ0V'H%XVNFRPSOHWHGD OHQJWK\ LQWHUQVKLS LQ SDOHRQWRORJ\ IRU WKH 1DWLRQDO 3DUN 6HUYLFH VWXG\LQJ VRPH RI WKH HDUOLHVW NQRZQ JESSICA L. DEBUSK - 2 IUHVKZDWHUGLDWRPVIURPWKH)ORULVVDQW)RUPDWLRQRI&RORUDGRDQGGRFXPHQWLQJDQGFROOHFWLQJKXQGUHGV RISODQWDQGLQVHFWIRVVLOV6KHLVDQDFWLYHPHPEHURIWKH3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW,QVWLWXWHWKH6RFLHW\RI 9HUWHEUDWH3DOHRQWRORJ\DQGWKH*HRORJLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD

SELECTED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2013-2014 Alta East Wind Energy Project, Kern County, California. 2Q EHKDOI RI $OWD :LQGSRZHU 'HYHORSPHQW DQG XQGHU VXEFRQWUDFW WR &+0 +LOO $SSOLHG (DUWK:RUNV SURYLGHG SDOHRQWRORJLFDO UHVRXUFHV PDQDJHPHQW VHUYLFHV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH $OWD (DVW :LQG (QHUJ\ 3URMHFW ORFDWHG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ PLOHV ZHVW RI WKH FLW\ RI 0RMDYH .HUQ &RXQW\ &DOLIRUQLD $V WKH %/0-DSSURYHG 3ULQFLSDO ,QYHVWLJDWRU 0V 'H%XVN ZDV rHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH 3DOHRQWRORJLFDO 5HVRXUFHV 0RQLWRULQJ DQG 0LWLJDWLRQ3ODQ DSSURYHGE\WKH%/0. 0V'H%XVNGLUHFWHGSDOHRQWRORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJ GXULQJ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI ZLQG WXUELQH SDGV DQG DVVRFLDWHG DFFHVV URDGV PDQDJLQJ D WHDP RI XS WR SDOHRQWRORJLVWV RQVLWH DW DQ\ JLYHQ WLPH 'XULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI PRQLWRULQJ$SSOLHG(DUWKZRUNV¶SDOHRQWRORJLVWVUHFRYHUHGQXPHURXVYHUWHEUDWHIRVVLOV ORFDOLWLHVIURPQDWLYHVHGLPHQWVXQGHUO\LQJWKHSURMHFWDUHD2QFHRQ-VLWHPRQLWRULQJZDV FRPSOHWHd, 0V'H%XVNGLUHFWHG WKHQHFHVVDU\ODERUDWRU\ZRUNUHTXLUHGWRHQVXUHWKDWDOO VLJQLILFDQW IRVVLOV ZHUH DQDO\]HG DQG FXUDWHG SHUPDQHQWO\ LQWR WKH 5D\PRQG 0 Alf 0XVHXPLQ&ODUHPRQW&A in 2014. Role: Principal Investigator and Project Manager. 2012-2014 Rising Tree Wind Farm Project, Kern County, California. 2Q EHKDOI RI +RUL]RQ :LQG (QHUJ\ //& ³$SSOLFDQW´ DQG XQGHU FRQWUDFW WR ('3 5HQHZDEOHV $SSOLHG (DUWK:RUNVSURYLGHGSDOHRQWRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVPDQDJHPHQWVHUYLFHVIRUWKH5LVLQJ7UHH :LQG3URMHFWORFDWHGRQDFUHV RQERWKSULYDWHDQGSXEOLF %/0-PDQDJHG ODQGVLQ .HUQ &RXQW\ &DOLIRUQLD 0V 'H%XVN FRQGXFWHG D FRPSUHKHQVLYH PXVHXP UHFRUGV VHDUFK OLWHUDWXUH VHDUFK DQG SXEOLVKHG JHRORJLF PDS UHYLHZ RI WKH 3URMHFW DUHD DQG GHWHUPLQHG LWV 3RWHQWLDO )RVVLO

Record Search Results