Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — Banning City Council, November 12, 2024 (part 5 of 7)

Table 2. Survey Results
Species
13-14
September
14-15
September
15-16
September
16-17
September
17-18
September TOTALS
Northwestern San Diego
Pocket Mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
13 30 38 38 40 159
Dulzura Kangaroo Rat
Dipodomys simulans 4 9 8 4 10 35
House Mouse
Mus musculus 1 2 - 1 2 6
Bryant’s (San Diego
Desert)
Woodrat
Neotoma bryanti (lepida)
intermedia
1 1 - 1 1 4
Baja Mouse
Peromyscus fraterculus 1 - - - - 1
Deer Mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus 59 68 83 86 69 365
Western Harvest Mouse
Reithrodontomys
megalotis
2 3 1 4 3 13
TOTALS 81 113 130 134 125 583
Total trapping success = 77.7% (583 captures in 750 trap-nights). 1220
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
May 2024

Page 5 ends

6.0 REFERENCES
California Bird Records Committee. 2020. Official California Checklist. Accessed online at:
http://californiabirds.org/ca_list.asp
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Special Animals List. July. Periodic publication. Sacramento, CA. Accessed online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline CDFW. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. May.

Accessed online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=87155&inline Patten, M.A., S.J. Myers, C. McGaugh, J.R. Easton, and R.A. Erickson. 1998. Perognathus longimembris, pp. 83-85, in D.J. Hafner, E. Yensen and G.L. Kirkland (compilers and editors). North American Rodents: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA). 2019a. WRCRCA MSHCP Information Tool. Accessed from: https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/ WRCRCA. 2019b. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Accessed online at: http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/ Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86. June. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
1221
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
May 2024

Page 6 ends

Appendix A – Figures
1222
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 0 1 2
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Street Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity and Location
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2 miles
1223
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Beaumon t
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Beaumont
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
MSHCP L.A. Pocket Mouse Survey Area
Project Alignment
1 inch =2,000 feet
1224
FIGURE 3
Local Vicinity
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
B
D E
A
F C
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
Trapping Line
MSHCP Mammal Survey Area
Project Alignment
1 inch =600 feet
No Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Detections During Surveys
1225
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
May 2024

Page 7 ends

Appendix B – Site Photographs
1226
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Los
Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
June 2022

Page 10 ends

Trap Grid A in eastern project upland.

Trap Grid B in easternmost drainage, Pershing Wash.
1227
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Los
Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
June 2022

Page 11 ends

Trap Grid C in central project upland. Horse-grazed land immediately to south.

Trap Grid D in central drainage, Smith Creek.
1228
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project Los
Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey
June 2022

Page 12 ends

Trap Grid E in western drainage, Highland Wash. Cover photo is also from this drainage.

Trap Grid F in western project upland.
1229
1230

SUN LAKES BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT

BURROWING OWL FOCUSED SURVEY
City of Banning and Unincorporated Riverside County, California Submitted to:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA. 92506
Submitted by:

WSP USA Inc.
11870 Pierce St #160
Riverside, CA 92505
Phone: (951) 299-4160
Contact: John F. Green, Senior Biologist
Updated May 2024
1231
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey
May 2024
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION………..................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 PROJECT / SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................1

3.0 BACKGROUND ON THE BURROWING OWL .................................................................................... 4

4.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 4

5.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 5

6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLE
Table 1. Survey Data....................................................................................................................................................12

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Plant and Vertebrate Species List
1232
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Focus BUOW Survey
May 2024
3 1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of the Albert A. Webb and Associates (Webb), WSP USA Inc. (WSP) conducted a focused survey for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) on the site of the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension project (project). The project is in the city of Banning, Riverside County, California (Figure 1) and includes the extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard eastward from its current termination point at Highland Home Road to the anticipated connection at Sunset Avenue.

2.0 PROJECT / SITE DESCRIPTION
The project is generally located south of Interstate 10, west of Sunset Avenue and east of Highland Home Road between the terminus of Sun Lakes Boulevard on the west and the terminus of paved Westward Avenue on the east. It can be found in Section 7 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East of the Beaumont, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2). The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 2,383 to 2,525 feet above sea level. The geographic coordinates near the middle of the site are 33.5512.85° North latitude and -116.5516.29° West longitude. Vegetation communities on site consist of primarily grassland and scrubs.

The proposed project is a transportation project including construction of a new section of Sun Lakes Boulevard from Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue (Figure 3) and intersection improvements within the City of Banning’s existing and future road right-of-way (ROW). The project encompasses approximately 19.4 acres of direct footprint (permanent impacts) and another 9.1 acres of temporary construction disturbance area (temporary impacts). Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the City’s ROW. Currently, Westward Avenue is a straight east-west unpaved dirt road between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. The proposed Sun Lakes Blvd. alignment will include two curves to the north. The project crosses over three creeks, from west to east: Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. The project will include the construction of three sets of culverts to cross said creeks. 1233
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey
May 2024
4 3.0 BACKGROUND ON THE BURROWING OWL
The burrowing owl is a small, tan, short-tailed, ground-dwelling owl that occupies underground burrows. A member of the Strigidae (typical owls’ family), this species is associated with grasslands and other arid open terrain throughout much of the western United States. Burrowing owls are opportunistic in their selection of burrows, typically utilizing the burrows of small mammal burrows, drainpipes, culverts, and other suitable natural or manmade cavities at or below ground level. In California, the species often occurs in association with colonies of the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyii), where it makes use of the squirrel’s burrows. The entrance of the burrow is often adorned with animal dung, feathers, debris, and other small objects. The species is active both day and night and may be seen perching conspicuously on fence posts or standing at the entrance of their burrows. Due to the characteristic fossorial habits of burrowing owls, nest burrows are a critical component of their habitat.

In southern California, burrowing owls are not only found in undisturbed natural areas, but also fallow agricultural fields, margins of active agricultural areas, livestock farms, airports, and vacant lots. The declines in burrowing owl populations are attributed to loss and degradation of habitat, to ongoing residential and commercial development, and to rodent control programs. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Special Animals List (2020) shows that burrowing owl is currently designated a “California Species of Concern” by the CDFW, a “Bird of Conservation Concern” by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and “Sensitive” by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management. Burrowing owl is protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS 2021), California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800 (California Legislative Information 2021), and the MSHCP.

4.0 METHODS
The project site lies within the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) survey area for the burrowing owl (Figure 4). All burrowing owl surveys were conducted in accordance with protocol provided by the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (Environmental Programs Department “RCTLMA EPD” 2006a). Step I habitat assessment and Step II, Part A focused burrow surveys were conducted on 17 July 2020 by WSP senior biologist Nathan Moorhatch and WSP biologist Alec Williams. The non-native grassland vegetation and portions of the various drainages with California ground squirrel and other manmade “burrow surrogates” on and immediately adjacent to the project site provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. The site was surveyed on foot, mapping the locations of California ground squirrel burrows and/or manmade “burrow surrogates” that were suitable for burrowing owl use. Step II, Part B focused burrowing owl surveys were then conducted by Moorhatch or Williams on 24 & 31 July, and 6 & 12 August 2020. Surveys were completed via pre-dawn/early morning pedestrian transects spaced at 10 meters apart over 100% of those areas of the site identified in the burrow search as having burrows or structures capable of supporting burrowing owls. Areas with tall shrubs or tall mustard were not surveyed as they are not suitable for burrowing owls. Binoculars were used to visually inspect potential perching locations (i.e., rocks, debris, dirt mounds) as well as the entrances to all on-site mammal burrows and debris providing potential shelter (i.e., piles of concrete slabs, cement drainpipes). Potential burrows were carefully examined 1234
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Focus BUOW Survey
May 2024
5 for evidence of burrowing owl occupation (i.e., animal dung, feathers, whitewash, pellets, debris, etc.). Permission to survey adjacent properties on foot within the protocol 500-foot buffer was not obtained. Therefore, buffer areas were visually inspected using binoculars in accordance with protocol. Table 1 presents information on all burrowing owl survey visits (i.e., date, surveyor, survey duration, and weather variables). All vertebrate wildlife detected was recorded in field notes and a list is included in Appendix A. Photos included in Appendix B are representative of the general site conditions at the time of the focused surveys.

Table 1. Burrowing Owl Survey Data & Results
Date (2020) Surveyor* Time Cloud Cover, Wind in
miles per hour
Temperature
°Fahrenheit
Burrowing
Owl
Observed?
Habitat
Assessment &
Burrow Survey
17 July
NM, AW No
Focused Survey 1
24 July AW
0445-
0754
Clear (0% cloud cover),
winds ~ 0-2 mph 57-81°F No
Focused Survey
2 31 July
NM
0510-
0728
Clear (0% cloud cover),
winds ~ 0-4 mph 79-83°F No
Focused Survey 3
6August NM
0545-
0805
Clear (0% cloud cover),
winds ~ 2-8 mph 71-72°F No
Focused Survey
4 12 August
NM 0547-
0752
Partly cloudy (0-50%
cloud cover), winds ~0-
4 mph
63-78°F No
*AW – Alec Williams, NM – Nathan Moorhatch

5.0 RESULTS
No burrowing owls, or evidence thereof, were observed on the project site or within the adjacent 500-foot buffer zone area during the focused surveys. It should be noted, however, that an occupied burrow with at least two burrowing owls was observed approximately 0.35 miles south of the eastern project buffer.

Approximately thirty burrows suitable for burrowing owl use were detected (Figure 5).

The project site contains suitable unoccupied habitat. Therefore, burrowing owls may colonize the site at any time. Therefore, additional focused surveys may be required since construction has not initiated within one year of completion of this survey. In addition, the MSHCP requires, at a minimum, a one visit preconstruction survey of all suitable habitat within 30-days prior to any proposed vegetation removal, grading, or any other disturbance to the project site (RCTLMA EPD 2006a and 2006b).
1235
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey
May 2024
6 6.0 REFERENCES
California Bird Records Committee. 2019. Official California Checklist. Accessed online at: http://californiabirds.org/ca_list.asp
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Special Animals List. July. Periodic publication.

Sacramento, CA. Accessed online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline CDFW. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. Accessed online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=87155&inline California Legislative Information. 2021. Fish and Game Code of California. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=FGC&tocTitle=+Fish +and+ Game+Code+-+FGC
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, Environmental Programs Department (RCTLMA EPD). 2006a. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. March. Accessed online at:
https://www.rctlma.org/Portals/3/EPD/consultant/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf RCTLMA EPD. 2006b. MSHCP 30-day Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey Report Format.

August. Accessed online at:
https://rctlma.org/Portals/3/EPD/consultant/epd_30_day_buow_survey_report_requiremen ts.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. A Guide to the Laws and Treaties of the United States for Protecting Migratory Birds. Accessed online at:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-andregulations/laws-legislations.php Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA). 2021. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Accessed online at: https://www.wrcrca.org/documentlibrary/ WSP. 2019. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, City of Banning, Ivy Substation Project. Unpub. technical report submitted to Albert A. Webb Associates on 5 December 2019.
1236
7 APPENDIX A

FIGURES
1237
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/6/2024 0 1 2
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Street Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity and Location
Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2 miles
1238
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/6/2024 Beaumon t
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Beaumont
Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2,000 feet
1239
FIGURE 3
Local Vicinity
Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/6/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar Project Alignment
1 inch =600 feet
1240
FIGURE 4
MSHCP BUOW Survey Area
Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/6/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar Project Alignment
MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area
1 inch =600 feet
1241
FIGURE 5
Survey Results
Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/6/2024 hurst Ave
Sun Lakes
Country Club
S
Highland H
o
me
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
10 S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave W Westw
W Jefferson St
Mohawk Rd
Summer Set
Administration
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
0 325 650
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar !.

Potential Burrowing Owl Burrow
Detections July-August 2020
Project Alignment
Survey Area
1 inch =650 feet
1242
8 APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
1243
Photo 1. View of the existing dirt road alignment. View facing east.

Photo 2. View of the road alignment passing through the western drainage crossing. View facing east.
2022
1244
Photo 3. Eastern gate (entrance) to road alignment.

Photo 4. View of the habitat on the southeastern buffer area of the survey. 1245
Photo 5. Abandoned farm equipment on the southeast buffer area.

Photo 6. One of several concrete rubble piles surveyed for potential burrowing owl presence (none of which were occupied).
1246
Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey June
2022
Photo 7. Representative view of the one of the potential burrows found on the buffer area of the site (in the large western drainage), none proved to be occupied by burrowing owls.

Photo 8. Another California ground squirrel burrow near the edge of the existing road way.
1247
Photo 9. View inside the easternmost large drainage, south of the roadway, in the buffer area of the survey.
1248

APPENDIX C

WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
1249
This list reports only the wildlife observed on and/or immediately adjacent to the project site by this study. Other species may have been overlooked or undetectable due to their activity seasons. In general, nomenclature and systematics follow California Bird Records Committee (2020) for avifauna, and CDFW (2016) for herpetofauna and mammals.

HERPETOFAUNA REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Phrynosomatidae Spiny Lizards & Relatives
Sceloporus occidentalis longipes Great Basin fence lizard Uta stansburiana side-blotched lizard
Teiidae Whiptails & Relatives
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal western whiptail

AVIFAUNA BIRDS
Columbidae Pigeons and Doves
*Columba livia rock pigeon
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Cuculidae Cuckoos, Roadrunners and Anis
Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner
Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Laridae Gulls, Terns, and Skimmers
Larus delawarensis ring-billed gull (flyover)
Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, and Eagles
Circus hudsonius northern harrier
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Tytonidae Barn and Grass Owls
Tyto alba barn owl
Falconidae Caracaras and Falcons
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird
Laniidae Shrikes
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike
Corvidae Jays, Magpies, and Crows
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
Alaudidae Larks
Eremophila alpestis actia California horned lark
Hirundinidae Swallows
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow
Aegithalidae Long-tailed Tits and Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus American bushtit
1250
Troglodytidae Wrens
Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren
Mimidae Mockingbirds and Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
Sturnidae Starlings
*Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Passeridae Old World Sparrows
*Passer domesticus house sparrow
Fringillidae Fringilline and Cardueline
Finches
Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
Passerellidae New World Sparrows
Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow
Melozone crissalis California towhee
Icteridae Blackbirds & Relatives
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark
Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird
Cardinalidae Cardinals and Allies
Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak

MAMMALS
Leporidae Rabbits
Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s (Desert) Cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrels
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Geomyidae Pocket Gophers
Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher
Canidae Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives
Canis latrans Coyote (scat)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS:
* Non-native species
** Special-status species
1251
1252

SUNLAKES BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT PROJECT

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES

HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA - NARROW

ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES SURVEY REPORT
City of Banning and Unincorporated Riverside County, California Updated June 2024
Submitted to:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA. 92506
Submitted by:

WSP USA Inc.
11870 Pierce St #160
Riverside, CA 92505
Phone: (951) 299-4160
Principal Investigators: Dale Hameister, Senior Biologist and Nathan Moorhatch, Senior Biologist
WSP Job # 20-554-00800
1253
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND/SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................... 1

3.0 METHODS...........................................................................................................................................2

3.1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)..............................................................................................................................................2

3.2 Soils...............................................................................................................................................................2

3.3 Focused Survey......................................................................................................................................2

4.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................3

4.1 MSHCP.........................................................................................................................................................3 Table 1. Narrow Endemic Plant Species ..........................................................................3 Table 2. Survey Data ....................................................................................................................4

5.0 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................4

6.0 LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES.................................................................................4

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Plant and Vertebrate Species List
1254
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 1 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of the Albert A. Webb and Associates (Webb), WSP USA Inc. (WSP) (Formerly Wood) conducted a focused survey for narrow endemic plant species on the Sun Lakes Boulevard (Blvd.) The project site is in the city of Banning, Riverside County, California; and includes the extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard, from its current termination point at Highland Home Road to the anticipated connection at West Lincoln Street.

The project site lies within the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Area (WRCMSHCP) for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Habitat for NEPSSA was found to be present during a biological assessment of the site in MONTH, YEAR and therefore the city of Banning requires a focused survey for narrow endemic plant species in compliance with the WRCMSHCP as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

This emphasis of the survey included locating and documenting the occurrence of special status (rare)narrow endemic plant species (NEPSSA) (if any) on the study site.

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND/SITE DESCRIPTION
The project is generally located south of Interstate 10, west of Sunset Avenue and east of Highland Home Road between the terminus of Sun Lakes Boulevard on the west and the terminus of paved Westward Avenue on the east. It can be found in Section 7 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East of the Beaumont, California, United States Geological Survey (1978) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2). The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 2,400 to 2,500 feet above sea level. The geographic coordinates near the middle of the site are 33.5512.85° North latitude and - 116.5516.29° West longitude. Vegetation communities on site consist primarily of grassland and scrubs.

Page 2 ends

west to east: Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. The project will include the construction of three sets of culverts to cross said creeks.

Surrounding land uses include residential subdivisions, public facilities, and open space.

The approximately five-acres is currently undeveloped. Historically the project site was graded for agricultural purposes in the 1960’s. It has remained vacant for the past 2 to 3 decades. Vegetation within the proposed project site consists of non-native grassland, California buckwheat scrub, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Three deeply incised drainages and associated tributaries are present within the proposed project site. Structures within the general vicinity include city-owned wells, an agricultural storage shelter, and several easements for streets, utilities, gas and oil pipelines, landscaping, and communications systems are all located within the general proposed project alignment.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) RCA MSHCP Information Map (Western Riverside County RCA 2020) was consulted to determine whether the project site was in any MSHCP plant survey areas. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2020) was consulted for plant species records in the project area (within five miles).

3.2 Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey was consulted for soils mapped on the project site.

3.3 Focused Survey
The survey was conducted during the appropriate time of year (blooming period) for the detection of the NEPSSA species and followed a period of above average rainfall for the 2019-2020 season. The focused survey for rare plants was conducted on 26th and 27th May 2020 by WSP biologists Dale Hameister and Nathan T. Moorhatch.

Habitat on the site was assessed for suitability (Figure 4). Thick buckwheat stands, areas of tall mustard within grasslands, and areas heavily grazed by horses were considered unsuitable and were not surveyed. Areas of suitable habitat were surveyed utilizing transects which were adjusted based on topography and habitat coverage so that all potential NEPSSA habitat was surveyed. All flora detected were recorded in field notes and plant species of uncertain identity were collected for identification by University of California Herbarium Collections Manager Andrew Sanders. 1256
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 3 ends

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 MSHCP
Virtually the entire project site lies within the MSHCP narrow endemic plant species survey area (NEPSSA) for two plant species (Figure 5): Marvin’s (also known as Yucaipa) onion (Allium marvinii) and many stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). Both of these plant species have an affinity for clay soils; however, they are not clay obligates.

Historic records for the Marvin’s onion occur less than a mile from the project site on soils not mapped as clay. No historic records for many stemmed dudleya were found in the project area, but habitat was suitable. Table 1 below provides the list of the NEPSSA plants that were the targets of this survey as well as a summary of their associated legal status.

Table 1. Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Species Status Habitat
Marvin’s onion
(Allium marvinii)
Federal:

None
State: S1
CNPS: 1B.2
A perennial bulbiferous herb often found on clay substrates within chaparral habitats. It occurs from 2,490 to 3,495 feet elevation.

Blooms April to May.

Many stemmed
dudleya
(Dudleya multicaulis)
Federal:

None
State: S2
CNPS: 1B.2
A perennial herb often found on clay substrates within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. It occurs from 49 to 2,592 feet elevation. Blooms April through July.

Definitions of status designations for Table 1
State designations:

S1 : Critically Imperiled — Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S2: Imperiled — Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations:

LIST 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

0.2: Moderately threatened in California — 20-80% of occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat.

4.2 Soils
Soils mapped on the project site are shown on Figure 6. None of these soils are specifically associated with the target NEPSSA species but may still support them or contain lenses of suitable soils.

4.3 Field Surveys
The focused survey was conducted on 26th and 27th May 2020 by Wood biologists Dale Hameister (DH) and Nathan T. Moorhatch (NM). Table 2 below provides complete timing and weather conditions. No Marvin’s onion or many-stemmed dudleya were detected. A list of plant species which were detected is attached as Appendix A.

Representative digital photographs were taken (Appendix B). 1257
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 4 ends

Table 2. Survey Data
Date (2020) Observers Time Wind (mph) Temperature
(°F)
Sky (~% cover)
26 May DH, NM 1000 –
1330
0-3 91 - 101 Clear skies
27 May DH, NM 0558 –
1200
0-3 63 - 93 Clear skies

5.0 CONCLUSION
The survey was conducted during the appropriate time of year for the detection of the two NEPSSA species and following a period of above average rainfall for the 2019- 2020 winter season. Survey timing was ideal for the detection of the target plant species. Marvin’s onion and many stemmed dudleya were not detected, however, therefore both are considered absent from the project site. No additional surveys are required.

6.0 LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 records of sensitive elements.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, Online Inventory, Seventh Edition. Accessed online at:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Calif. Fish Game, Sacramento.

Jepson Flora Project. 2020. Jepson eFlora. Accessed online at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html
Michael Brandman Associates (MBA). September 2002a. Final Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the 174.2-Acre Property in Banning, California.

MBA. November 2002b. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the 174.2-Acre Property in Banning, California.

MBA. December 2003. Biological Resource Assessment Report for the 219-Acre Property in Banning, California.

Riverside County. 2020. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan website. Accessed online at:
http://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/index-2.html
Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC) and Philippe Vergne. August 2004. Results of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat and Other Potentially Sensitive Small Mammal 1258
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 5 ends

Species Presence/Absence Trapping Studies for the Sunset Crossroads Project Site, Located in City of Banning and Riverside County, California.

TPA. December 2004b. Biological Assessment: Sunset Crossroads Project Site.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Critical Habitat Portal. Accessed online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/.

United States Geological Survey. 1978. Beaumont, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps.
1259
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 6 ends

Appendix A – Figures
1260
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 0 1 2
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Street Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity and Location
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2 miles
1261
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Beaumon t
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Beaumont
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2,000 feet
1262
FIGURE 3
Local Vicinity
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar Project Alignment
1 inch =600 feet
1263
FIGURE 4
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar Project Alignment
Marvin's onion (Allium marvinii), Manystemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) 1 inch =600 feet
1264
Sun Lakes Blvd
Sun Lakes Blvd
S
Highland
H
o
me R
d
W Westward Ave
S
Bay
Hill R
d
W Westward Ave
S
mith Creek
Smith Creek
Smith
Creek
RsC
TeG
RaD3
RaD3
GyD2
RaB2
RaB2
GyD2: Greenfield sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
RaB2: Ramona sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
RaD3: Ramona sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RsC: Riverwash
TeG: Terrace escarpments
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/8/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 5a
Soil Types
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1265
Smith Creek
W Westward Ave
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
RsC RaB2
RaD3
RaD3 RaE3
GyD2
GyD2: Greenfield sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
RaB2: Ramona sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
RaD3: Ramona sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RaE3: Ramona sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RsC: Riverwash
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/8/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 5b
Soil Types
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1266
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
Sunshine St
S
Suns
et A
v
e
W Westward Ave
Administration
RaB2
RaD3
RaB2
GyC2
TeG
GyC2
RaE3
GyC2: Greenfield sandy
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded
RaB2: Ramona sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
RaD3: Ramona sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RaE3: Ramona sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
TeG: Terrace escarpments
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/8/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 5c
Soil Types
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1267
Sun Lakes Blvd
Sun Lakes Blvd
S
Highland
H
o
me R
d
W Westward Ave
S
Bay
Hill R
d
W Westward Ave
S
mith Creek
Smith Creek
Smith
Creek
Vegetation Communities
Buckwheat scrub
Disturbed/Developed
Non-native Grassland
Non-vegetated streambed
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/8/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 6a
Vegetation Communities
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1268
Smith Creek
W Westward Ave
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
Vegetation Communities
Buckwheat scrub
Disturbed/Developed
Non-native Grassland
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/8/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 6b
Vegetation Communities
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1269
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
Sunshine St
S
Suns
et A
v
e
W Westward Ave
Administration
Vegetation Communities
Buckwheat scrub
Disturbed/Developed
Non-native Grassland
Non-vegetated streambed
Riparian Scrub/woodland
Riversidean alluvial sage
scrub
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/8/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 6c
Vegetation Communities
Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1270
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 7 ends

Appendix B – Site Photographs
1271
Photo 1. Looking west from the eastern edge of the
survey area showing the existing dirt road.

Photo 2. Looking south showing non-native grassland
and mustard area south of the road.
1272
Photo 3. Looking southeast showing an
ephemeral drainage and California buckwheat habitat.

Photo 4. Looking north showing the eastern
drainage and scalebroom (RAFSS) habitat.
1273
Photo 5. Looking east showing buckwheat scrub on the north side of the road.

Photo 6. Fleabane observed with butterflies and a crab spider. 1274
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 8 ends

Appendix C - Plant and Vertebrate Species List

PLANT SPECIES LIST
1275
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 9 ends

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This list reports plant species observed on the project site during the WSP’s reconnaissance-level survey for this project. Other species may have been overlooked or undetectable due to their seasonal growth patterns. Nomenclature and taxonomy for fauna observed on site follows the Jepson eFlora (2020). If no common name is listed in Jepson, the United States Department of Agriculture PLANTS database (2020) is followed.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

FLOWERING PLANTS
Apocynaceae Dogbane family
Nerium oleander* Common oleander
Asteraceae Sunflower family
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual ragweed
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon
Baccharis salicifolia Mule fat
Centaurea melitensis* Tocalote
Chaenactis glabriuscula Yellow pincushion
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Common sand aster
Ericameria pinifolia pinebush
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed
Erigeron foliosus Leafy fleabane
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden yarrow
Helianthus annuus Common sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed
Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat's ear
Lactuca serriola* Prickly lettuce
Lepidospartum squamatum Scale-broom
Logfia gallica* Narrowleaf cottonrose
Malacothrix saxatilis Cliff aster
Oncosiphon piluliferum* Stinknet
Pseudognaphalium
californicum
Ladies' tobacco
Senecio flaccidus Shrubby ragwort
Stephanomeria exigua Small wirelettuce
Tetradymia comosa Cotton thorn
Xanthium strumarium Rough cockleburr
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsinckia sp. Fiddleneck
Cryptantha sp. Cryptantha
Heliotropium curassavicum Heliotrope
1276
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 10 ends

Pectocarya sp. Pectocarya
Phacelia cicutaria Caterpillar phacelia
Brassicaceae Mustard family
Brassica tournefortii* Sahara mustard
Hirschfeldia incana* Shortpodded mustard
Sisymbrium altissimum* Tall tumble mustard
Sisymbrium irio* London rocket
Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle family
Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue elderberry
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Bassia hyssopifolia* Five horn bassia
Chenopodium alba* Goosefoot
Salsola tragus* Russian thistle
Convolvulaceae Morning glory family
Convolvulus arvensis* Field bindweed
Crassulaceae Stonecrop family
Crassula connata Sand pygmyweed
Cucurbitaceae Gourd family
Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla
Cupressaceae Cypress family
Cupressus sempervirens* Italian cypress
Euphorbiaceae Spurge family
Euphorbia albomarginata Rattlesnake sandmat
Euphorbia maculate* Spotted spurge
Fabaceae Pea family
Acmispon glaber Deerweed
Acmispon heermannii Heermann's lotus
Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine
Medicago polymorpha* Burclover
Medicago sativa* Alfalfa
Parkinsonia aculeata* Mexican palo verde
Spartium junceum* Spanish broom
Vicia villosa* Hairy vetch
Geraniaceae Geranium family
Erodium botrys* Longbeak stork’s bill
Erodium cicutarium* Redstem filaree
Juglandaceae Walnut family
Juglans californica – CNPS-4.2 Southern California black walnut Lamiaceae Mint family
Marrubium vulgare* horehound
Salvia apiana White sage
Salvia columbariae Chia
Salvia mellifera Black sage
Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegarweed
1277
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 11 ends

Malvaceae Mallow family
Malva parviflora* Cheeseweed
Myrtaceae Myrtle family
Eucalyptus sp.* Gum tree
Nyctaginaceae Four o’clock family
Mirabilis laevis Wishbone
Onagraceae Evening primrose family
Camissoniopsis bistorta California sun cup
Camissonia strigulosa Sandysoil suncup
Clarkia purpurea Winecup clarkia
Papaveraceae Poppy family
Eschscholzia californica California poppy
Plantaginaceae Plantain family
Penstemon spectabilis Showy penstemon
Plantago erecta Dotseed plantain
Polemoniaceae Phlox family
Gilia angelensis Chaparral gilia
Navarretia hamata Hooked navarretia
Polygonaceae Buckwheat family
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Eriogonum gracile Slender woolly buckwheat
Polygonum aviculare* Prostrate knotweed
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Portulacaceae Purslane family
Calandrinia menziesii Redmaids
Claytonia sp. Miner’s lettuce
Portulaca oleracea* Common purslane
Salicaceae Willow family
Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood
Salix gooddingii Goodding's black willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Salix laevigata Red willow
Ailanthus altissima* Tree of heaven
Solanaceae Nightshade family
Datura wrightii Jimsonweed
Nicotiana glauca* Tree tobacco
Tamaricaceae Tamarisk family
Tamarix aphylla * Athel tamarisk
Tamarix ramosissima * Salt cedar
Cyperaceae Sedges family
Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge
Poaceae Grass family
Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome
Bromus madritensis ssp.
madritensis*
Foxtail chess
1278
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
WRCMSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
June 2024

Page 12 ends

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass
Hordeum murinum* Wall barley
Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass
Schismus barbatus* Common Mediterranean schismus
Stipa pulchra Purple needle grass
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS:
* Non-native species
sp. Identified only to genus; species unknown (plural = spp.) CNPS-4.2 – California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank 4.2 1279
1280
Technical Memorandum
To Stephanie Standerfer, Vice President
Albert. A. Webb Associates
Project No. 2055400809
From Scott Crawford, Vice President, Biology
WSP USA, Inc.

Office (951) 299-4160
Mobile (714) 742-5316
Date 14 May 2024
Subject Sun Lakes Boulevard Results of 2020-2021 Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Surveys
At the request of Albert A. Webb Associates (Webb), this memo serves as the results of 2020-2021 wet and dry season fairy shrimp focused surveys. It is the understanding of WSP USA Inc. (WSP, fka Wood) Wood that the Sun Lakes Boulevard project is in the city of Banning, Riverside County, California and includes the extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard eastward from its current termination point at Highland Home Road to the anticipated connection at Sunset Avenue. This memorandum has been updated due to a change is the outline of the proposed impacts and to update all related figures. The updated projects impacts include 19.4 acres of permanent impacts, 9.1 acres of temporary impacts. Surrounding land uses include residential development to the east and west, public facilities along the existing unpaved road, and undeveloped open space to the north and south. Vegetation communities on site consist of grassland and scrubs.

Methods
Following the first storm of the season on 8 November 2021, WSP Senior Biologist John F. Green conducted a survey for inundated pools on 9 November 2021. Surveys were conducted under the authority of USFWS 10a permit number TE054011-8, according to the USFWS protocol: Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2017). During that survey nine inundated depressions were identified within the project area as meeting the protocol criteria for pooling sufficient to support listed fairy shrimp species. Each ponded area was systematically sampled to account for all areas around the pond and within the entire water column. Dip nets were used to skim the surface, bottom and middle of the ponds. Table 1 lists pools inundated during the 2020- 2021 wet season. Surveys were conducted until the rainy season ended and the last inundated pool reached 120 days of continuous inundation on 28 April 2021.

Dry soils were collected on December 24, 2020, and June 8, 2021 by John F. Green of WSP as authorized by USFWS under permit number TE-054011-8 of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and its implementing regulations. The collected soils were delivered to Helm Biological Consulting for subsequent processing and 1281
analysis. Soils were processed and analyzed by Dr. Brent Helm by on standard practices in order to collect any fairy shrimp cysts. All collected cysts were hatched in isolated environmental chambers to mimic the winter conditions of the project site. A total of three hatching attempts were performed on each soil sample. All fairy shrimp hatchlings were grown until mature enough to be identified.

Results
The common, unlisted versatile fairy shrimp was detected in one pool (9) during the wet season sampling (see Table 1). No other fairy shrimp species were detected.

Table 1. Fairy Shrimp Ponded Areas
Pool
Number
Maximum Pool Surface Area
(Meters²)
UTM East UTM North Wet Season
Fairy Shrimp
Detected?
Dry Season
Fairy Shrimp
Detected?
3 46.99 506577.00 3753080.00 No No
9 163.40 508144.00 3753080.00 Yes Yes
14 36.86 508050.00 3753090.00 No No
15 8.68 508072.00 3753080.00 No No
16 355.91 507978.00 3753090.00 No No
21 2.58 507438.00 3753080.00 No No
33 32.66 506948.00 3753150.00 No No
40 0.19 507098.00 3753130.00 No No
41 9.74 506960.00 3753120.00 No No
46 17.14 507449.00 3753100.00 No No
Discussion
The wet and dry season surveys did not detect any special-status species of fairy shrimp.

Therefore, based on the survey effort, special-status fairy shrimp species are considered absent from the project site and will not be impacted by project related activities.

If you have any questions regarding this update, or require additional information, please contact me at (951) 369-8060 ext. 102 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Scott Crawford
Vice President, Biology
WSP USA, Inc.
1282
Literature Cited
Belk, D. 1989. Identification of species in the Conchostraca genus Eulimnadia by eggshell morphology. Journal of Crustacean Biology. 9(1): 115-125.

Brendock, L., D. C. Rogers, J. Olesen, S. Weeks, and W. R. Hoch. 2008. Global diversity of large branchiopods (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 595: 167- 176.

Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp.

Gilchrist, B. M. 1978. Scanning electron microscope studies of the eggshell in some Anostraca (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Cell Tiss. Res. 193: 337-351.

Helm Biological Consulting. 2021. Dry Soil Analysis and Cyst Culturing for the Detection of Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods at the Sunset Crossroads Development Project, Riverside County, California.

Hill, R. E., and W. D. Shepard. 1998. Observation on the identification of California anostracan cysts. Hydrobiologia 359: 113-123.

Mura, G. 1991. SEM morphology of resting eggs in the species of the genus Branchinecta from North America. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 432-436.

Patel, K.V., Simovich, M.A., Graige, N.S. and Bohonak, A.J., 2018. A clash of characters: The effect of variation on a morphological hybrid index for an endangered California fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Fugate, 1993)(Crustacea: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 38(3), pp.349-353.

Rabet, N. 2010. Revision of the egg morphology of Eulimnadia (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Spinicaudata). Zoosystema 32 (3): 373-391.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Survey guidelines for the listed large branchiopods. 24 pp. Dated: 31 May 2015 (Revised November 13, 2017).

WSP USA, Inc. 2021. Sunset Crossroads Project, Results of 2020-2021 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Surveys, Banning, California.
1283
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 0 1 2
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Street Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity and Location
2020-2021 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2 miles
1284
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Beaumon t
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Beaumont
2020-2021 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2,000 feet
1285
FIGURE 3
Local Vicinity
2020-2021 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
Fairy Shrimp Present
3 9
14 15
16 21
33 40
41 46
48 0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar Project Alignment
Fairy Shrimp Sampling Pools
1 inch =600 feet
1286
1287

SUN LAKES BLVD PROJECT

DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
City of Banning
Riverside County, California
Submitted to:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA. 92506
Project No. # 20-554-00800
Prepared By:

Dale Hameister, Senior Biologist
WSP USA Inc.
11870 Pierce St #160
Riverside, CA 92505
Phone: (951) 299-4160
July 2024
1288
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................III

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................... 1-1

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

1.3 Project Location....................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................. 2-6

3.0 METHODS............................................................................................................ 3-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING............................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Hydrology................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Vegetation................................................................................................ 4-2

4.3.1 Vegetation Communities ........................................................... 4-2

4.3.2 Athel tamarisk.............................................................................. 4-2

4.3.3 Buckwheat Scrub........................................................................ 4-3

4.3.4 Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ......................................... 4-3

4.3.5 Riparian Scrub Woodland .......................................................... 4-3

4.3.6 Grassland...................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.7 Non-vegetated Streambed ........................................................ 4-4

4.4 Soils........................................................................................................... 4-4

4.5 National Wetlands Inventory ................................................................. 4-4

5.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS............................................................. 6-1

6.1 Permitting Requirements ...................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board...................................... 6-1

6.1.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife.............................. 6-2

7.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................1 1289
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024
Page ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Survey Site Information......................................................................................................5-2 Table 2. Summary of Jurisdictional Areas……………………………………………………5-4

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION MAPS

APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FORMS
1290
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024
Page iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AMSL above mean sea level
BSA Biological Survey Area
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAC facultative
FACU facultative upland
FACW facultative wetland
ft. Feet
GIS Geographic Information System
HUC Hydrologic Cataloging Unit
I-10 Interstate 10
IP Individual Permit
M Meters
NL not listed
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWP Nationwide Permit
OBL obligate
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
Rapanos Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S.

RPW relatively permanent waterway
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. USACE TNW traditionally navigable waterway
UPL upland
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WSC Waters of the State of California
WUS Waters of the United States
1291
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 1 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Albert A. Webb Associates (Webb), WSP USA Inc. (WSP) conducted a jurisdictional delineation and report for Sun Lakes Boulevard (Blvd.) Realignment Project site located in the city of Banning and unincorporated portions of Riverside County, California. This report presents regulatory framework, methods, and results of a delineation of jurisdictional waters, wetlands, and associated riparian habitat potentially impacted by the proposed project.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the delineation is to determine the extent of state and federal jurisdiction within the project area potentially subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

1.2 Project Description
The proposed project is a transportation project including construction of a new section of Sun Lakes Boulevard from Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue (Figure 3) and intersection improvements within the City of Banning’s existing road right-ofway (ROW). The project is approximately 5,400 linear feet (1.02 mile). This report has been updated due to a change is the outline of the proposed impacts and to update all related figures. The updated projects impacts include 19.4 acres of permanent impacts, 9.1 acres of temporary impacts. Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the City’s ROW. Currently, Westward Avenue is a straight east-west unpaved dirt road between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. The project crosses over three creeks, from west to east: Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek.

The project will include the construction of three sets of culverts to cross said creeks.

1.3 Project Location
The project is generally located south of Interstate 10, west of Sunset Avenue and east of Highland Home Road between the terminus of Sun Lakes Boulevard on the west and the terminus of paved Westward Avenue on the east. It can be found in Section 7 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East of the Beaumont, California, United States Geological Survey (1978) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2).

The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 2,400 to 2,500 feet above sea level. The geographic coordinates near the middle of the site are 33.5512.85° North latitude and -116.5516.29° West longitude. Vegetation communities on site consist primarily of grassland and scrubs.
1292
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States (WUS) pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA.

Waters of the U.S.

Categories of Jurisdictional Waters
Under the final rule, the following waters are jurisdictional:
(1) Waters which are: (i) traditional navigable waters (TNWs), i.e., all waters 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; (ii) territorial seas; or (iii) interstate waters, including interstate wetlands. (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as WOTUS under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (5). (3) Tributaries of waters identified in (1) or (2) of this section that:
i. Are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing; or ii. Either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (1).
• Tributary is not defined in the regulatory text, but the preamble clarifies that this category includes rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and impoundments, regardless of their flow regime, that flow directly or indirectly through another water or waters to a TNW, territorial sea, or interstate water.
• Tributaries can be natural, modified, or constructed waters and thus, can include ditches and canals.
(4) Wetlands adjacent to:
i. Waters identified in (1); or Relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in (2) or (3)(i) and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
ii. Waters identified in (2) or (3) when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (1).
• Adjacent is defined as “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” Wetlands separated from other WOTUS by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are adjacent wetlands. Shallow subsurface hydrologic connections can establish adjacency.
1293
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

• The preamble says that in a substantial number of cases, adjacent wetlands abut other WOTUS and that, on the whole, nationwide, adjacent wetlands are within a few hundred feet from other WOTUS. In arid areas, adjacent wetlands are likely to be much closer than a few hundred feet, but in larger floodplains and riparian areas where rainfall is higher, wetlands can be a few hundred feet away and still be “adjacent.”
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (1) through (4) that:
i. Are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (1) or (3)(i) of this section; or
ii. That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (1).
• This is the former (a)(3) “other waters” category. As in the proposed rule, the preamble to the final rule again acknowledges that the agencies have not asserted jurisdiction over (a)(3) waters since 2003. And because this category was not discussed in the 2008 Rapanos Guidance, the application of the relatively permanent and significant nexus tests to this category represents a clear expansion of the pre-2015 regulatory regime.
• The preamble commits both EPA and Corps headquarters to review all draft AJDs for waters assessed under (a)(5) based on the significant nexus standard.

Relatively permanent standard
• The final rule does not define or quantify what constitutes “relatively permanent” flow. The preamble merely says relatively permanent includes features that have flowing or standing water year-round or continuously during certain times of the year. • The Agencies are no longer using the term “seasonal” and appear to be backing away from the “typically three months” language in the 2008 Rapnanos Guidance.

Moreover, the preamble could be interpreted to say that “relatively permanent” means flow for more than a short duration in direct response to precipitation, i.e., anything more than ephemeral flow. And the preamble suggests that multiple storm events in succession could be enough to create relatively permanent flow.

The Agencies interpret “continuous surface connection” to be a physical connection requirement, which does not require a continuous surface water connection. Even linear features (e.g., pipes, swales, ditches) can satisfy the physical connection requirement regardless of how often they carry flow. The preamble does not make it clear whether jurisdiction is dependent on the length/distance of a linear physical connection between an adjacent wetland and a relatively permanent WOTUS. 1294
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

Significantly affect (significant nexus) standard
• The final rule defines “significantly affect” to mean “a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. To determine whether waters, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, have a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,” the Agencies will assess the following functions and factors:
o Functions
 Contribution of flow
 Trapping, transformation, filtering, and transport of materials (including nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants
 Retention and attenuation of floodwaters and runoff
 Modulation of temperature in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
 Provision of habitat and food resources for aquatic species located in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
o Factors
 The distance from a water identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section  Hydrologic factors, such as the frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, and rate of hydrologic connections, including shallow subsurface flow
 The size, density, or number of waters that have been determined to be similarly situated
 Landscape position and geomorphology
 Climatological variables such as temperature, rainfall, and snowpack Exclusions
The final rule codifies many more exclusions than the proposed rule (and the 1986 regulations). Most of the exclusions resemble those in the 2015 Rule:
• Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
• The preamble clarifies that Wastewater Treatment Systems (WTS) constructed prior to the enactment of the CWA can still be excluded and that WTS are not limited to manmade bodies of water consistent with longstanding practice.
1295
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

Prior converted cropland designated by USDA. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. For CWA purposes, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with EPA.
o The preamble implies, but does not clearly state, that lands remain excluded as PCC even if they change to a non-agricultural use so long as wetland characteristics do not return.
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. o Excluded ditches would not become jurisdictional solely by virtue of connecting to a downstream WOTUS or because wetland characteristics develop within the confines of the ditch.
• Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased. • Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
o The preamble says this exclusion applies only to lakes/ponds that satisfy the terms of the exclusion, so apparently other types of ponds (e.g., log cleaning ponds) would not qualify.
• Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.
• Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States. iii. Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow
Supreme Court Decisions
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. with respect to whether the USACE could assert jurisdiction over isolated waters. The Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County (SWANCC) ruling stated that the USACE does not have jurisdiction over “non-navigable, isolated, intrastate” waters.
1296
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

Rapanos/Carabell
In the Supreme Court cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (herein referred to as Rapanos), the court attempted to clarify the extent of USACE jurisdiction under the CWA. The nine Supreme Court justices issued five separate opinions (one plurality opinion, two concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions) with no single opinion commanding a majority of the Court. In light of the Rapanos decision, the USACE will assert jurisdiction over a traditional navigable waterway (TNW), wetlands adjacent to TNWs, non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are a relatively permanent waterway (RPW) where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months) and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. The USACE will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a TNW: non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not RPWs, and wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a non-navigable RPW.

Flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary indicate whether they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream TNWs. Analysis of potentially jurisdictional streams includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. The consideration of hydrological factors includes volume, duration, and frequency of flow, proximity to traditional navigable waters, size of watershed, average annual rainfall, and average annual winter snowpack. The consideration of ecological factors also includes the ability for tributaries to carry pollutants and flood waters to a TNW, the ability of a tributary to provide aquatic habitat that supports a TNW, the ability of wetlands to trap and filter pollutants or store flood waters, and maintenance of water quality.

Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court
Sackett began backfilling an Idaho lot with dirt to build a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed Sackett that the property contained wetlands and that the backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging pollutants into “the waters of the United States,” 33 U.S.C. 1362(7). The EPA ordered Sackett to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the Sacket wetlands as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the EPA.

The Supreme Court reversed. CWA jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland requires that the adjacent body of water constitutes waters of the United States (a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters) and a continuous surface connection between the wetland and that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”
The Court reviewed the history of judicial interpretation of “the waters of the United States” and enforcement by federal agencies, which argued that the significant-nexus test was sufficient to establish jurisdiction over “adjacent” wetlands. Under that test, nearly all waters and wetlands are potentially susceptible to regulation, “putting a staggering array of landowners at 1297
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

risk of criminal prosecution for such mundane activities as moving dirt.” The CWA’s use of “waters” encompasses only relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies, ordinarily called streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes. Wetlands qualify as “waters of the United States” only if “indistinguishable from waters of the United States,” having a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right, with no clear demarcation between waters and wetlands.

On August 29, 2023, the EPA and USACE announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “waters of the United States” to conform with the recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. The ruling removes the significant nexus test and confirms that only drainages with relatively permanent flows will fall under USACE jurisdiction.

2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit including a Section 404 permit. Through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over Waters of the State of California (WSC) which is generally the same as WUS but may also include waters not in federal jurisdiction.

The State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State was adopted in April 2020 and put into effect statewide on May 28, 2020 (State Water Resources Control Board, 2020).

The Water Boards define an area as wetland as follows:

An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The Water Code defines WSC broadly to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” WSC include all WUS but also includes waters not in federal jurisdiction.

The following wetlands are waters of the state:

1. Natural wetlands,

2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state, and

3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
1298
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state;
c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or
d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment,
iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program,
iv. Treatment of surface waters,
v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering,
vi. Fire suppression,
vii. Industrial processing or cooling,
viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values,
ix. Log storage,
x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.

All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not WSC.

The CDFW regulates water resources under Section 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1602 states:
“An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake (CDFW, 2015).” 1299
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 2 ends

Evaluation of CDFW jurisdiction followed guidance in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds. In general, under 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFW jurisdiction extends to the maximum extent or expression of a stream on the landscape (CDFW, 2010). It has been the practice of CDFW to define a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in a channel which water currently flows or has flowed over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators” (Brady and Vyverberg, 2013). Thus, a channel is not defined by a specific flow event, nor by the path of surface water as this path might vary seasonally. Rather, it is CDFW's practice to define the channel based on the topography or elevations of land that confine the water to a definite course when the waters of a creek rise to their highest point. 1300
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 3 ends

3.0 METHODS
Prior to conducting delineation fieldwork, the following literature and materials were reviewed:
 Aerial photographs of the survey area at a scale of 1:1800 to determine the potential locations of jurisdictional waters or wetlands;  USGS topographic map (Appendix A - Figure 2) to determine the presence of any “blue line” drainages or other mapped water features.  USDA soil mapping data (Appendix A - Figure 3); and
 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory map to identify areas mapped as wetland features (Appendix A - Figure 4 ).

A field survey of the project site was conducted by WSP senior biologist Dale Hameister on 18 April 2024. The survey consisted of walking the entire survey area and identifying potentially jurisdictional water features. All accessible portions of the survey areas were walked to determine if any topographic low-spots meet the minimum criteria to be considered under the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Visual observations of vegetation types and changes in hydrology and soil texture, and culvert locations were used to locate areas for evaluation. Weather conditions during delineation fieldwork was conducive for surveying with clear skies.

USACE regulated WUS, including wetlands, and RWQCB WSC were delineated according to the methods outlined in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE, 2008a). The extent of WUS was determined based on indicators of an OHWM. The OHWM width was measured at points wherever clear changes in width occurred.

Potential federally regulated wetlands were identified based on the Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE, 2008b).

Additional data was recorded to determine if an area fulfilled the wetland criteria parameters. Three criteria must be fulfilled in order to classify an area as a wetland under the jurisdiction of the USACE: 1) a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, 2) the presence of hydric soils, and 3) the presence of wetland hydrology.

CDFW jurisdiction is delineated by measuring the elevations of land that confine a stream to a definite course when its waters rise to their highest level and to the extent of associated riparian vegetation. WSC/CDFW jurisdictional areas were determined by the bankfull channel edge and RWQCB jurisdictional areas were determined by 1301
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 3 ends

the edge of the OHWM. In some areas the eroded banks were vertical, so these areas shared the same jurisdictional boundary lines.

All washes identified were typical of dryland fluvial systems with unvegetated, sand bottom channels. Therefore, no soil pits were dug, and no wetland data forms were used to collect information.

To determine jurisdictional boundaries, the surveyor walked the length of the drainage within the project area and recorded the centerline with a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system. The width of the drainage was determined by the OHWM and bankfull width measurements at locations where transitions were apparent.

Other data recorded included bank height and morphology, substrate type, and all vegetation within the streambed and riparian vegetation adjacent to the streambed.

Areas that lacked evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, lacked evidence of wetland hydrology, and had no recent disturbance, did not require a soil pit since the other wetland indicators were not present. Upon completion of fieldwork, all data collected in the field were incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) along with basemap data. The GIS was then used to quantify the extent of jurisdictional waters and prepare graphical representations of that data. 1302
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 4 ends

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.1 Existing Conditions
Adjacent to and south of the Sun Lakes Boulevard ROW are existing utilities that include three well sites and one wastewater lift station. Within Westward Avenue, there are many existing utility lines including, a potable water line, sanitary sewer line, recycled water line, fiber optics line, three oil lines, and an underground telephone line. Single-family homes are west of Highland Home Road. East of Sunset Avenue are single-family homes, a small number of commercial businesses, the Mt.

San Jacinto College San Gorgonio Pass Campus, and undeveloped open space, including habitat for biological elements of concern to the MSHCP. The project footprint outside of the facilities detailed above is currently undeveloped open space, including habitat for biological elements of concern to the MSHCP, as are areas to the north and south of the project. Three named, deeply incised drainages (i.e., Pershing Creek, Smith Creek and Highland Wash) and their tributaries are present within the proposed project site. Existing structures located on-site include cityowned wells, an agricultural storage shelter, and a number of easements for streets, utilities, gas and oil pipelines, landscaping, and communications systems.

4.2 Hydrology
The project is located within the Whitewater Watershed. Onsite drainages flow generally to the southeast and eventually connect the Whitewater River to the east and under years of heavy rain may eventually flow into the Salton Sea. The average rainfall for the area is 12.98 inches per year (NOAA Regional Climate Center). Weather data was recorded in the City of Beaumont. The delineation survey was conducted following a year of above average rainfall in the 2019-2020 rain season. The annual rainfall for the 2018-2019 season was 26.94 inches. The total thus far for the 2019- 2020 season is 11.56 inches which is higher than the usual average. (NOAA Regional Climate Center).

The drainages were all dry during the surveys and no surface waters flowing were observed.
1303
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 4 ends

4.3 Vegetation

4.3.1 Vegetation Communities
The project site contains six vegetation communities / land cover categories:
buckwheat scrub, non-native grassland, riparian scrub/woodland, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, non-vegetated streambed, and disturbed/developed.

Disturbed/developed areas are the direct result of current or past human activity (buildings, roads, et cetera). The following are somewhat more natural land cover categories, although non-native grasslands are comprised largely of naturalized nonnative plant species introduced by humans:
 Wetland indicator status denotes the probability of individual species of vascular plants occurring in freshwater, brackish and saltwater wetlands in the United States. The wetland status of 7,000 plants is determined upon information contained in a list compiled in the National Wetland Inventory undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and developed in cooperation with a federal inter-agency review panel.  Obligate wetland (OBL) - Almost always occurs in wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability > 99%).
 Facultative wetland (FACW) - Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67% – 99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands (estimated probability 1% – 33%).
 Facultative (FAC) - Equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% – 66%).
 Facultative upland (FACU) - Usually occurs in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67% – 99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1% – 33%).
 Obligate upland (UPL) - Almost always occurs in non-wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability > 99%).

4.3.2 Athel tamarisk
This category is mapped in areas dominated by non-native Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) trees or shrubs. These areas are adjacent to the dry streambed but are not considered part of riparian vegetation. Other understory species observed include shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), red-brome (Bromus rubens), and turkeymullein (Croton setiger). 1304
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 4 ends

4.3.3 Buckwheat Scrub
This category represents buckwheat scrub. This habitat is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Other plant species within this community include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), brittlebush (Encelia californica), pinebush (Ericameria pinifolia), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), common sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), turkey mullein, shortpod mustard, and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). The majority of plants observed are all upland plant that do not occur in wetland conditions. Areas within the eroded dry stream areas adjacent to the active channel also contain rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)(FAC), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana)(FAC). A few isolated tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) (FACU), and southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) (FACU) were observed within the buckwheat scrub. The few wetland indicator plants and the lack of FACW or OBL status plants demonstrate that the vegetation would not meet the criterion to be considered a wetland.

4.3.4 Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is also known as ‘soft chaparral’ habitat and is found on south-facing upland slopes, and along sandy ephemeral streams. This vegeation community typically occurs below 3,000 feet elevation and occupies generally drier sites than standard chaparral habitat. Within the project site, scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum) is an indicator species of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Other species observed include mugwort and tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus).

4.3.5 Riparian Scrub Woodland
This habitat is commonly dominated by young willow trees and shrubs. Within the project area the riparian scrub woodland areas are small patches dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) (FAC), Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii)(FACW), red willow (Salix lasiolepis)(FACW), or mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) (FAC). This habitat is only found within selective portions of the on-site drainage features and is limited to the central portion of the project site.

4.3.6 Grassland
This habitat is commonly used for agricultural use and is dominated by non-native annual grasses (Poaceae) in the spring. Some species of grasses that are observed within the grassland areas include wild oats (Avena fatua), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). Other dominate species include shortpod mustard, red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and annual 1305
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 4 ends

ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa). Late summer dominate plants include turkeymullein and vinegarweed (Trichostema lanceolatum).

4.3.7 Non-vegetated Streambed
The majority of the drainages within the project site are classified as non-vegetated streambed. These areas contain mostly bare coarse sand with only some isolated patches of vegetation including mule fat, ragweed, mustard, and Johnson grass, however these patches were very small and not large enough to be mapped as separate habitat areas. In general areas with less than 0.01 acres are not mapped as separate habitat.

4.4 Soils
Soil mapping (Appendix A - Figure 3) indicates that areas of the northwestern site were used as borrow pits in the past but there is little or no evidence of that now.

The remainder of the site contains sandy loam soils. No hydric soils were observed on-site.

4.5 National Wetlands Inventory
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the principal Federal agency that provides information to the public on the extent and status of the Nation’s wetlands. The USFWS has developed a series of maps, known as the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to show wetlands and deep-water habitat. This geospatial information is used by Federal, State, and local agencies, academic institutions, and private industry for management, research, policy development, education, and planning activities. The NWI program was neither designed nor intended to produce legal or regulatory products; therefore, wetlands identified by the NWI program are not the same as wetlands defined by the USACE.

The NWI Mapper (USFWS, 2020) was accessed on-line to review mapped wetlands within the project study areas. The NWI mapper (Figure 4, Appendix A) shows three drainages flowing through the survey area classified as Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Temporary Flooded (R4SBJ) (Cowardin, et. al., 1979). The NWI data was mapped from aerial photographs from 1985. The drainages have changed course and had additional erosion since then.
1306
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 5 ends

5.0 RESULTS
Three main washes were identified within the project survey area that contained both bed and bank and OHWM including Highland Wash, Pershing Wash, and Smith Creek. The Jurisdictional Delineation Maps (Appendix A – Figure 5) identify all observed on-site jurisdictional drainages. Table 1-3 includes a list of waterways identified in the project area, their jurisdictional status and area of jurisdiction, and Cowardin classification.

The soils within the washes are coarse sand with no signs of redox or any other wetland soil indicator.

Due to the limited hydric vegetation and total lack of hydric soils observed within the washes, the drainages are considered ephemeral and only have flowing water during and immediately after storm events.

The USACE, in combination with the EPA, when necessary, reserves the ultimate authority in making the final jurisdictional determination of WUS and the RWQCB reserves the ultimate authority in making the final jurisdictional determination of WSC. Additionally, CDFW has ultimate discretion in the determination of their jurisdiction. Based on our delineation, all 5 features identified meet the requirements for USACE, CDFW and RWQCB jurisdiction.
1307
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 5 ends

Table 1. Survey Site Information
Drainage Latitude Longitude Quad Township Range Section Highland Wash 34.128009 -116.055896 Beaumont 3S 1E 7 and 18 Smith Creek 34.126261 -116.056539 Beaumont 3S 1E 12 and 18 Pershing Creek 34.126254
-
116.056002
Beaumont 3S 1E
12 and 18
1308
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 5 ends

Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Areas
R4SBJ – Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Intermittently Flooded based on Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et. al., 1979).

Drainage ID /Survey Area Watershed
Waters of the
US Length
(feet)
Waters of
the US
(acre)
RWQCB
Length (Feet)
RWQCB
(acre)
CDFW
Length
(Feet)
CDFW
(acre) Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Class of Aquatic Resource Highland Wash Whitewater 0 0 403 0.12 403 0.12

33.9224
44 -
116.928651
R4SBJ non-section10-non
wetland
Smith Creek
Whitewater
0 0 256 0.12 256 0.12

33.9228
84 -
116.92507
2 R4SBJ
non-section10-non
wetland
Pershing Creek
Whitewater
0 0 286 0.23 286 0.23

33.9225
70 -
116.919933
R4SBJ non-section10-non
wetland
1309
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 6 ends

6.0 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Highland Wash is an ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows from north to south and crosses perpendicular to the proposed project.

Flow originates from north of Interstate 10 and from the Sun Lakes community immediately northwest of the project.

In the area of the project, Highland Wash contains an active low flow channel with adjacent active floodplain that is bordered on the west with low terraces and on the east are incised channel walls that are both bordered by uplands. The active low-flow channel is approximately 12-inches wide in the project area with a silty/sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and drift present in the project area. The adjacent active floodplain varies from roughly 3-feet to 15-feet wide and evidenced by a more pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as ripples, older drift, presence of bed and bank, benches and no vegetation. The ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) is approximately 8inches and indicated by break in slope and change in vegetative cover from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with mid-stage upland vegetation consisting of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace is characterized by a higher vegetative density of buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction.

Highland Wash likely flows for less than 3 months per year and is therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional. Highland Wash joins with Smith Creek at Westward Avenue.

Smith Creek is an ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows from north to south and crosses perpendicular to the proposed project and east of Highland Wash. Flow to Smith Creek originates from a large watershed area north of Interstate 10. In the area of the project, Smith Creek contains an active low flow channel with adjacent active floodplain that is bordered with low terraces.

The active low-flow channel is approximately 8inches wide with a silty/sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and drift present in the project area. The adjacent active floodplain was on average 20feet wide and the limits of which evidenced by a more pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as ripples, older drift, presence of bed and bank, benches and limited pockets of earlystage vegetation. OHWM is approximately 6-inches and indicated by break in slope and changes in vegetative cover and sediment texture from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with late-stage upland vegetation consisting mostly of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer 1310
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 6 ends

limit of the low terrace is characterized by change in slope and a higher vegetative density of California buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction.

Smith Creek likely flows for less than 3 months per year and is therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional. Highland Wash joins with Smith Creek at Westward Avenue. Smith Creek is tributary to San Gorgonio Creek, which is tributary to the Whitewater River.

Pershing Creek is a wide ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows from north to south and crosses perpendicular to the proposed project. It is located east of Smith Creek. Flows to Pershing Creek originate from north of Interstate 10. In the area of the project, Pershing Creek splits around an island approximately 0.24-acre in size of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub into two sets of active low flow channels with adjacent active floodplains. The Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is dominated by scale broom. The active low flow channels are approximately 10-inches wide in the project area with a fine sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and ripples present in the project area. The active floodplain is on average 38-feet wide and bordered by short low terraces that are bordered by steep embankments that are roughly 20-feet high to the east and west of the creek. One mature eucalyptus tree (Eucalyptus species) on the far westerly bank is also within the project area. The active floodplain is evidenced by a more sandy/pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as older drift, mud cracks, and early-stage vegetation of buckwheat and annual filarees (Erodium species). OHWM is approximately 10-inches and indicated by break in slope and changes in vegetative cover and sediment texture from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with silty soil and 95% cover of latestage upland vegetation consisting of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops.

The outer limit of the low terrace on the east side of the creek is characterized by a change in slope and higher vegetative density of buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction. The outer limit on the west side of the creek is characterized by a near-vertical incised channel bank.

Pershing Creek likely flows for less than 3 months per year and is therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional. Pershing Creek merges with Smith Creek far downstream of the project limits.

Existing Culverts under Westward Avenue are riverine resources and potentially CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional waters because although they are confined and man-made, they convey flow from the three preceding drainages across Westward Avenue. There are a total of 6 culverts of varying diameters and lengths for a total footprint of approximately 0.02 acre within the project limits. 1311
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 6 ends

Highland Wash
• 18-inch diameter, 24 feet long
• 54-inch diameter, 27 feet long
• 54-inch diameter, 10 feet long
Smith Creek
• 48-inch diameter, 35 feet long
Pershing Creek
• 48-inch diameter, 45 feet long 48-inch diameter, 44 feet long Table 1 lists the riparian/riverine and potentially jurisdictional features within the project footprint with additional details on each pursuant to USACE criteria. Figure 4 identifies all observed project site riparian/riverine resources and highlights the resources that require mitigation and therefore triggered the need for this DBESP.

Flow from the project site drainages enters the MSHCP Conservation Area approximately 4.5 miles downstream in the San Gorgonio Pass Special Linkage Area.

The conclusion of the Northwest Hydrological Consultants technical memorandum (NCH 2024) on the project site indicates that there would likely be minimal sediment transport impacts associated with the current crossing improvement plans.

Hydraulic conditions upstream of all three of the proposed crossings are very comparable under pre- and post-project scenarios. Note that the with-project hydraulic simulation results reflect proposed as-built conditions and assume the crossing openings are clear of accumulations and the support piers are clear of debris at the time of the peak flow event. It is recommended that regular inspections and clearing (as needed) of the crossings be conducted to maintain these conditions.

Maintenance inspections should occur, at minimum, annually prior to flood season and after any significant runoff event. Pier nose extensions (debris fins) or debris sweepers are recommended at the front end of the support piers if vegetative debris loading is of concern, to minimize the impact of pier debris accumulation on upstream hydraulics during flood events.

Page 6 ends

ramps will be constructed at the south end of the channels to provide maintenance access. Swales and trapezoidal channels will be provided to intercept stormwater run-on from north of the Project and discharge it to the proposed channels. The project will retain existing culverts such that sediment transport and wildlife movement functions and values will be retained.
1313
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 6 ends

Table 4 Summary of Jurisdictional Impact Areas
Drainage
Lat Long Watershed
USACE
perm
impact
(Acres)
USACE
perm
impact
(feet)
CDFW/
RWQCB
perm
impact
(acres)
CDFW/
RWQCB
perm
impact
(feet)
CDFW/
RWQCB
temp
impact
(acres)
CDFW/
RWQCB
Temp
impact
(feet)
Cowardin
Class
Class of
Aquatic
Resource
Highland
Wash

33.9224
44 -116.928651 Whitewater
0 0 0.1 394 0.01 61 R4SBA
nonsection10-
non wetland
Smith
Creek

33.9228
84 -116.925072 Whitewater
0 0 0.08 128 0.04 65 R4SBA
nonsection10-
non wetland
Pershing
Creek

33.9225
70 -116.919933 Whitewater
0 0 0.2 230 0.03 72 R4SBA
nonsection10-
non wetland
Total 0 0 0.37 748 0.09 187
R4SBJ – Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Intermittently Flooded based on Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et. al., 1979).

PUSAh - Palustrine, Unconsolidated Shore, Temporary Flooded, Diked/Impounded (h) No Rock Slope Protection within waters
1314
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 6 ends

6.1 Permitting Requirements
The proposed project requires temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional drainages and therefore, authorizations from the RWQCB and CDFW are required as described below.

6.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The drainages on-site have a discontinuous connection to the Whitewater River through multiple golf courses within the Coachella Valley, which are within the floodplain. The flow path eventually connects to the Whitewater River and then to the Salton Sea. USACE could assert jurisdiction as the Salton Sea is a traditional navigable water. A individual or preliminary jurisdictional permit under Section 404 is required.

The drainages onsite do not contain permanent flows and in accordance with the EPS vs Sackett ruling are not considered to be USACE jurisdictional.

6.1.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The project areas occur in the Colorado River RWQCB (Region 6). Under Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCB must certify that the discharge of dredged or fill material into WUS does not violate state water quality standards.

The RWQCB also regulates impacts to WSC under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act through issuance of a Construction General Permit, State General Waste Discharge Order, or Waste Discharge Requirements, depending upon the level of impact and the properties of the waterway.

Where the project has the potential to impacts WUS or WSC, the project proponent would need to obtain a Water Quality Certification. In addition to the formal application materials and fee (based on area of impact), a copy of the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation must be included with the application.

Mitigation measures typically include replacement of, or mitigation for temporary or permanent impacts. Mitigation can be implemented through on-site restoration, the purchase of mitigation credits through an approved in-lieu fee program or similar mitigation bank. Other options can include the purchase of off-site habitat and placed into a conservation easement. It should be noted that mitigation ratios are based on in-kind habitat replacement/restoration, and ratios may be reduced if higher quality habitat is secured or created. As noted, because the impacts to the 1315
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

Page 6 ends

channel are expected to be temporary, the project may mitigate on-site through restoration efforts, which would require monitoring and maintenance of the habitat. .

6.1.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
A 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement is required for all activities that alter streams and lakes and their associated riparian habitat, regardless of the extent of impacts. In addition to the formal application materials and fee (based on cost of the project), a copy of the appropriate CEQA documentation must be included with the application.
1316
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

7.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Brady, Roland H. III, Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility-Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2014- 013.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2010. A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds. Prepared by Kris Vyverberg, Conservation Engineering. 32 p.

CDFW. 2018. Fish and Game Code of California.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. desertweather.com, accessed 8/25/2020. Annual and monthly rainfall totals.

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (22250)
Gretag/Macbeth. 2000. Munsell color. New Windsor, NY.

Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014.

The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings.

Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed March 2020.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-8. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. + append.

USACE. 2008a. 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. Lichvar and McColley. August.

USACE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. September.
1317
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2019a. The PLANTS Database. (http://plants.usda.gov, 15 June 2019).

National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

USDA. 2020. List of Hydric Soils. Available online at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=stelprd b1248596&ext=xlsx
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed March 2020.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. 7.5-Minute Series, Beaumont, California, Topographic Quadrangle. Reston, VA.
1318
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

JURISDICTIONAL MAPS
1319
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/8/2024 0 1 2
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Street Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity and Location
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2 miles
1320
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/9/2024 Beaumon t
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Beaumont
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2,000 feet
1321
Sun Lakes Blvd
Sun Lakes Blvd
S
Highland
H
o
me R
d
W Westward Ave
S
Bay
Hill R
d
W Westward Ave
S
mith Creek
Smith Creek
Smith
Creek
RsC
TeG
RaD3
RaD3
GyD2
RaB2
RaB2
GyD2: Greenfield sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
RaB2: Ramona sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
RaD3: Ramona sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RsC: Riverwash
TeG: Terrace escarpments
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/9/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 3a
Soil Types
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1322
Smith Creek
W Westward Ave
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
RsC RaB2
RaD3
RaD3 RaE3
GyD2
GyD2: Greenfield sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
RaB2: Ramona sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
RaD3: Ramona sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RaE3: Ramona sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RsC: Riverwash
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/9/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 3b
Soil Types
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1323
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
Sunshine St
S
Suns
et A
v
e
W Westward Ave
Administration
RaB2
RaD3
RaB2
GyC2
TeG
GyC2
RaE3
GyC2: Greenfield sandy
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded
RaB2: Ramona sandy loam,
2 to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
RaD3: Ramona sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
severely eroded
RaE3: Ramona sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
TeG: Terrace escarpments
Project Alignment
°
0 150
Feet
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460, 5/9/2024 Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, FIGURE 3c
Soil Types
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
1 inch =150 feet
a b c
1324
FIGURE 4
Hydrology
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/9/2024 ey Pkwy
Oak Valley Golf
Club
10 Lamb Ca
nyon Rd
Beaumont Ave
Highland
Springs
Country Club
79 E 6th St
W Ramsey St
Sun Lakes
Country Club
San Gorgonio
Pass
Beaumont
243
243
Banning
Municipal
Airport
Banning
Valley Hi Oak
Reserve
Laborde
Canyon-San
Jacinto River
Potrero Creek
Little San
Gorgonio
Creek Smith Creek
Headwaters San
Gorgonio River
Twin Pines
Creek
Upper San
Gorgonio
River
Mon tgomery Creek
Smith Creek
Little San
Gorgon
i
o
C reek
Po trero Cre ek
Noble Creek
Ha thawayCreek
San G orgonio River
Colorado River Aqueduct
0 0.5 1
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Earthstar Geographics Connector
Canal/Ditch
Pipeline
Stream
Artificial Path
Named Streams
LakePond
Reservoir
Watersheds (HU12)
Project Alignment
1 inch =1 mile
1325
FIGURE 5
NWI
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/9/2024 and Springs Ave
rlight Ave
S Highland Springs Ave
mark Way
W Wilson St
Pine
Valley R
d
Birdie
Dr
E 6th St
Sun Lakes
Country Club
Augora Village
Center
10 10
S
Sunset Av
W Wes
e
tward Ave W Westward Ave
Hill Top Dr
W Williams St
O
mar St
W Nicolet St
S
W Lincoln St
un Lakes Blvd
Bob Ca t Rd
Apex St
Mountain
S
Highl and Home
Rd
C St
W Jacinto View Rd
Riviera A
ve
W Ramsey St
Sun Lakes
Country Club
San Gorgonio
Pass
S Sunset Ave
Death Valley Rd Coyote Trl
W King St
W Westward
W Gilman St
W Nicolet
W Williams
S 12th St
N 16th St
W Lincoln St
W Ramsey
Susan B.

Coombs
Intermediate
Coyote Trl
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: Hybrid Reference Layer: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, Project Alignment
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Riverine
1 inch =2,000 mile
1326
FIGURE 6
Jurisdictional Delineation
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/9/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
&
&
Highland Wash
Pershing Creek
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar 1 inch =600 feet & Flow Direction
Project Alignment
Existing Culvert
CDFW/RWQCB Jurisdiction
1327
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
1328
Photo 1: Looking downstream Highland Creek showing the existing road crossing and culverts.

Photo 2: Looking up stream Highland Creek.
1329
Photo 3: Looking down stream Smith Creek
Photo 4: Looking up stream Smith Creek
1330
Photo 5: Looking down stream Pershing Creek.

Photo 6: Looking up stream Pershing Creek.
1331
Sun Lakes Blvd
Jurisdictional Delineation
July 2024

APPENDIX C

JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FORMS
1332
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Pierce Street Sewer & Water Extension Project Banning, Riverside 4/18/2024 City of Banning CA Highland Ck Dale Hameister S 3; T 3 South; R 1 East Valley floor None 34.128009 --116.055896 R4SBJ ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Salix lasiolepis 5
Eriogonum fasciculatum 20 UPL Corethrogyne filaginifolia 5 UPL Ericameria pinifolia 3 UPL Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea 1 FACU Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens 5 UPL 60 0 1 5
2 4
2 4
.5 ✔
Drainage banks contain upland species with mostly unvegetated streambed 1333
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

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

1 Type: 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) 3
Indicators 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):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Highland Ck
Soils were dry and consist of coarse sandy loam
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
1334
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

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

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Pierce Street Sewer & Water Extension Project Banning, Riverside 4/18/2024 City of Banning CA Persing Creek Dale Hameister S 3; T 3 South; R 1 East Valley floor None 33.922444 -116.928651 R4SBJ ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Eriogonum fasciculatum 15 UPL Corethrogyne filaginifolia 10 UPL Ericameria pinifolia 5 UPL Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens 5 UPL 60 0 ✔ Drainage banks contain upland species with mostly unvegetated streambed 1335
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: 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:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Persing Creek
Soils were dry and consist of coarse sandy loam
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
1336
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

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

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Pierce Street Sewer & Water Extension Project Banning, Riverside 4/18/2024 City of Banning CA Smith Creek Dale Hameister S 3; T 3 South; R 1 East Valley floor None 33.922444 -116.928651 R4SBJ ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Eriogonum fasciculatum 20 UPL Corethrogyne filaginifolia 5 UPL Ericameria pinifolia 3 UPL Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea 1 FACU Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens 5 UPL 60 0 ✔ Drainage banks contain upland species with mostly unvegetated streambed 1337
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: 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:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Smith Creek
Soils were dry and consist of coarse sandy loam
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
1338
1339

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY

MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT OR

SUPERIOR PRESERVATION REPORT

SUN LAKES BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT
City of Banning and Unincorporated Riverside County, California Submitted to:

Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA. 92506
Submitted by:

WSP USA Inc.
11870 Pierce St #160
Riverside, CA 92505
Phone: (951) 299-4160
Principal Investigator: John Green
WSP Job # 20-554-00800
Updated August 2024
1340
DBESP Report
i
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project (project) is a transportation project including construction of a new section of Sun Lakes Boulevard from Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue (Figure 3) and intersection improvements within the city of Banning’s existing and future road right of-way (ROW). The project encompasses approximately 19.4 acres of direct footprint (permanent impacts) and another 9.1 acres of temporary construction disturbance area (temporary impacts). Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the city’s ROW. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Surveys were performed for biological resources including riparian/riverine, narrow endemic plant species, special status fairy shrimp species, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). No narrow endemic plant species, special status fairy shrimp species, burrowing owls, or Los Angeles pocket mice were detected, so they are not being mitigated for. Riparian/riverine resources were detected on the project site. There will be 0.37-acre of permanent impacts and 0.09-acre of temporary impacts to riverine/riparian resources.

The city intends to purchase land or conserve and enhance existing city land within the Whitewater Watershed, along Smith Creek which would be placed into a conservation easement or have a deed restriction and protected in perpetuity with a non-wasting endowment. The land will be managed by a third-party land manager such as Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Rivers and Lands Conservancy (RLC) or Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). The purchased conservation land will contain similar habitat to the project site and provide similar or superior function and habitat value. Currently, the project site has relatively unvegetated, sandy bottom, riverine habitat. Any mitigation areas that contain riparian habitat would be considered superior habitat.

Permanent impacts will be mitigated at a 3:1 (3 x 0.37 = 1.11 acres) ratio and temporary impacts will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (2 x 0.09 = 0.18 acres). The total mitigation acreage should equal or surpass 1.3 acres. The primary method of mitigation will be offsite conservation and enhancement of City owned property located along Smith Creek. The City will place at least 1.3 acres into a Conservation Easement with an approved third-party conservation holder such as Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Rivers and Lands Conservancy (RLC) or Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). Additionally, the City has committed to participating in a regional 1341
DBESP Report
ii
solution of the sediment transport function of the Smith Creek watershed. The intended outcome of this regional solution is to bring the various stakeholders in this watershed together to work on a sediment management strategy to ensure sediment is transported efficiently and effectively to support ecological resources. The City’s commitment to this regional solution will serve as providing rehabilitation mitigation for the overall impacts from this Project.

The project will also return temporary impact areas to their pre-existing contours and revegetate them with appropriate native species. The project will also mitigate and/or minimize impacts by following MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Although no burrowing owls were found during the focused survey, because habitat and potential burrows are present, a preconstruction survey will be conducted. Should burrowing owls be detected at that time, an updated DBESP report will be prepared, and mitigation will be achieved through the project following all MSHCP guidelines and the direction of the Environmental Programs Department, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and/or the Wildlife Agencies.
1342
DBESP Report
iii
Table ofContents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... i 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Project Area ................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Fairy Shrimp and Vernal Pools .......................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Jurisdictional Delineation Methods ................................................................................ 7

2.4 Results/Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.4.1 Results/Impacts to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian Bird Species .......................... 7

2.4.2 Results/Impacts to Vernal Pools ....................................................................................... 7

2.4.3 Results/Impacts to Fairy Shrimp ...................................................................................... 8

2.4.4 Results/Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Waters ............................................................. 8

2.5 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 14

2.5.1 Direct Effects to Riparian/Riverine Waters ................................................................. 14

2.5.2 Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................. 15 3 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION (MSHCP SECTION 6.1.3)............... 17

3.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 17

3.2 Results/Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 17

3.3.1 Direct Effects .......................................................................................................................... 17

3.3.2 Indirect Effects....................................................................................................................... 17 4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (MSHCP SECTION 6.3.2) ........................................................... 18

4.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area - Plants ...................................................................... 18

4.1.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.2 Results/Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency.............................................................................................. 18

4.2 Burrowing Owl ........................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 19

4.2.2 Results/Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 19

4.2.3 Mitigation and Equivalency.............................................................................................. 19 1343
DBESP Report
iv

4.3 Mammals...................................................................................................................................... 21

4.3.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Results/Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 22

4.5 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 22

4.5.1 Direct Effects .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.5.2 Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................. 22

4.6 Amphibians ................................................................................................................................. 22

4.6.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 22

4.6.2 Results/Impacts ................................................................................................................ 22

4.6.3 Mitigation and Equivalency ......................................................................................... 22

4.7 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (MSHCP SECTION 9.3) ............................................... 23

4.7.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 23

4.7.2 Results/Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 23

4.7.3 Mitigation and Equivalency.............................................................................................. 23 5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURES AND SUPPORTING APPENDICES .............................................................................................. 26 Table of Tables
Table 1. Total Land Use Acreage by APN ....................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Land Use Acreage by Habitat (Vegetation Community / Land Cover) ...................... 3 Table 3. Project site Riparian/Riverine Acreage ........................................................................................ 7 Table 4. Project site Riparian/Riverine Impacts & Conservation .................................................... 9 1344
DBESP Report
5 2 INTRODUCTION
At the request of the Albert A. Webb Associates (Webb), WSP USA Inc. (WSP) prepared this Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report for the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension project (project). The purpose of the DBESP report is to propose mitigation for impacts to Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) riparian/riverine resources present on the project site and to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will provide an equivalent or superior preservation of habitat functions and values for these resources. The report also discusses MSHCP DBESP-requiring species, which were surveyed for and found to not be present on-site.

2.1 Project Area
The project is in the city of Banning, Riverside County, California (Figure 1) and includes the extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard eastward from its current termination point at Highland Home Road to the anticipated connection at Sunset Avenue. It is generally located south of Interstate 10, west of Sunset Avenue and east of Highland Home Road.

It can be found in Section 7 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East of the Beaumont, California, United States Geological Survey (1978) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2). The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 2,400 to 2,500 feet above sea level. The geographic coordinates near the middle of the site are

33.5512.85° North latitude and -116.5516.29° West longitude. The project occurs within portions of the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN): 419140039, 537110013, 537110014, 537120023, 537120024, 537120025, 537120027, 537120028, 537120029, 537120030, 537120031, 537120033, 537120034, 537140001, 537140002, 538323024, and 538323029.

No off-site staging areas or off-site improvements are planned. No weed abatement or fuel modification zones have been identified. However, if unforeseen circumstances were to arise that required hazard reduction within an area considered environmentally sensitive or a part of the MSHCP Conservation Area, such as lands proposed for conservation on the adjacent project site, it would require approval from the appropriate agencies prior to any vegetation management activities. These could include but are not limited to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

2.2 Project Description
The proposed project is a transportation project including construction of a new section of Sun Lakes Boulevard from Highland Home Road to Sunset Avenue (Figure 3) and 1345
DBESP
6 intersection improvements within the City of Banning’s existing road right-of-way (ROW). The project is approximately 5,400 linear feet (1.02 mile). This report has been updated due to a change is the outline of the proposed impacts and to update all related figures. The updated projects impacts include 19.4 acres of permanent impacts,

9.1 acres of temporary impacts. Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the City’s ROW. Currently, Westward Avenue is a straight east-west unpaved dirt road between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. The project crosses over three creeks, from west to east: Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. The project will include the construction of three sets of culverts to cross said creeks.

Surrounding land uses include residential subdivisions, public facilities, and open space.

2.3 Existing Conditions
Adjacent to and south of the Sun Lakes Boulevard ROW are existing utilities that include three well sites and one wastewater lift station. Within Westward Avenue, there are many existing utility lines including, a potable water line, sanitary sewer line, recycled water line, fiber optics line, three oil lines, and an underground telephone line. Singlefamily homes are west of Highland Home Road. East of Sunset Avenue are single-family homes, a small number of commercial businesses, the Mt. San Jacinto College San Gorgonio Pass Campus, and undeveloped open space, including habitat for biological elements of concern to the MSHCP. The project footprint outside of the facilities detailed above is currently undeveloped open space, including habitat for biological elements of concern to the MSHCP, as are areas to the north and south of the project.

2.3.1 Fairy Shrimp and Vernal Pools
Seasonal pooling that is suitable as fairy shrimp habitat was present, so wet and dry season focused surveys were conducted for listed fairy shrimp species in 2020 and 2021. (A copy of the Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Survey Memo (WSP, May 14, 2024) is appended to this report.) Surveys were conducted in accordance with the USFWS protocol: Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2015). 1346
DBESP
7 During the fairy shrimp surveys, jurisdictional delineation, focused plant surveys, and other project site visits, fairy shrimp habitat was observed for signs of vernal pool ecosystems. From the MSHCP (WRCRCA 2021a): “Vernal pools are ephemeral wetlands that form in shallow depressions underlain by a substrate near the surface that restricts the downward percolation of water. Depressions in the landscape fill with rainwater and runoff from adjacent areas during the winter and may remain inundated until spring or early summer, sometimes drying more than once during the wet season.

Smaller pools can fill, and dry, and larger pools can hold water longer and may in the deeper portions support species that are more representative of freshwater marshes.

Vernal pools are well-known for their high level of endemism and abundance of rare, threatened, or endangered species. Many vernal pools are characterized by concentric rings of plants that flower sequentially as the pools dry. Vernal pools are dominated by native annual plants, with low to moderate levels of perennial herbaceous cover.”

2.3.2 Jurisdictional Delineation Methods
On 18 April 2024, WSP senior biologist Dale Hameister conducted a jurisdictional survey of the project site (a copy of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report dated May 2024 is appended to this document, WSP 2024f). Drainages were evaluated for wetland/riparian-associated vegetation, clearly defined bed and bank features, wetland soils, and/or evidence of an ordinary high watermark that would potentially be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, CDFW, and/or MSHCP.

2.4 Results/Impacts

2.4.1 Results/Impacts to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian Bird Species MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian bird species least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo require tracts of riparian woodland, and/or forest sufficient in size to support breeding territories. Surface water is often a component of suitable habitats. No surface water or sufficiently sized tracts of habitat are present on the project site, so no focused surveys were conducted for these species, and they are not expected to occur. Therefore, no impacts will occur to these species.

2.4.2 Results/Impacts to Vernal Pools
None of the project site fairy shrimp habitat was determined to also be a vernal pool ecosystem as defined in Section 2.3.1 above. The project site fairy shrimp habitat was barren or dominated by non-native weedy plants and occurred in compacted soil in road ruts and other human alterations of the environment, which impeded drainage.

Therefore, no vernal pools are present so no impacts will occur to vernal pools. 1347
DBESP
8 2.4.3 Results/Impacts to Fairy Shrimp
Wet and dry season focused surveys (WSP 2024a) for special status fairy shrimp species detected only the common versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), which is not federally, or state listed as an endangered or threatened species or as a special status species. Therefore, no special status fairy shrimp species are present so no impacts will occur to special status fairy shrimp species.

2.4.4 Results/Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Waters
A copy of the Jurisdictional Delineation report (JD Report) prepared for this project by WSP in June 2024 is appended to this report (WSP 2024f). The following riparian/riverine resources were identified on-site and based on the observations made for the JD Report:

Highland Wash is an ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows from north to south and crosses perpendicular to the proposed project. Flow originates from north of Interstate 10 and from the Sun Lakes community immediately northwest of the project.

The active low-flow channel is approximately 12-inches wide in the project area with a silty/sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and drift present in the project area. The adjacent active floodplain varies from roughly 3-feet to 15-feet wide and evidenced by a more pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as ripples, older drift, presence of bed and bank, benches and no vegetation. The ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) is approximately 8inches and indicated by break in slope and change in vegetative cover from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with mid-stage upland vegetation consisting of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace is characterized by a higher vegetative density of buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction.

Highland Wash likely flows for less than 3 months per year and is therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional.

Highland Wash joins with Smith Creek at Westward Avenue. 1348
DBESP
9 Smith Creek is an ephemeral drainage containing riparian and riverine resources that flows from north to south and crosses perpendicular to the proposed project and east of Highland Wash. Flow to Smith Creek originates from a large watershed area north of Interstate 10. In the area of the project, Smith Creek contains an active low flow channel with adjacent active floodplain that is bordered with low terraces. The active low-flow channel is approximately 8inches wide with a silty/sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and drift present in the project area. The adjacent active floodplain was on average 20feet wide and the limits of which evidenced by a more pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as ripples, older drift, presence of bed and bank, benches and limited pockets of earlystage vegetation. OHWM is approximately 6-inches and indicated by break in slope and changes in vegetative cover and sediment texture from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with late-stage upland vegetation consisting mostly of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace is characterized by change in slope and a higher vegetative density of California buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction.

Smith Creek likely flows for less than 3 months per year and is therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional.

Highland Wash joins with Smith Creek at Westward Avenue. Smith Creek is tributary to San Gorgonio Creek, which is tributary to the Whitewater River.

The active low flow channels are approximately 10-inches wide in the project area with a fine sandy bed and no vegetation. Evidence of flows were identified by benches and ripples present in the project area. The active floodplain is on average 38-feet wide and bordered by short low terraces that are bordered by steep embankments that are roughly 20-feet high to the east and west of the creek. One mature eucalyptus tree (Eucalyptus species) on the far westerly bank is also within the project area. The active floodplain is evidenced by a more sandy/pebbly substrate then the low flow channel, as well as older drift, mud cracks, and early-stage vegetation of buckwheat and annual filarees (Erodium 1349
DBESP
10 species). OHWM is approximately 10-inches and indicated by break in slope and changes in vegetative cover and sediment texture from active floodplain to low terrace. The low terrace borders the floodplain on the west with silty soil and 95% cover of latestage upland vegetation consisting of California buckwheat that uniformly dominates the drainage area from the low terrace to the nearby hill tops. The outer limit of the low terrace on the east side of the creek is characterized by a change in slope and higher vegetative density of buckwheat and marks the limit of potential CDFW jurisdiction. The outer limit on the west side of the creek is characterized by a near-vertical incised channel bank.

Pershing Creek likely flows for less than 3 months per year and is therefore does not have permanent flow and would not be considered USACE jurisdictional.

Pershing Creek merges with Smith Creek far downstream of the project limits.

Highland Wash
• 18-inch diameter, 24 feet long
• 54-inch diameter, 27 feet long
• 54-inch diameter, 10 feet long
• Smith Creek
• 48-inch diameter, 35 feet long
• Pershing Creek
• 48-inch diameter, 45 feet long 48-inch diameter, 44 feet long Table 1 lists the riparian/riverine and potentially jurisdictional features within the project footprint with additional details on each pursuant to USACE criteria.

Figure 4 identifies all observed project site riparian/riverine resources and highlights the resources that require mitigation and therefore triggered the need for this DBESP.

Flow from the project site drainages enters the MSHCP Conservation Area approximately 4.5 miles downstream in the San Gorgonio Pass Special Linkage Area.

The functions and values of the project site drainages and the surrounding upland loams include absorption and the gradual release of water into the downstream MSHCP Conservation Area. The drainages also provide sediment transport to downstream areas.
1350
DBESP
11 The conclusion of the Northwest Hydrological Consultants technical memorandum (NCH 2024) on the project site indicates that there would likely be minimal sediment transport impacts associated with the current crossing improvement plans. Hydraulic conditions upstream of all three of the proposed crossings are very comparable under pre- and post-project scenarios. To arrive at the proposed culvert design, an iterative process was undertaken to achieve a design that would have an insignificant change in the water surface elevation and velocity upstream and downstream of the proposed culverts as compared to the pre-project condition. The design will not improve nor worsen the existing flow of sediment occurring in the Project area. Therefore, if a rainfall event occurs that is large enough to transport sediment, the Project will not inhibit that from happening in the future post-construction condition. Where impacts are unavoidable, the design maintains the existing hydrologic regime including flood flows, and sediment transport. Based on the analysis by NHC, the Project effects on downstream functions will be insignificant and they will continue as they currently do, meaning, erosion or accretion that occurs outside of the Project within Smith Creek or Pershing Creek will not change as a result of the Project. Offsite erosion or accretions in said creeks are the result of other actions unrelated to the Project for which the City plans to address separately from this Project. Note that the with-project hydraulic simulation results reflect proposed as-built conditions and assume the crossing openings are clear of accumulations and the support piers are clear of debris at the time of the peak flow event. It is recommended that regular inspections and clearing (as needed) of the crossings be conducted to maintain these conditions. Maintenance inspections should occur, at minimum, annually prior to flood season and after any significant runoff event. Pier nose extensions (debris fins) are at the front end of the support piers, to minimize the impact of pier debris accumulation on upstream hydraulics during flood events.

The topography and vegetation in the project site drainages also provide cover and corridors for the shelter and movement of wildlife. The Project will include the construction of three sets of culverts to cross said creeks. The culverts are multi-cell reinforced concrete box (RCB) channels running under the proposed Sun Lakes Boulevard roadway extension. Straight wing walls with concrete and riprap aprons will be constructed at the upstream end of each channel while vertical wing walls and concrete aprons will be provided at the downstream end of channels. Concrete ramps will be constructed at the south end of the channels to provide maintenance access. Swales and trapezoidal channels will be provided to intercept stormwater run-on from north of the Project and discharge it to the proposed channels. The project will retain existing culverts 1351
DBESP
12 such that sediment transport and wildlife movement functions and values will be retained.
1352
DBESP Report
13 Table 1. Project Site Riparian/Riverine Acreage
Name of
Potential
Aquatic Feature
Cowardi
n Type
Area, Length, Width Summary of OHWM
Presence
Summary
of
Wetland
Presence
Dominant
Vegetation /
Listing Status
Location
Potentially
Jurisdictiona
l?
Highland Wash
(Creek Crossing
No. 1; Proposed
Line J)
R4SBJ (a)

0.12 acre Change in
vegetation, break in
slope
None
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
/ Not Listed(c)

33.918220,
-116.924808
Yes;
CDFW and
RWQCB
non-wetland
403 feet
15 feet (b)
Smith Creek
(Creek Crossing
No. 2; Proposed
Line I)
R4SBJ (a)

0.12 acre Change in average
sediment texture,
change in
vegetation cover,
break in slope
None
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
/ Not Listed(c)

33.918290,
-116.923923
Yes;
CDFW and
RWQCB
non-wetland
256 feet
20 feet (b)
Pershing Creek
(Creek Crossing
No. 3; Proposed
Line K)
R4SBJ (a)

0.23 acre
Change in average
sediment texture,
change in
vegetation species
and cover, break in
slope
None
Riversidean
alluvial fan
sage scrub
dominated by
Lepidospartu
m
squamatum /
a facultative
upland plant
species (c) and
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
/ Not Listed(c)

33.918245,
-116.914588
Yes;
CDFW and
RWQCB,
non-wetland
286feet
38 feet (b)
Existing Culverts
Under Westward
Avenue
Not
Applicabl
e
6 pipes of varying sizes for
combined length of 185 feet
and area of 0.02 acre (700
square feet)
Not Applicable None None Varies
Yes;
CDFW and
RWQCB,
non-wetland
(a) = R4SBJ: “Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Intermittently Flooded” based on Cowardin et al. (1979) (b) =Widths are average widths in the Project limits.
(c) = Listing status refers to the National Wetland Plant List. 1353
DBESP
14 The existing culverts located under Westward Avenue will be abandoned in place but remain functional. Therefore, they are not included in the impact areas. Otherwise, all identified project site riparian/riverine drainages and areas will be permanently or temporarily impacted (Table 2).

Table 2. Project Site Riparian/Riverine Impacts
Name of Potentially
Jurisdictional Feature
Riverine/Riparian
Length (feet)
Permanent Impacts
(acres)
Temporary Impacts
(acres)(feet)
Highland Wash (Creek
Crossing No. 1) 0.1 0.01 (61) 403
Smith Creek (Creek
Crossing No. 2) 0.08 0.04 (65) 256
Pershing Creek (Creek
Crossing No. 3) 0.2 0.03 (72) 286
Total 0.38 0.09 945

2.5 Mitigation and Equivalency
No listed or special-status fairy shrimp species or vernal pool ecosystems were detected, and no habitat is present for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. Therefore, no mitigation or equivalency will be required for these riparian/riverine resources as a result of project implementation, and they will not be discussed further. There will be effects to riparian/riverine waters, and those are discussed below.

2.5.1 Direct Effects to Riparian/Riverine Waters
All riparian/riverine waters on the project site will be directly affected. The city intends to conserve and enhance existing city land within the Whitewater Watershed, along Smith Creek which would be placed in a conservation easement or have a deed restriction and protected in perpetuity with a nonwasting endowment. The land will be managed by a third-party land manager such as Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Rivers and Lands Conservancy (RLC) or Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). The conservation land contains similar habitat to the project site and provides similar or superior function and habitat value. Currently, the project site 1354
DBESP
15 has relatively unvegetated, sandy bottom, riverine habitat. Any mitigation areas that contain riparian habitat would be considered superior habitat.

Permanent impacts will be mitigated at a 3:1 (3 x 0.37 = 1.11 acres) ratio and temporary impacts will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (2 x 0.09 = 0.18 acres). The total mitigation acreage should equal or surpass 1.3 acres. The primary method of mitigation willbe offsite conservation and enhancement ofCity owned property located along Smith Creek. The City will place at least 1.3 acres into a Conservation Easement with an approved third-party conservation holder such as Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Rivers and Lands Conservancy (RLC) or Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). Additionally, the City has committed to participation in a regional solution of the sediment transport function of the Smith Creek watershed. The intended outcome of this regional solution is to bring the various stakeholders in this watershed together to work on a sediment management strategy to ensure sediment is transported efficiently and effectively to support ecological resources. The City’s commitment to this regional solution will serve as providing rehabilitation mitigation for the overall impacts from this Project.

The project will also return temporary impact areas to their pre-existing contours and revegetate them with appropriate native species. The project will follow MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices and MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines (WSP 2024e).

With implementation of the above measures, the project would achieve mitigation and equivalency and ensure the long-term maintenance of the wildlife movement and sediment transport functions and values of the riparian/riverine resource(s).

2.5.2 Indirect Effects
A potential indirect effect of concern to the MSHCP is the replacement of permeable soils surrounding riparian/riverine with impermeable surfaces such as road pavement and sidewalks. This can cause increased short-term flow volume, pollution, and erosion during rain events. The project will mitigate this issue by installing drainage improvements which will include catch basin filters and the retention of stormwater runoff in underground infiltration chambers.

These improvements will capture the short-term increased flow and slowly release it, thus avoiding erosional pulses and gives debris and pollutants time to settle and filter out. Otherwise, these or any other indirect effects will be mitigated through the measures and mitigation identified in the previous section (2.5.1). These actions will achieve mitigation and equivalency and ensure 1355
DBESP
16 the long-term maintenance of the wildlife movement and sediment transport functions and values of the riparian/riverine resource(s). 1356
DBESP
17 3 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION (MSHCP SECTION 6.1.3) The project site is within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for Marvin’s onion (Allium marvinii) and many stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) and suitable habitat is present on site for those species.

Therefore, focused surveys were conducted for these narrow endemic plants (NEPS).

3.1 Methods
The focused survey (WSP 2024b) was conducted on 26 and 27 May 2020 by WSP biologists Dale Hameister and Nathan T. Moorhatch (A copy of the NEPSSA survey report dated May 2024 is appended to this report). The survey was conducted during the appropriate time of year (blooming period) for the detection of the NEPSSA species and followed a period of above average rainfall for the 2019-2020 season. Areas of suitable habitat were surveyed utilizing transects which were adjusted based on topography and habitat coverage so that all potential NEPSSA habitat was surveyed.

3.2 Results/Impacts
Marvin’s onion and many stemmed dudleya were not observed or otherwise detected during the focused survey. As a result, impacts to NEPS will not occur as a result of project implementation.

3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Because no NEPS were detected, no impacts will occur. For these reasons, mitigation and/or equivalency requirements relative to NEPS are not anticipated to be required for the project.

3.3.1 Direct Effects
Because no NEPS were detected, direct effects to them are not anticipated.

3.3.2 Indirect Effects
Because no NEPS were detected, indirect effects to these plant species are not anticipated.
1357
DBESP
18 4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (MSHCP SECTION 6.3.2)

4.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area - Plants
The project site is not within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) for Criteria Area plant species (CAPS).

4.1.1 Methods
Because the project site is not located within a CASSA for plants, focused surveys for CAPS are not required for MSHCP compliance and therefore were not conducted for the project.

4.1.2 Results/Impacts
No focused surveys for CAPS were required and none were found during focused surveys conducted for NEPS.

4.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Because no surveys are required for CAPS on the project site, mitigation and/or equivalency requirements relative to CAPS are not required for the project.

4.1.3.1 Direct Effects
No direct effects to MSHCP-designated CAPS are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

4.1.3.2 Indirect Effects
No indirect effects to MSHCP-designated CAPS are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

4.2 Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl habitat is present and the project site is within the MSHCP designated burrowing owl survey area so focused surveys were conducted (a copy of the Burrowing Owl Focused Survey dated May 2024 is appended to this report, WSP 2024c).
1358
DBESP
19 4.2.1 Methods
All burrowing owl surveys were conducted in accordance with protocol provided by the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (Environmental Programs Department “RCTLMA EPD” 2006a). Step I habitat assessment and Step II, Part A focused burrow surveys were conducted on 17 July 2020 by WSP senior biologist Nathan Moorhatch and WSP biologist Alec Williams. The non-native grassland vegetation and portions of the various drainages with California ground squirrel and other manmade “burrow surrogates” on and immediately adjacent to the project site provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. The site was surveyed on foot, mapping the locations of California ground squirrel burrows and/or manmade “burrow surrogates” that were suitable for burrowing owl use. Step II, Part B focused burrowing owl surveys were then conducted by Moorhatch or Williams on 24 & 31 July and 6 & 12 August 2020. Surveys were completed via pre-dawn/early morning pedestrian transects spaced at 10 meters apart over 100% of those areas of the site identified in the burrow search as having burrows or structures capable of supporting burrowing owls. Binoculars were used to visually inspect potential perching locations (i.e., rocks, debris, dirt mounds) as well as the entrances to all on-site mammal burrows and debris providing potential shelter (i.e., piles of concrete slabs, cement drainpipes). Potential burrows were carefully examined for evidence of burrowing owl occupation (i.e., animal dung, feathers, whitewash, pellets, debris, etc.). Where buffer areas were not accessible, they were visually inspected using binoculars in accordance with protocol.

4.2.2 Results/Impacts
Potential burrow sites were present, but no burrowing owls or their sign were detected. Therefore, no impacts to burrowing owls are anticipated at this time.

4.2.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Because no burrowing owls were detected, no impacts will occur. For this reason, mitigation and/or equivalency requirements relative to burrowing owls are not anticipated to be required for the project.

Note, however, that because the project site contains suitable, but currently unoccupied habitat (Figure 5), burrowing owls have the potential to colonize and occupy the project site at any time in the future. MSHCP guidelines require a one-visit pre-construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owls within the survey area where suitable habitat is present, even where protocol level surveys were negative. Surveys will be conducted within 30 days prior to 1359
DBESP
20 disturbance. If burrowing owls are found at that time, refer to the following guidelines below.

The project site is not located within a Criteria Area, so the following MSHCP guidelines apply:
• “If the site contains, or is part of, an area supporting less than 35-acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the project site burrowing owls will be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.”
• “If the site (including adjacent areas) supports three or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable Habitat and is non-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs will be conserved onsite.”
• ”RCTLMA EPD (2006b) states: “In the event owls are observed on the project site, please contact the EPD immediately to discuss potential mitigation measures such as passive or active relocation.” Further WRCRCA guidelines (2019a) include:
• Coordinate with WRCRCA and the CDFW on all evictions (passive or active relocation).
• Eviction may be acceptable if suitable conserved habitat and natural or artificial burrows are within 75–100 meters. Note that eviction during the nesting season is generally prohibited.
• If adjacent or nearby suitable habitat is not conserved, eviction may still be acceptable at the discretion of WRCRCA and/or CDFW.
• A Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan will be prepared if burrowing owls are detected during the preconstruction survey within 500 feet of the project footprint. The plan must be reviewed, approved, and coordinated with WRCRCA and Wildlife Agencies, including the state banding permit office and federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act office if active relocation is needed.

Should burrowing owls be detected, mitigation and equivalency will be achieved through the project following all MSHCP guidelines and the direction of the Environmental Programs Department, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and/or the Wildlife Agencies. 1360
DBESP
21 4.2.3.1 Direct Effects
Because no burrowing owls were detected, direct effects to them are not anticipated. See the Mitigation and Equivalency section above, however.

4.2.3.2 Indirect Effects
Because no burrowing owls were detected, indirect effects to them are not anticipated. See the Mitigation and Equivalency section above, however.

4.3 Mammals
Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM) habitat is present and approximately 19.6- acres of the project site are within the MSHCP designated LAPM survey area, so focused surveys were conducted for the LAPM on consecutive nights from September 13-18, 2020 (a copy of the LAPM Focused Survey updated July 2024 is appended to this report, WSP 2024d).

4.3.1 Methods
Trapping operations were conducted by WSP senior biologist John F. Green under the authority of CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit (SCP) #SC-190360007.

A total of six grids of 25 traps each were placed (Grids A through F) See Figure 3 and photos below. One grid was placed in each drainage and the remaining three grids were placed in upland habitats. All grids were within the MSHCPdesignated survey area for the Los Angeles pocket mouse.

To ensure that weather conditions were suitable to conduct the survey with minimal stress to captured animals, National Weather Service forecasts were monitored for the weather stations nearest the trapping areas. Trapping is not conducted unless five consecutive nights with temperatures above 50 degrees Fahrenheit are forecasted. At this time of year, no temperatures approached that threshold.

All traps were 12” long folding Sherman® live traps, modified by the manufacturer for the prevention of tail lacerations when trapping long-tailed animals (such as kangaroo rats). Traps were placed approximately ten meters apart and baited with white proso millet. Traps were opened at dusk daily, checked for captures at mid-night and dawn, and closed for the day following each dawn check. Trapping at each grid was conducted for five consecutive nights. Captured animals were identified and released at the point of capture.

Capture data and weather variables were recorded on standardized data forms.

Weather variables were recorded with a handheld Kestrel anemometer. 1361
DBESP
22 4.4 Results/Impacts
No LAPM were detected during the focused survey. As a result, impacts to LAPM will not occur as a result of project implementation.

4.5 Mitigation and Equivalency
Because no LAPM were detected, no impacts will occur. For these reasons, mitigation and/or equivalency requirements relative to LAPM are not anticipated to be required for the project.

4.5.1 Direct Effects
Because no LAPM were detected, direct effects to them are not anticipated.

4.5.2 Indirect Effects
Because no LAPM were detected, indirect effects to them are not anticipated.

4.6 Amphibians
The project site is not within a MSHCP designated amphibian survey area.

4.6.1 Methods
Because the project site is not located within an MSHCP-designated survey area for amphibians, focused surveys for special status amphibians are not required for MSHCP compliance. For these reasons, focused surveys for special status amphibians were not conducted for the project.

4.6.2 Results/Impacts
Focused surveys for amphibians were not conducted for the project. Impacts to amphibian species with MSHCP designated survey areas are not anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

4.6.3 Mitigation and Equivalency

4.6.3.1 Direct Effects
No direct effects to amphibian species with MSHCP designated survey areas are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. 1362
DBESP
23 4.6.3.2 Indirect Effects
No indirect effects to amphibian species with MSHCP designated survey areas are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

4.7 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (MSHCP SECTION 9.3)
The project site is not within the range of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) and does not contain any mapped or observed Delhi fine sand soils. For these reasons, focused surveys for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and mitigation for this species are unwarranted.

4.7.1 Methods
Because the project site does not contain habitat suitable for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and is not within the known range of the species, focused surveys for this species are not required for MSHCP compliance. For these reasons, focused surveys for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly were not conducted for the project.

4.7.2 Results/Impacts
Focused surveys for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly were not conducted for the project, as there is no habitat for the species. Impacts to the Delhi Sands flowerloving fly are not anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

4.7.3 Mitigation and Equivalency

4.7.3.1 Direct Effects
No direct effects to the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.

4.7.3.2 Indirect Effects
No indirect effects to the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation.
1363
DBESP
24 5 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Investment Partners. 2022. Our Projects: Riverpark Mitigation Bank. Accessed online at: https://ecosystempartners.com/find-mitigation/ Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2024. High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associated with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, Environmental Programs Department (RCTLMA EPD). 2006a. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

March. Accessed online at:
https://www.rctlma.org/Portals/3/EPD/consultant/burrowing_owl_survey_instru ctions.pdf
RCTLMA EPD. 2006b. MSHCP 30-day Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey Report Format. August. Accessed online at:
https://rctlma.org/Portals/3/EPD/consultant/epd_30_day_buow_survey_report_r equirements.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. Web Soil Survey. Accessed online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. 31 May 2015.

United States Geological Survey. 1978. Beaumont, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps.

WSP Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (WSP). 2024a. Sun Lakes Boulevard Results of 2020-2021 Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Focused Surveys. May.

WSP. 2024b. Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey. June.

WSP. 2024c. Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey.

June.

WSP. 2024d. Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Focused Survey. June.

WSP. 2024e. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project. June. 1364
DBESP
25 WSP. 2024f Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters
WRCRCA. 2021a. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

Accessed online at: https://www.wrc-rca.org/document-library/ WRCRCA. 2021b. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan DBESP Template. Accessed at: https://www.wrc-rca.org/document-library/ Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA). 2021c. WRCRCA MSHCP Information Tool. Accessed from: https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/ WRCRCA. 2019a. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Template. Accessed at: https://www.wrcrca.org/document-library/ WRCRCA. 2019b. MSHCP_DBESP_Template_revised_04.11.19. Accessed at:
https://www.wrc-rca.org/document-library/
1365
DBESP
25 FIGURES AND SUPPORTING APPENDICES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity and Location
Figure 2. Project Location on USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3. Project Impacts
Figure 4. Riparian/Riverine Areas
Figure 5. Burrowing Owl Survey Area
WSP 2024a Wet and Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report WSP 2024b Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Report
WSP 2024c Burrowing Owl Survey Report
WSP 2024d Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report
WSP 2024e MSHCP Consistency Analysis
WSP 2024f Jurisdictional Delineation Report
NHC 2024 High Level Assessment of Potential Sediment Transport Impacts Associated with the Updated Sun Lakes Boulevard Improvement Project 1366
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/7/2024 0 1 2
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: World Street Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS World Topographic Map: UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity and Location
DBESP
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2 miles
1367
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/7/2024 Beaumon t
0 1,000 2,000
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: USA Topo Maps: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Beaumont
DBESP
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Project Alignment
1 inch =2,000 feet
1368
FIGURE 3
Project Impacts
DBESP
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 6/7/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar 1 inch =600 feet
Project Alignment
Permanent Impacts (19.39 Acres)
Temporary Impacts (9.06 Acres)
1369
FIGURE 4
Riverine/Riparian Areas
DBESP
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 6/7/2024 Lakes
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
&
&
Highland Wash
Pershing Creek
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar 1 inch =600 feet
& Flow Direction
Project Alignment
MSHCP Riverine
MSHCP Riparian
Existing Culvert
1370
FIGURE 5
Burrowing Owl Survey Area
DBESP
Sun Lakes Blvd. Realignment Project
Banning, CA
Path: \\corp.pbwan.net\glb-e&i\US\USSAN600-SDG2\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\SunLakesBlvd\ArcPro\SunLakesBlvd\SunLakesBlvd.aprx, USAJ716460 5/7/2024 !.
!.
!. !.
!.!.

Lakes !.
ry Club
S
Highland H
o
m
e
Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Smith
Creek
Smith
Creek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave
W Jeffers
Administration
0 300 600
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: County of San Bernardino, Maxar !.

Potential Burrowing Owl Burrow
Detections July-August 2020
Primary BUOW Habitat*
Project Alignment
1 inch =600 feet
* The majority of the project site contains
potential habitat for burrowing owls, but
at the time of the focused survey, these
areas represented the primary
burrowing owl habitat.
1371
1372
USGS 7.5′ Topographic Quadrangle: Beaumont, CA
Level of Investigation: Section 106; CEQA Phase I
Key Words: Riverside County; City of Banning; USACE; CEQA; Two previously documented resources (CA-RIV-7544 and 33-013778) Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the
Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project
in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California
Evan Mills, Jessica Cochrane, and Joan George
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
3550 East Florida Avenue, Suite H
Hemet, CA 92544-4937
Prepared For
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
April 2024
Revised
1373
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project involves the eastward extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard across Smith Creek from its current eastern termination point at the intersection of Westward Avenue and South Highland Home Road to the proposed eastern termination point of Westward Avenue at Sunset Avenue in the City of Banning, Riverside County, California (Project). Under contract to Albert A. Webb Associates, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) conducted a Phase I cultural resource investigation of the Area of Potential Effects (APE).

As a result of both federal and City permitting requirements, the Project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for Section 106 compliance and the City of Banning is the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. The APE was limited by the USACE to the 28.4-acre Project footprint in which direct effects may occur.

Ground disturbance may reach a maximum depth of 8 feet below the current grade within the APE.

The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether the Project would affect historic properties or historical resources in the APE eligible for nomination to or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), respectively. This report summarizes the methods and results of the Phase I cultural resource investigation of the APE. Æ’s assessment includes a records search and literature review, communication with Native American tribal representatives, and an archaeological survey of the APE.

The literature and records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System indicates 44 cultural resources are documented within the Study Area, which includes a 1-mile-wide buffer off each side of the APE. Two of these previously documented cultural resources are large and overlap with the APE and include remnants of water conveyance features (CA-RIV-7544) and homestead structural remains (33- 013778).

As part of the cultural resource investigation, Æ sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission for a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF). Results of the SLF search indicate no known Native American cultural resources within the APE. Æ contacted Native American individuals and organizations to elicit information on Native American resources within the APE. Of the 13 groups and/or individuals contacted, Æ received responses from representatives of four tribes—the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.

Æ Archaeologist Evan Mills, M.A., completed an intensive pedestrian surface survey of the approximately 13.7 acres on September 4, 2020. A supplemental survey of an additional 12 acres was conducted by Æ Archaeologist Pat Moloney on March 31, 2022. The APE was realigned and a supplemental survey of 10.6 acres was conducted by Æ Archaeologist Andrew DeLeon on 1374
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project iii April 3, 2024. Æ’s fieldwork visually confirmed that none of the structures or remnants associated with CA-RIV-7544 and 33-013778 are within the APE. NRHP and CRHR criteria for historical significance were used by previous investigators to evaluate these archaeological sites; both sites were recommended ineligible for listing. Æ concurs with the previous investigators’ eligibility recommendations and no further management of CA-RIV-7544 and 33-013778 is recommended. No additional cultural resources were encountered within the APE during Æ’s Phase I surveys.

The terrain throughout the entire APE has been disturbed by past ranching, while more recent disturbance consists of underground pipelines and road grading. During Æ’s field survey, ground visibility was poor throughout most of the APE due to overgrown vegetation. Although the mapped soils do not include buried A (Ab) horizons, they are Alfisols with well-developed A and B horizons. If intact within the APE, particularly at the creek crossings, these soils have a potential for buried archaeological deposits. Nevertheless, Æ concurs with previous investigators’ recommendations for assigning low archaeological sensitivity to the APE because of the known resource types present, the widespread evidence of prior surface and subsurface disturbance, and the lack of previously recorded prehistoric resources within a mile of the APE.

Therefore, intact and significant buried archaeological deposits are considered unlikely, and Æ recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the Project. Consequently, no further cultural resource management of the APE is recommended.

Field notes documenting the current investigation are on file at Æ’s Hemet office. A copy of this report also will be submitted to the EIC.
1375
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project ii

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.......................................................1

1.2 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS........................................................................4

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT...................................................................................4

1.3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations.....................................................................4

1.3.2 State Laws and Regulations.........................................................................5

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION...................................................................................6 2 SETTING............................................................................................................................7

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................7

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING ......................................................................................8

2.2.1 Early Archaic Period (ca. 9500–7000 B.P.).................................................9

2.2.2 Middle Archaic Period (ca. 7000–4000 B.P.)..............................................9

2.2.3 Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000–1500 B.P.) ................................................10

2.2.4 Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500–750 B.P.)............................................10

2.2.5 Protohistoric Period (ca. 410–180 B.P.) ....................................................10

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING...............................................................................10

2.3.1 Cahuilla ......................................................................................................11

2.3.2 Serrano .......................................................................................................13

2.3.3 Cupeño .......................................................................................................14

2.4 HISTORICAL SETTING ......................................................................................15

2.4.1 Spanish Exploration and Mission Period: 1769 to 1821............................15

2.4.2 Mexican Ranchos: 1821 to 1848................................................................16

2.4.3 American Exploration and Development...................................................17

2.4.4 City of Banning..........................................................................................19 3 SOURCES CONSULTED...............................................................................................22

3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCE LITERATURE AND RECORDS
SEARCH................................................................................................................22

3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE .................................................25

3.2.1 33-013778 ..................................................................................................25

3.2.2 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) .......................................................................25

3.3 HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW..............................................................................25 4 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................26 5 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS..........................28

5.1 2020 SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS ......................................................28

5.2 2022 SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS ......................30

5.3 2024 SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS ......................31 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................34 1376
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project iii 7 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................35

APPENDICES
A Confidential DPR Forms
B Native American Communication

FIGURES
1-1 Project vicinity in Riverside County, California................................................................. 2 1-2 Project location map ........................................................................................................... 3 5-1 Overview from the east side of the APE looking west. .................................................... 29 5-2 Overview from the west side of the APE looking east. .................................................... 29 5-3 Overview of Smith Creek showing Gas Pipelines (facing east). ...................................... 30 5-4 Overview of the APE from west side of drainage channel facing east............................. 31 5-5 Survey Coverage............................................................................................................... 32 5-6 Cultural Resources within the APE .................................................................................. 33 TABLES
3-1 Previous Cultural Resource Investigations in the Study Area .......................................... 22 3-2 Cultural Resources in the Study Area ............................................................................... 24 1377
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 1 1 INTRODUCTION
The Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project involves the eastward extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard across Smith Creek from its current eastern termination point at the intersection of Westward Avenue and South Highland Home Road to the proposed eastern termination point of Westward Avenue at Sunset Avenue in the City of Banning (City), Riverside County, California (Project). Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resource constraints analysis for the Project in October 2019. The analysis included a records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Albert A. Webb Associates subsequently retained Æ to conduct a Phase I cultural resource investigation of the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). The Project is within a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetland; therefore, a USACE permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is anticipated and compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) will be needed.

The USACE is the lead agency for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Because the Project also requires discretionary approval from the City, the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also pertain. The City is the lead agency for compliance with CEQA. Æ Managing Principal, Amy L. Ollendorf, Ph.D., M.S., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 12588), served as Æ’s principal investigator and was responsible for overall quality control, including report review and editing. Æ Senior Archaeologist Joan George, B.S., Registered Archaeologist (RA 28093) served as Æ’s project manager. Æ Archaeologists Evan Mills, M.A., (RPA 18026), Pat Moloney, B.A., and Andrew DeLeon M.A. (RPA 17087) conducted the fieldwork for the investigation.

For the purposes of this study, the Area of Potential Effects (NHPA terminology) encompasses the Project Area (CEQA terminology). Consequently, “APE” is utilized throughout the remainder of this report.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project is in the western portion of Riverside County near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains (Figure 1-1). The Project is within Sections 7 and 18, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as shown on the Beaumont, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1-2). Elevation ranges from approximately 2,430 and 2,500 feet above mean sea level (amsl), and the APE crosses Smith Creek in several locations.

Consistent with the City’s Circulation Element that was recently amended in January 2020 through General Plan Amendment (GPA) 19-2502, the Project will improve the existing Sun Lakes Boulevard, presently an unpaved road running in an east-west direction between the intersections of South Highland Home Road to the west and Sunset Avenue to the east. 1378
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project 2 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Riverside County, California.

PROJECT

VICINITY
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
0 20 40 60 80
Kilometers
Feet o 0 20 40 60 80
Miles
Scale: 1:2,000,000
15 101 210
805
405 710
110
215
5 40
105
8 15
395
10 605
10 5
SAN

BERNARDINO
COUNTY

KERN COUNTY

VENTURA
COUNTY

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY

IMPERIAL
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
Bakersfield
Arvin
Fillmore
Thousand
Oaks
Tehachapi
Lancaster
Malibu
Los Angeles
Long
Beach
Covina
Brea
Arcadia
Chino
Corona
Palmdale
Barstow
Adelanto
Riverside
Hesperia
San
Bernardino
Lucerne
Valley
Big Bear Lake
California
City
Kelso
Cadiz
Yucca Valley
Palm Springs
Santa Ana Hemet
Temecula
San Diego National City Chula Vista
Escondido
Encinitas
Del Mar
Borrego
Springs
Palm Desert Indio
Niland
El Centro
Calexico

PROJECT VICINITY
MEXICO
Pacific Ocean
1379
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Beaumont 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
o
Township 3 S./Range 1 E.,
Sections 7 and 18 ; SBB&M
Beaumont (1953, photorevised
1988), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle

PROJECT APE
1380
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 4 The proposed Project is approximately 1 mile long with a direct footprint width of approximately 200-feet and an additional 50 feet of temporary construction disturbance buffer around the footprint for a maximum disturbance width of approximately 300-feet wide. The Project encompasses approximately 20 acres of direct footprint and an additional approximately 9 acres of temporary construction disturbance area. Project staging and stockpiling will occur within the City’s rights-of-way (ROW).

Sun Lakes Boulevard will be constructed according to the City’s General Plan Typical Section for an Arterial Highway. Sun Lakes Boulevard will have two eastbound and two westbound lanes, a raised median, bike lanes, sidewalks, associated road striping, drainage, and street light improvements.

The existing Westward Avenue that is located in roughly the same location as the proposed Project, is a dirt road with two culverted concrete Arizona crossings, one at the confluence of Highland Wash and Smith Creek and another at Pershing Creek. The Project will cross over the three creeks through the construction of three multi-cell reinforced concrete boxes (RCB) (i.e., Proposed Lines J, I, and K).

1.2 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
The APE was defined by the USACE and investigated by Æ for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. According to 36 CFR § 800.16(d), the APE is the geographic area within which a federal undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations to the character or use of historic properties. The Project qualifies as a federal undertaking under 36 CFR § 800.16[y] because of the anticipated Section 404 permit anticipated from the USACE.

The APE is limited to the 28.4 acres in which direct effects may occur as a result of this Project (see Figure 1-2). Ground disturbance may reach a maximum depth of 8 feet below the current grade for the power poles and traffic stop signals within the APE.

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
As described above, construction of the Project requires a Section 404 permit from the USACE.

As a result of this permit requirement, the Project is a federal undertaking and is subject to the full authority of federal historic preservation laws and regulations, namely Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800).

Several state laws also guide actions that concern cultural resources. These include the CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 et seq.), Public Health and Safety Code, and PRC.

1.3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A historic property as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1) means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Undertakings include any federally funded, licensed, or permitted project (36 CFR 800.16[y]). 1381
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 5 In the context of a federally permitted undertaking, such as this Project, a historic property must meet one or more of the four NRHP criteria of historical significance; possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association (36 CFR 60.4); and, in general, it must be at least 50 years old and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 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 to prehistory or history.

If a cultural resource is at least 50 years old, meets one or more of these specific criteria of historical significance, and is considered a good representative of a significant historical theme or pattern, the historic property is eligible for nomination to the NRHP. A consultant’s role is to render a professional recommendation rather than an administrative determination of NRHP eligibility. In the case of this Project, the USACE in consultation with the SHPO and tribes will determine NRHP eligibility. If the SHPO, tribes, and USACE disagree about a resource’s NRHP eligibility, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or the Keeper of the NRHP may become involved in the eligibility determination process if requested.

1.3.2 State Laws and Regulations
Since the Project also requires discretionary City approval, the CEQA also is applicable. The CEQA Statute and Guidelines direct lead agencies to determine whether a project will have a significant impact on historical resources. Historical resources in CEQA terminology are analogous to historic properties in NHPA terminology. That is, a cultural resource shall be considered “historically significant” if it meets the requirements for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under any one of the following criteria (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], § 15064.5):

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. 1382
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 6 Compliance with CEQA’s cultural resource provisions typically involves several steps. Briefly, archival research and field surveys are conducted, and identified cultural resources are inventoried and evaluated in prescribed ways. Prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, as well as standing structures, buildings, and objects deemed historically significant and sufficiently intact (i.e., historical resources), must be considered in project planning and development.

A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR § 15064.5[b]). The lead agency is responsible for identifying potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource (14 CCR § 15064.5[b]4).

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documents the results of a cultural resource investigation of the Project. Chapter 1 has described the Project and its location, defined the scope of the cultural resource studies, defined the APE, and stated the regulatory context. Chapter 2 summarizes the natural and cultural setting of the Project and surrounding region. Chapter 3 presents the results of the archaeological literature review and records search. Chapter 4 summarizes the SLF search with the NAHC and Native American communications. The cultural resource survey methods and results are discussed in Chapter 5. Cultural resource management recommendations are provided in Chapter 6 and bibliographic references are cited in Chapter 7. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 recording forms are included in Appendix A. The results of the SLF search and correspondence with Native American groups are included in Appendix B. 1383
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 7 2 SETTING
This chapter describes the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical setting of the Project to provide a context for understanding the nature and significance of cultural resources identified throughout the region. Prehistorically, ethnographically, and historically, the nature and distribution of human activities in the region have been affected by such factors as topography and the availability of water and natural resources. Therefore, prior to a discussion of the cultural setting, the environmental setting of the area is summarized below.

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project is in western Riverside County and is situated largely on an interfluvial plain with Smith Creek crossings. Annual precipitation in the area ranges from 18 to 20 inches.

Surrounding sediments are composed of older Quaternary Alluvium deposits, derived as fan deposits from the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and possibly from the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. The Project lies within the South Coast Bioregion and is sparsely vegetated with scrub brush and grasses. A variety of reptiles, small mammals, birds, and insects coexist within the Project region.

The natural setting of the Project has been summarized by McLean et al. (2006). The Project is located in the San Gorgonio Pass (elevation 2,616 feet), which forms a natural break between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. It is an eastwest trending lowland between the two mountain ranges. The surface of the lowland is composed of alluvial fan deposits, mainly from the San Bernardino Mountains. The northern foothills are underlain by upper Cenozoic nonmarine and marine sedimentary deposits (Morton 1999).

The San Bernardino Mountains are in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province (Norris and Webb 1990:330). The Transverse Ranges are an east-west trending mountain range at the northeast end of the Los Angeles Basin. This range has some of the highest peaks south of the Sierra Nevada range (Norris and Webb 1990:330). The San Bernardino Mountains are about 65 miles long and 30 miles wide at their widest point. The San Jacinto Mountains are the northernmost of the Peninsular Ranges, which run 900 miles from Southern California to the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula. At an elevation of 10,834 feet, San Jacinto Peak is the highest peak in the range.

The majority of the APE (~ 82 percent) is mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as Ramona and Greenfield sandy loams (Soil Survey Staff 2020). Both soil series belong to the Alfisols order, which typically forms under a hardwood forest cover. Terrace escarpments and riverwash are also mapped along the creeks within the APE.
1384
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 8 The Ramona soil series formed in alluvium derived mostly from granitic and related rock sources on nearly level to moderately steep slopes of fans and terraces at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet.

The typical pedon includes a 23-inch-thick stratified A horizon consisting of brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam (Ap) underlain by brown (10YR 5/3) fine sandy loam (A12). The stratified B horizon consists of brown (7.5YR 5/4) loam (B1) underlain by reddish-brown (5YR 4/4) sandy clay loam (B21t), yellowish-red (5YR 5/6) sandy clay loams separated by gradual smooth boundaries (B22t, B23t, B3). Encountered at a depth of 68 inches, the strong brown fine sandy loam (7.5YR 5/6) C horizon extends to the base of the described pedon at 74 inches depth (Soil Survey Staff 2003). Intact Ramona soils within the APE, if any, particularly near the creek crossings, have a potential for buried archaeological deposits.

The Greenfield series consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse-textured alluvium derived from granitic and mixed rock sources on slopes of 0 to 30 percent on alluvial fans and terraces (Soil Survey Staff 2019). The official series description states the typical pedon consists of a pale brown (10YR 6/3) coarse sandy loam A1 horizon (8 to 30 inches thick) over a light yellowish-brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam B1 horizon (10 to 20 inches thick), which transitions through a gradual smooth boundary to a light yellowish-brown (10YR 6/4) fine sandy loam B2t horizon (10 to 20 inches thick) brownish-yellow (10YR 6/6) and yellow (10YR 7/6) stratified loamy sand, sandy loam, fine sandy loam C horizon (Soil Survey Staff 2019). Intact Greenfield soils, if any on alluvial fans and stream terraces within the APE, have high potential for buried archaeological sites.

The maximum depth of proposed disturbance (8 feet) will penetrate the typical pedons of all soils mapped in the APE. None of the mapped soil series has a buried A (Ab) horizon; however, buried cultural deposits are possible within intact Ramona and Greenfield soils, especially at the creek crossings. In contrast, the subareas within the APE mapped as terrace escarpments and riverwash have low sensitivity for intact and significant buried cultural deposits. Terrace escarpments are characterized by steep slopes inhospitable to long or repeated human land use or occupation, whereas riverwash was deposited in a high-energy depositional environment not conducive to long-term or repeated land use or preservation. The existing unpaved segment of Westward Avenue, and multiple buried pipelines within the APE as well as land use for ranching are all indicative of significant previous ground disturbance. Although the maximum depth of previous subsurface disturbance is unknown, the lack of known prehistoric resources within 1 mile of the APE have led other investigators to assign a low archaeological sensitivity to the APE.

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
The prehistory of inland Southern California is less thoroughly understood than in the adjacent desert and coastal regions. This is partially a result of historical circumstances, such as ease of access, the location of universities, and public versus private land ownership, and partly due to the nature of archaeological research in these interior valleys and mountains of Southern California (Goldberg and Arnold 1988). In the absence of absolute chronological indicators for inland sites, researchers generally employ typological cross-dating from either coastal or desert sequences, often as the sole means for assigning age to archaeological sites within the interior valleys, including the APE.
1385
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 9 Two large reservoir projects, Perris Reservoir (O’Connell et al. 1974) and Eastside Reservoir Project (ESRP) (Goldberg et al. 2001), generated large data sets to provide a basis for resolving some of these regional problems. It is difficult to extrapolate the geographic extent of the prehistoric cultural patterns discerned from excavations at these two reservoirs, which are 12 miles apart in central western Riverside County. The ESRP is 16 miles southeast of the Project, and it is almost certain that prehistoric patterns are similar to those discerned for the ESRP studies.

This discussion of the Project’s prehistoric cultural setting is drawn from the cultural sequence developed for the ESRP. This chronology was based first on artifact cross-dating, and then refined with radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dates (Horne and Onken 2001; Robinson 1998, 2001); however, the ESRP chronology draws heavily on a cultural sequence defined by Warren (1984) for Southern California, which is based largely on archaeological work conducted in the Colorado and Mojave deserts. Because Warren’s chronology used period names that suggest links to the Mojave, these were replaced in the ESRP chronology by value-neutral terms.

Because no sites dating to the Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000–9500 before present [B.P.]) have been documented within the region, the discussion below begins with the Early Archaic Period.

2.2.1 Early Archaic Period (ca. 9500–7000 B.P.)
The environmental transition from the Pleistocene to the Early Holocene (10,000 to 7500 B.P.) appears to have been gradual, with modern vegetation communities appearing to have been established in the region sometime after 8000 B.P. (Sutton 1996). During this period, the environment of the interior deserts was more favorable for human occupation than the cismontane valleys of Southern California, where the Project is located. Populations in the interior valleys would have been tethered to the few reliable, drought-resistant water sources such as Lake Elsinore, Mystic Lake, and possibly the Cajalco Basin. In general, small highly mobile groups traveled widely, utilizing highly portable tool kits to procure and process critical resources, with brief and anticipated intervals of seasonal sedentism near predictable water locations. Due to isolated locations where the conditions for occupation were met, Early Archaic sites are rare compared to later periods of prehistory (Goldberg et al. 2001; Grenda 1997; Horne and McDougall 2008; McDougall 1995).

2.2.2 Middle Archaic Period (ca. 7000–4000 B.P.)
A gradual transition from pluvial conditions to desert conditions during the Early Holocene marks the transition to the Middle Archaic Period. Middle Archaic sites in Southern California include two in the ESRP, one at Lake Elsinore, the Stahl Site in Owens Valley, desert sites in Death Valley, Salt Springs, and in Pinto Basin in Joshua Tree National Park. Middle Archaic sites are associated with the margins of pluvial lakes and with now-extinct springs. Pinto-series projectile points, a type of basally notched or bifurcate base dart point, are the most distinctive artifact type of this period (Justice 2002). Other artifacts found at Middle Archaic sites include leaf-shaped bifacial knives; split cobble choppers and scrapers; scraper-planes; and small milling slabs and manos. With a few exceptions in the ESRP area and the Stahl Site, most sites of this age are small surface deposits of lithic artifacts, suggestive of temporary and perhaps seasonal occupation by small groups of people.
1386
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 10

2.2.3 Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000–1500 B.P.)
In the Late Holocene (after 4000 B.P.), the climate was generally somewhat cooler and wetter than modern times, although a series of wet and dry episodes occurred, particularly within the last 2,000 years in at least the western portion of the Mojave Desert (Sutton 1996). This period of climatic variability includes a Neoglacial episode yielding more surface water in the Mojave (Sutton 1996). Sedentism likely increased during this period, with large occupation sites located adjacent to permanent water sources such as perennial springs and streams. Projectile points diagnostic of this period includes Humboldt, Gypsum, and Elko-series dart points (Warren 1984), though Rose Spring arrow points appeared late within this period in the deserts. The mortar and pestle, used for processing acorns and hard seeds, also first appeared. A warming and drying trend began around 2100 B.P., leading to intensification of use of certain resources (Goldberg et al. 2001).

2.2.4 Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500–750 B.P.)
Occupants of the region continued to adapt to the arid environment in the deserts (Warren 1984).

Lake Cahuilla likely refilled the Coachella Valley around 1450 B.P. and was the focus of exploitation of fish and wetland resources. Occupation around large local water sources declined as these dried, however, and people became tethered to springs (Goldberg et al. 2001). Cultural trends continued from the Late Archaic Period, as Saratoga Springs projectile points, also associated with early use of the bow and arrow, appeared. The sparse assemblages found within the region, however, obscure the timing of local adoption of the bow and arrow (Goldberg et al. 2001). Shoshonean language speakers likely moved into Southern California at this time.

Brownware and buffware pottery first appeared on the lower Colorado River at about 1200 B.P. and started to diffuse across the California deserts by about 1100 B.P. (Moratto 1984). The warmer and drier Medieval Warm Period set in throughout the Southwest by about 1060 B.P. (Stine 1994; Warren 1984) and led to the withdrawal of Native American populations from marginal desert areas.

2.2.5 Protohistoric Period (ca. 410–180 B.P.)
Sedentism intensified during the Protohistoric Period. Increased hunting with bow and arrow and widespread exploitation of acorns, other hard nuts, and berries (indicated by the abundance of mortars and pestles) provided reliable and storable food resources. Reliable food sources likely prompted the establishment of small, completely sedentary villages with resource catchment areas around them (True 1966, 1970). Ceramic technology first appeared in the region around 350 B.P. Cottonwood Triangular points were supplemented by Desert Side-notched points. This period ended in 1769 A.D. when Spanish settlement began in Upper California.

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Project lies immediately west and north of the Morongo Indian Reservation. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians are a mixture of several different groups of California Native Americans, including Cahuilla, Serrano, and Cupeño. The native languages spoken by these groups are all part of the larger Takic family of Uto-Aztecan languages. An ethnographic overview of each of these groups is provided below.
1387
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 11

2.3.1 Cahuilla
Ethnographically, the Project lies within the traditional territory of the Pass (or Wanakik) Cahuilla. A wealth of information exists regarding traditional and historic Cahuilla society and culture (Bean 1978; Bean and Toenjes 2011). The Cahuilla language, divided into Desert, Pass, and Mountain dialects, has been assigned to the Cupan subfamily of the Takic branch of the UtoAztecan linguistic family. Territory traditionally claimed by the Cahuilla was topographically complex, including mountain ranges, passes, canyons, valleys, and desert. Bean (1978:375) described it as, “…from the summit of the San Bernardino Mountains in the north to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains in the south, a portion of the Colorado Desert west of Orocopia Mountain to the east, and the San Jacinto Plain near Riverside and the eastern slopes of Palomar Mountain to the west.”
The Cahuilla in precontact times had nonpolitical, nonterritorial patrimoieties that governed marriage patterns, as well as patrilineal clans and lineages. The Cahuilla words for these moieties mean “Coyote” and “Wildcat.” The Cahuilla had “political-ritual-corporate units (clans) composed of 3 to 10 lineages, dialectically different, named, claiming a common genitor, with one lineage recognized as the founding one” (Bean 1978:580). Clans owned a large territory in which each lineage owned a village site with specific resource areas. Clan lineages cooperated in defense, in large communal subsistence activities, and in performing rituals. Founding lineages often owned the office of ceremonial leader, the ceremonial house, and a ceremonial bundle (Bean 1978:580). Settlements, occupied by one or more lineages, could be politically autonomous or allied with several villages under one chief. The hereditary chiefs had religious, economic, and military power and were role models for their people. They were aided in their duties by one or more assistants. The chiefs and their families, along with the very wealthy, were the elites of the society. The acquisition of wealth was important, but the acquisition of extreme material wealth was prevented by the custom of burning or burying the possessions of the deceased.

The Cahuilla were, for the most part, hunting, collecting, harvesting, and proto-agricultural peoples. Clans were apt to own land in valley, foothill, and mountain areas, providing them with the resources of many different ecological niches. Individual lineages or families owned specific resource areas within the clan territory. Although any given village had access to a wide array of necessary resources, briskly flourishing systems of trade and exchange gave them access to the resources of their neighboring villages and of distant peoples. Rules that forbade marriage to anyone related within five generations or belonging to the same moiety ensured that everyone had relatives living in many ecozones, an important arrangement because relatives were invited to ceremonies. The ceremonial exchange of gifts between hosts and guests under the direction of the chiefs and shamans at such events provided a way for drought-stricken groups to get food in exchange for treasure goods. Thus, oscillations in the subsistence goods supply were dampened by “banking” human effort in the production of treasure goods.

As in most of California, acorns were a major staple, but the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Fish, birds, insects, and large and small mammals were available. Mountain sheep, deer, and antelope were some of the large mammals hunted. When filled, Lake Cahuilla was on the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds; hence, ducks, geese, and 1388
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 12 other migratory birds would have been caught. Mountain lion, black bear, grizzly bear, deer, and wild boar also were hunted in prehistoric times.

To gather and prepare various food resources, the Cahuilla had an extensive inventory of equipment. Bows and arrows were the most important hunting tools, but traps, nets, disguises, blinds, throwing sticks, and slings were also part of the hunting technology. For fishing, nets, traps, spears, hooks and lines, and fish poisons were used. Gathering required few tools: poles for shaking down pine nuts and acorns, cactus pickers, chia hooks, seed beaters, digging sticks, weights for digging sticks, and pry bars. Materials associated with transportation mainly were used to move food and include burden baskets, carrying nets, game bags, and saddle pads. Some food was stored in large baskets. Pottery ollas and baskets treated with asphaltum were used to store and carry water and seeds. Wood, clay, and steatite were used to make jars, bowls, and trays. Skin and woven grass were used to make bags. Food processing required hammers and anvils for cracking nuts; mortars and pestles for grinding acorns; manos and metates for grinding seeds and berries; winnowing shells and baskets; strainers; leaching baskets and bowls; knives of stone, bone, wood, and carrizo cane; bone saws; and drying racks made of wooden poles to dry fish. Basket mortars, with asphaltum or pine pitch used to attach an open-bottomed basket to a mortar, were important for food processing. Food was served in wooden and gourd dishes and cups and in basket bowls that were sometimes tarred. Wood, shell, and horn were used for spoons.

Cahuilla shelters were often made of brush, fan palm fronds, or arrow weed. In prehistoric times they were dome-shaped; later they tended to be rectangular. Near such dwellings usually stood brush-covered ramadas under which domestic chores were done. Earth-covered sweathouses for purification and curing rituals and ceremonial houses with fenced areas for ceremonial use were found in most villages. The chief’s house was the largest and was usually next to the ceremonial house. Each village also had several granaries (Bean 1978:578).

The Cahuilla, like other California Indians, understand the universe in terms of power. They assume power to be the principal causative agent for all phenomena. Power is believed to be sentient and to have will. Unusual natural phenomena are viewed as especially sacred, being the repositories of concentrations of power. Mountaintops, and especially particular mountaintops, are held sacred, as are unusual rock formations, springs, and streams. Rock art sites are sacred, having been the sites of ceremonies. Burial and cremation sites are also sacred, as are many other places of residual power. Various birds, especially eagles, condors, hawks, and other birds of prey are revered as sacred beings of great power and sometimes were killed ritually and mourned in mortuary ceremonies similar to those for important individuals. For this reason, bird cremation sites are sacred.

As part of his doctoral research, Wilke (1976) examined Cahuilla oral tradition as it related to the prehistoric lakeside adaptation of Lake Cahuilla. Ethnographic sources indicate that during the 1853 Pacific Railroad Survey expedition, W. P. Blake, while encamped at a Cahuilla village about 10 miles south of the present City of Indio, inquired if the Indians had any knowledge of the lake that formerly stood in the Salton Basin. The head man of the village related to Blake a tradition of a great water which filled the basin and abounded in fish and waterfowl (Wilke 1976:7). The head man stated that his people’s ancestors then lived in the mountains (presumably the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west) and came down to the lake to fish and hunt. 1389
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 13 After a time, the water receded, and they moved their villages down from the mountains onto the exposed lakebed (Wilke 1976:8). Later, the Cahuillas told ethnographer Stephen Bowers that their ancestors had formerly caught fish in the lake with “stone fish traps” along the foot of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains (Wilke 1976:8). As well, Bowers was informed that when the lake receded, Coyote (a mythical character to many Native American groups) came down from the mountains and planted mesquite beans on the lakebed so that mesquite thickets would grow and help feed the people (Wilke 1976:9). These fragments of oral literature, coupled with archaeological data collected over the years, attest to the economically rich resource base that Lake Cahuilla offered to the local inhabitants of the region.

European contact with the Cahuilla was by the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition, which passed through the region in 1774. Initially, the Indians were hostile to the Europeans. Subsequently, the Europeans used sea routes to populate California because the land route had been closed by the Quechan Indians in 1781. The Cahuilla, therefore, had little direct contact with Europeans except for those baptized at missions in San Gabriel, San Luis Rey, and San Diego and, thus, integrated into the mission system. In 1819, several asistencias were established near the Cahuilla area; Cahuillas became partially involved with the Spanish and adopted some Spanish economic practices such as cattle raising, agriculture, trade, and wage labor, as well as cultural traits such as clothing styles, language, and religion. Some Cahuilla worked seasonally for the Spaniards and lived for the remainder of the year in their villages. At the time of the American invasion of California, the Cahuilla still maintained their political and economic autonomy.

2.3.2 Serrano
The Project lies within the ethnographic territory of the Serrano. The name Serrano comes from a Spanish word meaning “mountaineer” or “highlander.” The Serrano language is considered part of the Takic subfamily of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family that includes a number of language groups. Other Takic speakers include the Gabrielino, Luiseño, and Cahuilla, whose territories share borders with the Serrano. The Serrano culture area extends from the San Bernardino Mountains, south to Yucaipa Valley, east to the Mojave River watershed, and north to the Twentynine Palms region (Bean and Smith 1978b:570). Most Serrano village sites were located in the foothills of the upper Sonoran zone with a few outliers located near permanent water sources on the desert floor, or in the forest transition zone.

Traditional Serrano territory includes areas occupied by three clan groups—the Kitanemuk, Allikik, and the Vanyume. The Kitanemuk were located on the upper Tejon and Paso creeks near the Tehachapis and extended into the western portion of the Mojave Desert. The Allikik were located on the upper Santa Clara River and the Vanyume were located along the Mojave River (Johnson 1965). These politically independent clan groups also belonged to one of two basic subdivisions or exogamous moieties, the Coyotes and Wildcats. The clans were divided into land holding lineages. Each of these lineages had a chief determined by heredity called the kika. The chief’s assistant was the paha, who assisted him in ceremonial, political and economic affairs (Bean and Smith 1978b:572).

The Serrano traded with the Mojave to the east and the Gabrielino to the west. They also traded with their close neighbors, the Cahuilla and Chemehuevi. Obsidian source analysis has shown that traders traveled from the California coast to Arizona, probably reaching Nevada, and areas 1390
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 14 north of the Mojave Desert. Family members usually exchanged goods at trade feasts, social events, and ceremonial occasions (Bean and Vane 2002:14).

Prior to European contact, the Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Women were responsible for most of the gathering and acorns, piñon nuts, and mesquite beans were collected as staple foods. Other resources included roots, bulbs, shoots, and seeds. Digging sticks were frequently used to dig for plants and roots for subsistence and medicinal purposes (Johnson 1965:8). One main seed resource was chia. Stands of chia were periodically burned in order to increase yield. Desert groups moved seasonally from the desert into the foothills to collect nuts and trade for resources that were not available in the desert (Bean and Smith 1978b:570; Bean and Vane 2002:13). The Serrano also hunted large game animals such as deer, mountain sheep, and antelope. Hunting was usually done by men using bows and arrows, although smaller game like rabbits, rodents, and various birds, were hunted with throwing sticks, nets, and snares.

When the Spanish arrived in 1769, Serrano population levels were fairly high. By 1790, the westernmost Serrano groups began to enter Mission San Gabriel. After an attempted revolt in 1810, most of the San Bernardino Mountains and the western Mojave Desert Native groups were brought into the mission. The Serrano in the easternmost desert, beyond the San Bernardino Mountains and Little San Bernardino Mountains, were beyond the reach of the mission, and absorbed a number of those who fled the missions (Bean and Vane 2002:18). It has been suggested that the Serrano left the area in the early 1860s when a smallpox epidemic struck the Indians of Southern California, although the isolation of the area should have protected them.

The Maringa were the most important Serrano clan, and they occupied a large area in the Morongo Valley. The Maringa exerted a powerful ceremonial influence in the region (Johnson 1965:4). The Maringa were presumably living in the Mission Creek area before the 1870s.

According to Cahuilla traditions, the Maringa replaced the Cahuilla who had been living there.

Members of the Maringa clan intermarried with the Gabriel family (the ceremonial leader of the Wanikik Cahuilla), and had moved to the Potrero, or Malki, by the 1870s. John Morongo, a leader of the group, played a leading role in the affairs of the newly established Morongo Indian Reservation. It is believed that the Serrano left the Mara (Twentynine Palms) area because of pressure from settlers and miners. Many Serrano settled in Mission Creek and Potrero on what is now the Morongo Indian Reservation. These areas were relatively richer in plant and animal resources than areas farther east in the desert. They were also closer to job opportunities with Anglo employers (Bean and Vane 2002:18).

2.3.3 Cupeño
The Cupeño are considered one of the smallest linguistic groups in Southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a). The traditional territory of the Cupeño is located near the headwaters of the San Luis Rey River in northern San Diego County. Today, there are several Native American groups (Pala Band of Luiseño Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians) that include Cupeño members. As discussed by Bean and Smith (1978b:588), Cupeño social organization reflects an amalgamation of several different groups that dates back at least 800 years. Cahuilla elements of social organization found among the Cupeño include exogamous moieties, patrilineal clans, and ceremonial exchange 1391
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 15 parties. The Cupeño also practice some Chingichngish religious rituals that were acquired from the Luiseño, with additional ceremonies adopted from the Ipai.

Ethnographic information on the Cupeño indicates that clans owned the most productive foodgathering spots with communal ownership of intervening areas for hunting and gathering. The head of each clan lived in the clan’s ceremonial dance house and was responsible for keeping the clan bundle. A hereditary office that usually passed from father to eldest son, the duties of the clan leader included controlling trade with non-Cupeño groups, overseeing the production and distribution of goods, regulating intra- and interclan relationships, and organizing ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978a:588-589). Clan leaders could also be shamans.

In terms of ritual, the most significant ceremonies for the Cupeño were those held in connection with deaths in the clan. Immediately following the death of an individual, the body was burned.

This was followed by the burning of the deceased’s possession a few weeks to several months later. An annual or biannual image-burning ceremony was held at a later point in which images of all those who had died since the last ceremony were burned (Bean and Smith 1978a:589).

Another ceremony held in memory of the dead was the eagle-killing ritual, which was held once a year.

2.4 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 landscape. Context is the basis for the identification of the historic site types constructed, and the evaluation of their significance as historical resources. Today, as it was in the past, the City of Banning, located in the San Gorgonio Pass, is important in Southern California for its geographical position as an important travel corridor and resource procurement area including still-open land. The following historic contexts for the Spanish, Mexican, and early American occupations of the region were developed by Æ and is taken primarily from George and Chasteen (2017).

2.4.1 Spanish Exploration and Mission Period: 1769 to 1821 Exploration of the California coastline by ship during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the basis for the Spanish claim to most of Alta and Baja California at that time. While a number of explorers and their men came ashore periodically, they did not venture a great distance inland. In the eighteenth century, Spain recognized that to strengthen its claim to the region, it would have to establish settlements along the northern coastline of Alta California to preclude encroachment by the Russian and British fur traders entering the region from the north.

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 with the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769. They proceeded to establish a military presidio at Monte Rey (present-day Monterey) in Northern California in 1770, their fourth mission at San Gabriel in 1771, and a fifth mission at San Luis Obispo by 1772. However, providing supplies, animals, and colonists to the Spanish missions and presidios by way of ship was difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Thus, an overland route was necessary to initiate a strong colonizing effort in Alta California. 1392
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 16 In 1774, Captain Juan Bautista de Anza crossed the San Jacinto plains with a small party of soldiers and servants. Anza’s expeditionary force crossed the Cahuilla Valley, skirted the Santa Rosa Mountains, made their way up through Coyote Canyon, descended into the San Jacinto Valley via Bautista Creek, and trekked northwest across the San Jacinto Valley into Moreno Valley. From there, the expedition passed through the Riverside area and crossed the Santa Ana River near present-day Jurupa, then continued northwest to reach the mission at San Gabriel.

Riverside County lacked a mission proper but remained connected to the California presidio and mission system through Franciscan outposts known as ranchos and asistencias. The Riverside area was considered to be a part of the San Diego District, a military designation associated with the San Diego presidio; most of the territory fell under the authority of the Mission San Luis Rey. Founded in 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was the eighteenth of California’s 21 missions.

During much of the Spanish Exploration and Mission Period, European settlement in Riverside County was slow and sporadic. By the end of the Spanish Exploration and Mission Period, few Europeans had settled permanently within the region. The cattle grazing lands associated with Mission San Luis Rey encompassed most of the San Jacinto Valley. The broad grasslands of these areas were used to graze the Mission’s livestock.

The San Timoteo Canyon and San Gorgonio Pass were once under the jurisdiction of the Mission San Gabriel’s San Bernardino Rancho (Gunther 1984:458, 487-488). The Canyon and Pass areas provided fresh water and grassland ideal for cattle grazing. An outpost, or estancia, for cattle grazing activities was established near the mouth of San Timoteo Canyon in 1819.

Native American labor was used to dig an irrigation ditch, or zanja, to divert water from Mill Creek to the outpost to support farming and horticulture. The majordomo, Juan Alvarado, relocated the estancia to a new site approximately one mile to the east in 1830, where he constructed a 14-room complex of adobe and timber.

2.4.2 Mexican Ranchos: 1821 to 1848
In 1821, after 10 years of intermittent rebellion and warfare, Mexico and the territory of California won independence from Spain. On December 15 of that same year, the Mexican Cortes (the legislative body of the Mexican government) ended the older regime’s strict isolationist policies that were designed to protect the traditional Spanish monopoly on trade and decreed that California ports (namely San Diego and Monterey) be open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955:14).

Following the Secularization Act of 1833, which called for the immediate privatization of Franciscan lands, the Mexican government secularized all of the California missions. During the two-year period of 1834 to 1836, this radical process quickly and effectively reduced the missions to parish churches. Although the original secularization schemes called for redistribution of mission lands to those Native Americans who were responsible for the physical construction of the mission empire, the vast mission land and livestock holdings were redistributed by the Mexican government into several hundred land grants privately owned by Mexican citizens (Langum 1987:15-18). These landowners subsequently released their Native American “workers” to fend for themselves. The Mexican Ranchos spread and characterized the landscape between 1834 and1848. Livestock and horticulture dominated the economics of 1393
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 17 Southern California. Ranchos were predominantly devoted to the cattle industry and these vast tracts of land were used for grazing.

Banning was never part of any Mexican Rancho; the nearest occurrence of these Rancho lands was at nearby San Timoteo Canyon and in the San Jacinto Valley. The vast grazing lands of the Mission San Luis Rey, comprising over 133,000 acres covering the San Jacinto Valley and beyond, were divided among members of the Estudillo family into three Mexican Ranchos:

Rancho San Jacinto Viejo was granted to José Antonio Estudillo in 1842; Rancho San Jacinto Sobrante to his daughter, María del Rosario Estudillo, in 1846; and Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero to his son-in-law, Miguel Pedrorena, in 1846 (Robinson 1997:143-161).

Jose del Carmen Lugo, Jose Maria Lugo, Vincente Lugo, and Diego Sepulveda were granted title to the Mission San Gabriel’s San Bernardino Rancho by the Mexican Governor of California in 1842. Jose del Carmen Lugo repaired the abandoned estancia near Redlands, which included the adobe and timber residence, a grist mill, a tile kiln, and a lime kiln, and resided there until 1851 (San Bernardino County Museum 2014). James “Santiago” Johnson, an Englishman, requested and received the grant of the lands in San Timoteo Canyon from Mexican Governor Manuel Micheltorena in 1843 (Gunther 1984:488). The 4,440-acre area was known as the Rancho San Timoteo or “Rancho San Jacinto y San Gorgonio.” Johnson sold the land two years later to Louis Rubidoux, although local cattle ranchers Isaac “Julian” Williams and Powell “Paulino” Weaver argued to Governor Pio Pico in 1845 that Johnson was not making proper use of the land, never occupying it, and never improving it (Gunther 1984:459).

2.4.3 American Exploration and Development
With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which ended the MexicanAmerican War, California experienced an intrusion of American fur trappers and settlers. In 1850, California became a state. During the late 1840–1860s, there began a gradual decline of old California’s cattle ranching industry, which for over half a century represented the currency and staple of the rancho system. The ranchos changed ownership regularly. Through the years, settlement continued to develop across the inland valleys of what would eventually become western Riverside County. With the influx of new settlers and decline of the cattle industry, some of the larger ranchos were subsequently subdivided into smaller parcels. In 1852, San Diego organized into a county; in 1853, San Bernardino followed suit. Riverside County would be formed in 1893, carved out of portions of San Bernardino and San Diego counties.

The completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s transcontinental railroad in 1869 opened California to agricultural settlement and brought the previous era of large-scale ranching to a close. The arrival of the Southern Pacific across the San Gorgonio Pass and into the San Bernardino Valley resulted in a dramatic influx of new settlers into what is now western Riverside County. The Riverside Colony was founded in 1870, and agricultural lands in the region quickly began to be settled by homesteaders. The Riverside Land and Irrigating Company soon established a series of canal systems, tapping water from the Santa Ana River. With a much-needed, reliable water supply, the settlers could focus on irrigation and agriculture.

Perhaps one of the most influential early settlers in western Riverside County during this period was Eliza Tibbets who planted the first two navel orange trees, acquired from Brazil, in the Riverside Colony. Mrs. Tibbets’ oranges flourished and provided the bud grafts for the 1394
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 18 Washington Navel Orange, setting the foundation for western Riverside County’s highly successful citrus industry.

During the 1880s and 1890s, similar to the phenomena occurring in the area surrounding the Riverside Colony, irrigation canals were built, and the regional citrus industry took root in the fertile valleys of the surrounding region. The arrival of reliable water sources coincided with the arrival of a second transcontinental railroad; in 1882, construction of a competing rail line into Southern California was underway, financed by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company. The line of a Santa Fe subsidiary, the California Southern, was built from San Diego to the site of Perris and on to Riverside and San Bernardino in 1882. A second Santa Fe subsidiary, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, extended a line west from Albuquerque, then connected San Bernardino and Los Angeles; this connection was opened as of May 1887. The eastern United States was now readily accessible via Los Angeles. The establishment of a second competing railroad line from the Midwest to Los Angeles in 1886 triggered a land boom in Southern California during the late 1880s, which finally brought substantial settlement to the region.

Population rose dramatically as railroads, citriculture, ranching, and readily available land enticed more Americans and Europeans to settle in Southern California. By the late 1880s and early 1890s, conflicts and discontent between the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino led to the establishment of a new county. Portions of the Temecula and San Jacinto valleys, then in San Diego County, joined with the residents of Riverside to form a new county seat in May 1893, leading to the formation of Riverside County (Greenwood et al. 1993:34).

During the years from about 1908 through American entry into World War I in 1917, there was renewed interest in farm settlement and farming in California and elsewhere in the western U.S.

This was reflected in a sharp surge in Homestead filings on remaining public lands in rural California at that time. There was an increase in the turnover of property during that time, including the purchase of farms by individuals making a move from the city to the country. Two factors that helped contribute to this kind of move were the increased use of the automobile, which decreased the isolation of rural living, and the brighter financial prospects for farming during the World War I years. The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 drove international commodity prices sharply upward, providing a bonanza for grain farmers.

The decade of the 1920s offered regional urban growth in Southern California that was helpful to many farmers in the region. However, it also brought sustained national declines in the prices of many agricultural commodities due to major increases in agricultural production in the U.S. and elsewhere. Turnover in land ownership during the 1930s and the eventual recovery of agricultural prices by the eve of World War II was followed by the disruptions of the exodus of younger people into military service or leaving to work in urban areas. Water from the Colorado River Aqueduct was piped to the region beginning in the early 1940s. Alfalfa, potatoes, watermelons, and sugar beets soon after became the mainstay of farming in many parts of the region.

The post-World War II era ushered in a boom in commercial, industrial, and residential development in and near the region’s urban centers, followed by the construction of several freeways linking urban areas to one another. As urban areas were spread outward by 1395
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 19 development, once-rural areas took on a more semi-rural character, dotted by small “mini-ranch” subdivisions. In more recent years, housing and urban development have spread outward from urban areas and swallowed up former agricultural land at an exponential rate, forever changing the character of the region. Substantial growth over the last few decades has necessitated the construction of numerous artificial lakes, reservoirs, and other forms of municipal water storage.

During the first decade of 2000, inexpensive land and housing transformed many of the towns in southwestern Riverside County into “bedroom” communities for those working in Los Angeles and San Diego counties. Increased population and automobile traffic has resulted in the need for construction of new roads, as well as expansion and improved safety of many of the pre-existing roads throughout the region. The over-expansion of the housing market, and ultimate crash in 2007, led to a shift in the region’s development trend in recent years to increase infrastructure projects to support the population growth.

2.4.4 City of Banning
Banning is located in the San Gorgonio Pass, the principal opening between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south that allows east-west travel between the coast and desert regions. As such, it was the route of early trails and stage roads, as well as the Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10 (I-10).

The Land Office survey map from 1855 depicts no settlement in the area, but a wagon road is shown traversing Sections 9 and 10 and joins an “Old Indian Trail” in the southwest corner of Section 12, just north of what is now Smith Creek. One habitation, labeled as Holt’s House, was located to the northwest of the area where Banning would later be located (General Land Office [GLO] 1880).

In the 1870s, the construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad through the San Gorgonio Pass drew further settlement to the area. In 1875, Milton Sanders Hall contracted with the Southern Pacific to grade the railroad route through the San Gorgonio Pass. In the same year, he agreed to provide the wood needed for the railroad ties, and also to power the steam engines used by the construction crews. Timber was available in the San Jacinto Mountains. Hall found a location for a lumber camp (Hall’s Camp) near what is now called Hurley Flats. He laid out a road from the camp to the base of the mountain, which became Hall’s Grade. It was a steep, narrow road with several switchbacks. A small town, Hall’s City, was established at the base of the road. The lumber operation was initially successful, but the road was extremely dangerous for the men and teams hauling the logs down the mountain:

Several teamsters hauled lumber down the grade to the railroad. This was rather a daredevil job, for besides the regular brakes and roughlocks they had to tie logs and trees on behind loads to drag in the dirt and thus keep the loads off the rumps of the horses.

Yet even then there were accidents. At least two men lost their lives on the downward trip, and several teams and wagons were dashed to destruction [Hughes, in (Lech 2004:252)].

Ultimately the operation failed. The costs to harvest and transport the timber were too high for any profits to be made. Hall then began a second venture, the San Gorgonio Fluming Company, to bring lumber to the railroad from Moore Canyon, approximately 12 miles north of the railroad 1396
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 20 grade. A “massive, eighteen-inch V-shaped flume” was constructed to bring the lumber to the railroad (Lech 2004:253).

Banning, originally Moore City, was founded in early 1877, near the “confluence” of the railroad and the flume (Lech 2004:254). By July of the same year, the name was changed to Banning.

The 1886 Land Office map clearly shows Banning located north of the Southern Pacific Railroad, as a town of about four blocks east-west and three blocks north-south. The Banning Land and Water Company flume is depicted traveling north from town along what is now San Gorgonio Avenue. Grain fields and isolated cabins and houses are depicted around Banning, particularly southwest of town. The Bradshaw Stage Route, which was located north of Banning, is no longer shown on the map (GLO 1886). The first commercial grain crop was barley; subsequently both oats and wheat were also successful cash crops (Hughes 1938:205). At the same time that farmers and ranchers settled in Banning, it also became known as a health resort.

In 1888, the town was described as “unsurpassed” as a resort, with water “as pure as ever flowed from Nature’s fountain” (quoted in Lech 2004:259). In 1890, the Sisters of St. Joseph founded the St. Boniface Indian School near Banning (Deferrari 1942:541).

Incorporated in 1913, Banning was similar to many other small towns throughout Southern California and the country, proud of every achievement, eager for further growth and development in a positive way, and full of hope for the future. Banning continued to grow both as an agricultural area and as a resort. In the 1920s, Banning’s population was around 3,000 (Banning Chamber of Commerce 1927). In that decade, almond trees, at the peak of their success in California, were grown on approximately 1,000 acres in and around Banning; the area was considered the largest almond-growing region in Southern California (Holtzclaw 2005:25, 41).

At the same time, Banning had maintained its reputation as a “health haven…as attested by the sanitariums and private rest homes in and near the city” (Hughes 1938:205).

In 1931, the news of the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) was well received in Banning. In anticipation of the economic boost the city would receive, “Banning staged a victory jubilee in celebration of the voting of bonds for aqueduct construction” (Hughes 1938:59). The MWD field headquarters were located at the intersection of San Gorgonio Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad. Construction work for MWD headquarters began in 1932.

Through the years of the Great Depression, Banning was home to the MWD engineer’s field office. In addition, the concrete testing laboratory was located in Banning. Boring the San Jacinto Tunnel began in 1933 and continued until the “holing through” on November 18, 1938.

The tunnel was then lined with concrete; on October 14, 1939, a ceremony marking the official completion of the aqueduct was held at the West Portal of the San Jacinto Tunnel (Gruen 1998).

During these seven years, the headquarters provided a boost to the local economy, as did the construction workers who lived in the town and commuted to work.

At the beginning of World War II, General George C. Patton established the Desert Training Center in the Mojave Desert in eastern Riverside and San Bernardino counties. In Banning, a 1,000-bed hospital, aid station, and artillery range contributed to the training effort. During the war, 1.6 million people moved to California to work in war industries, and many of the servicemen trained in the state settled in Banning after the war was over (Starr 2005:237). By 1397
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 21 1962, California had the highest population of any state. The region experienced a boom in housing subdivisions, commerce, and industry. The City of Banning, positioned along the Southern Pacific Railroad and U.S. Highway 60/70/99, grew substantially during the post-war boom period (USGS 1956). Banning also appealed to the elderly and became known as a retirement community during the 1960s. Sun Lakes Country Club, a large retirement village, is home to about 6,000 residents (Holtzclaw 2005:8).

Banning’s growth continues to rise into the present day due to investments in capital improvements projects which include over 4,000 new housing units (City of Banning 2019).

Currently, the City of Banning is home to an estimated population of 31,253 according to the United States Census Bureau (2018).
1398
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 22 3 SOURCES CONSULTED
The following section detail the sources consulted during the pre-field research portion of the Project. These include a cultural resource literature and records search and historical map review of the APE.

3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCE LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH
As part of the cultural resource constraints analysis for the Project, Æ conducted an archaeological literature and records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), housed at the University of California, Riverside on September 16, 2019. The objective of this records search was to determine whether any prehistoric or historical cultural resources have been recorded previously within an area encompassing a 1-mile-wide radius of the APE (Study Area). The records search indicated 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted previously within the Study Area (Table 3-1). Four of these studies specifically involved portions of the APE. As a result, 100 percent of the APE has been previously studied. In addition, one of the previous investigations (Table 3-1; RI-08449) conducted a sensitivity assessment for archaeological resources, which concluded the Project is within an area of low archaeological sensitivity (Tang et al. 2004).

Table 3-1
Previous Cultural Resource Investigations in the Study Area Author(s) Date
EIC
Reference # Title
Greenwood, Roberta S. 1975 RI-00161 Paleontological, Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources, West Coast-Midwest Pipeline Project, Long Beach to Colorado River
Chace, Paul G. and Don
Laylander
1980 RI-00816 An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Areas 1 and 4 of Amendment Number 1 to the Banning Downtown Redevelopment Project
Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
1986 RI-01432 Archaeological Report on Grading Monitoring Activities at Stewart Ranch, Riverside County, California
Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
1985 RI-01433 An Historical Study of Stewart Ranch in Riverside County, California
Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
1981 RI-01434 Cultural Resources Report on 900 Acres Parcel (Portion of the Old Stewart Ranch) Located in the Banning/ Beaumont Area, Riverside County, California
Apple, Rebecca
McCorkle, and Jan E.

Wooley
1988 RI-02350 MCI Rialto to El Paso Fiber Optics Project - Intensive Cultural Resource Survey - San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California
White, Robert S. 1990 RI-03039 An Archaeological Assessment of the “Sunset Crossing” Project, A 294.8 Acre Parcel as Shown on TPM 25541, Located Immediately South of the I-10 Freeway at Sunset Avenue in Banning, Riverside County, California.
1399
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 23 Table 3-1
Previous Cultural Resource Investigations in the Study Area Author(s) Date
EIC
Reference # Title
Michael Brandman
Associates
2004 RI-04720* Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Historic Site Significance Evaluations for the Sunset Crossing Project Footprint, South Banning Area, County of Riverside, California
Tang, Bai “Tom,” Josh
Smallwood, and
Melissa Hernandez
2007 RI-07339* Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Recycled Water System, City of Banning, Riverside, California
McLean, Roderic,
Shannon Carmack, Jay
Michalsky, and Judith
Marvin
2006 RI-07970* A Study of the Past in San Timoteo Canyon and San Gorgonio Pass: Cultural Resource Assessment Oak Valley Substation Project, Riverside County
McLean, Robert,
Shannon Carmack, Jay
Michalsky, and Judith
Marvin
2008 RI-08011 Final Cultural Resources Assessment, Study of the Past in San Timoteo Canyon and San Gorgonio Pass: Oak Valley Substation Project Riverside County
McLean, Roderic,
Shannon Carmack, Phil
Fulton, Maria Aron, Jay
Michalsky, Daniel
Ewers, Casey Tibbet,
and Brook Smith
2008 RI-08012 Supplemental Cultural Resource Assessment, Oak Valley Substation Project, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Bonner, Wayne H., and
Arabesque Said
2009 RI-08315 Letter Report: Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate IE04452A, 2909 West
Lincoln Street, Banning, Riverside County, California
Tang, Bai “Tom,”
Michael Hogan, Josh
Smallwood, and Terri
Jacquemain
2004 RI-08449* Cultural Resources Technical Report: City of Banning General Plan Brunzell, David 2013 RI-09540 Cultural Resources Assessment Rancho San Gorgonio Planned Community Project City of Banning, Riverside County, Riverside County, California
McKenna, Jeanette A. 2018 RI-10478 A Phase I CEQA/Class III NEPA (NHPA Section 106) Investigation for the 6th/Maple Septic Conversion Project in the City of Beaumont, Riverside Co., California
*Investigations that involved portions of the APE
These studies resulted in the identification of a total of 44 cultural resources within the Study Area (Table 3-2). Eight of the resources are archaeological and 36 are built-environment resources. The archaeological resources all date to the historic period—one isolated concrete chute remnant, three water-conveyance systems, two refuse scatters, foundations, and a segment of the old Banning Trade Route/6th Street. The 36 built-environment resources include historical houses, commercial buildings, and a segment of the Union Pacific Railroad. Portions of two of these resources are documented within the APE. These resources are briefly described below and in more detail in Appendix A.
1400
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 24 Table 3-2
Cultural Resources in the Study Area
Primary Trinomial Description
Historic Archaeological Sites
33-013779* CA-RIV-7544 Water-control system
33-014366 CA-RIV-7815 Water-diversion system
33-014367 CA-RIV-7816 Foundations and structural pads
33-014368 CA-RIV-7817 Refuse scatter
33-025805 Refuse scatter
33-025806 Remnants of a water-conveyance system
33-028614 Segment of old Banning Trade Route/6th Street Isolated Historic Finds
33-025808 Remnants of a concrete chute
Built-Environment Resources
33-009100 1933 Log house
33-009176 1920 Craftsman bungalow (this resource is within 33-13778) 33-009498 CA-RIV-6381 Union Pacific Railroad
33-013778* Ranch house and barn complex
33-015818 California Ranch style house
33-015819 California Ranch style house
33-015820 1920 Craftsman bungalow
33-015821 California Ranch style house
33-015822 California Ranch style house
33-015823 California Ranch style house
33-015825 California Ranch style house
33-015826 California Ranch style house
33-015827 California Ranch style house
33-015828 California Ranch style house
33-015829 California Ranch style house
33-015830 California Ranch style house
33-015831 California Ranch style house
33-015833 Minimal Traditional duplex family property
33-015835 California Ranch style house
33-015837 California Ranch style house
33-015838 California Ranch style house
33-015839 Vernacular style commercial building
33-015840 Vernacular style house
33-015841 California Ranch style house
33-015842 California Ranch style house
33-017729 Vernacular style single house
33-017735 Vernacular style single house
33-017736 1950s Single family property
33-017737 Vernacular style farm property
1401
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 25 Table 3-2
Cultural Resources in the Study Area
Primary Trinomial Description
33-017738 1960s L-shaped commercial building
33-017739 1950s commercial building
33-017742 1950s cinder block commercial building
33-017743 1950s commercial building complex
33-017744 1960s commercial building complex
33-017745 1960s commercial building complex
33-017748 Late 1950s commercial building complex
* Cultural resources within the APE.

3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE

3.2.1 33-013778
Site 33-013778 is a large farm/ranch complex, which included five foundations, two Craftsman structures and a barn at the time of the last professional site visit in 2004. As documented by Michael Brandman Associates (Taniguchi and Dice 2004), the five foundations are located on the west side of 33-013778 within the APE. The Craftsman structures and the barn are located on the east side of the site and outside of the APE. Only the west half of this site has been evaluated formally for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP. The portion of the site within the APE was recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR (Taniguchi and Dice 2004).

3.2.2 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544)
Site 33-013779 (CA-RIV-7544) is a large historic water-control complex consisting of 39 features. Some of these features are mapped within the APE. Also documented and evaluated by Michael Brandman Associates, this site was recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR (Messick and Dice 2004).

3.3 HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW
In addition to the EIC research, Æ also consulted the 1901 San Jacinto 30-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map, the 1943 and 1956 Banning 15-minute USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and the 1953 Beaumont 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map to assess historical land uses in the Study Area. The 1953 Beaumont 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map exhibits two houses and outbuildings outside and to the south of the APE, on the corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue. The same structures are also on the 1956 Banning 15-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map. No structures, roads, or other features of historical interest are shown within, or in the vicinity of, the APE on any of the reviewed historical maps.
1402
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 26 4 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS
Æ contacted the NAHC on September 13, 2019 for a review of the SLF to determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religious or sacred activity) are present within or adjacent to the APE. The NAHC responded on September 24, 2019, stating the SLF search was completed with negative results. The NAHC requested Æ contact Native American individuals and organizations to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the Project, if any.

Upon review of the Native American contact list and after removing redundancies, Æ narrowed the list to 13 individuals and organizations traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area where the Project is located. Æ sent a letter via electronic mail on September 7, 2020 describing the Project and asking these individuals and organizations for their input. Copies of the letters, the list of contacts, and received responses are included in Appendix B. Æ sent follow-up email correspondence on September 30, 2020 to the organizations who had not responded to the initial request on September 7, 2020.

Individuals/organizations contacted include:
• Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Amanda Vance, Chairperson of the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians • Doug Welmas, Chairperson of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians • Daniel Salgado, Chairperson of the Cahuilla Band of Indians • Shane Chapparosa, Chairperson of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
• Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Donna Yocum, Chairperson of the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians • Joseph Hamilton, Chairman of the Ramona Band of Cahuilla • Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Steven Estrada, Chairman of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians • Mark Cochrane/Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer/Cultural Resource Department for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
• Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator for the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
As of the date of this report, Æ had received four responses. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, responded stating the Tribe does not have any knowledge of cultural resources within the Project. Linda Flaxbeard, Chief Financial Officer 1403
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 27 for the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded stating the Project is outside their Traditional Use Area and reservations and the Tribe will not be commenting on the Project.

Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded stating the Tribe requests all documentation related to the Project (site records and report). Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, responded stating the Tribe does not have any knowledge of site information for the Project.
1404
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 28 5 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
The following sections detail the methods and results of the cultural resource surveys for the Project. The information provided below represents the means by which conclusions regarding archaeological sensitivity of the APE were reached.

5.1 2020 SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
Æ Associate Archaeologist Evan Mills performed an intensive pedestrian field survey of the

13.7-acre APE on September 4, 2020. The survey was completed in two transects spaced 10 meters apart, beginning on the east end moving west and back to the east. All portions of the APE were accessible and surveyed systematically.

The APE is situated immediately north of the currently unpaved segment of Westward Avenue.

The area is primarily ranch land with CA-RIV-7544 and 33-013788 associated with ranching/farming activities. Most of the APE is overgrown with weeds and annual vegetation resulting in poor ground visibility (0–25 percent) (Figure 5-1 and 5-2). Evidence of widespread subsurface disturbance within the APE and immediate vicinity was observed during the survey.

For instance, two buried, high-volume gas pipelines (Figure 5-3) are within portions or immediately adjacent to the APE. Also, grading equipment is presently used to regularly maintain the unpaved condition of Westward Avenue. Large amounts of modern refuse and evidence of homeless encampments exist within Smith Creek and the unnamed tributary to the east within the APE.

Soils observed within the APE are consistent with the mapped soils of the area (see Section 2.1).

If intact, the soils do have potential for buried archaeological deposits; however, all other archaeological sensitivity indicators reflect low potential for buried archaeological resources.

Previous cultural reporting suggests low to moderate archaeological sensitivity (Tang et al. 2004). There are no documented prehistoric resources within 1-mile of the APE. Previous reporting indicates known prehistoric sites in the San Gorgonio Pass region are located at the base of foothills of the two large mountain ranges (San Jacinto and San Bernardino) that bracket the pass (George et al. 2017). These factors, in addition to the surface (grading) and sub-surface (pipelines, ranching) disturbances, indicate a low likelihood of discovering and disturbing intact and significant cultural resources during Project construction.

Æ’s field archaeologist did not encounter any archaeological deposits or features during the survey, including any associated with either of the two previously recorded cultural resources.

CA-RIV-7544 and 33-013778 were observed from a distance (multiple features from both sites were visible from the APE, some 20–30 meters away); however, none of the features of these sites are within the APE (Figure 5-4). Both sites have been evaluated previously and recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR (Messick and Dice 2004; Taniguchi and Dice 2004). Site record updates were prepared as part of the current investigation and can be found in Appendix A.
1405
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 29 Figure 5-1 Overview from the east side of the APE looking west.

Figure 5-2 Overview from the west side of the APE looking east. 1406
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 30 Figure 5-3 Overview of Smith Creek showing Gas Pipelines (facing east).

5.2 2022 SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
A supplemental survey of 12 additional acres added to the APE was conducted by Æ Archaeologist Pat Moloney on March 31, 2022. The survey was completed employing an eastwest parallel pedestrian transect through the center of each tract, with deviations to account for expansions and pop outs of the APE.

The general APE is a less than 3 degree sloping section of undeveloped land of north-south aspect. The topography changes from somewhat level terraces, deeply incised by narrow, northsouth oriented gullies in the western half of the APE, to larger, broader washes in the eastern section. Soils are sandy loams throughout; the sands of the terraces being coarser than the finer sands of the washes. Smaller granitic cobbles, rocks, and gravels of high quartz content are scattered throughout. Somewhat difficult terrain and dense groundcover placed visibility between 0–40 percent. Whereas the area north of Westward Avenue appears mostly intact, the section south of Westward Avenue has been utilized for cattle ranching and much of the vegetation has been reduced or replaced by grazing.

Various structures, both modern and historic, are present in the vicinity of the APE. CA-RIV7544 and 33-013778 were observed from a distance; however, none of the features of these sites are within the APE. Modern structures relating to power production and distribution, including high pressure gas pipelines, utility power lines and attendant infrastructure were also observed in the vicinity of the APE. Modern refuse, vehicle tires and parts, and large concrete piles of rubble are scattered throughout APE. No previously unrecorded cultural resources were noted during the supplemental survey of the APE.
1407
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 31

5.3 2024 SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
The APE was realigned and a supplemental survey of 10.6 acres was conducted by Æ Archaeologist Andrew DeLeon on April 3, 2024. The survey was completed employing 15-meter east-west parallel pedestrian transects moving northward through the APE. While surveying, DeLeon photographed the APE at various locations to document its current condition. Any newly identified resources were to be photographed and mapped with an Arrow 100 global navigation satellite system receiving unit and iPad. DeLeon also visited the locations of the previously recorded cultural resource mapped within the APE.

The entire APE ground visibility was poor throughout most of the survey due to overgrown vegetation consisting of broadleaf filaree, hairy vetch, and California buckwheat (Figure 5-4).

Within the northern boundary of the APE, DeLeon reidentified site CA-RIV-7544 and encountered sparse concrete debris but was uncertain if the debris was modern or associated with the site. Additionally, DeLeon reidentified site 33-013778 and observed no changes to the site.

No other cultural resources were identified during the survey (Figure 5-5).

Figure 5-4 Overview of the APE from west side of drainage channel facing east. 1408
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project 32 Figure 5-5 Survey coverage.
o 0 100 200 300 400 500
Meters
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Scale: 1 inch equals 1,000 feet
10 W Jacinto View Rd
W Ramsey St
Smith
Creek
W Westward A
S
H ighland Home Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Bob
10 ve
10 S
Sunset Ave
Ca
W We
S
W W stward Ave
C d Bob
APE (2024) - 28.434 acres
Supplemental Survey Area (2024) - 10.627 acres
Supplemental Survey Area (2022) - 12.004 acres
Cat Rd Survey Area (2020) - 13.708 acres
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management,

CONFIDENTIAL
1409
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lake Boulevard Realignment Project 33 Figure 5-6 Cultural resources within the APE.
o 0 100 200 300 400 500
Meters
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Scale: 1 inch equals 1,000 feet
10 W Jacinto View Rd
W Ramsey St
Smith
Creek
S
H ighland Home Rd
S
Bay Hill Rd
Bob Cat Rd
10 ve
10 S
S
Ave Bob Ca
eek
W Westward Ave
S
Sunset A
CA-RIV-7544
Su
33-013778
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Cultural Resource
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management,

CONFIDENTIAL
1410
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 34 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The desktop analysis portion of the Phase I cultural resource assessment identified two previously documented historical archaeological sites (33-13788 and 33-13789) within the APE.

A previous evaluation of the historical archaeological sites recommended neither resource as eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Æ concurs with the previous investigators’ eligibility recommendations and no further management of CA-RIV-7544 and 33-013778 is recommended.

No additional cultural resources were encountered within the APE during Æ’s Phase I surveys.

The ground surface throughout portions of the APE has been disturbed by road grading, gas pipelines, and historic ranch activity. Geological data indicate a mixture of alluvial soils with some potential to contain buried archaeological material. However, no Ab (buried) horizon is described for the soil series within the APE. In addition, buried pipelines, road grading, and ranching/farming have disturbed the APE. There are no documented prehistoric resources within a 1-mile radius of the APE. Finally, one of the previous investigations that involved the APE conducted a sensitivity assessment for archaeological resources and concluded the APE is within an area of low archaeological sensitivity. Therefore, intact and significant buried archaeological deposits are unlikely, and Æ recommends a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the Project. Consequently, no further cultural resource management of the APE is recommended.

It should be noted that the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested a project description, a copy of the records search with associated reports and records from the EIC, and copies of cultural resource documentation (report and site records) produced by Æ. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will not be requesting consulting party status or participation in the scoping, development, and/or review of documents since the Project is outside of their ancestral territory. The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians does not have any information of resources in the APE and will not provide further comment on the Project. The Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians stated the Project is outside their Traditional Use Area and Reservation, and they will not be consulting.

In the event that potentially significant archaeological materials or possible human remains are encountered during construction, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance and integrity of the find. If intact and significant archaeological remains are encountered, the impacts of the Project must be mitigated appropriately. Any such discoveries, and subsequent evaluation and treatment, should be documented in a cultural resource report, which would be submitted to the EIC for archival purposes. Additionally, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an accidental discovery of human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

Finally, if the APE is expanded to include areas not covered by this survey or other recent cultural resource studies, additional cultural resource investigations may be required. 1411
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 35 7 REFERENCES
Banning Chamber of Commerce
1927 Banning, California Banning, California. On file, Hemet Public Library. Banning Library District.

Bean, Lowell J.
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978a Cupeño. In California, Vol. 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 558-591. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 570–574. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and James Toenjes
2011 Native American Ethnographic Context. In Chuckwalla Valley Prehistory Trails Network Cultural Landscape: Historic Context, Research Questions, and Resource Evaluation Criteria. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbard, California. Aspen Environmental Group, Agoura Hills, California for submittal to California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

Bean, Lowell J., and Sylvia B. Vane
2002 The Native American Ethnography and Ethnohistory of Joshua Tree National Park:

An Overview. Cultural Research Systems, Inc., Menlo Park, California.

Bureau, United States Census
2018 Quick Facts: Banning City, California. accessed November 27, 2019.

City of Banning
2019 City of Banning History. accessed November 27, 2019.

Dallas, Sherman F.
1955 The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alta California 1822–1848. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Indiana.

Deferrari, Roy J.
1942 Essays on Catholic Education in the United States. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.
1412
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 36 George, Joan, and Carrie Chasteen
2017 Cultural Resource Assessment for Phase 1 of the Banning Water Canyon Main Replacement Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb Associates, Riverside, California for submittal to City of Banning, Banning, California, and U.S.

Forest Service – San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino, California.

George, Joan, Tiffany Clark, and Dennis McDougall
2017 Cultural Resource Assessment of 108 Acres for the Banning Distribution Center Project, City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb Associates, Riverside, California for submittal to City of Banning, Banning, California.

GLO (U.S. General Land Office)
1880 Township No. 3 South, Range No. 1 East, San Bernardino Meridian. Surveyed 1852- 1879. U.S. Surveyor General's Office, San Francisco, California. 1886 Township No. 3 South, Range No. 1 East, San Bernardino Meridian. Surveyed 1885.

U.S. Surveyor General's Office, San Francisco, California.

Goldberg, Susan K., and Jeanne E. Arnold
1988 Prehistoric Sites in the Prado Basin, California: Regional Context and Significance Evaluation. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Sonora, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Goldberg, Susan K., Cynthia J. Klink, Jill A. Onken, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Mark C. Robinson, Melinda C. Horne, and Rebecca L. McKim
2001 Prehistoric Archaeology Synthesis of Findings, edited by Melinda C. Horne and Susan E. Rapp. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV, Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Greenwood, Roberta S., John M. Foster, and Mark Swanson 1993 History and Historical Archaeology of the Domenigoni Valley, Volume I: Historical Overview and Research Implications, Final Report. Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Grenda, Donn R.
1997 Continuity & Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. SRI Technical Series, 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Gruen, J. Phillip
1998 Colorado River Aqueduct Historical Report. In Colorado River Aqueduct Recording Project Historic American Engineering Record CA-226. Groucho Publications, Los Angeles, California.
1413
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 37 Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories.

Rubidoux Printing, Riverside, California.

Holtzclaw, Kenneth M.
2005 Banning. In Images of America. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall
2008 CA-RIV-6069: Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Western Riverside County, California, with contributions by Jill A. Onken, Nancy Valente, Suzanne Griset, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, and R. Scott Anderson. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Horne, Melinda C., and Jill A. Onken
2001 Chronosequencing. In Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan E. Rapp, Susan K.

Goldberg, and Suzanne Bircheff, pp. 91–169 MWD of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. Vol. IV. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Hughes, Tom
1938 History of Banning and San Gorgonio Pass, in Two Parts. Banning Record Print, Banning, California.

Johnson, Francis J.
1965 The Serrano Indians of Southern California. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Justice, Noel D.
2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Langum, David J.
1987 Law and Community on the Mexican California Frontier: Anglo-American Expatriates and the Clash of Traditions, 1821–1846. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

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

McDougall, Dennis P.
1995 Metropolitan Water District Eastside Reservoir Project: Summary of Emergency Investigations of Historic Properties, Prehistoric Site CA-RIV-5786. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.
1414
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 38 McLean, Roderic, Shannon Carmack, Jay Michalsky, and Judith Marvin 2006 A Study of the Past in San Timoteo Canyon and San Gorgonio Pass: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Oak Valley Substation Project, Riverside County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Southern California Edison, Rosemead.

Messick, P., and M. Dice
2004 CA-RIV-7544 (33-013788). Michael Brandman Associates, Irvine, California. On file, Eastern Information Center (EIC), housed at University of California, Riverside.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Morton, Douglas M.
1999 Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the Santa Ana 30' × 60' Quadrangle, Southern California U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-172.

Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

O’Connell, James F., Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King, and Carol L. Mix (editors) 1974 Perris Reservoir Archeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archeological Report, No. 14, Sacramento.

Robinson, John W.
1997 Rancho San Jacinto Viejo and the Estudillo Family. In Rancho Days in Southern California. Los Angeles Corral of the Westerners, Los Angeles, California.

Robinson, Mark C.
1998 Arrow Points from the Eastside Reservoir Project: Typology and Chronology in the Late Prehistoric of Riverside County, California. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
2001 Units of Analysis. In Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan E. Rapp and Susan K.

Goldberg, pp. 171–199 MWD Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

San Bernardino County Museum
2014 The Assistencia, California Historical Landmark No. 42. Electronic document, http://www.sbcounty.gov/museum/branches/asist.htm.
1415
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 39 Soil Survey Staff
2003 Ramona Series. Electronic document,
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/R/RAMONA.html, accessed September 3, 2020. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Cooperative Soil Survey.
2019 Greenfield Series. Electronic document,
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GREENFIELD.html, accessed Septmeber 3, 2020. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Cooperative Soil Survey.
2020 Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Area of Interest Soil Map - Banning, California, accessed September 3, 2020. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture National Cooperative Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Starr, Kevin
2005 California: A History. Modern Library, New York.

Stine, Scott
1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time.

Nature 369:546–549.

Sutton, Mark Q.
1996 The Current Status of Archaeological Research in the Mojave Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(2):221–257.

Tang, Bai Tom, Michael Hogan, Josh Smallwood, and Terri Jacquemain 2004 Cultural Resources Technical Report: City of Banning General Plan. CRM Tech, Riverside, California. Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc. . On file, at the Eastern Information Center (RI-08449).

Taniguchi, Christeen, and M. Dice
2004 33-013788 California DPR (Primary Record and Archaeological Site Record).

Michael Brandman Associates, Irvine, California. On file, Eastern Information Center (EIC), housed at University of California, Riverside.

True, Delbert L.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1970 Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs 1. University of California, Los Angeles.

U.S. Geological Survey
1956 Banning, Calif. 15-minute series. 1:62,500. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1416
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment – Sun Lakes Boulevard Realignment Project 40 Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, pp. 339–430. Academic Press, New York.

Wilke, Philip J.
1976 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1417

APPENDIX A
Confidential DPR Forms
1418
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # 33-013778 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #/Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
☐ Continuation ☒ Update

Page 1 of 1 ends

Banning City CouncilNovember 12, 2024

Banning City Council
November 12, 2024