Agenda, first session — Calimesa City Council, August 21, 2023 (part 1 of 9)

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III PROJECT
Lead Agency:

City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
(909) 795-9801
Project Proponent:

City of Calimesa
Public Works
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
909-795-9801
Environmental Consultant:

Phil Martin & Associates
2987 NW Fairway Heights Drive
Bend, Oregon 97703
(949) 454-1800
August 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT 9C
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page i
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
TABLE of CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE
A. Introduction................................................................................................................1 B. Background ...............................................................................................................1 C. MND Process ............................................................................................................2 D. Comments and Responses........................................................................................2 APPENDIX A – Comment Letters
APPENDIX B – Draft Calimesa Stage III Project - IS/MND
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 1
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
A. INTRODUCTION
This Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (FIS/MND) includes the Draft IS/MND and the public and agency comments received during the public review period of the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (DIS/MND). This document has been prepared by the City of Calimesa in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

B. BACKGROUND
Project Location
The Calimesa Creek Stage III Project (project) is located in the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa. More specifically, the detention basin is generally located between County Line Road on the north, 3rd Street on the east, Rogers Lane/Court on the south, and 4th Street on the west. The proposed storm drain system will be located along County Line Road between 5th Street on the east and Interstate 10 on the west.

Description of Project
The proposed Calimesa Creek Stage III project is a component of and the continuation of the Calimesa Channel “Stage I” and “Stage II” projects that were completed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) in 2002. The project consists of a 53-acre-foot detention basin and variable size storm drain system along County Line Road. Each are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs:

Detention Basin
• Basin – The scope of work consists of site grading, 35,000 CY of material export, maintenance road construction, site drainage system improvements, site access improvements, and site fencing. The basin site is 4.5 acres. • Inlet Improvements – Within the existing Calimesa Creek Channel, a diversion facility will be constructed to divert channel flows to the detention basin. The existing Trapezoidal Channel will be connected to a new 96” reinforced concrete pipe. The pipe will release flows to the basin through an energy dissipation structure (including head and wing walls, and rip rap).
• Outlet Improvements – Includes a low flow system and a spillway. The low flow pipe will cause attenuation – runoff will be maintained in the basin and released over a longer period of time. It includes concrete walls and rip rap. The spillway will convey larger storm event flow back into the trapezoidal channel.

Transition structures will be reinforced concrete.
• Storm Drain System – Storm drain system includes 18” thru 78” reinforced concrete pipe, manholes, and inlet structures (e.g., catch basins).

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 2
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
• Low Flow Diversion – To maintain small flows along the natural creek, a low flow diversion system will be constructed near 5th Street.

Once completed, the Calimesa Creek Project III project would provide 100-year flood protection to existing and future development along County Line Road and Calimesa Creek from basin on the east to Interstate 10 on the west.

C. MND PROCESS
The City of Calimesa prepared a Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOI) a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Calimesa Creek Stage III project and filed the NOI with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder on April 14, 2023. The City also filed the MND with the Stare Clearinghouse, local and regional agencies, surrounding cities and other interested parties for a 30-day review period. The Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or "DIS/MND", was circulated for a 30-day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15105(a). The 30-day public review period of the DMND was from April 14, 2023 to May 15, 2023.

The Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Draft MND is an informational document intended to disclose the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project. All written comments received during the 30-day public review period are addressed in the Final IS/MND. The City received comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services, Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Riverside Transit Agency after the public review period. The Final IS/MND provides responses to these comments.

D. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Responses to comments received on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period are presented in Section D, Comments and Responses. Each comment letter received has been numbered at the top and then bracketed to indicate how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is designated a number with the letter number appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, the first comment in Letter 1 would have the following format: 1-1. The bracketed letter precedes responses to the letter's comments in Section D of the FIS/MND. Changes to the text based on comments received include struck through for text that is deleted and bold for text that is added.

Note: New text is double underlined; deleted text is struct through The comments received by the City of Calimesa to the Draft IS/MND have been carefully reviewed. As required by CEQA Guidelines §15088, all comments were evaluated on environmental issues received from public agencies, individuals, and organizations. The information provided in the responses to comments provides clarifications and additional information necessary for the decision makers to act on the project. As required by CEQA Guideline Section 15204, the responses to comments focus on significant environmental issues raised by the comments. All responses to comments contain a good faith effort at full disclosure regarding the Project. Finally, where comments were relatively general in nature, general responses have been provided.

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 3
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
List of Commenters
The following is a list of letters received on the DIS/MND with identifying letter numbers, agency or person submitting the letter, and date of letter.

1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife - letter dated May 15, 2023

2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services – letter dated May 15, 2023

3. Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians – letter dated April 20, 2023

4. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – letter dated April 17, 2023

5. Riverside Transit Agency – email dated April 20, 2023 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
May 15, 2023
Mr. Michael Thornton
City Engineer
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
[email protected]
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2023040377, City of Calimesa, Riverside County Dear Mr. Thornton:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Calimesa (City) for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project (Project) for the City of Calimesa (Project Applicant/Proponent) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines1.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Letter 1
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 2 of 26 ends

need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.).

Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take”, as defined by State law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or CESA-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW issued Natural Community Conservation Plan approval and take authorization in 2004 for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code. The MSHCP established a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. CDFW is providing the following comments as they relate to the Project’s consistency with the MSHCP and CEQA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY
Description: The City of Calimesa (City; Lead Agency and Project Applicant) is proposing the Calimesa Creek Phase III Project (Project). The proposed Project will consist of the construction of a 53-acre-foot detention basin on a 4.5-acre parcel of vacant land that is adjacent to and north of Calimesa Creek and approximately 150 feet west of 3rd Street. The detention basin would capture upstream high storm water flows in Calimesa Creek. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated from the detention basin. All export material would be hauled to the San Timoteo Landfill that is located approximately 11 miles southwest of the project in the City of Redlands.

Approximately 100 feet west of 5th Street, the project would join the existing trapezoidal storm channel and transition from a trapezoidal channel to a proposed 7’ x 7’ reinforced concrete box (RCB). The 7’ x 7’ RCB would continue northwest towards County Line Road where a low-flow diversion structure would be constructed and divert a portion of the runoff west to the existing Calimesa Creek earthen channel. The remaining flow would continue northerly to County Line Road where a new underground 72” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) would be constructed in County Line Road. The underground 72” RCP would convey flows westerly in County Line Road to Calimesa Boulevard where the underground 72” RCP would pick up additional flows from an existing underground 54” storm drain in Calimesa Boulevard. At this confluence, an existing underground 78” RCP would continue westerly carrying flows underground in County Line Road and curve southwesterly to connect to the existing 78” RCP beneath an existing parking lot west of Calimesa Boulevard and south of County Line Road.

Location: The Project site is located between County Line Road on the north, 3rd Street on the east, Rogers Lane/Court on the south, and 4th Street on the west. The Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 3 of 26 ends

proposed storm drain system will be located along County Line Road between 5th Street on the east and Interstate 10 on the west in the City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California, in Township 2 South, Sections 11 and 13, Range 2 West, of the U.S.

Geological Survey 7.5”, California topographic quadrangle map; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 410-030-049 through -052.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the documents for review, CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions are also included to improve the environmental document. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science-based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project’s CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097).

ADEQUACY OF ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Surveys for biological resources have yet to be conducted. The MND identifies that general biological assessment of the Project was completed in 2019. However, sensitive/rare plant surveys have not been completed and targeted protocol-level bird surveys for species that may occur (such as least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and burrowing owl) have also not been conducted. The Wildlife Agencies are concerned that, for the purposes of CEQA, the surveys may be inadequate to form a complete inventory of the species present in the Project area.

Given the lack of evidence regarding the potential biological resources that may occur within the Project site, the CDFW recommends that new surveys be conducted to provide a current and defensible assessment of Project impacts to biological resources.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA.

Specifically, Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the MSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. The proposed Project occurs within the MSHCP area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the MSHCP.

To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the MSHCP, the Permits, and the Implementing Agreement.

The City is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the 1-1
1-2
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 4 of 26 ends

MSHCP. To demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP, as part of the CEQA review, the City shall ensure the Project pays Local Development Mitigation Fees and other relevant fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of the MSHCP; and demonstrates compliance with: 1) the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP); 2) the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP); and 3) the Best Management Practices and the siting, construction, design, operation and maintenance guidelines as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the MSHCP.

Specific Comments
Comment #1: Protection of Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)
The procedures described in the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools section of the MSHCP Plan (MSHCP Section

6.1.2) are to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas are maintained throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (including all areas of the Plan located outside the Criteria Area). Additionally, this process helps identify areas to consider for priority acquisition, as well as those functions that may affect downstream values related to Conservation of Covered Species within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The assessment of riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources may be completed as part of the CEQA review process as set forth in Article V of the State CEQA Guidelines.

However, the MSHCP identifies that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW shall be notified in advance of approval of public or private projects of draft determinations for the biologically equivalent or superior determination findings associated with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools policies presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (MSHCP Section 6.11). As required by the MSHCP Plan, its Implementation Agreement, and the City’s associated take permits from USFWS and CDFW, completion of the DBESP process prior to adoption of the environmental document helps to ensure that the Project will be consistent with the MSHCP Plan, and provides public disclosure and transparency during the CEQA process by identifying the Project impacts and mitigation for wetland habitats and species, a requirement of CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15071, subds.(a)-(e).

The MSHCP identifies that assessment of these areas include identification and mapping of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. The assessment shall consider species composition, topography/ hydrology, and soil analysis, where appropriate. The documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Factors to be considered include hydrologic regime, flood storage and flood-flow modification, nutrient retention and transformation, sediment trapping and transport, toxicant trapping, public use, wildlife Habitat, and aquatic Habitat.
1-2
cont’d
1-3
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 5 of 26 ends

The MSHCP identifies that for mapped riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources that are not included in the MSHCP conservation area, applicable mitigation under CEQA, shall be imposed by the Permittee (in this case the Lead Agency). Further, the MSHCP identifies that to ensure the standards in Section 6.1.2 are met, the Permittee shall ensure that, through the CEQA process, project applicants develop project alternatives demonstrating efforts that first avoid, and then minimize direct and indirect effects to the wetlands mapped pursuant to Section 6.1.2. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigated such that the lost functions and values as they relate to Covered Species are replaced as through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP).

The City is required to ensure the Applicant completes the DBESP process prior to completion of the MND to demonstrate implementation of MSHCP requirements in the CEQA documentation.

CDFW appreciate the analysis of impacts provided within the MND and General Biological Resource Assessment. However, the MSHCP implementation process is not complete because a DBESP has not been prepared, and has not been submitted to CDFW for review and response, to determine if the mitigation proposed for the impacts to riparian/riverine resources is biologically equivalent or superior preservation to avoidance. It is not appropriate for the City to adopt the MND until the DBESP is complete because the City is required to notify CDFW in advance of approval of public and private projects for identified MSHCP activities, such as completion of the DBESP for the riparian/riverine policy. CDFW request that to demonstrate implementation of the MSHCP, the City of Calimesa complete the DBESP process and once the DBESP is complete, revise the Biological Mitigation Measure 6 (MM 6) and update with the mitigation measures identified in the DBESP. However, if the City does not complete the DBESP according to the timeframes specified in the MSHCP (prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

CDFW recommend revising Mitigation Measure 6 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure 6: If the project cannot demonstrate avoidance of MSHCP Section

6.1.2 riparian habitat or riverine resources in perpetuity, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report shall be required and propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. This document shall be reviewed, approved, and coordinated 1-3
cont’d
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 6 of 26 ends

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the start of construction.

Comment #2: Impacts to the Southern California Black Walnut Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on Southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica).

Specific impact: The Southern California black walnut is a riparian tree species which is endemic to California, is in rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the plan area.

Why impacts would occur: The MND states that a Southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica) will be eliminated by the Project. The Southern California black walnut is a riparian tree species which is endemic to California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the Plan Area. This species is identified as benefiting from the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section

6.1.2 of the MSHCP), however, the MND includes no measures to offset the impacts to this riparian species.

To demonstrate biological equivalence to avoidance of black walnut, CDFW recommend that the City and the Applicant work with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to identify a location on RCA-owned conserved land that has suitable habitat for the black walnut, and that the Applicant plant a number of black walnut saplings there to offset the loss of the mature tree on the Project site.

The proposal should identify a restoration plan to ensure establishment of the walnut saplings in the new location. We recommend collecting seeds from the walnuts on site to help conserve genetic variability of the species. CDFW recommends this process be outlined in the DBESP and included as part of an updated mitigation measure prior to the adoption of the MND. However, if the City does not complete the DBESP according to the timeframes specified in the MSHCP (prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

CDFW recommend including the following Mitigation Measure in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure XX: A survey for Southern California black walnut shall be conducted prior to Project activities to determine if any black walnut trees would be removed. If Southern California black walnut trees would be removed, mitigation shall be required and shall 1-3
cont’d
1-4
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 7 of 26 ends

demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value, per a CDFWapproved DBESP.

Comment #3: Impacts to Coast Live Oak
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia).

Specific impacts: The coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is a riparian tree species which is endemic to California, is in rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the plan area.

Why impacts would occur: The MND states that impacts to coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodland may occur within the Project alignment. In the MSHCP, riparian woodlands include coast live oaks which are subject to the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP). However, mitigation to offset the loss of oak trees is not included in the MND.

The coast live oak, a riparian tree species which is native to California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the Plan Area. Coast live oak trees serve several important ecological functions such as protecting soils from erosion and landslides; regulating water flow in watersheds; and maintaining water quality in streams and rivers. Oak trees alone provide nesting and perching habitat for approximately 170 species of birds2. Oak woodlands also have higher levels of biodiversity than any other terrestrial ecosystem in California 3. This species is crucial to the ecosystem at the Project site, and removal of these trees would result in loss of habitat function. Alongside loss of habitat function, removing the trees may potentially result in permanent loss of habitat quality. Project activities would also contribute to temporal loss of habitat for wildlife species that rely on these native plant communities.

To demonstrate biological equivalence to avoidance of coast live oak, CDFW recommend that the City identify a location that has suitable habitat for the coast live oak where replacement trees can be planted. We recommend planting oak trees at a 10:1 replacement ratio for individual trees and associated area (acreage) to offset the loss of the mature trees on the Project site. The proposal should identify a restoration plan to ensure establishment of the oak saplings in the new location. We recommend collecting seeds from the oaks on site to help conserve genetic variability of the species. CDFW recommends this process be outlined in the DBESP and included as part of an updated mitigation measure prior to the adoption of the MND. However, if the City does not complete the DBESP according to the timeframes specified in the MSHCP 2 Griffin and Muick. 1990. California Native Oaks: Past and Present. Fremontia 18(3): 4-12. 3 Block, W.M., Morrison, M.M., Verner, J. 1990. Wildlife and oak-woodland interdependency.

Fremontia 18(3):72-76.
1-4
cont’d
1-5
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 8 of 26 ends

(prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

CDFW recommend revising Mitigation Measure 7 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. 7 An oak tree survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to the start of any construction to determine if any oak trees would be removed.

If oak trees would be removed, their removal would have to be removed in compliance with Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) Section 18.70.120.

In addition, mitigation shall be required for each oak tree removed and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value per a CDFW-approved DBESP.

Comment #4: Impacts to Fairy Shrimp
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on fairy shrimp.

Specific impacts: The MND states that “the survey area included habitat potentially suitable for Riverside fairy shrimp, the proposed project has been designed to avoid that area.” This species is identified as benefiting from the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP), however, the MND does not include adequate measures to offset the impacts to this riparian species.

Ponding areas and ditches holding water 3 cm or deeper more than 24 hours after the end of a rain event should be surveyed for threatened and endangered species of fairy shrimp following the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2017 survey protocol for large branchiopods in Southern California. A complete fairy shrimp protocol survey consists of both a wet-season survey that covers an entire rainy season (October 1 – May 31), and a dry-season survey (including the hatching-out of all cysts found which belong to the genus Branchinecta). Both of the component seasonal surveys must be completed with the same continuous 3-year period. Wet-season surveys concluding that listed species of fairy shrimp are absent, but which were performed during a drier-thanaverage winter, may be ruled inconclusive by USFWS, and may have to be repeated during a rainy season featuring average or better rainfall during the normal wet months, at the discretion of USFWS. As mentioned previously, the City should conduct appropriate surveys and identify appropriate mitigation (in a DBESP) prior to preparation of any CEQA document, so those impacts and mitigation measures can be disclosed to the public as part of the CEQA process. If the City will not complete the DBESP and update the mitigation measures prior to adopting the MND, the proposed mitigation measure should be included.
1-5
cont’d
1-6
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 9 of 26 ends

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Mitigation Measure No. 4: If suitable potential fairy shrimp habitat exists and cannot be avoided, the City of Calimesa shall conduct protocol-level focused surveys (i.e., two seasons) pursuant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (May 31, 2015) to determine presence/absence. If focused-protocol level survey results are positive, and the project cannot permanently avoid fairy shrimp habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report shall be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. In accordance with MSHCP Table 9-2, Objective 4 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Objective 3 for Riverside fairy shrimp, if the survey results are positive, at least 90% of the area with long-term conservation value shall be conserved on-site.

Comment #5: Nesting Bird
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on nesting birds, including Species of Special Concern and fully protected species, that are subject to Fish and Game Code section 3513 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Specific impact: Project implementation could result in the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for passerine and raptor species from the removal of vegetation onsite.

Why impacts would occur: Project activities could result in temporary or long-term loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitats. Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could potentially result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Noise from road use, generators, and heavy equipment may disrupt nesting bird mating calls or songs, which could impact reproductive success (Patricelli and Blickley 2006, Halfwerk et al. 2011). Noise has also been shown to reduce the density of nesting birds (Francis et al. 2009), and songbird abundance and density was significantly reduced in areas with high levels of noise (Bayne et al. 2008). Additionally, noise exceeding 70 dB(A) may affect feather and body growth of young birds (Kleist et al. 2018). In addition to construction activities, residential development and increased human presence in the Project site could contribute to nesting bird impacts.

The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as the bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). CDFW staff have observed that changing climate conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. CDFW recommends the completion of nesting bird survey regardless of time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and to avoid take of nests.
1-6
cont’d
1-7
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 10 of 26 ends

The duration of a pair to build a nest and incubate eggs varies considerably, therefore, CDFW recommends surveying for nesting behavior and/or nests and construction within three days prior to start of Project construction to ensure all nests on site are identified and to avoid take of nests. Without appropriate species-specific avoidance measures, biological construction monitoring may be ineffective for detecting nesting birds. This may result in Take of nesting birds. Project ground-disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat.

Evidence impacts would be significant: It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to avoid Take of all nesting birds. Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. These regulations apply anytime nests or eggs exist on the Project site.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid unlawfully taking of nesting birds, CDFW requests the City include the following mitigation measures in the MND per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Mitigation Measure 3: To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for all implementing development and infrastructure projects shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season. If ground-disturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (typically February 15 through August 31), the City of Calimesa shall require that a pre-construction nesting bird survey be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint within 3 days prior to initiation of activity. The survey 1-7
cont’d
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 11 of 26 ends

results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of
implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities.

Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If an active nest or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) is are detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Calimesa, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect 1-7
cont’d
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 12 of 26 ends

impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Comment #6: Impacts to Aquatic and Riparian Resources; Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA)
Issue: Based on review of material submitted with the MND and review of aerial photography, the Project has the potential to impact fish and wildlife resources subject to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Specific Impact: Based on review of material submitted with the MND and review of aerial photography, the Project has the potential to impact fish and wildlife resources subject to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. The MND identified a “3.31 acres of riparian/resources within the study area, specifically 2.94 acres of riverine resources and 0.37 acres of riparian habitat.” The Project activities have the potential to impact fish and wildlife resources through the deposition of debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.

Why Impact Would Occur: Project-related activities could potentially alter drainage patterns and water quality within, upstream, and downstream of the Project site, including: volume, velocity, and frequency of existing and post-Project surface flows; polluted runoff; soil erosion and/or sedimentation in streams and water bodies; and post-Project fate of runoff from the Project site.

Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: The Project may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern and geomorphologic processes of the Project site through the deposition of debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Depending on how the Project is designed and constructed, it is likely that the Project applicant will need to notify CDFW per Fish and Game Code section 1602. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that “any river, stream or lake” includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round).

This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow.

Upon receipt of a complete notification, CDFW determines if the proposed Project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and 1-7
cont’d
1-8
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 13 of 26 ends

whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may suggest ways to modify the project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement is a “project” subject to CEQA (see Pub.

Resources Code, § 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if necessary, the MND should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with CDFW is recommended, since modification of the proposed Project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration notification package, please go to https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA/Forms.

Recommended potentially feasible mitigation measure(s):

To ensure compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602 CDFW recommends that the City include a mitigation measure for consultation with CDFW to determine if Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. resources may occur within the proposed Project alignment.

CDFW recommends the inclusion of the following measure in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”:

Mitigation Measure 5: If jurisdictional waters are impacted as a result of project implementation, the City of Calimesa shall obtain all appropriate permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Prior to the grading the Project site and prior to the start of Project activities, the Applicant shall notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources. The applicant shall either receive a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) or written documentation from CDFW that a Streamed Alteration Agreement is not needed.

The notification to CDFW should provide the following information:

1. A stream delineation including the bed, bank and channel;

2. Linear feet and/or acreage of streams and associated natural communities that would be permanently and/or temporarily impacted by the Project. This includes impacts as a result of routine maintenance and fuel modification. Plant community 1-8
cont’d
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 14 of 26 ends

names should be provided based on vegetation association and/or alliance per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al 2009);

3. A discussion as to whether impacts on streams within the Project site would impact those streams immediately outside of the Project site where there is hydrologic connectivity.

Potential impacts such as changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and sedimentation should be discussed; and

4. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year storm event to provide information on how water and sediment is conveyed through the Project site.

All mitigation measures and conditions contained within the above permits shall be implemented. At a minimum, the following shall be completed for mitigation for impacts to waters of the state and jurisdictional streambed:

1. Compensation for Permanent Impacts: Permanent impacts to waters of the state and jurisdictional streambeds shall be offset by compensation at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise required by the respective permits. If an SAA is required, the Applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 3:1 for impacts to streams and associated natural communities, or at a ratio acceptable to CDFW per a LSA Agreement. Mitigation should occur within the Western Riverside County. On-site mitigation measures may include the enhancement of existing streams. A conceptual Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared, if necessary, for the enhancement activities to address impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources, which may include non-native species removal and revegetation followed by periodic monitoring. The plan shall specify the criteria and standards by which the enhancement actions will compensate for impacts of the project on streams.

2. Temporary Impacts: All areas temporarily impacted shall be restored to native grade and contour and revegetated with native species as determined by an adjacent reference site or through documentation of baseline conditions prior to impacts.

Page 15 of 26 ends

a. Vehicles and equipment shall not operate in ponded or flowing water except as described in the permits.
b. Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading or other activities shall not be allowed to enter jurisdictional waters or placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows. c. Spoil sites shall not be located within 30 feet from the boundaries of jurisdictional waters or in locations that may be subject to high storm flows, where spoils might be washed back into drainages. d. Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to vegetation or wildlife resources resulting from project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering avoided jurisdictional waters.
e. No equipment maintenance shall occur within 150 feet of jurisdictional waters and no petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment shall be allowed to enter these areas or enter any off-site state-jurisdictional waters under any flow.

Additional Recommendations
Weed Management Plan. A weed management plan should be developed for the Project site and implemented during the duration of this long-term Project. On-going soil disturbance promotes establishment and growth of non-native weeds. As part of the Project, non-native weeds should be prevented from becoming established. The Projects site should be monitored via mapping for new introductions and expansions of non-native weeds.

Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan
CDFW recommends updating the MND’s proposed Biological Resources Mitigation Measures to include mitigation measures recommended in this letter. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments [(Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2)]. As such, CDFW has provided comments and recommendations to assist the City in developing mitigation measures that are (1) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4; (2) specific; (3) detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and (4) clear for a measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via mitigation, monitoring, and/or reporting program (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). The City is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project’s mitigation measures.

Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a 1-8
cont’d
1-9
1-10
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 16 of 26 ends

summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2023040377 to assist in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. CDFW requests that the City of Calimesa addresses CDFW’s comments and concerns prior to adoption of the MND for the Project.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Katrina Rehrer, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
1-10
cont’d
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 17 of 26 ends

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Carly Beck, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor
[email protected]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Karin Cleary-Rose
[email protected]
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Tricia Campbell
[email protected]
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Aaron Gabbe
[email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected].

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 4
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Letter 1 State of California – Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Deserts Region, Kim Freeburn, May 15, 2023.

Comment 1-1:

Surveys for biological resources have yet to be conducted. The MND identifies that general biological assessment of the Project was completed in 2019. However, sensitive/rare plant surveys have not been completed and targeted protocol-level bird surveys for species that may occur (such as least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and burrowing owl) have also not been conducted. The Wildlife Agencies are concerned that, for the purposes of CEQA, the surveys may be inadequate to form a complete inventory of the species present in the Project area.

Response:

The IS/MND (Appendix B of Draft IS/MND, Biological Resources Report) indicates that a specialstatus plants and species surveys were conducted. All the bird species presented above were included in this survey and deemed to have a low potential to occur along the project. No federal or state listed special-status plants were identified within the project sites. No active bird nests were observed on the project sites. However, in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3, the City, with a qualified biologist, will perform a pre-construction bird survey.

Comment 1-2:

To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the MSHCP, the Permits, and the Implementing Agreement. The City is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the MSHCP. To demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP, as part of the CEQA review, the City shall ensure the Project pays Local Development Mitigation Fees and other relevant fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of the MSHCP; and demonstrates compliance with: 1) the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP); 2) the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP); and 3) the Best Management Practices and the siting, construction, design, operation and maintenance guidelines as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the MSHCP.

Response:

In the City’s IS/MND, a MSHCP consistency analysis was performed and Mitigation Measure 8 was established to ensure that the project pays Local Development Mitigation Fees in accordance with Section 8.5 of the MSHCP. Refer to Section 5 of the Biological Resources Letter Report included as part of Appendix B of the IS/MND.

Comment 1-3:

The MSHCP identifies that assessment of these areas include identification and mapping of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. The assessment shall consider species composition, topography/hydrology, and soil analysis, where appropriate. The documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Factors to be considered include hydrologic regime, flood storage and flood-flow modification, nutrient retention and transformation, sediment trapping and transport, toxicant trapping, public use, wildlife Habitat, and aquatic Habitat.

The City is required to ensure the Applicant completes the DBESP process prior to completion of the MND to demonstrate implementation of MSHCP requirements in the CEQA documentation.

CDFW appreciate the analysis of impacts provided within the MND and General Biological Resource Assessment. However, the MSHCP implementation process is not complete because a DBESP has not been prepared, and has not been submitted to CDFW for review and response, to determine if the mitigation proposed for the impacts to riparian/riverine resources is biologically equivalent or superior preservation to avoidance. It is not appropriate for the City to adopt the MND until the DBESP is complete because the City is required to notify CDFW in advance of approval of public and private projects for identified MSHCP activities, such as completion of the DBESP for the riparian/riverine policy. CDFW request that to demonstrate implementation of the MSHCP, the City of Calimesa complete the DBESP process and once the DBESP is complete, revise the Biological Mitigation Measure 6 (MM 6) and update with the mitigation measures Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 6
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
identified in the DBESP. However, if the City does not complete the DBESP according to the timeframes specified in the MSHCP (prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

CDFW recommend revising Mitigation Measure 6 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

Mitigation Measure 6: If the project cannot demonstrate avoidance of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian habitat or riverine resources in perpetuity, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP) shall be required and propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. This document shall be reviewed, approved, and coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the start of construction.

Response:

The project minimizes impacts to Riparian/Riverine habitat. CDFW accepted Mitigation Measure

6. Therefore, the City will implement and comply with Mitigation Measure 6. The City will not complete the DBESP prior to adaption of the final IS/MND. The DBESP does not change the CEQA impact determination but rather determines the specific amount of mitigation required to be performed.

Comment 1-4:

Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on Southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica).

The proposal should identify a restoration plan to ensure establishment of the walnut saplings in the new location. We recommend collecting seeds from the walnuts on site to help conserve genetic variability of the species. CDFW recommends this process be outlined in the DBESP and included as part of an updated mitigation measure prior to the adoption of the MND. However, if Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 7
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
the City does not complete the DBESP according to the timeframes specified in the MSHCP (prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Mitigation Measure XX: A survey for Southern California black walnut shall be conducted prior to Project activities to determine if any black walnut trees would be removed. If Southern California black walnut trees would be removed, mitigation shall be required and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value, per a CDFW- approved DBESP.

Response:

The project intends to protect all Southern California Black Walnuts in place. However, as requested the suggested Mitigation Measure is added.

Comment 1-5:

Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia).

The coast live oak, a riparian tree species which is native to California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the Plan Area. Coast live oak trees serve several important ecological functions such as protecting soils from erosion and landslides; regulating water flow in watersheds; and maintaining water quality in streams and rivers. Oak trees alone provide nesting and perching habitat for approximately 170 species of birds. Oak woodlands also have higher levels of biodiversity than any other terrestrial ecosystem in California. This species is crucial to the ecosystem at the Project site, and removal of these trees would result in loss of habitat function. Alongside loss of habitat function, removing the trees may potentially result in permanent loss of habitat quality. Project activities would also contribute to temporal loss of habitat for wildlife species that rely on these native plant communities.

To demonstrate biological equivalence to avoidance of coast live oak, CDFW recommend that the City identify a location that has suitable habitat for the coast live oak where replacement trees can be planted. We recommend planting oak trees at a 10:1 replacement ratio for individual trees and associated area (acreage) to offset the loss of the mature trees on the Project site. The proposal should identify a restoration plan to ensure establishment of the oak saplings in the new location. We recommend collecting seeds from the oaks on site to help conserve genetic Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 8
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
variability of the species. CDFW recommends this process be outlined in the DBESP and included as part of an updated mitigation measure prior to the adoption of the MND. However, if the City does not complete the DBESP according to the timeframes specified in the MSHCP (prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

CDFW recommend revising Mitigation Measure 7 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

Mitigation Measure No. 7: An oak tree survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to the start of any construction to determine if any oak trees would be removed. If oak trees would be removed, their removal would have to be removed in compliance with Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) Section 18.70.120. In addition, mitigation shall be required for each oak tree removed and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value per a CDFW-approved DBESP.

Response:

No Oak Tree removals are anticipated; however, the City will add the sentence suggested to Mitigation Measure 7.

Comment 1-6:

Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on fairy shrimp.

Ponding areas and ditches holding water 3 cm or deeper more than 24 hours after the end of a rain event should be surveyed for threatened and endangered species of fairy shrimp following the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2017 survey protocol for large branchiopods in Southern California. A complete fairy shrimp protocol survey consists of both a wet-season survey that covers an entire rainy season (October 1 – May 31), and a dry-season survey (including the hatching-out of all cysts found which belong to the genus Branchinecta). Both of the component seasonal surveys must be completed with the same continuous 3-year period. Wet-season surveys concluding that listed species of fairy shrimp are absent, but which were performed during a drier-than- average winter, may be ruled inconclusive by USFWS, and may have to be repeated during a rainy season featuring average or better rainfall during the normal wet months, at the discretion of USFWS. As mentioned previously, the City should conduct appropriate surveys and identify appropriate mitigation (in a DBESP) prior to preparation of any CEQA document, so those impacts and mitigation measures can be disclosed to the public as part of the CEQA process. If the City will not complete the DBESP and update the mitigation measures prior to adopting the MND, the proposed mitigation measure should be included.

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 9
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Response:

The potential fairy shrimp habitat area identified in the Biological Resource Report shall be avoided and protected during construction. The project site is found to be well-draining and therefore will not retain ponded waters. Figure 5B of the Biological Resource Report identifies the potential Fairy Shrimp Habitat area – a vast majority of the area is located beyond the project boundaries. Mitigation Measure 4 remains as proposed.

Comment 1-7:

Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on nesting birds, including Species of Special Concern and fully protected species, that are subject to Fish and Game Code section 3513 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Specific impact: Project implementation could result in the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for passerine and raptor species from the removal of vegetation onsite.

CDFW recommends the completion of nesting bird survey regardless of time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and to avoid take of nests.

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 10
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
The duration of a pair to build a nest and incubate eggs varies considerably, therefore, CDFW recommends surveying for nesting behavior and/or nests and construction within three days prior to start of Project construction to ensure all nests on site are identified and to avoid take of nests.

Without appropriate species-specific avoidance measures, biological construction monitoring may be ineffective for detecting nesting birds. This may result in take of nesting birds. Project grounddisturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat.

Evidence impacts would be significant: It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to avoid Take of all nesting birds. Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birdsof-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. These regulations apply anytime nests or eggs exist on the Project site.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Mitigation Measure 3: To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for all implementing development and infrastructure projects shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season. If ground-disturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (typically February 15 through August 31), the City of Calimesa shall require that a preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint within 3 days prior to initiation of activity. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques,
recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 11
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities.

Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be
sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If an active nest or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) is are detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Calimesa, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Response:

The Biological Resources Report did not identify any active bird nests at the time the survey was conducted. Since the biological survey was conducted outside of the nesting season, a mitigation measure was included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted prior to the start of construction activities. Mitigation Measure 3 is amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3: To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 12
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for all implementing development and infrastructure projects shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season. If grounddisturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season, the City of Calimesa shall require that a pre-construction nesting bird survey be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint within 3 days prior to initiation of activity. The survey results shall be provided to the City. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success;
determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If an active nest or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) is are detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Calimesa, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 13
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Comment 1-8:

Issue: Based on review of material submitted with the MND and review of aerial photography, the Project has the potential to impact fish and wildlife resources subject to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: The Project may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern and geomorphologic processes of the Project site through the deposition of debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Depending on how the Project is designed and constructed, it is likely that the Project applicant will need to notify CDFW per Fish and Game Code section 1602. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following:
substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that “any river, stream or lake” includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow.

Upon receipt of a complete notification, CDFW determines if the proposed Project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may suggest ways to modify the project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement is a “project” subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if necessary, the MND should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with CDFW is recommended, since modification of the proposed Project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration notification package, please go to https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA/Forms.

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 14
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Recommended potentially feasible mitigation measure(s):

Army Corps of Engineers, a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.

The notification to CDFW should provide the following
information:

1. A stream delineation including the bed, bank and channel;

2. Linear feet and/or acreage of streams and associated natural communities that would be permanently and/or temporarily impacted by the Project. This includes impacts as a result of routine maintenance and fuel modification. Plant community names should be provided based on vegetation association and/or alliance per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al 2009);

3. A discussion as to whether impacts on streams within the Project site would impact those streams immediately outside of the Project site where there is hydrologic connectivity.

Potential impacts such as changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and sedimentation should be discussed; and

4. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year storm event to provide information on how water and sediment is conveyed through the Project site.

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 15
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023

3. Best Management Practices. Avoided jurisdictional waters shall be fenced or flagged as environmentally sensitive areas. Best management practices shall be implemented to avoid indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters, including the following:
a. Vehicles and equipment shall not operate in ponded or flowing water except as described in the permits.
b. Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading or other activities shall not be allowed to enter jurisdictional waters or placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows. c. Spoil sites shall not be located within 30 feet from the boundaries of jurisdictional waters or in locations that may be subject to high storm flows, where spoils might be washed back into drainages. d. Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to vegetation or wildlife resources resulting from project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering avoided jurisdictional waters.
e. No equipment maintenance shall occur within 150 feet of jurisdictional waters and no petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment shall be allowed to enter these areas or enter any off-site state-jurisdictional waters under any flow.

Response:

The project proposes construction of a detention basin, low flow diversion structure and underground storm drain improvements. The detention basin will capture sediment and debris for proper disposal. The project improvements will maintain flow in the existing channel while Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 16
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
diverting larger peak storm water flows to the proposed underground storm drain pipe. The project will require a SAA to be processed after the final environmental document has been completed.

The City accepts most of the suggested revisions to Mitigation Measure 5 provided by CDFW with the exception of the change in minimum mitigation ratio. The minimum mitigation ratio will remain at 1:1 in the Mitigation Measure with language that any additional mitigation will be determined during the permitting process. The changes to Mitigation Measure 5 are detailed below:

The notification to CDFW should provide the following information:

1. A stream delineation including the bed, bank and channel;

2. Linear feet and/or acreage of streams and associated natural communities that would be permanently and/or temporarily impacted by the Project. This includes impacts as a result of routine maintenance and fuel modification. Plant community names should be provided based on vegetation association and/or alliance per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al 2009);

3. A discussion as to whether impacts on streams within the Project site would impact those streams immediately outside of the Project site where there is hydrologic connectivity. Potential impacts such as changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and sedimentation should be discussed; and

4. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year storm event to provide information on how water and sediment is conveyed through the Project site.

1. Compensation for Permanent Impacts: Permanent impacts to waters of the state and jurisdictional streambeds shall be offset by compensation at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise required by the respective permits. If an SAA is required, the Applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation at no less than 1:1 for impacts to streams and associated natural communities, or at a ratio Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 17
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
acceptable to CDFW per a LSA Agreement. Mitigation should occur within the Western Riverside County. On-site mitigation measures may include the enhancement of existing streams. A conceptual Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared, if necessary, for the enhancement activities to address impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources, which may include non-native species removal and revegetation followed by periodic monitoring. The plan shall specify the criteria and standards by which the enhancement actions will compensate for impacts of the project on streams.

3. Best Management Practices. Avoided jurisdictional waters shall be fenced or flagged as environmentally sensitive areas. Best management practices shall be implemented to avoid indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters, including the following:
a. Vehicles and equipment shall not operate in ponded or flowing water except as described in the permits.
b. Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading or other activities shall not be allowed to enter jurisdictional waters or placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows. c. Spoil sites shall not be located within 30 feet from the boundaries of jurisdictional waters or in locations that may be subject to high storm flows, where spoils might be washed back into drainages.
d. Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to vegetation or wildlife resources resulting from project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering avoided jurisdictional waters.
e. No equipment maintenance shall occur within 150 feet of jurisdictional waters and no petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment shall be allowed to enter these areas or enter any off-site state-jurisdictional waters under any flow.

Comment 1-9
A weed management plan should be developed for the Project site and implemented during the duration of this long-term Project. On-going soil disturbance promotes establishment and growth of non-native weeds. As part of the Project, non-native weeds should be prevented from becoming Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 18
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
established. The Projects site should be monitored via mapping for new introductions and expansions of non-native weeds.

Response:

Comment noted.

Comment 1-10:

CDFW recommends updating the MND’s proposed Biological Resources Mitigation Measures to include mitigation measures recommended in this letter. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments [Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2)]. As such, CDFW has provided comments and recommendations to assist the City in developing mitigation measures that are (1) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4; (2) specific; (3) detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and (4) clear for a measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via mitigation, monitoring, and/or reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). The City is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project’s mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment 1).

Response:

As suggested, all recommended new mitigation measures and revised mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Final MND.

In Reply Refer to:

FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883
Sent by Email
May 15, 2023
Mr. Michael Thornton, City Engineer
Planning Department
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
[email protected]
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Calimesa Creek Stage III Flood Control Project, City of Calimesa
Dear Mr. Thornton:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Calimesa (City) for the City’s Calimesa Creek Stage III Project (Project) on April 14, 2023. The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Project activities that may affect public trust resources.

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE’S ROLE
The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The Service issued section a 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on June 22, 2004. The MSHCP established conservation programs to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. The City of Calimesa is a MSHCP Permittee. The Service requests that the City’s implementation of the MSHCP for this proposed Project be addressed in the MND as discussed below.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Calimesa has requested comments to inform the MND which will identify the proposed Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, discuss alternatives, and propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts The Service offer these comments and recommendations below to assist the City implementing the MSHCP policies and procedures relevant to the proposed Project. Specifically implementation of MSHCP Letter 2
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 2 policy for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, set forth in MSHCP Section 6.1.2

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION

PLAN AND PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA. Specifically, Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the MSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. The proposed Project occurs within the MSHCP area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the MSHCP.

The proposed Project occurs within the MSHCP Plan Area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the MSHCP as described above. MSHCP Permittees need to demonstrate that their discretionary actions are consistent with the MSHCP policies and procedures, the associated Incidental Take Permit, and the MSHCP Implementing Agreement. The City of Calimesa is the Lead Agency for the Project and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP.

Protection of Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) The procedures described in the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools section of the MSHCP Plan (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) are to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas are maintained throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (including all areas of the Plan located outside the Criteria Area). Additionally, this process helps identify those functions that may affect downstream values related to Conservation of Covered Species within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP identifies that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be notified in advance of approval of public or private projects of draft determinations for the biologically equivalent or superior determination findings associated with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools policies presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (MSHCP Section 6.11). Completion of the DBESP process prior to adoption of the environmental document helps to ensure that the Project will be consistent with the MSHCP and provides public disclosure and transparency during the CEQA process by identifying the Project impacts and mitigation for wetland habitats and species, a requirement of CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15071, subds.(a)-(e).

The MSHCP identifies that for mapped riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources that are not included in the MSHCP conservation area, applicable mitigation under CEQA, shall be imposed by the Permittee (in this case the Lead Agency). Further, the MSHCP identifies that to ensure the standards in Section 6.1.2 are met, the Permittee shall ensure that, through the CEQA process, project applicants develop project alternatives demonstrating efforts that first avoid, and then minimize direct and indirect effects to the 2-1
2-2
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 3 wetlands mapped pursuant to Section 6.1.2. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigated such that the lost functions and values as they relate to Covered Species are replaced as through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The DBESP process should be completed prior to adoption of the MND to demonstrate implementation of MSHCP requirements in the CEQA documentation.

Although a General Biological Resources Assessment for the Project site was prepared, the MSHCP implementation process is not complete because a DBESP has not been prepared and submitted to the Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and response, to determine if the mitigation proposed for the impacts to riparian/riverine resources is biologically equivalent or superior preservation to avoidance.

We request that to demonstrate implementation of the MSHCP, the City of Calimesa complete the DBESP process and once the DBESP is complete, revise the Biological Mitigation Measure 6 (MM 6) and update with the mitigation measures identified in the DBESP. We Agencies recommend revising Mitigation Measure 6 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure 6: If the project cannot demonstrate avoidance of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian habitat or riverine resources in perpetuity, a A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be required and propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. This document shall be reviewed, approved, and coordinated with the Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the start of construction.

Hydrological Impacts to Onsite and Downstream Riparian/Riverine Habitats and Species The IS/MND concludes that the Project’s hydromodification effects will be entirely positive (no adverse environmental impacts) based solely on an analysis (Appendix F, Hydrology Study) of hydromodification effects to developed and semi-developed urban and suburban locations. No hydrology studies were performed to determine the effects of the proposed Project on (a) the onsite riparian/riverine habitats and species (including the Southern California black walnut and the coast live oak), or the downstream (offsite) riparian/riverine habitats and species, especially those downstream on conserved lands along San Timoteo Creek, which may be subject to de-watering impacts or to reductions in inundation and reduction of other beneficial components of their hydroperiods.

In fact, IS/MND concludes that the Project’s effects on riparian/riverine habitats and species would be “less than significant with mitigation [included]”. However, this conclusion is not supportable, because the IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to quantify and map the extent and character of the Project’s impacts to riparian/riverine habitats and species, and the IS/”Mitigated” Negative Declaration provides no mitigation to offset the impacts to the onsite and offsite riparian/riverine resources.

Therefore, the Service recommends that the City:
2-2
cont’d
2-3
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 4 1) Perform hydrological studies of the Project site and the downstream habitats focused on understanding and quantifying how the proposed Project would modify the hydrology and habitat characteristics of the downstream areas.

Impacts to the Southern California Black Walnut Trees
The MND states that the Southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica) will be impacted by the Project. The Southern California black walnut is a riparian tree species which is endemic to Southern California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution. The black walnut tree is listed by the California Native Plant Society as being threatened or endangered throughout its range; however, the MND includes no measures to offset the impacts to this riparian species.

We recommend that the City determine the number and locations of black walnut trees which may be impacted by the Project either directly (through construction impacts) or indirectly (through de-watering impacts), and add a measure to replace the impacted walnut trees through replacement plantings in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands.

We recommend including the following Mitigation Measure in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure XX: A survey for Southern California black walnut shall be conducted prior to the preparation of Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if any black walnut trees would be removed or dewatered. If Southern California black walnut trees would be impacted in either way, replacement trees shall be provided, which will be planted in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands somewhere inside the MSHCP Plan Boundary, preferably in the City of Calimesa or its vicinity.

Impacts to Coast Live Oaks
The MND states that impacts to coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodland may occur within the Project alignment. In the MSHCP, riparian woodlands include coast live oaks which are subject to the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP). However, mitigation to offset the loss of oak trees is not included in the MND.

The coast live oak, a riparian tree species which is native to California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the Plan Area. Coast live oak trees serve several important ecological functions such as protecting soils from erosion and landslides; regulating water flow in watersheds; and maintaining water quality in streams and rivers. Oak trees alone provide nesting and perching habitat for approximately 170 species of birds1. Oak woodlands also have higher levels of biodiversity than any other terrestrial ecosystem in California 2. This species is a valuable component of the habitats on the Project site, and removal of these trees would result in loss of habitat 1 Griffin and Muick. 1990. California Native Oaks: Past and Present. Fremontia 18(3): 4-12. 2 Block, W.M., Morrison, M.M., Verner, J. 1990. Wildlife and oak-woodland interdependency.

Fremontia 18(3):72-76.
2-3
cont’d
2-4
2-5
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 5 function. Alongside loss of habitat function, removing the trees may potentially result in permanent loss of habitat quality. Project activities would also contribute to temporal loss of habitat for wildlife species that rely on these native plant communities.

We recommend planting oak trees at a 10:1 replacement ratio for individual trees and associated area (acreage) to offset the loss of the mature trees on the Project site. The proposal should identify a restoration plan to ensure establishment of the oak saplings in the new location. We recommend collecting seeds from the oaks on site to help conserve genetic variability of the species.

We recommend revising Mitigation Measure 7 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. XX. A survey for California native oak species shall be conducted prior to the preparation of Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if any native oaks would be removed or de-watered. If native oaks would be impacted in either way, replacement trees shall be provided, which will be planted in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands somewhere inside the MSHCP Plan Boundary, preferably in the City of Calimesa or its vicinity.

Impacts to Fairy Shrimp
The MND states that “the survey area included habitat potentially suitable for the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp, the proposed project has been designed to avoid that area.” However, the Biological Resources Assessment report on which the IS/MND is based contradicts this conclusion, showing that the proposed Project’s detention basin overlaps the area mapped as suitable habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp, and would therefore directly impact this suitable habitat.

The IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to provide any specific mitigation to offset the Project’s potential impacts on listed fairy shrimp species; instead, it merely defers mitigation to an external process (implementation of the MSHCP Plan) which the IS/MND proposes would take place later in time, long after CEQA adoption of the IS/MND.

The Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonii) and the threatened Lynch’s fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) identified as benefiting from the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP), however, the MND does not include any specific measures to offset the Project’s potential impacts to these threatened and endangered species.

We recommend revising Mitigation Measure 4 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. 4: Since suitable potential fairy shrimp habitat exists on the Project site, and cannot be avoided, the City of Calimesa shall conduct protocol-level focused surveys (i.e., two seasons) pursuant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (November 2017) to determine presence/absence of 2-5
cont’d
2-6
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 6 threatened and endangered species of fairy shrimp. If focused-protocol level survey results are positive, and the Project cannot permanently avoid fairy shrimp habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report shall be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration . In accordance with MSHCP Table 9-2, Objective 4 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Objective 3 for Riverside fairy shrimp, if the survey results are positive, at least 90% of the area with longterm conservation value shall be conserved on-site.

ADEQUACY OF ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Surveys for fairyshrimp have not been conducted. The MND identifies that a general biological reconnaissance of the Project was performed.

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER COORDINATION
The proposed Project will affect MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool resources and may affect downstream hydrological functionality and viability of sensitive habitats located downstream in the San Timoteo Canyon wildlife corridor. Although the CEQA document proposed for adoption is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the IS/MND fails to identify, characterize, and quantify the Project’s impacts to riparian/riverine habitats and species, and does not include any specific mitigation to offset the potential impacts to these habitats and species. Likewise, the City has not completed implementation of the MSHCP for this Project, particularly the completion of a DBESP and the underlying hydromodification analyses, surveys, and impact analyses and disclosures required by Section

6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Therefore, the Service requests that that the City of Calimesa perform the missing fairy shrimp surveys and analysis and complete the DBESP process with the Service and CDFW, and then revise the MND to reflect the results and the mitigation thus developed, and then recirculate the MND.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this MND, and looks forward to continuing to work with the City of Calimesa on this Project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, or to schedule a meeting, please contact James Thiede of the Service at [email protected] .

Sincerely,
for
Rollie White
Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Karin
Cleary-Rose
Digitally signed by Karin
Cleary-Rose
Date: 2023.05.15
17:05:55 -07'00'
2-7
cont’d
2-7
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 7 ec:

Will Kolbow, City Manager, City of Calimesa
Kelly Lucia, Planning Director, City of Calimesa
Kim Freeburn, California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Claudia Tenorio, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board James Mace, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Aaron Gabbe, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 19
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Letter 2: United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Karin Clearly-Rose, May 15, 2023.

Comment 2-1:

Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA. Specifically, Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the MSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. The proposed Project occurs within the MSHCP area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the MSHCP.

Response:

As part of the City’s IS/MND, a MSHCP consistency analysis was performed and Mitigation Measure 8 was established to ensure that the project pays Local Development Mitigation Fees in accordance with Section 8.5 of the MSHCP. Refer to Section 5 of the Biological Resources Letter Report included as part of Appendix B of the IS/MND.

Comment 2-2:

The procedures described in the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools section of the MSHCP Plan (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) are to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas are maintained throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (including all areas of the Plan located outside the Criteria Area). Additionally, this process helps identify those functions that may affect downstream values related to Conservation of Covered Species within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP identifies that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be notified in advance of approval of public or private projects of draft determinations for the biologically equivalent or superior determination findings associated with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools policies presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (MSHCP Section 6.11). Completion of the DBESP process prior to adoption of the environmental document helps to ensure that the Project will be consistent with the MSHCP and provides public disclosure and transparency during the CEQA process by identifying the Project impacts and mitigation for wetland habitats and species, a requirement of CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15071, subds.(a)-(e).

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 20
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
The MSHCP identifies that for mapped riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources that are not included in the MSHCP conservation area, applicable mitigation under CEQA, shall be imposed by the Permittee (in this case the Lead Agency). Further, the MSHCP identifies that to ensure the standards in Section 6.1.2 are met, the Permittee shall ensure that, through the CEQA process, project applicants develop project alternatives demonstrating efforts that first avoid, and then minimize direct and indirect effects to the wetlands mapped pursuant to Section 6.1.2. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigated such that the lost functions and values as they relate to Covered Species are replaced as through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The DBESP process should be completed prior to adoption of the MND to demonstrate implementation of MSHCP requirements in the CEQA documentation.

Response:

The project is consistent with MSHCP and will minimize impact to Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources. The City denies the requested changes to Mitigation Measure 6 and will continue to process the project in accordance with the existing language presented in Mitigation Measure

6. The City will complete the DBESP prior to adaption of the final IS/MND. The DBESP does not change the CEQA impact determination but rather determines the specific amount of mitigation required to be performed by the project.

Comment 2-3:

The IS/MND concludes that the Project’s hydromodification effects will be entirely positive (no adverse environmental impacts) based solely on an analysis (Appendix F, Hydrology Study) of hydromodification effects to developed and semi-developed urban and suburban locations. No Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 21
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
hydrology studies were performed to determine the effects of the proposed Project on (a) the onsite riparian/riverine habitats and species (including the Southern California black walnut and the coast live oak), or the downstream (offsite) riparian/riverine habitats and species, especially those downstream on conserved lands along San Timoteo Creek, which may be subject to dewatering impacts or to reductions in inundation and reduction of other beneficial components of their hydroperiods.

Therefore, the Service recommends that the City:
1) Perform hydrological studies of the Project site and the downstream habitats focused on understanding and quantifying how the proposed Project would modify the hydrology and habitat characteristics of the downstream areas.

Response:

The project proposes construction of a detention basin, low flow diversion structure and underground storm drain improvements. Detention basins are used to attenuate runoff – not to retain or divert flows. The existing systems do not have capacity to accommodate current peak flood flows resulting in localized flooding. The project improvements – basin and bypass system – will maintain flow to the existing creek while diverting peak flows to the proposed basin and underground storm drain system to provide flood protection. Reduced peak flows will continue to flow along Calimesa Creek to San Timoteo Creek.

The existing storm drain system located near Interstate 10 does not have sufficient capacity to convey the current peak flows leading to water backing up on the inlet side which causes flooding to the surrounding areas. The proposed upstream basin will reduce the peak storm water flow to eliminate flooding. Exhibit 4 of the Hydrology Report (Appendix F of IS/MND) details the flow diversion as well as compares the peak storm flows of the existing conditions to the proposed conditions.

Comment 2-4:

The MND states that the Southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica) will be impacted by the Project. The Southern California black walnut is a riparian tree species which is endemic to Southern California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution. The black walnut tree is listed by the California Native Plant Society as being threatened or endangered throughout its range; however, the MND includes no measures to offset the impacts to this riparian species.

We recommend that the City determine the number and locations of black walnut trees which may be impacted by the Project either directly (through construction impacts) or indirectly (through dewatering impacts), and add a measure to replace the impacted walnut trees through replacement plantings in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands.

We recommend including the following Mitigation Measure in the MND per the edits below (edits Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 22
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure XX: A survey for Southern California black walnut shall be conducted prior to the preparation of Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if any black walnut trees would be removed or dewatered. If Southern California black walnut trees would be impacted in either way, replacement trees shall be provided, which will be planted in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands somewhere inside the MSHCP Plan Boundary, preferably in the City of Calimesa or its vicinity.

Response:

The project intends to protect all Southern California Black Walnuts in place. The City denies the USFW suggested language for an additional Mitigation Measure XX; however, the City accepted the suggested language for an additional mitigation measure provided by CDFW. The City will not complete the DBESP prior to adoption of the final IS/MND. The DBESP does not change the CEQA impact determination but rather determines the specific amount of mitigation required to be performed by the project. The additional mitigation measure to be added to the final IS/MND for Southern California Black Walnuts is presented below:

Mitigation Measure XX: A survey for Southern California black walnut shall be conducted prior to Project activities the preparation of Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if any black walnut trees would be removed. or dewatered If Southern California black walnut trees would be removed, mitigation shall be required and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value, per a CDFW approved DVESP. impacted in either way, replacement trees shall be provided, which will be planted in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands somewhere inside the MSHCP Plan Boundary, preferably in the City of Calimesa or its vicinity.

Comment 2-5:

The MND states that impacts to coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodland may occur within the Project alignment. In the MSHCP, riparian woodlands include coast live oaks which are subject to the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP). However, mitigation to offset the loss of oak trees is not included in the MND.

2. This species is a valuable component of the habitats on the Project site, and removal of these Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 23
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
trees would result in loss of habitat function. Alongside loss of habitat function, removing the trees may potentially result in permanent loss of habitat quality. Project activities would also contribute to temporal loss of habitat for wildlife species that rely on these native plant communities.

To demonstrate biological equivalence to avoidance of coast live oak, we recommend that the City identify a location that has suitable habitat for the coast live oak where replacement trees can be planted. We recommend planting oak trees at a 10:1 replacement ratio for individual trees and associated area (acreage) to offset the loss of the mature trees on the Project site. The proposal should identify a restoration plan to ensure establishment of the oak saplings in the new location.

We recommend collecting seeds from the oaks on site to help conserve genetic variability of the species.

We recommend revising Mitigation Measure 7 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. XX. A survey for California native oak species shall be conducted prior to the preparation of Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if any native oaks would be removed or dewatered. If native oaks would be impacted in either way, replacement trees shall be provided, which will be planted in suitable habitat on existing conservation lands somewhere inside the MSHCP Plan Boundary, preferably in the City of Calimesa or its vicinity.

Response:

No Oak Tree removals are anticipated. The IS/MND has Mitigation Measure 7 which requires an oak tree survey to be conducted prior to construction activities; therefore, the City denies the requested addition of Mitigation Measure XX. However, the City has accepted suggested revisions to Mitigation Measure 7 provided by CDFW. The City will not complete the DBESP prior to adaption of the final IS/MND. The DBESP does not change the CEQA impact determination but rather determines the specific amount of mitigation required to be performed by the project.

The revised language for mitigation measure 7 is presented below:

Comment 2-6:

The MND states that “the survey area included habitat potentially suitable for the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp, the proposed project has been designed to avoid that area.” However, the Biological Resources Assessment report on which the IS/MND is based contradicts this conclusion, showing that the proposed Project’s detention basin overlaps the area mapped as Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 24
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
suitable habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp, and would therefore directly impact this suitable habitat.

The Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonii) and the threatened Lynch’s fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) identified as benefiting from the riparian/riverine policy procedures (Section

6.1.2 of the MSHCP), however, the MND does not include any specific measures to offset the Project’s potential impacts to these threatened and endangered species.

We recommend revising Mitigation Measure 4 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. 4: If Since suitable potential fairy shrimp habitat exists on the Project site, and cannot be avoided, the City of Calimesa shall conduct protocol-level focused surveys (i.e., two seasons) pursuant U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (November 2017) to determine presence/absence of threatened and endangered species of fairy shrimp. If focusedprotocol level survey results are positive, and the Project cannot permanently avoid fairy shrimp habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report shall be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration. In accordance with MSHCP Table 9-2, Objective 4 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Objective 3 for Riverside fairy shrimp, if the survey results are positive, at least 90% of the area with longterm conservation value shall be conserved on-site.

Response:

The City denies the requested changes to Mitigation Measure 4. The potential fairy shrimp habitat area identified in the Biological Resource Report shall be avoided and protected during construction. The project site is found to be well-draining and therefore will not retain ponded waters. Figure 5B of the Biological Resource Report identifies the potential Fairy Shrimp Habitat area – a vast majority of the area is located beyond the project boundaries. Mitigation Measure 4 remains as proposed. The City will not complete the DBESP prior to adoption of the final IS/MND. The DBESP does not change the CEQA impact determination but rather determines the specific amount of mitigation required to be performed by the project.

Comment 2-7
Surveys for fairy shrimp have not been conducted. The MND identifies that a general biological reconnaissance of the Project was performed.

Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 25
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Response:

See response above. The Biological Resources Report identifies potential areas for fairy shrimp habitat with a vast majority of the area located beyond the project boundaries. The project was designed to avoid impact to this area.
03-038-2023-003
Dear Michael Thornton,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Calimesa Creek Stage III project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Calimesa
Michael Thornton
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
April 20, 2023
Re: Calimesa Creek Stage III-MND
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 423-3485. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Xitlaly Madrigal
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
*The Mitigated Negative Declaration document included standard mitigation measures to address impacts to cultural resources. We found these measures to be sufficient.

Letter 3
3-1
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 26
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Letter 3 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Xitlaly Madrigal, April 20, 2023.

Comment 3-1:

The Mitigated Negative Declaration document included standard mitigation measures to address impacts to cultural resources. We found these measures to be sufficient.

We have no comments.

Response:

The comment is noted and no further response is required by CEQA.

JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
250649
April 17, 2023
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Attention: Mr. Michael Thornton Re: Calimesa Creek, Stage 3 Project, APNs 410-030-039, 410-020-050,
410-040-045, 411-131-008, 411-131-019,
and 411-140-022
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not usually review land divisions/land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters/flood hazard reports for projects that are located within incorporated cities. Exceptions are made for cases with items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees).

The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received April 10, 2023. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:
☐ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed.
☒ This project involves District proposed Capital Improvement Plan facility, namely, Calimesa Channel, Stage 3. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City of Calimesa.

The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions Letter 4
4-1
City of Calimesa - 2 - April 17, 2023
Re: Calimesa Creek, Stage 3 Project,
APNs 410-030-039, 410-020-050, 250649
410-040-045, 411-131-008, 411-131-019,
and 411-140-022
shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☒ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Calimesa Avenue L, and Calimesa Channel. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ☒ The District's previous comments dated November 8, 2022 are still valid.

GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may need to obtain an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage from the State Water Resources Control Board or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report) and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if a CEQA document was prepared for the project. The project proponent shall also bear the responsibility for complying with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply.

If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager
ec: Riverside County Planning Department
Attn: Timothy Wheeler
EM:mm
4-1
cont’d
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 27
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Letter 4 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Amy McNeill, April 17, 2023.

Comment 4-1:

This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed.

This project involves District proposed Capital Improvement Plan facility, namely, Calimesa Channel, Stage 3. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City of Calimesa.

This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City.

An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Calimesa Avenue L, and Calimesa Channel.

The District's previous comments dated November 8, 2022 are still valid.

This project may need to obtain an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage from the State Water Resources Control Board or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

The project proponent shall also bear the responsibility for complying with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply.

Response:

The comments are noted. The city will obtain all required local, state and federal permits as applicable.
1 Travis Bradshaw
From: Mike Thornton
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:25 AM
To: Travis Bradshaw
Subject: FW: Calimesa Creek Stage III Project
From: Mauricio Alvarez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Mike Thornton <[email protected]>
Subject: Calimesa Creek Stage III Project
Good Morning Michael,
Thank you for including Riverside Transit Agency in the development review of the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project. A�er further review, there are no recommenda�ons to submit for this par�cular project at this �me.

Thank you,
Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
Planning Analyst
Riverside Transit Agency
p: 951.565.5260 | e: [email protected]
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507
Letter 5
5-1
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 28
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – August 14, 2023
Letter 5: Email – Riverside Transit Agency, Mauricio Alvarez, email dated April 21, 2023.

Comment 5-1:

Riverside Transit Agency has no recommendations to submit at this time.

Response:

The comment is noted and no further response is required by CEQA.

APPENDIX A
Comment Letters
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
May 15, 2023
Mr. Michael Thornton
City Engineer
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
[email protected]
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2023040377, City of Calimesa, Riverside County Dear Mr. Thornton:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 2 of 26 ends

need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.).

Page 3 of 26 ends

Geological Survey 7.5”, California topographic quadrangle map; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 410-030-049 through -052.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA.

To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the MSHCP, the Permits, and the Implementing Agreement.

The City is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 4 of 26 ends

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 5 of 26 ends

The City is required to ensure the Applicant completes the DBESP process prior to completion of the MND to demonstrate implementation of MSHCP requirements in the CEQA documentation.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

CDFW recommend revising Mitigation Measure 6 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure 6: If the project cannot demonstrate avoidance of MSHCP Section

Page 6 of 26 ends

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the start of construction.

Comment #2: Impacts to the Southern California Black Walnut Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on Southern California black walnut tree (Juglans californica).

6.1.2 of the MSHCP), however, the MND includes no measures to offset the impacts to this riparian species.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Page 7 of 26 ends

demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value, per a CDFWapproved DBESP.

Comment #3: Impacts to Coast Live Oak
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia).

2 Griffin and Muick. 1990. California Native Oaks: Past and Present. Fremontia 18(3): 4-12. 3 Block, W.M., Morrison, M.M., Verner, J. 1990. Wildlife and oak-woodland interdependency.

Fremontia 18(3):72-76.

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 8 of 26 ends

(prior to adoption of the CEQA document), CDFW recommends the City include the following measure prior to adopting the MND.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

CDFW recommend revising Mitigation Measure 7 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. 7 An oak tree survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to the start of any construction to determine if any oak trees would be removed.

If oak trees would be removed, their removal would have to be removed in compliance with Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) Section 18.70.120.

In addition, mitigation shall be required for each oak tree removed and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value per a CDFW-approved DBESP.

Comment #4: Impacts to Fairy Shrimp
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on fairy shrimp.

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 9 of 26 ends

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Specific impact: Project implementation could result in the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for passerine and raptor species from the removal of vegetation onsite.

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 10 of 26 ends

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Page 11 of 26 ends

results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities.

Page 12 of 26 ends

This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow.

Upon receipt of a complete notification, CDFW determines if the proposed Project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 13 of 26 ends

whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may suggest ways to modify the project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement is a “project” subject to CEQA (see Pub.

Recommended potentially feasible mitigation measure(s):

The notification to CDFW should provide the following information:

1. A stream delineation including the bed, bank and channel;

Page 14 of 26 ends

names should be provided based on vegetation association and/or alliance per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al 2009);

3. A discussion as to whether impacts on streams within the Project site would impact those streams immediately outside of the Project site where there is hydrologic connectivity.

Potential impacts such as changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and sedimentation should be discussed; and

4. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year storm event to provide information on how water and sediment is conveyed through the Project site.

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 15 of 26 ends

Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). The City is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project’s mitigation measures.

Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 16 of 26 ends

summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment 1).

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Katrina Rehrer, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 17 of 26 ends

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 18 of 26 ends

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true Francis, C.D., C.P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions. Current Biology 19:1415–1419.

Halfwerk, W., L.J.M. Holleman, C. M Lessells, H. Slabbekoorn. 2011. Negative Impact of Traffic Noise on Avian Reproductive Success. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:210–219.

Johnson, P.T., A. R. Townsend, C. C. Cleveland, P. M Glibert, R. W. Howarth, V. J.

McKenzie, E. Rejmankova, and M.H. Ward. 2010 Linking Environmental Nutrient Enrichment and Disease Emergence in Humans and Wildlife. Ecological Applications. 20(1):16–29.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/08-0633.1 Kleist, N. J., R. P. Guralnick, A. Cruz, C. A. Lowry, and C. D. Francis. 2018. Chronic Anthropogenic Noise Disrupts Glucocorticoid Signaling and has Multiple Effects on Fitness in an Avian Community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: E648–E657.

Miller, M. 2006. Apparent Effects of Light Pollution on Singing Behavior of American Robins. The Condor, 108(1), University of Florida.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (RCA). 2006.

Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Available for download at:
https://www.wrcca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructi ons.pdf
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. A final MMRP shall reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s final on and/or off-site mitigation plans.

Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation Measure (MM) Timing Responsible Party
Protection of
Riparian/Riverin
e and Vernal
Pool Resources
(MSHCP Section

6.1.2)
Mitigation Measure 6: If the project cannot demonstrate avoidance of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian habitat or riverine resources in perpetuity, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report shall be required and propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. This document shall be reviewed, approved, and coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the start of construction.

Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project Proponent
Black Walnut
MM BIO-XX: A survey for Southern California black walnut shall be conducted prior to Project activities to determine if any black walnut trees would be removed. If Southern California black walnut trees would be removed, mitigation shall be required and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value, per a CDFW-approved DBESP.

Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project Proponent
Oak Tree
Mitigation Measure No. 7 An oak tree survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to the start of any construction to determine if any oak trees would be removed. If oak trees would be removed, their removal would have to be removed in compliance with Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) Section 18.70.120. In addition, mitigation shall be required for each oak tree removed and shall demonstrate equivalent or superior function and value per a CDFW-approved DBESP.

Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project Proponent
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 20 of 26 ends

Fairy Shrimp
Mitigation Measure No. 4: If suitable potential fairy shrimp habitat exists and cannot be avoided, the City of Calimesa shall conduct protocol-level focused surveys (i.e., two seasons) pursuant U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (May 31, 2015) to determine presence/absence. If focused-protocol level survey results are positive, and the project cannot permanently avoid fairy shrimp habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report shall be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. In accordance with MSHCP Table 9-2, Objective 4 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Objective 3 for Riverside fairy shrimp, if the survey results are positive, at least 90% of the area with long-term conservation value shall be conserved on-site.

Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project Proponent
Nesting Birds
Mitigation Measure 3: To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for all implementing development and infrastructure projects shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season. If ground-disturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season, the City of Calimesa shall require that a preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint within 3 days prior to initiation of activity. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist
(Designated Biologist) experienced in:
identifying local and migratory bird species of
special concern; conducting bird surveys using
appropriate survey methodology; nesting
Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project Proponent
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 21 of 26 ends

surveying techniques, recognizing breeding
and nesting behaviors, locating nests and
breeding territories, and identifying nesting
stages and nest success;
determining/establishing appropriate avoidance
and minimization measures; and monitoring the
efficacy of implemented avoidance and
minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at
the appropriate time of day/night, during
appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3
days prior to the initiation of Project activities.

Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas
including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows,
cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall
take into consideration the size of the Project
site; density, and complexity of the habitat;
number of survey participants; survey
techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to
ensure the data collected is complete and
accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If an active nest or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance
buffers shall be implemented as determined by a
qualified biologist and approved by the City of
Calimesa, based on their best professional judgement
and experience. The buffer shall be of a distance to
ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions,
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 22 of 26 ends

species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist
until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is
confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or
abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the
nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment
usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of
avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance
areas when no other active nests are found. Upon
completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for
mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Impacts to
Aquatic and
Riparian
Resources
Mitigation Measure 5: If jurisdictional waters are impacted as a result of project implementation, the City of Calimesa shall obtain all appropriate permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Prior to the grading the Project site and prior to the start of Project activities, the Applicant Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project Proponent
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 23 of 26 ends

shall notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources. The applicant shall either receive a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) or written documentation from CDFW that a Streamed Alteration Agreement is not needed.

The notification to CDFW should provide the following
information:

5. A stream delineation including the bed, bank
and channel;

6. Linear feet and/or acreage of streams and
associated natural communities that would be
permanently and/or temporarily impacted by
the Project. This includes impacts as a result
of routine maintenance and fuel modification.

Plant community names should be provided
based on vegetation association and/or
alliance per the Manual of California
Vegetation (Sawyer et al 2009);

7. A discussion as to whether impacts on
streams within the Project site would impact
those streams immediately outside of the
Project site where there is hydrologic
connectivity. Potential impacts such as
changes to drainage pattern, runoff, and
sedimentation should be discussed; and

8. A hydrological evaluation of the 100-year
storm event to provide information on how
water and sediment is conveyed through the
Project site.

All mitigation measures and conditions contained within Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 24 of 26 ends

the above permits shall be implemented. At a minimum,
the following shall be completed for mitigation for impacts to waters of the state and jurisdictional streambed:

4. Compensation for Permanent Impacts: If an SAA is
required, the Applicant shall provide compensatory
mitigation at no less than 3:1 for impacts to streams
and associated natural communities, or at a ratio
acceptable to CDFW per a LSA Agreement.

Mitigation should occur within the Western
Riverside County. On-site mitigation measures may
include the enhancement of existing streams. A
conceptual Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
shall be prepared, if necessary, for the
enhancement activities to address impacts to Fish
and Game Code section 1602 resources, which
may include non-native species removal and
revegetation followed by periodic monitoring. The
plan shall specify the criteria and standards by
which the enhancement actions will compensate for
impacts of the project on streams.

5. Temporary Impacts: All areas temporarily impacted
shall be restored to native grade and contour and
revegetated with native species as determined by
an adjacent reference site or through
documentation of baseline conditions prior to
impacts.

6. Best Management Practices. Avoided jurisdictional
waters shall be fenced or flagged as
environmentally sensitive areas. Best management
practices shall be implemented to avoid indirect
Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 25 of 26 ends

impacts to jurisdictional waters, including the
following:
a. Vehicles and equipment shall not operate in
ponded or flowing water except as described
in the permits.
b. Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants
from grading or other activities shall not be
allowed to enter jurisdictional waters or placed
in locations that may be subjected to high
storm flows.
c. Spoil sites shall not be located within 30 feet
from the boundaries of jurisdictional waters or
in locations that may be subject to high storm
flows, where spoils might be washed back into
drainages.
d. Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof,
asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or
other petroleum products, or any other
substances that could be hazardous to
vegetation or wildlife resources resulting from
project-related activities shall be prevented
from contaminating the soil and/or entering
avoided jurisdictional waters.
e. No equipment maintenance shall occur within
150 feet of jurisdictional waters and no
petroleum products or other pollutants from
the equipment shall be allowed to enter these
areas or enter any off-site state-jurisdictional
waters under any flow.

Mr. Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
May 15, 2023

Page 26 of 26 ends

In Reply Refer to:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Calimesa has requested comments to inform the MND which will identify the proposed Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, discuss alternatives, and propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts The Service offer these comments and recommendations below to assist the City implementing the MSHCP policies and procedures relevant to the proposed Project. Specifically implementation of MSHCP Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 2 policy for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, set forth in MSHCP Section 6.1.2

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION

The MSHCP identifies that for mapped riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources that are not included in the MSHCP conservation area, applicable mitigation under CEQA, shall be imposed by the Permittee (in this case the Lead Agency). Further, the MSHCP identifies that to ensure the standards in Section 6.1.2 are met, the Permittee shall ensure that, through the CEQA process, project applicants develop project alternatives demonstrating efforts that first avoid, and then minimize direct and indirect effects to the Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 3 wetlands mapped pursuant to Section 6.1.2. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigated such that the lost functions and values as they relate to Covered Species are replaced as through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The DBESP process should be completed prior to adoption of the MND to demonstrate implementation of MSHCP requirements in the CEQA documentation.

Therefore, the Service recommends that the City:

Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 4 1) Perform hydrological studies of the Project site and the downstream habitats focused on understanding and quantifying how the proposed Project would modify the hydrology and habitat characteristics of the downstream areas.

The coast live oak, a riparian tree species which is native to California, is in a rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and limited distribution within the Plan Area. Coast live oak trees serve several important ecological functions such as protecting soils from erosion and landslides; regulating water flow in watersheds; and maintaining water quality in streams and rivers. Oak trees alone provide nesting and perching habitat for approximately 170 species of birds1. Oak woodlands also have higher levels of biodiversity than any other terrestrial ecosystem in California 2. This species is a valuable component of the habitats on the Project site, and removal of these trees would result in loss of habitat 1 Griffin and Muick. 1990. California Native Oaks: Past and Present. Fremontia 18(3): 4-12. 2 Block, W.M., Morrison, M.M., Verner, J. 1990. Wildlife and oak-woodland interdependency.

Fremontia 18(3):72-76.

Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 5 function. Alongside loss of habitat function, removing the trees may potentially result in permanent loss of habitat quality. Project activities would also contribute to temporal loss of habitat for wildlife species that rely on these native plant communities.

We recommend revising Mitigation Measure 7 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

We recommend revising Mitigation Measure 4 in the MND per the edits below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.:

Mitigation Measure No. 4: Since suitable potential fairy shrimp habitat exists on the Project site, and cannot be avoided, the City of Calimesa shall conduct protocol-level focused surveys (i.e., two seasons) pursuant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (November 2017) to determine presence/absence of Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 6 threatened and endangered species of fairy shrimp. If focused-protocol level survey results are positive, and the Project cannot permanently avoid fairy shrimp habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report shall be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value prior to the adoption of the final Mitigated Negative Declaration . In accordance with MSHCP Table 9-2, Objective 4 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Objective 3 for Riverside fairy shrimp, if the survey results are positive, at least 90% of the area with longterm conservation value shall be conserved on-site.

ADEQUACY OF ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Surveys for fairyshrimp have not been conducted. The MND identifies that a general biological reconnaissance of the Project was performed.

6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Sincerely,
for
Rollie White
Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Thornton, City Engineer (FWS-WRIV-2023-0081883) 7 ec:

Will Kolbow, City Manager, City of Calimesa
Kelly Lucia, Planning Director, City of Calimesa
Kim Freeburn, California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Claudia Tenorio, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board James Mace, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Aaron Gabbe, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League
JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions City of Calimesa - 2 - April 17, 2023
Re: Calimesa Creek, Stage 3 Project,
APNs 410-030-039, 410-020-050, 250649
410-040-045, 411-131-008, 411-131-019,
and 411-140-022
shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☒ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Calimesa Avenue L, and Calimesa Channel. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ☒ The District's previous comments dated November 8, 2022 are still valid.

Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager
ec: Riverside County Planning Department
Attn: Timothy Wheeler
EM:mm
03-038-2023-003
Dear Michael Thornton,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Calimesa Creek Stage III project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Calimesa
Michael Thornton
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
April 20, 2023
Re: Calimesa Creek Stage III-MND
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 423-3485. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Xitlaly Madrigal
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
*The Mitigated Negative Declaration document included standard mitigation measures to address impacts to cultural resources. We found these measures to be sufficient.
1 Travis Bradshaw
From: Mike Thornton
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:25 AM
To: Travis Bradshaw
Subject: FW: Calimesa Creek Stage III Project
From: Mauricio Alvarez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Mike Thornton <[email protected]>
Subject: Calimesa Creek Stage III Project
Good Morning Michael,
Thank you for including Riverside Transit Agency in the development review of the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project. AŌer further review, there are no recommendaƟons to submit for this parƟcular project at this Ɵme.

Thank you,
Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
Planning Analyst
Riverside Transit Agency
p: 951.565.5260 | e: [email protected]
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507

APPENDIX B
Draft Calimesa Stage III Project - IS/MND

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III PROJECT
Lead Agency:

City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
(909) 795-9801
Project Proponent:

City of Calimesa
Engineering Department
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
909-795-9801
Environmental Consultant:

Phil Martin & Associates
1809 E. Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, California 92705
(949) 454-1800
April 3, 2023
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page i
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 TABLE of CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE
A Project Title ............................................................................................................... 1 B. Lead Agency Name and Address.............................................................................. 1 C. Contact Person and Phone Number.......................................................................... 1 D. Project Location ........................................................................................................ 1 E. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address....................................................................... 1 F. General Plan Designation ......................................................................................... 1 G. Zoning....................................................................................................................... 1 H. Description of Project ................................................................................................ 1 I. Surrounding Land Uses............................................................................................. 8 J. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ................................................. 8 K. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc................................................ 13 L. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 13 M. Determination.......................................................................................................... 14 N. Issues ..................................................................................................................... 16 O. Explanations of Issues ............................................................................................ 24 I. Aesthetics....................................................................................................... 24 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources............................................................... 26 III. Air Quality....................................................................................................... 27 IV. Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 40 V. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 49 VI. Energy............................................................................................................ 51 VII. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 53 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 55 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 58 X. Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................... 60 XI. Land Use........................................................................................................ 63 XII. Mineral Resources.......................................................................................... 64 XIII. Noise ..............................................................................................................65 XIV. Population and Housing.................................................................................. 76 XV. Public Services............................................................................................... 76 XVI. Recreation...................................................................................................... 77 XVII. Transportation ................................................................................................ 77 XVIII.Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 81 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.......................................................................... 83 XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 84 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................. 85 Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page ii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 LIST of FIGURES
Figure Page

1. Regional Map............................................................................................................ 3

2. Local Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 4

3. Aerial Photo .............................................................................................................. 5

4. USGS Topo Map....................................................................................................... 6

5. Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 9

6. On-Site Photographs ............................................................................................... 10

7. Surrounding Land Use Photos ................................................................................ 11

8. Photo Orientation Map ............................................................................................ 12

9. Noise Sensitive Receptors ...................................................................................... 70

10. Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................ 71

11. Proposed Truck Haul Route .................................................................................... 80 LIST of TABLES
Table Page

1. Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................ 31

2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2015-2018).......................................................... 33

3. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds......................................................... 33

4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet ..................................................................... 35

5. Construction Activity Emissions - Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)............. 35

6. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)................................................................ 38

7. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)........................................................... 57

8. Calimesa Sound Level Limits .................................................................................. 66

9. Construction Noise Level Adjustments .................................................................... 67

10. Yucaipa Noise Standards........................................................................................ 67 11 Baseline Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 69

12. Construction Noise Impact – Reference Noise Levels ............................................. 71

13. Construction Noise Impact – Detention Basin (Noise at Closest Receiver).............. 72 14 Construction Noise Impact Diversion Structure (Noise at Closest Receiver) ........... 72

15.Human Responses To Transient Vibration............................................................... 74

16. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction.......................................... 74 Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page iii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Reports
Appendix B – Biology and Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports Appendix C – Cultural Resource Assessment
Appendix D – Geotechnical Report
Appendix E – Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F – Hydrology Study
Appendix G – Noise Report
Appendix H – VMT Report
Calimesa Creek Stage III Page 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 6, 2023

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
A. Project Title: Calimesa Creek Stage III
B. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
C. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Thornton, City Engineer (909) 795-9801 Email: [email protected]
D. Project Location: The Calimesa Creek Stage III Project (project) is located in the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. More specifically, the detention basin is generally located between County Line Road on the north, 3rd Street on the east, Rogers Lane/Court on the south, and 4th Street on the west.

The proposed storm drain system will be located along County Line Road between 5th Street on the east and Interstate 10 on the west, as shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photo. The on-site topography is shown in Figure 4, USGS Topo Map.

E. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Calimesa Public Works Department
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
909-795-9801
F. General Plan Designation: The land use designations for the project site as designated by the Calimesa General Plan include CC – Community Commercial (FAR 50:1) for the proposed detention basin. For the proposed storm drain system, it will be primarily located in County Line Road public right-of-way with downstream connection being within property zoned as DVC – Downtown Village Commercial Park and upstream connection being RH – Residential High (14-20 DU/AC), and DVC – Downtown Village Commercial Park. The project would not require a general plan amendment.

G. Zoning: The proposed detention basin is zoned C-C (Community Commercial). Calimesa Creek is included in the Downtown Business District and zoned D-V-C Downtown Village Commercial with the Calimesa Creek Overlay. The proposed underground storm drain in County Line Road is within a public roadway in both the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa. The project would not require a zone change.

H. Description of Project: The proposed Calimesa Creek Stage III project is a component of and the continuation of the Calimesa Channel “Stage I” and “Stage II” projects that were completed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) in 2002. The project consists of a 53-acre-foot detention basin and variable size storm drain system along County Line Road.

Each are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs and are shown on Figure 5 (Calimesa Creek Stage III Site Plan):

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Detention Basin
• Basin – The scope of work consists of site grading, 35,000 CY of material export, maintenance road construction, site drainage system improvements, site access improvements, and site fencing. The basin site is 4.5 acres.
• Inlet Improvements – Within the existing Calimesa Creek Channel, a diversion facility will be constructed to divert channel flows to the detention basin. The existing Trapezoidal Channel will be connected to a new 96” reinforced concrete pipe. The pipe will release flows to the basin through an energy dissipation structure (including head and wing walls, and rip rap). • Outlet Improvements – Includes a low flow system and a spillway. The low flow pipe will cause attenuation – runoff will be maintained in the basin and released over a longer period of time. It includes concrete walls and rip rap. The spillway will convey larger storm event flow back into the trapezoidal channel.

Storm Drain System
• Transition Structures – Include connection to the existing I-10 drainage system using a manhole structure and a connection to the existing trapezoidal channel near 5th Street. Transition structures will be reinforced concrete.
• Storm Drain System – Storm drain system includes 18” thru 78” reinforced concrete pipe, manholes, and inlet structures (e.g., catch basins).
• Low Flow Diversion – To maintain small flows along the natural creek, a low flow diversion system will be constructed near 5th Street.

VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 12
Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 1
Regional Map
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 12
Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Proposed Storm
Drain System
Proposed
Detention
Basin
SBCO/Yucaipa
RIVCO/Calimesa
Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 3
Aerial Photo
Proposed Storm Drain
System
Proposed
Detention
Basin
Proposed Storm Drain
System
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 12
Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 4
USGS Topo Map
Proposed Storm
Drain System
Proposed
Detention
Basin
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The project would provide the following objectives:
• Reduce peak 100-year flow rate to downstream facilities; • Eliminate flooding from the basin to the west side of I-10 including the Calimesa Fire Station, City Hall, and Downtown Business District
Existing Calimesa Creek consists of a concrete lined trapezoidal channel beginning at County Line Road, approximately 500 feet west of California Street. The existing trapezoidal channel, with a base width of 4 feet and a depth of 5 feet, meanders westerly through existing residential neighborhoods and outlets on the west side of 5th Street. At 5th Street, Calimesa Creek extends west as an unimproved earthen channel to an existing inlet near Interstate 10. A 6’ x 6’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) extends under I10 and connects with the Calimesa-Avenue L east of the freeway and continues west and southwest where it empties into San Timoteo Creek.

The project includes the design, engineering and construction of a 4.5-acre detention basin on the north side of Calimesa Creek approximately 150 feet west of 3rd Street, 18”, 24”,54”, 72” and 78” underground storm drains, box culverts, roadway crossings and pipe.

The Calimesa Creek system operates under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (SRWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The permit requires that any hydromodification to a watercourse within its jurisdiction be considered as part of a project’s analysis.

Hydromodification is the change in rainfall-runoff relationships resulting from impervious areas on a site/project. In some stream systems, excessive hydromodification can cause erosion of stream banks and beds, transport of fine sediments, and disruption of aquatic habitat. The project must incorporate hydromodification management to reduce degradation of the physical structure of the creek downstream of the proposed improvements.

The preliminary engineering analysis and design indicates the need for the construction of a detention basin adjacent to and on the north side of Calimesa Creek west of 3rd Street. The preliminary analysis and design also identifies the need for a low-flow channel and active floodplain dimensions that are characteristic for this reach of Calimesa Creek.

The basin portion of the project includes a 53-acre foot detention basin on a 4.5-acre parcel of vacant land that is adjacent to and north of the creek and approximately 150 feet west of 3rd Street. The detention basin would capture upstream high storm water flows in Calimesa Creek. Project export is estimated at 35,000 cubic yards of materials associated with the excavation of the detention basin. All export material would be hauled to the San Timoteo Landfill that is located approximately 11 miles southwest of the project in the City of Redlands.

The conveyance portion of the project includes connections to the existing trapezoidal storm channel near 5th Street and the existing I-10 conveyance storm drain where a low-flow diversion structure underground 72” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and related facilities. The existing drainage patterns of Calimesa Creek would generally be maintained, with the exception of the underground storm drain that would be constructed in County Line Road. Maintaining the existing on-site drainage pattern along with the proposed detention basin would reduce existing flooding impacts associated with Calimesa Creek downstream of the proposed detention basin. Once completed, the project would provide 100-year flood protection for the Calimesa Channel watershed upstream from the basin to Interstate 10.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 In order to convey the 100-year runoff from both the Calimesa Creek watershed and the CalimesaAvenue L watershed westerly across Interstate 10, the existing sump and 6’ x 6’ RCB at the freeway would require additional modifications, replacement, or construction of an additional drainage facility crossing under the freeway as a component of a regional drainage plan. This would involve coordination with Caltrans, the City of Calimesa, the City of Yucaipa, and RCFC&WCD. However, the proposed project would significantly decrease the flooding potential at this existing crossing with the construction of the proposed detention basin. Therefore, the project does not include improvements to the drainage system under I-10.

The project would comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 which requires the application of standard best management practices during construction and operation activities and includes the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, manage haul road dust by the use of water, cover haul vehicles, restrict vehicle speeds on on-site unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweep loose dirt from paved site access roadways, stop construction activity when wind speeds exceed 25 mph and establish a permanent ground cover on finished areas.

The project is scheduled to be constructed in two phases. The first phase includes the construction of the storm drains and junction structures that would start in October 2023 and completed in March 2024.

The second phase includes the construction of the detention basin and is scheduled to start construction in December 2023 and completed in August 2024. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 5, Site Plan.

The discretionary action required from the City of Calimesa is approval of the project and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
I. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The existing land uses surrounding the proposed detention basin include single-family detached residential homes to the east, south and west and a retail shopping center in the City of Yucaipa to the north, north of County Line Road. The existing land uses adjacent to the proposed storm drain improvements from 5th Street on the east to Interstate 10 on the west include vacant land and single-family detached residential units to the south and multi-family to the north in the City of Yucaipa, north of County Line Road. The land uses from Park Avenue to Calimesa Boulevard include the City of Calimesa city hall and single-family residences south of the creek and commercial use to the north. The land uses from Calimesa Boulevard west to Interstate 10 include a single-family residence and commercial use to the south and commercial use to the north. The existing land uses adjacent to the underground storm drain proposed for County Line Road include commercial uses in the City of Yucaipa to the north and commercial uses in the City of Calimesa to the south. County Line Road forms the city boundary between the cities of Yucaipa and Calimesa. Figures 6 and 7 show photographs of the on-site land uses and Figure 7 shows the surrounding land uses. Figure 8 is a photo orientation map showing the location of the on-site and surrounding land use photos.

J. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The City of Yucaipa will issue an encroachment permit for work along the north side of County Line Road. The project also requires a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit from the California State Water Resources Control Board – Santa Ana Region and an encroachment permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. If jurisdictional waters are impacted as a result of project implementation, appropriate permits shall be obtained pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
EL MONTE MIXED USE | CITY OF EL MONTE Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1
Regional Map
N
ProjectLocation
CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1
Regional Map
N
ProjectLocation
Source: TKE Engineering, Inc.

Lower
Curtis
Park
Source: TKE Engineering, Inc.

Figure 5
Site Plan
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1
Regional Map
N
Project
Location
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1
Regional Map
N
Project
Location
Source: TKE Engineering, Inc.

Lower
Curtis
Park
Source: TKE Engineering, Inc.

Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
A. Looking at proposed detention basin from Co. Line Road B. Looking at proposed diversion structure at 5th Street and Co.

Line Road
C. Looking at proposed creek improvements west of Park
Avenue
D. Looking at proposed underground storm drain alignment in Co. Line Road at Calimesa Blvd.

Figure 6
On Site Photographs
Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
E. Calimesa Fire Station south of the creek at Park Avenue F. Looking at the businesses along County Line Road G. Looking at the existing residences east of the proposed detention basin
H. Existing businesses along south side of County Line Road west of Park Avenue Figure 7
Surrounding Photographs
Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 8
Photo Orientation Map
F G
D
B
C
A
E
H
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 K. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Tribal letters were mailed November 25, 2019 to five Native American tribes pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB52). The tribes that were contacted by the city include:

1. Morongo Band of Mission Indians

2. Pechanga Band of Lusieño Indians

3. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

4. Soboba Band of Lusieño Indians

5. Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) are the only tribe that formally invited consultation with the City in compliance with 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Environmental Quality. Consultations with SMBMI will continue throughout environmental compliance processing. The results of the consultation are provided in Sections V and XVIII of this MND.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2).

Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3 (c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

L. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry
Resources  Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-than-significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

N. ISSUES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 17
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in the loss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 18
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 19
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport, will the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people working or residing in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 20
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on-or off-site;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 21
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 22
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1 (k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 23
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state and local management
and reduction statues and regulations related to
solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 24
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
O. Explanation of Issues
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. There are no state or County designated scenic vistas either within the boundary of the project, adjacent to or within direct view of the project that would be impacted by the project. Furthermore, neither the City of Calimesa nor the City of Yucaipa general plans designate any scenic resources or scenic corridors either on or adjacent to the project. The project would have no scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no state designated scenic highways and no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway that are either adjacent to or visible from the project that would be removed or altered by the project. The closest state designated scenic route to the project is the section of State Route 38 that is located south of State Route 18 in the San Bernardino Mountains that is approximately twenty miles north of the project. The project is not visible from this section of State Route 38 due to the elevation of the existing topography between State Route 18 and the project that prevents direct views of the site.

The project would have no state scenic resource impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact.

The project is located in an urbanized area.1
The project meets and complies with the existing City of Calimesa R-L-M Residential Low/Medium (4-7 DU/AC) zoning for the detention basin. The project also complies with the Calimesa D-V-C Downtown Village Commercial zone and Calimesa Creek Overlay for the proposed storm drain improvements and the proposed underground storm drain improvements in the City of Calimesa. The underground storm drain improvements proposed in the City of Yucaipa are located within the County Line Road right-of-way. The construction of the underground storm drain improvements in County Line Road would not have any visual impacts once the improvements are completed.

The project would change the visual character of the vacant land that is proposed for the construction of the detention basin. The project proposes to construct a fully improved detention basin that is approximately 25’ deep on vacant land that is currently flat. The detention basin would be connected with the adjacent improved open storm channel with an inlet at the southeast corner and an outlet at the southwest corner of the basin. The basin itself measures approximately 430 feet wide and 300 feet long.

An earthen berm would be constructed around the perimeter of the basin to increase its capacity with a maintenance road on the top of the berm for maintenance vehicle access. A 200’ wide spillway is proposed at the south end of the basin adjacent to Calimesa Creek to allow water in the basin above a specific level to flow into the existing open storm drain channel. The bottom of the basin is approximately 1 https://gis-portal.data.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7a41374f6b03456e9d138cb014711e01 Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 25
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 25’ feet lower than the existing surface elevation. The sides of the basin would have slopes at of 2.5:1.

A ramp at the northeast corner of the detention basin would provide access to the bottom of the basin for inspection and maintenance. An 8’ chain link fence with barbed wire at the top is proposed along the project boundary to enclose the basin for security and safety purposes.

A water diversion structure is proposed within Calimesa Creek adjacent to and west of 5th Street. This concrete structure would allow low flow water in Calimesa Creek to be diverted west into the Calimesa Creek to maintain existing low water flows in the creek. The proposed water diversion structure also includes the proposed construction of a 78” underground storm drain that would extend to County Line Road and continue west to approximately 50’ west of the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard where the underground storm drain would extend south to Calimesa Creek. The proposed diversion structure measures 6 feet wide, 6 feet deep and 30 feet in length. The diversion structure outlet measures 3 feet by 4.5 feet. The outlet is four feet in length transitions into a 36” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that would allow low flows in the creek to continue down the stream past the diversion structure. The diversion structure would be visible from both County Line Road and 5th Street. The top of the structure would not extend above the creek bank of Calimesa Creek.

The proposed underground storm drain would be out of public view once construction is completed.

There would be short-term aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of both the detention basin and the underground storm drain with the presence of construction equipment, piles of excavated dirt, construction materials that are stored at the site, construction worker vehicles, etc. While the construction activities would impact the existing aesthetics of the area for approximately 120 days during construction of the detention basin and 60 days for the storm drain, the construction period is relatively short-term.

Once construction is completed the construction equipment, storage of equipment and supplies, presence of construction workers and their vehicles, etc. would be removed from the site. All of the construction equipment, materials, etc. associated with the construction of the proposed storm drain facilities would be removed once construction is completed, the proposed fence around the detention basin would remain after construction is completed.

One of the goals of the Resource Management element of the Calimesa General Plan is to conserve and protect significant landforms and hillside areas.2
The proposed detention basin is not on or adjacent to
a hillside, therefore the site is not required to be protected and meet specific slope and visual design criteria.

Construction equipment would be visible during the construction of the detention basin, diversion structure, underground storm drain and creek bank improvements. To reduce potential impacts, Cities (both Calimesa and Yucaipa) will restrict work hours to 7:00am to 5:00pm, Monday thru Friday, except Holidays. The construction equipment that would be used to construct the project includes excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, and other construction equipment that is typical for the construction of underground storm drain improvement and detention basin projects. The project does not propose the use of cranes or any other large pieces of construction equipment. While the construction equipment would have shortterm aesthetic impacts associated with the use of construction equipment during construction, the aesthetic impacts would cease upon completion of construction. The short-term aesthetic construction impacts would not be significant.

Overall, the construction of the detention basin and other storm drain improvements in the City of Calimesa would comply with the Resource Element of the Calimesa General Plan and have less than significant visual impacts. The construction of the storm drain in County Line Road would be underground 2 City of Calimesa 2014 General Plan, Chapter 6: Resource Management, Goal RM-1, page 6-9.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 26
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 and not visible once construction is completed. While the proposed detention basin is in the City of Calimesa, the basin would not be visible to motorists on County Line Road. The site is located more than 250’ from County Line Road and is not visible from any other street. Overall, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and would have less than significant aesthetic impacts.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any short- or long-term outdoor lights or structures that would generate light. Glare would be generated by the construction equipment and construction materials that would be used during project construction. However, any glare generated during construction would be short-term and cease upon completion of the construction of the project. The project would have less than significant light or glare impacts.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The 4.5-acre site that is proposed for construction of the detention basin site is vacant and undeveloped. The detention basin is surrounded by single-family detached residences adjacent to and east, south and west of the site. Vacant land is located adjacent to and north of the proposed detention basin. The land uses adjacent to Calimesa Creek where the creek channel improvements are proposed include single-family detached residences and commercial uses west of 5th Street in the City of Calimesa. The land uses adjacent to County Line Road where the underground storm drain is proposed includes commercial uses in both the cities of Calimesa to the south and Yucaipa to the north. There are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site.

The areas proposed for construction are designated “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the State of California Department of Conservation Riverside County Important Farmland 2016 map and the State of California Department of Conservation San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2016 map, respectively. 3 Because there are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the areas proposed for construction, the project would not convert prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use and impact farmland.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. None of the properties that are proposed for construction are in a Williamson Act contract. The project would not conflict with any existing agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. There is no timber land or forests in the City of Calimesa or Yucaipa. Therefore, the project would not impact any forest or timber production.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See Response to Section “II.c)” above.

3 ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/riv16_w.pdf, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/sbd16_so.pdf Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 27
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in the loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact.

There is no farmland either on or adjacent to the project. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of or have any impact to farmland, either individually or cumulatively.

III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. An air quality and greenhouse gas report 4 was prepared for the project. A copy of the report is attached in Appendix A. The report references the City of Calimesa’s Climate Action Plan. The purpose of the plan was to integrate local planning efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve the quality of life in the community.

The City of Calimesa is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB. As a regional agency, SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies regarding air emissions.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines and is directly responsible to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has prepared a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) and on June 30, 2016 released its Draft 2016 AQMP, which is a regional blueprint to achieve federal air quality standards and healthful air. On March 23, 2017 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the 2016 AQMP. The primary goal of the AQMP is to meet clean air standards and protect public health, including ensuring benefits to environmental justice and disadvantaged communities. The approved Plan has been forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review. If approved by EPA, the plan becomes federally enforceable.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d)). The regional plan that applies to the project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). A discussion of the project’s consistency with the Calimesa General Plan is provided in Section XI. Land Use of this document. This section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the project with the AQMP. The project must comply with and meet all applicable rules and regulations of the AQMP.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP". Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
4 Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, Giroux & Associates, February 15, 2022.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 28
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both criteria are evaluated below.

CRITERIA 1 – INCREASE IN THE FREQUENCY OR SEVERITY OF VIOLATIONS Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the air quality report that was prepared for the project (see Appendix A) the short-term construction impacts would not have any significant air emission impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The project includes the implementation of fugitive dust control and exhaust emissions control measures during construction. The project would have negligible operational emissions associated with the operation of routine storm drain and detention basin maintenance equipment once the project is constructed. Negligible operational emissions would be generated by the project. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is consistent with the AQMP for Criteria 1.

CRITERIA 2 – EXCEED ASSUMPTIONS IN THE AQMP
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (2016) includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region; creating a plan for our future; and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Calimesa’s General Plan Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

The proposed detention basin site is designated CC – Community Commercial (FAR 50:1) by the Calimesa General Plan and zoned C-C (Community Commercial). Calimesa Creek, which is proposed for improvements, is designated RH – Residential High (14-20 DU/AC), CR – Regional Commercial (FAR 75:1) and LI – Light Industrial land use by the City of Calimesa and zoned R-L-M Residential Low/Medium (4-7 DU/AC). The underground storm drain proposed within County Line Road is a public roadway.

Calimesa Creek, which is proposed for a diversion structure, creek bank restoration and an underground storm drain is designated D-V-C Downtown Village Commercial with the Calimesa Creek Overlay.

The project would not require a general plan amendment or zone change. According to SCAQMD, a project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP if the project furthers one of more policies of the AQMP and does not obstruct other AQMP policies. In the case of the proposed project, the proposed storm drain improvements would reduce flooding and improve public safety in the project area. Generally, project compliance with SCAQMD emissions thresholds, reductions and control requirements, which the project meets, act to reduce project air emissions. The project’s compliance with all applicable SCAQMD air quality standards during construction allows the project to meet and comply with the AQMD. The proposed detention basin and other flood-control improvements would also not generate emissions in Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 29
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 exceedance of the aforementioned allowed uses. Therefore, the project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is consistent with the AQMP for Criteria 2. The project would have no impact to the AQMP.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources that travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area.

The project site is located within the SCAB, which is non-attainment for ozone and PM10 particulate matter. The emissions generated with the construction and operation of cumulative projects would further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the SCAB. The greatest cumulative impact on the regional air quality is the incremental addition of pollutants in the SCAB mainly from increased traffic by residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks to construct these projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact.

As stated in section “III.c)” below, the project would not generate any short-term air emissions that exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have any significant cumulative criteria pollutant impacts.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are typically located:
• Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers
• Long-term health care facilities
• Rehabilitation centers
• Convalescent centers
• Hospitals
• Retirement homes
• Residences5
The closest sensitive receptors to the detention basin are the residents adjacent to and east, south and west of the site. There are also residents in close proximity to the proposed underground storm drain improvements proposed for County Line Road and Calimesa Creek. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, Chapter 2, page 2-1.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 30
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Criteria Pollutants, Health Effects, and Standards
Under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), the U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants; ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.

These six air pollutants are often referred to as the criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are two tiered: primary, to protect public health, and secondary, to prevent degradation to the environment (i.e., impairment of visibility, damage to vegetation and property).

Under the California Clean Air Act, the California Air Resources Board has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) to protect the health and welfare of Californians. State standards have been established for the six criteria pollutants as well as four additional pollutants; visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

Table 1 presents the state and national ambient air quality standards. A brief explanation of each pollutant and their health effects is presented in the Table 1 footnotes.

Monitored Air Quality
Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by the SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. The SCAQMD has divided the South Coast Air Basin into 38 air‐monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The closest air monitoring station to the project is the Redlands air monitoring station that is less than one mile west of the proposed detention basin. However, this station only monitors ozone and large particulates. The closest station that monitors the full spectrum of pollutants is the Central San Bernardino station that is located approximately eighteen miles northwest of the project. Table 2 summarizes the last four years of published data from the Redlands and Central San Bernardino monitoring stations.

As shown in Table 2, ozone and particulates are the two most significant air quality concerns. Ozone is the primary ingredient in photochemical smog. Slightly less than 16 percent of all days exceed the California one-hour standard. The 8-hour state ozone standard has been exceeded an average of 26 percent of all days in the past four years. The federal 8-hour standard is exceeded 17 percent of all days.

Air Emission Thresholds
The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Handbook states that any project in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds shown in Table 3.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 31
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards 6
6 Appendix A – Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa, California, dated February 15, 2022, Page 3.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 32
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 33
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Table 2
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2020)7
Pollutant/Standard 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 79 53 73 104
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 114 94 109 141
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 60 66 88 127
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.156 0.136 0.137 0.173
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.135 0.114 0.117 0.136
Carbon Monoxide
8- Hour > 9. ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0
Max 8-hour Conc. (ppm) 2.3 2.5 1.1 1.4
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.065 0.057 0.059 0.054
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-hour > 50 µg/m3 (S) 2/59 2/59 0/59 1/40
24-hour > 150 µg/m3 (F) 0/59 0/59 0/59 0/40
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 77. 74. 44. 57.

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 (F) 1/116 0/114 0/97 0/115
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 38.2 30.1 34.8 25.7
Source: South Coast AQMD Air Monitoring Station Data Summary Redland Monitoring Station: Ozone, PM-10
San Bernardino 4th Street Monitoring Station: CO, NOx, PM-2.5 Table 3
SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds of Significance
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. 7 Appendix A – Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa, California, dated February 15, 2022, Page 8.

Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 34
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Additional Indicators
In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows:
• A project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • A project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s buildout year. • A project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities necessary to develop the project, including the construction of the retention basin, 18”, 24”, 54”, 72” and 78” underground storm drains, box culverts, roadway crossings and grade the creek bank slopes of Calimesa Creek to protect adjacent properties from a 100-year storm event would generate air emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and odors during construction. The project construction activities include grading for the detention basin, removal of pavement and excavation in County Line Road for the construction of the underground storm drain, and other storm drain improvements.

CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction emissions and operational emissions for a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Although exhaust emissions would result from the operation of on- and off-site motorized equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment would vary among contractors such that emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. Project construction emissions were estimated by using CalEEMod2016.3.2 computer model to identify the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project construction based on the type and number of pieces of construction equipment necessary to develop the project and the estimated time to construct the project. The estimated construction fleet required to construct the project is shown in Table 4.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 35
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Table 4
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet
Detention Basin
120 days
Export 31,000 CY earthworks
1 Excavator
1 Dozer
1 Scraper
1 Loader
1 Water Truck
Storm Drain Installation
60 days
2 Excavators
1 Loader
1 Backhoe
1 Water Truck
Tie-Ins
30 days
1 Excavator
1 Loader
1 Backhoe
Low-Flow Diversion Structures
60 days
1 Mixer
1 Pump
1 Excavator
1 Loader/Backhoe
Referencing the construction equipment fleet and durations shown in Table 4, the worst-case daily construction emissions were calculated by CalEEMod2020.4.0 and are shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Construction Activity Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 2022
Detention Basin 2.4 25.9 18.0 0.1 4.0 2.4
Storm Drain 1.2 10.7 12.3 0.0 0.5 0.4
Tie-Ins 0.5 1.7 5.8 0.0 0.2 0.2
Diversion Structures 0.6 1.7 6.9 0.0 0.3 0.3
Total 4.7 40.0 43.0 0.1 5.0 3.3
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
As shown in Table 5, peak daily construction activity emissions are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for air emission reduction mitigation measures. The only mitigation measure that was included in the CalEEMod2020.4.0 air model program was watering exposed dirt Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 36
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 surfaces two times a day to minimize the generation of fugitive dust during grading activities as required by SCAQMD.

Construction equipment exhaust emissions contain carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24-hour per day, 365 days per year, 70-year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction-related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9-, 30-, or 70-year timeframe and not over a relatively brief construction period due to the lack of health risk associated with such a brief exposure as is the case with the proposed project.

As shown in Table 5 the project would not exceed and would be below ozone precursor thresholds for ROG and NOx. However, because the region is non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available for diesel exhaust emission control measures are recommended as shown below:

Mitigation Measure No. 1 All engine powered construction equipment shall implement the following exhaust emission control measures throughout construction:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better rated heavy equipment.
• Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.

Mitigation Measure No. 2 Fugitive Dust Control:
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

For the project, the primary source of a possible LST impact would be during project construction only since the project would not generate any operational emissions once the project is constructed. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 37
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 such as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility, which in this case the existing residents adjacent to the project are considered sensitive receptors
LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500-meter source-receptor distances. For the proposed project the nearest sensitive receptors are the residences adjacent to and east and south of the detention basin and south of the diversion structure, therefore the most conservative 25-meter distance was modeled.

The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5-acre sites for varying distances. Because construction of a storm drain is linear, equipment only operates in front of any single residence for a short period of time (progress rate is estimated to be 100 linear feet per day). The most stringent thresholds for a 1-acre site were applied for the construction of the storm drain. Because the detention basin is larger, a threshold for a 4-acre site was referenced. Table 6 shows the estimated LST emissions and thresholds for the construction of the proposed detention basin, 18”, 24”, 54”, 72”, and 78” underground storm drains, box culverts, roadway crossings and grade the slopes of Calimesa Creek to protect adjacent properties from a 100-year storm event.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 38
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Table 6
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
Storm Drain LST
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 750 162 4 3
Max On-Site Emissions 12 11 1 1
Detention Basin LST
LST 4 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 1,677 325 11 7
Max On-Site Emissions 18 26 4 2
Tie-Ins LST
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 750 162 4 3
Max On-Site Emissions 6 2 1 1
Diversion Structures LST
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 750 162 4 3
Max On-Site Emissions 7 2 1 1
The project LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As shown in Table 6, project construction emissions would be less than the LST construction thresholds. Therefore, the project LSTs are less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 39
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 SCAQMD’s Rule 403
The project would be required by SCAQMD to comply with rules to reduce fugitive dust emissions during project construction. Specifically, project compliance with Rule 403 is achieved through the application of standard best management practices during construction and operation activities, which include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, manage haul road dust by the use of water, cover haul vehicles, restrict vehicle speeds on on-site unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweep loose dirt from paved site access roadways, stop construction activity when wind speeds exceed 25 mph and establish a permanent ground cover on finished areas.

Operational Air Emission Impacts
Once constructed, the proposed detention basin would require minimal maintenance such as periodic clearing silt and/or debris from the basin. As a result, the long-term operational air emissions associated to inspect and maintain the detention basin would be negligible. Similarly, once constructed the proposed diversion and tie-in structures would require minimal maintenance during the life of the project. The longterm operational air emissions associated to inspect and maintain the diversion and tie-in structures would be negligible. The operational emissions associated with the project would be less than significant.

As shown in the above tables, the project would not generate any air emissions during project construction that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Because the project would not generate any construction air emissions that exceed adopted construction emission thresholds, sensitive receptors adjacent to the project would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Project construction emissions would be less than significant and not significantly impact any sensitive receptors adjacent to or in the project vicinity.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential sources for odors during project construction include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement and diesel exhaust emissions from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment. The objectionable odors that would be generated during the construction process would be short-term and any odor emissions would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials (asphalt pavement) or ceasing operation of the diesel construction equipment. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some. However, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore would not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant odor impacts are anticipated during project construction.

Once project construction is completed the project would not generate any emissions or odors and impact area residents or commercial uses. The project would not have any significant odor impacts.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 40
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. A biological report8 and a aquatics resources delineation report9 were prepared for the project and copies are included in Appendix B.

The project includes both a detention basin and drainage conveyance facilities. The proposed detention basin site is vacant and has been disturbed by mowing, tilling and disced for weed abatement and fire prevention. Calimesa Creek, between 3rd and I-10 is an ephemeral drainage feature. Project surface elevations range from approximately 2,485 feet above mean sea level at the detention basin to approximately 2,385 feet above mean sea level where Calimesa Creek passes underneath I-10.

Based on the biological site survey that was conducted on September 20, 2019, there were no federally or state listed special-status plant species identified. One non-listed special-status species, southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), which has a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1, was observed along the bank of Calimesa Creek within the project site. However, this species is covered in the County of Riverside Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). No federally or state listed or other special-status plant species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site. 10 Five bird species were detected within the study area. No active bird nests were observed during the project site reconnaissance. However, the ornamental vegetation and native vegetation (i.e., Fremont cottonwood forest) within the study area provides habitat for nesting birds and raptors. No amphibian species were observed, and no amphibian species are expected to occur. One reptile species was observed during the survey that included the common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Three mammal species were detected during the survey including the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris).11
The survey was conducted outside of the nesting season. However, the study area provides potential nesting habitat for commonly occurring birds such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna) or house finch.

The study area does include large trees (e.g., eucalyptus, tree of heaven, black locust, coast live oak) suitable for raptor nesting.12
While the survey area included habitat potentially suitable for Riverside fairy shrimp, the proposed project has been designed to avoid that area. The biological site survey did not identify any federally or state listed wildlife species within the proposed construction area. In addition, no other special-status wildlife species with a moderate or higher potential to occur on the site were identified.13 However, thirteen special-status wildlife species have a low potential to occur within the study area, including the state fully 8 Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, Dudek, October 18, 2019.
9 Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Aquatics Resources Delineation Report, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, Dudek, November 2020
10 Ibid, page 9. 11 Ibid, page 9. 12 Ibid, page 10. 13 Ibid.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 41
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). The white-tailed kite has a low potential to nest and forage within the study area and this species is covered under the MSCHP.

Because wildlife species could be impacted by the project the following mitigation measures are recommended.

Mitigation Measure No. 3 To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, if ground-disturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (typically February 15 through August 31), the City of Calimesa shall require that a pre-construction nesting bird survey be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint within 3 days prior to initiation of activity.

If an active nest is detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest.

Mitigation Measure No. 4 If suitable potential fairy shrimp habitat exists and cannot be avoided, the City of Calimesa shall conduct protocol-level focused surveys (i.e., two seasons) pursuant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (May 31, 2015) to determine
presence/absence. If focused-protocol level survey results are positive, and the project cannot permanently avoid fairy shrimp habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation report shall be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. In accordance with MSHCP Table 9-2, Objective 4 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Objective 3 for Riverside fairy shrimp, if the survey results are positive, at least 90% of the area with longterm conservation value shall be conserved on-site.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 42
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 b) Have substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. An aquatic resources delineation report14 was prepared for the project and a copy is included in Appendix B.

Based on the aquatic resources delineation report, there are approximately 3.1-acres of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and RWQCB jurisdictional resources and 2.7-acres of non-riparian (i.e. riverine) streambed within the project site.15 The riparian habitat consists of Fremont cottonwood forest alliance and includes a greater than 5% absolute cover of Fremont cottonwoods. The Freemont cottonwood riparian vegetation is narrow and small in its extent and lacks understory or closed-canopy features. However, this community also includes a high cover of the tree of heaven, scattered emergent coast live oaks and eucalyptus trees. The understory is sparse and includes non-native grasses, including brome species.16 This riparian habitat also lacks continuity with higher quality habitat, and is not contiguous; therefore, it is not sufficient to support riparian bird species such as least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), or yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus).17
The MSHCP defines riparian/riverine areas as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.” The MSHCP further clarifies those areas “demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions” (County of Riverside MSHCP 2003).

There are approximately 3.31 acres of MSHCP riparian/resources within the project site that includes

2.94 acres of riverine resources and 0.37 acres of riparian habitat. Calimesa Creek conveys water ultimately connecting to Temescal Canyon Wash west of the project, west of Interstate 10, that ultimately flows to the Santa Ana River approximately fourteen miles northwest of the project site. Because Calimesa Creek conveys water to downstream resources it is considered riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP. Additionally, the associated Fremont cottonwood forest would be considered a riparian resource as defined by the MSHCP.

The project may have potential impacts to jurisdictional resources. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure No. 5 If jurisdictional waters are impacted as a result of project implementation, the City of Calimesa shall obtain all appropriate permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.
14 Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Aquatics Resources Delineation Report, Dudek, November 2020. 15 Ibid, page D-2. 16 Ibid, pages D-2, D-3. 17 Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, Dudek, October 18, 2019, page 12.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 43
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 All mitigation measures and conditions contained within the above permits shall be implemented. At a minimum, the following shall be completed for mitigation for impacts to waters of the state and jurisdictional streambed:

Mitigation Measure No. 6 If the project cannot demonstrate avoidance of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian habitat or riverine resources in perpetuity, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report shall be required and propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. This document shall be reviewed, approved, and coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the start of construction.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 44
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The project will maintain flow to existing channel – larger flow will be conveyed through the storm pipe.

The flow diversion will not impact habitat or wetlands. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Based on the aquatic resources delineation report there are no wetlands within the project site.18 The project will not impact downstream waters. The project detains flow and releases them over a longer duration and delivers flow to downstream areas using an alternative path.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation; they may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping stones for wildlife dispersal. The project site is not within any designated wildlife corridors and/or habitat linkages. The project site is isolated from designated wildlife corridors/habitat linkages and other open spaces by substantial developed areas and heavily traversed roadways, including Interstate 10. Although waters from Calimesa Creek flow into San Timoteo Creek, Calimesa Creek is an ephemeral drainage, with a relatively small watershed that is highly developed so native fish species are not expected to be present or use the creek within the project site for upstream or downstream movement.

On a local level, the project site is located in an area that dominated with development that support minimal vegetation (particularly native vegetation). Calimesa Creek bisects the study area; however, the natural portions of the creek west of I-10 are primarily limited to the project area. Waters from Calimesa Creek flow downstream from the project site into underground culverts beneath Calimesa Boulevard and continue approximately 500 feet under Interstate 10. The project site may provide local movement for some urban-adapted wildlife species (i.e., coyote, striped skunk, raccoon, opossum), but these species would be expected to be able to use similar urban habitat that is adjacent to the project site.19 Because the project site is not directly connected to any natural open space areas that are known to support wildlife and does not serve as a migratory wildlife corridor or a wildlife nursery, the project will have a less than significant impact on wildlife corridors or migratory wildlife species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) Section 18.70.120 provides guidelines for the removal of all species of trees with the exception of oak trees, which are regulated by Chapter 18.80 of the Municipal Code.

The biological resources report did not identify any oak trees on the project site.20 However, oak trees are known to exist within the immediate project vicinity and although the project does not propose and is not anticipated to remove any trees that would fall within CMC Section 18.70.120 or oak trees per Chapter

18.80, any trees that would be removed by the project would be required to meet and comply with CMC Section 18.70.120 or Chapter 18.80.
18 Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Aquatics Resources Delineation Report, Dudek, October 2019, page 2. 19 Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, Dudek, October 18, 2019, page 10. 20 Ibid, Table 1, page 6.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 45
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts with the removal of any oak trees to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure No. 7 An oak tree survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to the start of any construction to determine if any oak trees would be removed. If oak trees would be removed, their removal would have to be removed in compliance with Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC) Section 18.70.120.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The City of Calimesa is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area, but is not located in a Criteria Cell. Therefore, a Joint Project Review process is not required, and no further discussion regarding Reserve Assembly is required. However, the project is still required to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP.

For Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources, the project will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to Riparian and Riverine resources, as required for Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp as shown in the Biological Study.

For Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area and Section 6.3.2 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The project is not located within these Sections and no additional survey re+quirements for these biological resources apply.

Section 6.1.4 Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Although the project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell nor any conserved areas of the MSCHP, Calimesa Creek flows into Timoteo Creek west of Calimesa that is a conservation area. Therefore, because Calimesa Creek has a connectivity to Timoteo Creek the project must comply with the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines of the MSHCP.21 The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential significant impacts to the MSHCP.

Mitigation Measure No. 8 As a signatory to the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the City of Calimesa shall pay a local development mitigation fee prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit, whichever is issued first, at the rates applicable at the time of payment of the fee as set forth in the most recent fee schedule.

Mitigation Measure No. 9 The project is not within any conserved areas; however, Calimesa Creek flows to San Timoteo Creek, which ultimately flows to the Santa Ana River.

Due to the proposed project having connectivity to areas described for conservation, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are applicable. Prior to the start of any construction, the City of Calimesa shall implement the following Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.4) to minimize and avoid indirect effects from development adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas, where applicable:
• Drainage: The project shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff 21 Ibid, page 12.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 46
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
• Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.
• Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
• Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
• Invasives: When approving a landscape plan for the detention basin the City of Calimesa shall consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in [MSHCP] Table 6-2 and shall require revisions to landscape plans (subject to the limitations of their jurisdiction) to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the detention basin that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and other features.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 47
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 • Barriers: For those land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area the City of Calimesa shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
• Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.

Mitigation Measure No. 10 The following best management practices, as applicable, shall be implemented for the duration of construction:
• A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
• Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.
• The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.
• The upstream and downstream limits of a project’s disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
• Projects shall be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. • Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats shall be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
• When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts.

Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 48
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. • Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat.

Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFG, and RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
• Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
• The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
• The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. • Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern shall be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. • To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
• Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities.

Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
• The City of Calimesa shall have the right to access and inspect the project site, including any restoration/enhancement area for Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 49
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 compliance with project approval conditions, including these best management practices.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. A cultural resource assessment22 was conducted for the project and a copy is attached as Appendix C. In addition, Tribal consultation and required mitigation are also enclosed in Appendix C.

There are no buildings on the project site. Furthermore, there are no recorded National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks (CHL) or California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) properties within the project site, or within a one-mile radius of the site.

There is, however, a concrete storm drain structure in Calimesa Creek that extends under Calimesa Boulevard south of County Line Road. The storm drain was formed and poured with concrete with steel (rebar). A header over the entrance to the storm drain has a cast date of “1930”. This structure was constructed for the sole purpose to convey seasonal flows in Calimesa Creek under Calimesa Boulevard and constructed in 1930 using modern materials and techniques.

The storm drain structure was evaluated for significance under criteria based on two separate, but overlapping legislative sources: (1) the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which includes criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and (2) CEQA that includes criteria for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Research indicates the storm drain is not associated with any historic event that is important to the regional history of California or the United States. As such, the storm drain structure is not considered a historical resource under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Research also indicates the storm drain is not eligible for listing in either the NRHP or the CRHR.

Based on the results of the records search and site surveys the project would not impact historical resources.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. A records search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at University of California at Riverside and the Archaeological Information Center at the San Bernardino County Museum. Both records searches indicated that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been recorded within the limits of Calimesa Creek and within the project site.

Field reconnaissance of the creek channel and detention basin were conducted. The results of the field surveys were negative and no prehistoric resources were discovered on the site. Based on the results of the records search and site surveys the project would not have any significant cultural resource impacts.
22 Update Cultural Resources Assessment of the Calimesa Channel, State 3 Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California, Archaeological Associates, November 2019.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 50
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, as documented in the City of Calimesa letter dated March 25, 2020, identified the potential for tribal cultural resources to be located within the project site and if present, the potential for tribal cultural resources to be impacted during construction. As a result, the following mitigation measures are recommended.

Mitigation Measure No. 11 Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed project area, an archaeological monitor with at least 3 years of regional experience in archaeology shall be present for all ground-disturbing activities that occur within the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work). A sufficient number of archaeological monitors shall be present each workday to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation (“Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources”) shall be completed by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI). Once all parties review and approve the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency – the plan must be adopted prior to permitting for the project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.

With mitigation presented impacts will be less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact.

The project site is not presently used as a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used as a cemetery in the past. In addition, the site is not known to have been used for any activities that have resulted in human remains being present on the site. In the unexpected event human remains are encountered, activities would be required to comply with Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097. Health and Safety Code requires construction or excavation be halted in the vicinity of any potential human remain discovery and the corner be contacted. In accordance with Public Resources Code, the corner would be required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains are potentially Native American to determine the most likely decedent to determine how to proceed. Adherence to these regulations ensure no impact would occur. The project would not impact human remains.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 51
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. Information found in this section, as well as other aspects of the project’s energy implications, are discussed in greater detail in section “VII” (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of this MND.

Considering the project consists of drainage improvements, project energy use would occur primarily during the construction phase and operational emissions would be negligible. As such, the following project impact analysis focuses on energy use during construction.

Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Estimated Energy Consumption
Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with trenching, grading and the construction of the detention basin, diversion structure and storm drain facilities would include the operation of excavators, bulldozers, scrapers, front-end loaders, water trucks, etc. The majority of the equipment would likely be diesel-fueled; however, smaller equipment, such as air compressors may be electric, gas, or natural gasfueled. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the construction equipment would be diesel-fueled, due to the speculative nature of specifying the amounts and types of non-diesel equipment that might be used, and the difficulties in calculating the energy, which would be consumed by this nondiesel equipment.

The number of construction workers required to construct the project would vary based on the phase of construction and the activity taking place. The transportation fuel required by construction workers to travel to and from the site would depend on the total number of worker trips estimated for the duration of construction activity. A 2007 study by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimates the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles) in the year 2020 is 18.78 miles per gallon.23Assuming construction worker vehicles have an average fuel economy consistent with the Caltrans study and each construction worker commutes an average of 20 miles a day to and from the site, the maximum 20 workers on-site during each phase of the project is estimated to consume approximately 21 gallons of gasoline a day. Assuming all 20 construction workers are employed at the site for a total of 180 days, (120 days to construct the detention basin and 60 days to construct the underground storm drain), the fuel used by construction workers commuting to the site is approximately 96 barrels (3,834 gallons) of gasoline and represents less than 0.0003 percent of the statewide transportation gasoline consumption in 2016, which is the latest year that data is available.24 Construction equipment fuels (e.g., diesel, gasoline, natural gas) would be provided by local or regional suppliers and vendors. Electricity would be supplied by the local utility provider (e.g., Southern California Edison) via existing connections. A temporary water supply, primarily for fugitive dust suppression and street sweeping, would also be supplied by the local water service provider.

Electricity used during construction to provide temporary power for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers, etc.) inside temporary construction trailers and for outdoor lighting when necessary for general construction activity would generally not result in a substantial increase in on-site electricity use.

Electricity use during construction would be temporary and vary depending on the lighting needs of the project and the use of electric-powered equipment. Most of the electricity that would be required would 23 2007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, California Department of Transportation, Table 1, (2008). 24 California 2015 Transportation gasoline consumption – 348,830 thousand barrels; https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_mg.pdf Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 52
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 be provided by portable on-site generators rather than provided the Southern California Edison. As a result, the electricity consumed during project construction would be considered negligible.

Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The project would utilize construction contractors who must demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. CARB has adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other TACs.

Compliance with the above anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and minimize or eliminate wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Solid Waste
With respect to solid waste, CALGreen requires 65% of most construction and demolition waste be diverted from a landfill. The project would generate various types of debris during project demolition and construction. Concrete and asphalt that is removed from the site during trenching in County Line Road can either be ground and reused on the site as base material or sold to a recycler.

The City of Calimesa follows the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Plan regarding solid waste collection and recycling. In addition, as required by Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) the solid waste generated by the project would be recycled and the materials that cannot be recycled would be hauled to the San Timoteo landfill that is located approximately 11 miles southwest of the project. Project compliance with CALGreen and the County Solid Waste Management Plan would reduce and conserve energy consumption regarding solid waste recycling during both project construction. The project would not generate any solid waste once the proposed improvements are constructed.

The project would not result in wasteful or inefficient energy use and will comply with Calgreen Solid Waste Disposal requirements. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. Once constructed, the project would not consume or require any energy. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency requirements.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 53
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 VII.GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A geotechnical report was prepared for the project.
25 In addition, a supplemental geotechnical report was prepared to update the initial geotechnical report.26 A copy of both geotechnical reports is attached in Appendix D.

The project site, like the majority of southern California, is located in a seismically active area. The project is not located in a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.27 The historical seismicity of the project site entails numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring around the site, predominately associated with the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones. Any development at the site should anticipate that moderate to large seismic events could occur very near the site.28 – The Banning fault separates from the San Andreas fault north of the city of Indio and extends through the Banning-Beaumont pass area into the Calimesa area. While some reports claim that the Beaumont fault has been inactive since earliest Pleistocene time (1.8 million years ago), the State of California has placed the Calimesa portion of the Banning fault within an Earthquake Fault Zone on their maps of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California. At its closest approach, the Banning fault lies approximately 2,100 feet southwest of the project (Matti and Morton, 2010 and Matti, et al, 2003).29 Another known active fault is the Chicken Hill fault that is located approximately 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) northwest of the project. The Chicken Hill fault is considered part of numerous faults collectively called the Crafton Hills Complex. The Crafton Hills Complex is comprised of numerous intra faults created by the interaction of the San Andreas fault to the northeast and the San Jacinto fault to the southwest.

While there are large earthquake faults within a 100-kilometer (62 mile) radius of the project, none of the faults are considered as relevant to the project as the Banning and Chicken Hill faults discussed above, due to their greater distance and smaller anticipated magnitudes.30 Neither the geotechnical report nor the supplemental geotechnical report identified any potentially significant impacts to the project due to earthquake faulting. Therefore, the project would not have any significant earthquake faulting impacts.
25 Preliminary Soils Investigation, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., December 20, 2019. 26 Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Information, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., January 29, 2020.
27 Ibid, page 4. 28 Ibid, page 6. 29 Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Information, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., January 29, 2020, page 2. 30 Ibid, page 5.31 Ibid, page 6.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 54
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site is located in southern California and a seismically active area, there is the potential for ground motion at the site as discussed in Section “VII.a) i” above.

The historical seismicity of the site identifies numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring around the project site, predominately associated with the presence of the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones. Future development at the project site should anticipate that moderate to large seismic events could occur very near the site.31
A slope stability analysis was performed for the slopes proposed for the detention basin. Based on the slope stability analysis, a seismic safety factor greater than 1.0 should be used for the construction of the slopes for the detention basin.
32 Project compliance with the seismic recommendation in the preliminary soils investigation for the construction of the detention basin slopes and all applicable faulting and seismic regulations required by the California Building Code (CBC) would reduce potential seismic ground shaking impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located in a state designated Zone of Required Investigation for Liquefaction. Based on the geotechnical report, the project site is underlain by relatively medium dense to dense older alluvial materials and the depth to groundwater is thought to be in excess of 50 feet. Therefore, the possibility of liquefaction at the site is considered to be nil.33 As a result, the project would not be significantly impacted by liquefaction.
iv. Landslides? No Impact. The project site and the area adjacent to and immediately surrounding the site is basically flat. There are no hills or other topographic relief features either on or adjacent to the site that would impact the project due to a landslide. The project site is not located within an area that is designated by the State of California as a Zone of Required Investigation for Earthquake-Induced Landslides. Due to the low relief of the site and surrounding region the potential for landslides to occur at the site is considered nil.34 The project would not be exposed to or impacted by a landslide. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The City would require the grading and construction contractor to install and maintain all applicable City required shortterm construction soil erosion control measures to reduce and minimize soil erosion impacts throughout project grading and construction. The contractor would be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify all Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be incorporated into the project prior to the start of grading and maintained throughout project construction to reduce and minimize soil erosion. The City has standard soil erosion protection measures that the contractor would be required to install and maintain throughout grading and construction to minimize off-site soil erosion.

The requirement by the City for the contractor to install all applicable mandated soil erosion control measures into the project prior to the start of construction and maintain those soil erosion control 31 Ibid, page 6. 32 Preliminary Soils Investigation, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., December 20, 2019, page 5.
33 Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Information, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., January 29, 2020, page 6. 33 Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Information, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., January 29, 2020, page 6. 34 Ibid, page 7.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 55
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 measures throughout project construction would minimize and reduce potential soil erosion impacts to less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the supplemental geotechnical investigation, there are no known unstable geologic or soil conditions, including liquefaction, on- or offsite landslides, or seismic induced settlement, either on or adjacent to the site that would impact the project.
35 Therefore, the project would not be significantly impacted by unstable soil conditions. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact.

Based on the geotechnical report, the majority of the site surficial soils consist of silty sands, minor units of well graded sand and poorly graded sand, and trace units of clayey sand and sandy silt. The granular units of silty sand, well graded sand and poorly graded sand are considered to have a very low expansion potential. The finer grained units of clayey sand and sandy silt are anticipated to have a very low to low expansion potential.36 As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact due to expansive soils.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project does not propose the construction of septic tanks or any alternative wastewater disposal systems.

The project would generate wastewater during project construction that would be served by portable toilets. The portable toilets would be removed upon completion of construction. The project would not require the construction of a septic tank or any other alternative wastewater disposal system. The project would not have any wastewater disposal impacts.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The Calimesa General Plan states that the potential for paleontological resources would occur in the San Timoteo formation. Based on the geotechnical report the San Timoteo formation does not exist on the site Most of the project site, with the exception of the proposed detention basin, has been disturbed either due to the construction of the existing underground utilities in County Line Road or erosion associated with Calimesa Creek. Any paleontological resources that may have existed in County Line Road or Calimesa Creek where construction is proposed has in all likelihood been disturbed. As a result, the project is not anticipated to have any significant paleontological resource impacts.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. A greenhouse gas report is included in the air quality report and included in Appendix A.
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by 35 Ibid, pages 6-7. 36Supplemental Geotechnical and Geologic Information, Calimesa Channel Basin, Stage III, Calimesa, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., January 29, 2020, page 7.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 56
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NOx) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

City of Calimesa
The City of Calimesa prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2014.37 The purpose was to integrate local planning efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve the quality of life in the community.

There are no recommendations or action items to reduce construction GHG emissions in the Calimesa CAP that would apply to the proposed project. Therefore, since the project results in GHG construction emissions below the SCAQMD 3,000 ton/year threshold, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.

Thresholds of Significance
In response to the requirements of California SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies how the significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of step, the GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the SCAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds GHG Working Group released revisions, which recommended a threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e for all land use projects. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation is used as a guideline for the GHG analysis for the proposed project. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level. 37 City of Calimesa Climate Action Plan, September 2014.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 57
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The CalEEMod2020.4.0 computer model that was used to calculate the annual CO2e construction emissions for the project are shown in Table 7. SCAQMD policy for GHG construction emissions is to amortize the emissions over a 30-year lifetime. As shown, the amortized CO2e construction emissions are less than significant.

Table 7
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)
Year 2022 CO2e
Detention Basin 304.3
Storm Drain 78.6
Tie-Ins 15.6
Diversion Structures 28.9
Total 427.4
Amortized 14.2
CalEEMod Output provided in Appendix A of Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas report b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact.

In June 2005 the California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission that established the following GHG reduction targets:
• 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels
• 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
• 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap, which were phased in starting in 2012.

As shown previously in Table 7 the project's estimated GHG emissions are estimated to be 395.2 MTCO2e per year and below the 3,000 MT/year threshold for compliance with Executive Order S-3-05.

Because the project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD the project would also meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB32. Furthermore, the majority of the post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the project would be required to comply with the regulations as they come into effect.

At a level of 395.2 MTCO2e per year, the project's GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for both AB-32 and SB-32. Therefore, project construction GHG emissions would not impact and conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 58
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Once constructed, the proposed detention basin would require minimal maintenance such as periodic clearing silt and/or debris from the basin. As a result, the long-term operational GHG emissions associated to inspect and maintain the detention basin would be negligible. Similarly, once constructed the proposed diversion and tie-in structures would require minimal maintenance during the life of the project. The long-term operational GHG emissions associated to inspect and maintain the diversion and tie-in structures would be negligible. The operational GHG emissions with the project would be less than significant.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)38 was prepared for the project site. A copy of the Phase I ESA is attached in Appendix E.

The Phase I ESA includes an environmental site assessment of the proposed 4.6-acre detention basin that is located approximately 150 feet west of 3rd Street and adjacent to and north of Calimesa Creek.

The Phase I ESA does not include an investigation of any portions of Calimesa Creek that are proposed for construction or the construction of underground storm drains in Calimesa Road or County Line Road.

Based on the Phase I ESA, there is no evidence of any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances either on, at, in, or to the site. However, two potential environmental concerns were noted during a review of historical aerial photographs that include:
• The presence of agricultural grove in the central and southern portions of the subject site (approximate lower two-thirds) in 1938, gone by 1949.
• In the 1950s, within the east portion of the subject site, particularly in the approximate east onethird of the subject site, was natural vegetative growth, numerous smaller objects and possibly small piles of materials or disturbed soils, and some dirt drives or roads. The nature of the activities associated with this portion of the subject site is undetermined. Currently, there is no onsite evidence of these historical activities.

The above potential environmental concerns are not anticipated to have had a significant environmental impact to the site. However, the only way to confirm this conclusion is to perform soil sampling and analysis. In order to confirm there are no hazardous materials such as herbicides and/or pesticides present on the former agricultural grove on the central and southern portion of the site or hazardous materials within the one-third eastern portion of the site is to conduct soil testing. The following mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate potential hazardous soil impacts on the site. 38 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Calimesa Channel Basin Stage III, 4.6+ Acres of Vacant Land, Portions of APNs 410-030-049 Through -052, Calimesa, Riverside County, California, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., December 5, 2019.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 59
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of any construction or grading permits for the former agricultural grove on the central and southern portion of the site or hazardous materials within the one-third eastern portion of the site soil the City shall take samples to determine if hazardous materials are present. If hazardous materials are present, the City shall remove or remediate in place all identified hazardous materials in compliance with all applicable local, County, State and Federal laws and regulations.

The project does not propose the use of any hazardous materials, except those hazardous materials that are typically used during construction activities, including the storage and use of diesel fuel to power construction equipment, oil and other lubricants that are used to operate construction equipment. The contractor would be required by all applicable state and local laws and regulations regarding the transportation, storage and use of diesel fuel, oil and other construction equipment lubricants during project construction. Therefore, the project would not create any significant hazards through the transport, use or disposal of any hazardous materials.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. There are no short-term uses or activities associated with the construction of the project that would create or release hazardous materials into the environment. The project would not have any hazard impacts to the public or environment involving the release of a hazardous material. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest existing school to the project is Calimesa Elementary School that is located at 13523 2nd Street in Yucaipa and approximately one-half mile northeast of the detention basin. There are no other existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project.

The hazardous materials that would be used during project construction include diesel fuel and lubricants for the construction equipment. Any construction equipment related hazardous materials that would be used on-site during project construction are required by law to be stored and locked in a safe area. The project contractor would be responsible for the safe use and storage of all hazardous materials during project construction. The storage and use of any hazardous materials to operate and maintain the construction equipment in compliance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations would not have any hazardous emission impacts to Calimesa Elementary School. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site is not listed as a hazardous material site on the “Cortese” list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project would not have a hazardous impact to the public or environment with the development of the site per Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, will the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The Redlands Municipal Airport is located at 1755 Sessums Drive in the City of Redlands is located approximately seventeen miles northwest of the project and the closest airport to the site. Due to the distance of the project from the Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 60
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Redlands Municipal Airport, the project construction workers would not be impacted by airport noise or exposed to any significant safety impacts.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. County Line Road serves as an emergency response route for both the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa. The proposed underground storm drain in County Line Road could impact the response times of emergency responders that would have to travel on County Line Road during project construction. The Calimesa Emergency Response Plan (EOP) designates County Line Road as a primary emergency route. Similarly, the City of Yucaipa also designates County Line Road as a primary emergency response route. Emergency vehicles from both the City of Calimesa and Yucaipa that are responding to an emergency could be delayed if they have to travel along County Line Road where construction of the underground storm drain is proposed and have a significant impact. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential emergency evacuation impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the start of construction in County Line Road the project contractor shall submit an emergency response plan to the City of Calimesa Engineer and Fire Department and the City of Yucaipa that provides safe and unobstructed passage on County Line Road for emergency vehicles to pass safely along this section of roadway during under construction. Both the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa shall approve the emergency response plan prior to the start of any construction in County Line Road.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. Based on the analysis in Section “XIX.a)” in this MND, the project site is not located within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas or State and Federal Responsibility Areas. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to or be impacted by a wildland fire.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact.

Silt would be generated from the site during site preparation, grading and the construction of the detention basin, diversion structure and underground storm drains, especially if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requires the contractor to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable measures to reduce and eliminate storm water pollution from all construction activity through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The City of Calimesa requires the project contractor to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS618033 (Permit) because the project is located in the Santa Ana MS4 Permit for the portion of the Santa Ana River watershed located within Riverside County (Order No. R8- 2010-0033.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 61
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Mitigation Measure No. 14 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project proponent shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared pursuant to the statewide Construction General Permit by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Also, a receipt of fees paid with the SWPPP Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) shall be provided to the City of Calimesa. The SWPPP shall be implemented onsite by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Project contractors shall comply with the SWPPP and allow inspection of the construction site by staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Cities of Calimesa and/or Yucaipa or their designee(s) to confirm compliance.

The installation of and the regular maintenance of the BMP’s required by the SWPPP would reduce storm water runoff pollutants generated from construction to less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project proposes to incorporate dust control measures during all construction activities in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. The amount of water that would be required to control dust during grading and construction would be minimal and not significantly impact existing groundwater supplies due to the small scale of the project. Once completed, the project would not consume any water, including groundwater.

The project proposes to construct a detention basin that would detain runoff during periods of high runoff flow in Calimesa Creek adjacent to the detention basin and allow runoff in the detention basin to percolate and recharge the local groundwater. Based on the hydrology report the project is estimated to detain up to 53 acre-feet of stormwater in the detention basin to reduce downstream flows and future flooding in Calimesa Creek. While detained, some of the stormwater would percolate into the soil and recharge the local groundwater. The project would have a positive impact to local groundwater by recharging the local groundwater with stormwater in the detention basin and improve the sustained management of the groundwater basin.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would:
i Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, silt would be generated from the site during grading and construction of the detention basin, diversion structure and the underground storm drain improvements, especially if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 15 by the project contractor would reduce potential downstream erosion and/or siltation impacts to less than significant.
ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? No Impact. The project proposes to construct a 4.6-acre detention basin adjacent to and north of Calimesa Creek and approximately 150 feet west of 3rd Street that would capture peak storm water flows in Calimesa Creek upstream of 3rd Street that currently flows downstream in Calimesa Creek and impact the existing storm drain facilities and property in and adjacent to Calimesa Creek from 3rd Street to Interstate 10. The proposed detention basin is designed to contain a 100-year storm in Calimesa Creek of 812 cubic feet per second (cfs) and greater and Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 62
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 divert stormwater back into Calimesa Creek at a rate of 375 cfs. A reduction of 437 cfs would reduce stormwater impacts to the existing storm drain facilities downstream of the detention basin, see Hydrology Study, Appendix F.
39 In addition, the proposed low flow diversion structure in Calimesa Creek west of 5th Street and the construction of the proposed underground storm drain in County Line Road would reduce existing peak storm water flows in Calimesa Creek at Interstate 10 from 1,052 cfs to 663 cfs. The proposed detention basin, low flow diversion structure and underground storm drain in County Line Road would have a positive impact by reducing flooding that currently occurs in Calimesa Creek by reducing flows in the creek during periods of high stormwater flow. The project would substantially decrease existing flooding impacts in Calimesa Creek from 3rd Street to Interstate

10. The project would have a positive impact to reduce flooding and high storm water flows in Calimesa Creek compared to the existing condition.
iii Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. As discussed above, the project would have a positive impact by reducing existing flooding impacts that occur in Calimesa Creek and the local storm drain system from 3rd Street on the east to Interstate 10 to the west. The proposed detention basin, low flow diversion structure and underground storm drain in County Line Road collectively would reduce 100-year storm water flows in the existing storm drain facilities in Calimesa Creek and have a positive impact to the existing storm drain facilities.

The project would not generate additional sources of polluted water. As discussed in Section “X.a)” above, a SWPPP would be prepared as required by State law that would identify BMPs that would be installed prior to the start of any construction to remove and prevent stormwater pollutants upstream of 3rd Street that are diverted into the detention basin from reentering Calimesa Creek. The installation and long-term maintenance of the BMPs in compliance with the SWPPP would reduce and filter most storm water runoff pollutants from exiting the detention basin. The project would have a positive impact on the capacity of the existing storm water drainage system downstream of the project by reducing storm water flow into the existing storm drain facilities and improve the water quality of the storm water in Calimesa Creek downstream of the proposed detention basin. Overall, the project would have a positive impact on the existing Calimesa Creek storm drain system from 3rd Street to Interstate 10 and the quality of the runoff downstream of the proposed detention basin. iv Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project would have a positive impact on storm water flows in Calimesa Creek downstream of 3rdStreet to Interstate 10 by directing storm water flows upstream of 3rd Street into a proposed detention basin west of 3rd Street that would control and reduce existing stormwater flows in Calimesa Creek downstream of the proposed detention basin. A reduction in stream flows downstream of the detention basin by up to 437 cfs would significantly reduce existing flooding in Calimesa Creek from 3rd Street to Interstate 10. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No impact. There are no bodies of water adjacent to or in close proximity to the project site that could impact the project due to a seiche. The site is more than 50 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and approximately 2,400’ above mean sea level. Thus, the project site would not be impacted by a tsunami.

The proposed storm drain improvements would reduce existing flooding impacts to properties and storm drain facilities downstream of the detention basin due to a 100-year storm. While there are no known pollutants in or adjacent to Calimesa Creek, the construction of the proposed storm drain improvements would reduce potential flooding to downstream properties and indirectly reduce and minimize the future 39 Calimesa Channel Storm Drain Improvement Project Stage III, Hydrology Study, Calimesa, California 92320, TKE Engineering, April 2019.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 63
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 risk of the release of any pollutants that may be present adjacent to Calimesa Creek downstream of the project. The project would not be impacted by a seiche or tsunami and would not risk the release of pollutants.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact. The construction of the proposed detention basin would temporarily detain high storm water flows in Calimesa Creek at 3rd Street. The proposed detention basin would allow high stormwater flows in Calimesa Creek that currently flow downstream to be detained and allowed to percolate into the soil and recharge the local groundwater in greater amounts that allowed with the current conditions. Once directed into the detention basin from Calimesa Creek, stormwater could percolate and further recharge local groundwater and improve groundwater management. The project would not have conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is an infill site surrounded by residential, commercial and public uses in the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa. The detention basin is proposed to be constructed on private property and the underground storm drain, diversion structure and other storm drain improvements are proposed to be constructed within Calimesa Creek and public streets. The project would not significantly impact the established communities of the cities of Calimesa or Yucaipa.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The Calimesa General Plan land use map designates the detention basin as CC – Community Commercial (FAR 50:1). The section of Calimesa Creek between 3rd Street on the east and Interstate 10 on the west is within the RH – Residential High (14-20 DU/AC), CR – Regional Commercial (FAR 75:1) and DVC – Downtown Village Commercial Park land use designations. County Line Road is a public roadway with the southern half of the road and in the City of Calimesa and the northern half of County Line Road is in the City of Yucaipa. The proposed detention basin is zoned C-C (Community Commercial). Calimesa Creek from 3rd Street to Interstate 10 is included in the Downtown Business District and zoned D-V-C Downtown Village Commercial with the Calimesa Creek Overlay. The underground storm drain that is proposed in County Line Road is within a public roadway. Both cities allow the construction of utilities, including underground storm drains, in County Line Road. The proposed storm drain improvements are consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the areas that are proposed for construction. The project would not require a general plan amendment or zone change.

The following goals, policies and action items of the Calimesa Infrastructure and Public Services Element of the General Plan are applicable to the project:

Goal IPS-3 - Ensure that adequate flood control facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development.

Policy IPS-4 - Require the designation, preservation, maintenance, and acquisition of land and improvements necessary for flood control facilities, in accordance with the City’s Master Flood Control and Drainage Plan.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 64
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Action Item IPS-4.4 for Policy IPS-4 - Where possible, preserve drainage courses in their natural condition to provide adequate safety and protection of residents and property.

In addition, the Safety Element of the General Plan provides goals, policies and action items for safety hazards associated with flooding. The following Safety Element goals and policies are applicable to the project:

Goal SAF-1 - Minimize injury, loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by safety hazards of all types.

Policy SAF-6 - All development shall comply with the flood control requirements of the City, as well as of the county, state, and federal governments.

Action Item SAF-6.5 of Policy SAF-6 - Provide drainage improvements according to the City’s Master Flood Control and Drainage Plan to reduce the threat of inundation to developed areas of the city.

The proposed storm drain improvements meet and are consistent with applicable goals, policies and action items of the Calimesa Public Service and Safety elements of the General Plan. The proposed storm drain improvements would provide safety and protection to city residents and property and provide drainage improvements consistent with the City’s Master Flood Control and Drainage Plan while preserving some of the existing natural drainage of Calimesa Creek.

The project will have less than significant land use impacts.

XII.MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Calimesa General Plan and the Yucaipa General Plan do not identify any locally important minerals either on or adjacent to the area proposed for construction.

There are no mining activities either within or adjacent to the area proposed for the storm drain improvements. The project would not result in the loss of or impact any locally important mineral resources.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. See Response to Section “XII.a)” above.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 65
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. A noise report40 was prepared for the project and a copy is attached in Appendix G.

Regulations
Federal
The U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. After its inception, EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and the environment. In response, EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Levels of Environmental Noise). The Levels of Environmental Noise recommended the Ldn should not exceed 55 dBA outdoors or 45 dBA indoors to prevent significant activity interference and annoyance in noise-sensitive areas.

In addition, the Levels of Environmental Noise identified five (5) dBA as an “adequate margin of safety” for a noise level increase relative to a baseline noise exposure level of 55 dBA Ldn (i.e., there would not be a noticeable increase in adverse community reaction with an increase of five dBA or less from this baseline level). The EPA did not promote these findings as universal standards or regulatory goals with mandatory applicability to all communities, but rather as advisory exposure levels below which there would be no risk to a community from any health or welfare effect of noise.

In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at lower levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to State and local governments.

State
State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017
Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Guidelines), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. OPR Guidelines identify the suitability of various types of construction relative to a range of outdoor noise levels and provide each local community some flexibility in setting local noise standards that allow for the variability in community preferences. The OPR Guidelines include a Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix that identifies acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix G) establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis. Two of these standards apply to what is referred to as a "substantial increase" in ambient noise levels. The City does not have a definition of a substantial increase, nor does CEQA establish a 40 Acoustical Impact Analysis, Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, City of Calimesa, October 8, 2019.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 66
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 numerical value for this threshold. Noise generated by transportation sources propagates differently than noise generated by point sources. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the following thresholds were used to evaluate the project's potential to result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels.

City of Calimesa Noise Standards
The City of Calimesa provides noise exposure limits in Section 8.15.040 of the Calimesa Municipal Code for stationary noise sources in close proximity to noise sensitive uses and are shown in Table 8.

Table 8
Calimesa Sound Level Limits
Zone
Applicable Limit One-Hour Average
Sound Level
(In Decibels)
R-1, R-T, R-2, R-R and S-P regulations with a
density of five dwelling units or less per acre
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
R-3, S-P and PRD regulations with a density of six
or more dwelling units per acre
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
C-P-S, C-P, C-O 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 55
M 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 70
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Noise from the operation of construction equipment is exempt from the regulations in Table 8. However, construction noise is required to adhere to noise standards as stated in Section 8.15.080 of the Calimesa Municipal Code as stated below:
“It is unlawful for any person, including the city, to operate any single or a combination of powered construction equipment at any construction site before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. In addition, it is unlawful for any person, including the city, to operate any single or a combination of powered construction equipment at any construction site before 10:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, January 1st, the last Monday in May, known as “Memorial Day,” July 4th, the first Monday in September, Thanksgiving Day and December 25th. When January 1st, July 4th, or December 25th fall on a Sunday, it is unlawful for any person to operate any single or a combination of powered construction equipment at any construction site before 10:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on the following Monday”
In addition to the daytime construction requirements, the Calimesa Municipal Code also requires that construction related noise not exceed a level of 75 dBA for more than 8 hours during a 24-hour period when measured at or within the property lines of any property which is developed and used either in part Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 67
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 or in whole for residential purposes.
41 There are permissible deviations to this standard if construction only occurs sporadically as shown in Table 9.

Table 9
Construction Noise Levels Adjustments
Total Duration in 24 Hours Decibel Level
Allowance
Total Decibel
Level
Up to 15 minutes +15 90
Up to 30 minutes +12 87
Up to 1 hour +9 84
Up to 2 hours +6 81
Up to 4 hours +3 78
Up to 8 hours 0 75
City of Yucaipa Noise Standards
Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 87.0905 outlines the noise standards applicable to projects within its jurisdiction. Table 10 shows the City of Yucaipa noise standards.

Table 10
Yucaipa Noise Standards
Affected Land Use Applicable Sound Level
(In Decibels)
Residential Anytime 55
Professional Services Anytime 55
Other Commercial Anytime 60
Industrial Anytime 70
Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 87.0905(e), exempts noise from temporary construction, repair, or demolition activities between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., except Sundays and Federal holidays from noise standards. The City of Yucaipa also has a vibration standard in Municipal Code Section 87.0910.

However, construction is exempt from this requirement if it occurs between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., except Sundays and Federal holidays.

Temporary Noise
The existing noise levels on the site and the noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site would increase temporarily during project construction. Short-term construction noise would be generated due to the operation of construction equipment during grading and construction of the detention basin, removal of pavement, trench excavation, grading and the construction of the underground storm drains 41 City of Calimesa Municipal Code, 8.15.080 B.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 68
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 and storm water diversion structure. Noise would also be generated by construction workers commuting to and from the site and the delivery of materials and supplies to the site.

Construction noise represents a short-term impact on the ambient noise levels both on the site and the adjacent surrounding communities. Noise generated by the equipment that would be used to grade and construction the storm drain improvements include the operation of trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels.

Sensitive Noise Receptors
There are residences adjacent to and west, south and east of the proposed detention basin with the closest residences approximately 50-feet east of the detention basin. Once the detention basin is constructed the top of the basin would be at ground level and similar elevation as the adjacent residential units. The bottom of the detention basin would be approximately 25 feet below grade. When the construction equipment is operating at the lower elevations of the detention basin the noise levels to the residents closest to the detention basin would be less than the noise levels at the ground level because of the shielding of the detention basin slopes. Therefore, the noise sensitive land uses adjacent to the retention basin would experience progressively lower construction noise as construction progresses to the bottom of the detention basin.

The low-flow water diversion structure proposed at Calimesa Creek and County Line Road is within Calimesa Creek and adjacent to and west of 5th Street. The closest noise sensitive land uses at this location are the residences approximately 75-feet to the south.

There are scattered residences along the alignment of the proposed underground storm drain in County Line Road. The residences south of County Line Road are the closest residents to the proposed underground storm drain and approximately 50-feet from the roadway centerline. The residents closest to the storm drain tie-ins have similar setback distances. Because the two activities have similar construction sequences they are analyzed as a single noise event. Figure 9 shows the sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project.

Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise levels would vary at any given receptor depending on the construction phase, the type of construction equipment in operation, the duration of use of the construction equipment, the distance the construction equipment is from the noise receptor, and the presence or absence of any barriers between the noise source and receptor that may reduce noise levels.

Noise measurements were taken September 3, 2019 to document the existing ambient baseline noise levels in the project area. No significant changes in land uses have occurred. Noise measurements were taken between 1:00 and 2:30 p.m. at locations representative of both the underground storm drain and detention basin activities. Figure 10 shows the three noise measurement locations. The results of the noise measurements are shown in Table 11.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 69
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Table 11
Baseline Noise Levels
Meter Location Leq Lmax Lmin
1 County Line Road by Holiday
Rancho Mobile Home Park 62 74 41
2 NE Corner Proposed Basin
Site by County Line Rd 54 68 47
3 NW Corner Proposed Basin
Site by County Line Rd 56 79 40
Monitoring experience has shown that 24-hour weighted CNELs are typically 2 to 3 dB higher than midday Leq readings (Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 2009). This equates to existing CNELs in the 64-65 dBA range at the front of the noise sensitive land uses adjacent to the proposed underground storm drain proposed in County Line Road. The existing CNELs at the single-family detached residences adjacent to the proposed detention basin equates to 56-59 dBA CNEL.

Figure 9 Noise Sensitive Receptors
Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 9
Noise Sensitive Receptors
Project Site Proposed
Detention
Basin

RESIDENTIAL
Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 10
Noise Measurement Locations
Project Site Proposed
Detention
Basin
Meter #1
Meter #2
Meter #3
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 72
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The construction noise analysis shows that the residential units closest to construction would experience a temporary/periodic increase above the existing ambient noise levels. Construction noise would be temporary and limited to the hours of construction allowed by Calimesa Municipal Code Section 8.15.080 and Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 87.0905(e). The temporary construction noise impacts would cease upon the completion of construction of the detention basin, diversion structure and the underground storm drain.

In 2006, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model that includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emissions levels. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power during a construction phase. The usage factor is a key input variable that is used to calculate the average Leq noise levels.

Table 12 identifies the highest (Lmax) noise levels associated with each type of equipment identified for use during project construction and the percentage of its use (Usage Factor), which is represented as Leq, and then adjusts the noise level for a reference 50-foot distance, which is a distance to the closest sensitive receptors to the construction area.

Table 12
Construction Noise Impact
Reference Noise Levels
Equipment Usage
Factor
Reference Noise
Level 50 ft (dBA)
Average Noise
50 ft (dBA)
Excavators 40% 81 77
Loader 40% 79 75
Backhoe 37% 78 74
Water Truck* 40% 76 72
Scraper 40% 84 80
Dozer 40% 82 78
Concrete Pump 20% 81 74
Concrete Mixer 40% 79 75
*Used noise levels for dump truck as no data for water truck available Project noise impacts would be significant if they caused a violation of any adopted standards, which for the project is 75 dBA Leq. The calculated construction noise levels for the detention basin are shown in Table 13. As shown, construction equipment at the center of the detention basin with the understanding that some equipment may be farther from the center would not exceed the 75 dBA Leq noise standard even if 2-3 pieces of equipment were operating simultaneously. In addition, there would be a 3 to 3.5- foot masonry wall along the project perimeter that would attenuate construction noise. As construction of the detention basin progresses the construction equipment would be below ground level. The equipment operational height in conjunction with the 3 to 3.5-foot masonry wall along the detention basin boundary would provide an effective 28-foot height differential at the basin bottom. This would provide at minimum 15 dBA noise attenuation (reduction) for the adjacent residences. Therefore, at the start of construction, when the construction equipment would operate directly at the property line the noise levels could be slightly in excess of the 75 dBA Leq goal. However, as construction progresses, the noise attenuation due to the elevation differential would reduce to a noise level of 44-52 dBA Leq to the closest sensitive noise receptor.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 73
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Table 13
Construction Noise Impact
Detention Basin (Noise at Closest Receiver)
Equipment Average Noise
at Site Edge (dBA)
Average Noise at
Center Site (dBA)*
Excavator 77 49
Dozer 78 50
Scraper 80 52
Loader 75 47
Water Truck 72 44
*Attenuated for distance and below grade elevation
`
The low-flow diversion structure is approximately 75 feet from the closest noise sensitive land uses to the site, which are the two single-family residences to the south. The noise levels to these two residences associated with the construction of the low-flow diversion structure would not exceed the 75 dBA Leq goal as shown in Table 14. The multi-family units to the north, north of County Line Road, are approximately 150-feet from the proposed low-flow diversion structure. The noise levels to the residents of the multi-family units north of County Line Road would not experience and be impacted by noise levels greater than 75 dBA.

Table 14
Construction Noise Impact
Diversion Structure (Noise at Closest Receiver)
Equipment Average Noise
Closest Receptor (dBA)
Excavator 74
Concrete
Pump 70
Concrete
Mixer 71
Loader 71
At the closest residential setback of 50 feet, noise levels along the alignment of the underground storm drain and tie-ins are estimated to range between 72 and 78 dBA (Leq). The noisiest construction activities would occur during pavement excavation. The maximum noise levels are limited to the time it takes to remove the pavement, when necessary, and dig the storm drain trenches. The project engineer estimates the linear progress rate for the underground pipeline is approximately 100 feet per day. The operation of construction equipment in close proximity to a residence would be brief. In these brief periods while the noise levels would be noticeable, the exceedance would be sporadic (not continuous), limited in duration, and only occur when the construction equipment is typically operated within 50 feet of a receptor. At 75 feet the noise levels would be below 75 dBA Leq. Additionally, as shown in Table 8, the Calimesa Noise Code allows for upward adjustment of the noise standard when equipment operates less than 8 hours. Although it is difficult to estimate and speculative, any single piece of heavy equipment would only operate within 50 feet of a residence for a short period of time and would not operate for 8 straight hours. For example, for 2 hours of continuous noise, the construction threshold is adjusted upward by +6 dBA that results in a noise threshold increase to 81 dBA and construction noise by the project would not exceed that standard.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 74
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 According to the City of Calimesa Municipal Code, permissible hours of construction are between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays or Sundays or holidays. The City of Yucaipa allows construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays with no construction on Sundays or holidays. Although the City of Yucaipa does not have any regulations on construction noise levels, compliance with the Calimesa requirements would provide assurance that construction noise levels in both the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa are not intrusive.

Although no construction noise levels are anticipated or have been identified, the following measure is recommended to minimize construction noise levels to adjacent noise sensitive land uses.

Mitigation Measure No. 15 The following construction noise level reduction measures shall be implemented prior to and throughout project construction:
• All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers; • Stockpiling and staging activities shall be located as far as practicable from dwellings; and
• All mobile equipment shall have properly operated and maintained mufflers.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium and the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface move away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface move is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels.

During construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. This type of vibration is best measured in terms of velocity or acceleration. The peak particle velocity (PPV), or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. The units for PPV velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is considered appropriate for evaluating potential building damage. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.

Vibration Impacts
Ground-borne vibration occurs when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds.

Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the “soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors (FTA 2006).

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 75
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures.

Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance.

The vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the PPV, which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually measured in in/sec. The range of such vibration is shown in Table 15.

Table 15
Human Response To Transient Vibration
Average Human Response ppv (in/sec)
Severe 2.000
Strongly perceptible 0.900
Distinctly perceptible 0.240
Barely perceptible 0.035
Source: Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013.

According to Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures is 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources, which include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1990) identifies maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to structures from intermittent construction or maintenance activities for residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls to be 0.4–0.5 in/sec. Below this level there is virtually no risk of building damage. Table 16 shows the predicted vibration levels that are generated by various types of construction equipment.

Table 16
Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction
Equipment
PPV
at 10 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 15 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 25 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 50 ft (in/sec)
Large bulldozer 0.352 0.191 0.089 0.031
Loaded trucks 0.300 0.152 0.076 0.027
Jackhammer 0.138 0.070 0.035 0.012
Small Bulldozer 0.012 0.006 0.003 0.001
Source: FHWA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment As shown in Table 15, the construction equipment that would be operating on the project site near an adjacent residence would not cause damage although the vibration could be in the annoyance range.

Regardless, is unlikely that a large bulldozer or loaded truck would ever operate 10 feet from an existing residential structure. Therefore, vibration levels generated by the project would not have any significant cosmetic damage or impacts.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 76
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The project would have less than significant ground borne or vibration impacts. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no public airports within the immediate project vicinity. The Redlands Municipal Airport that is approximately twelve miles northwest of the project is the closest airport to the project. The project is not located within the land use plan of the Redlands Municipal Airport.42 Because the project site is approximately twelve miles from the Redlands Municipal Airport and not within the land use plan of the airport, the project would not be impacted by noise levels at Redlands Municipal Airport.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose the development of any residential units. Therefore, the project would not induce or increase a growth in the population of either Calimesa. It is speculative at this time to estimate the potential for future development that could directly or indirectly occur and increase population growth in the area due to the construction of the proposed detention basin and storm drain improvements. Any growth that may occur in the immediate area of the project would have to comply with and be consistent with the adopted general plan of the respective jurisdiction. Therefore, any growth that would occur due to that development would be consistent with the planned growth of that jurisdiction. The project would not directly or indirectly result in a substantial unplanned population growth in the project area and significantly impact unplanned population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There are no residential units within the project site that would be displaced by the project. The project would not impact any existing housing.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? No Impact. The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the City of Calimesa. The fire station that serves the city is located at 906 S. Park Street and is located adjacent to and south of Calimesa Creek. Due to historical flooding in Calimesa Creek, soil erosion and flooding in Calimesa Creek adjacent to the fire station poses safety concerns for the fire station. The proposed storm drain improvements to Calimesa Creek adjacent to the fire station would significantly reduce on-going soil erosion in Calimesa Creek and future flooding at Park Street that impacts the fire station. Therefore, the project would have a positive impact to the Calimesa Fire Station by significantly reducing on-going soil erosion to the banks of Calimesa Creek adjacent to the fire station. The project would also eliminate flooding to Park Street, adjacent to the Calimesa Fire 42 Redlands Municipal Airport Master Plan, November 18, 2008, Exhibit B, Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 77
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Station that can impact emergency response times when Park Street and Calimesa Boulevard are flooded. The project would have a positive impact to fire protection services in Calimesa by eliminating soil erosion impacts adjacent to the Calimesa Fire Station and eliminate flooding to Park Street and Calimesa Boulevard that delay fire emergency response times. ii. Police protection? No Impact. The City of Calimesa Police Department contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for police protection services. The project could require police protection services such as vandalism and/or theft of construction equipment and materials and traffic congestion during project construction. Once construction is completed the potential demand for these types of police protection services would cease. Eliminating the potential for future flooding at Park Street and Calimesa Boulevard would have a positive impact to police services by improving local access for the police to respond to calls for emergency and reduce or eliminate the need to close city roadways due to flooding. The project would not have any impact to the Calimesa Police Department.
iii. Schools? No Impact. The project does not propose any residential units. Therefore, the project would not generate any students to area schools and would not impact schools. iv. Parks? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed parks either within or adjacent to the proposed project site that would be impacted by the project. The project would not impact any existing or proposed parks.

v. Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no public facilities or services that would be impacted by the project.

XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The project would not impact any existing recreation facilities. Please see Public Services Section “XV.a.iv)” above.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact.

As discussed in Section “XV.a.iv)” above, the project does not propose to construct or provide any onsite recreational or park facilities. The project would not impact recreational facilities.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact..

The project could export up to approximately 31,000 cubic yards of dirt associated with the excavation of the detention basin and the trenches to install the underground storm drain line. All export material would be hauled to the San Timoteo Landfill that is located approximately 11 miles southwest of the project in the City of Redlands. The proposed truck haul route to haul excavated material from the project site to the landfill is shown in Figure 11.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 78
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The transportation of approximately 31,000 cubic yards of dirt from the project site to the San Timoteo Landfill would have no impact to any program plan, policy, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

Figure 11 Proposed Truck Haul Route
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) addresses project vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 a VMT analysis was prepared for the project.43
The project proposes to export dirt from the Calimesa Channel detention basin to the San Timoteo Landfill during a two- to three-month construction period. The proposed truck haul route from the project site to the landfill is approximately 11 miles roundtrip. SB 743 identifies VMT as the metric to identify CEQA transportation impacts. To comply with SB 743, the City of Calimesa has defined the conditions for conducting CEQA VMT analysis.44 The City has identified project types that are local serving by nature as having the presumption of a less than significant traffic or transportation impact. The City uses VMT per service population for its impact threshold.

The project consists of truck trips to haul approximately 31,000 cubic yards of dirt from the detention basin to the San Timoteo Landfill during the construction period. The truck haul route would be active only during the estimated two- to three-month construction period. The approximately 11-mile roundtrip is considered to be local serving trips. A VMT analysis is not applicable to temporary construction traffic, including the project. Therefore, a VMT analysis is not required and the project would have no conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose the construction of any new roadways or intersections. All project traffic would use the local and regional circulation system for access to and from the construction area. Therefore, the project would not increase any hazards to area intersections or roadways.

Local traffic would be delayed and/or rerouted during the construction of the underground storm drain in County Line Road. The project contractor would be required to submit a traffic control plan to the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa prior to the start of construction to show how local traffic would be controlled during construction of the underground storm drain in County Line Road. The project contractor would be required, based on the approved construction traffic control plan, to implement the approved construction traffic plan throughout construction to control and minimize short-term construction traffic impacts. Overall, the project would not have any significant traffic design or circulation hazards or impacts.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing circulation system in the vicinity of the project would continue to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the project site and the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa for emergency purposes with the implementation of an approved traffic control plan by the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa prior to the start of construction. 43 Truck Haul Route for Calimesa Channel Stage 3 Detention Basin Vehicles Traveled Assessment, Stantec, February 18, 2022. 44 City of Calimesa, CA. May 2020. Final City of Calimesa Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 79
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Police, fire, paramedic/ambulance and other emergency vehicles would continue to have adequate access throughout the immediate project area to respond to on- and off-site emergencies. The project would not significantly impact emergency access to the site.

Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10 Typical Building Elevations

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III
Figure 11
Proposed Truck Haul Route

DETENTION
BASIN
SAN

TIMOTEO

LANDFILL
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042581300\drawing\exhibit_files\fig 1- project location and vicinity map.dwg Figure 1 Truck Haul Route for Calimesa Channel Stage
3 Detention Basin to San Timoteo Landfill
Traffic Analysis
Redlands, CA
Haul Route Location and Vicinity Map

1.2 Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 81
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As required by AB 52, the City of Calimesa contacted five area Native American Indian Tribes that are on record with the city and may have tribal resources associated with the site. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians formally invited consultation with the City in compliance with 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Environmental Quality. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians identified the potential for tribal cultural resources to be located within the project site and if present, a potential for tribal cultural resources to be impacted during construction. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested tribal monitoring prior to the start of any ground disturbance within the project boundary. As a result, the following cultural and tribal mitigation measures are recommended.

Mitigation Measure No. 16 Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed project area, Tribal monitors representing the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians shall be present for all ground disturbing activities that occur within the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work). A sufficient number of Tribal monitors shall be present each workday to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation (“Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources”) shall be completed by the archaeologist, as detailed within CUL-1, and submitted to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI). Once all parties review and agree to the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency – the plan must be adopted prior to permitting for the project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.

Mitigation Measure No. 17 If a pre-contact cultural resource is discovered during project implementation, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 60 feet around the resource(s) and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. A research design shall be developed by the archaeologist that shall include a plan to evaluate the resource for significance under CEQA criteria. Representatives from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI), the archaeologist/applicant, and the Lead Agency shall confer regarding the research design, as well as any testing efforts needed to delineate the resource boundary. Following the completion of evaluation Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 82
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 efforts, all parties shall confer regarding the archaeological significance of the resource, its potential as a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR), and avoidance (or other appropriate treatment) of the discovered resource.

Should any significant resource and/or TCR not be a candidate for avoidance or preservation in place, and the removal of the resource(s) is necessary to mitigate impacts, the research design shall include a comprehensive discussion of sampling strategies, resource processing, analysis, and reporting protocols/obligations. Removal of any cultural resource(s) shall be conducted with the presence of a Tribal monitor representing the Tribe, unless otherwise decided by SMBMI. All plans for analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the applicant and SMBMI prior to implementation, and all removed material shall be temporarily curated on-site. It is the preference of SMBMI that removed cultural material be reburied as close to the original find location as possible.

However, should reburial within/near the original find location during project implementation not be feasible, then a reburial location for future reburial shall be decided upon by SMBMI, the landowner, and the Lead Agency, and all finds shall be reburied within this location. Additionally, in this case, reburial shall not occur until all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project have been cataloguing and basic recordation of cultural resources have been completed, and a final monitoring report has been issued to Lead Agency, CHRIS, and SMBMI. All reburials are subject to a reburial agreement that shall be developed between the landowner and SMBMI outlining the determined reburial
process/location, and shall include measures and provisions to protect the reburial area from any future impacts (vis a vis project plans, conservation/preservation easements, etc.).

Should it occur that avoidance, preservation in place, and on-site reburial are not an option for treatment, the landowner shall relinquish all ownership and rights to this material and confer with SMBMI to identify an American Association of Museums (AAM)-accredited facility within the County that can accession the materials into their permanent collections and provide for the proper care of these objects in accordance with the 1993 CA Curation Guidelines. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository shall be developed between the landowner and museum that legally and physically transfers the collections and associated records to the facility. This agreement shall stipulate the payment of fees necessary for permanent curation of the collections and associated records and the obligation of the Project developer/applicant to pay for those fees.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 83
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 All draft records/reports containing the significance and treatment findings and data recovery results shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency and SMBMI for their review and comment. After approval from all parties, the final reports and site/isolate records are to be submitted to the local CHRIS Information Center, the Lead Agency, and SMBMI.

Mitigation Measure No. 18 In the event that any human remains are discovered within the project area, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 100 feet around the resource(s) and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. The on-site lead/foreman shall then immediately who shall notify SMBMI, the applicant/developer, and the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency and the applicant/developer shall then immediately contact the County Coroner regarding the discovery. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner shall ensure that notification is provided to the NAHC within twenty-four (24) hours of the determination, as required by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 (c). The NAHC-identified Most Likely Descendant (MLD), shall be allowed, under California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and funerary objects shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The MLD, Lead Agency, and landowner agree to discuss in good faith what constitutes "appropriate dignity" as that term is used in the applicable statutes. The MLD shall complete its inspection and make recommendations within forty-eight (48) hours of the site visit, as required by California Public Resources Code § 5097.98. human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in consultation with the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and funerary objects. All parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and associated funerary objects on or near the site of their discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The
applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on-site reburial in a location mutually agreed upon by the Parties. It is understood by all Parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code § 6254 (r).

Reburial of human remains and/or funerary objects (those artifacts associated with any human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code § Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 84
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in consultation with the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and funerary objects. All parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and associated funerary objects on or near the site of their discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on-site reburial in a location mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

It is understood by all Parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code § 6254 (r).

With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential tribal cultural resource impacts to less than significant.

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section XVII. a) above, the project could have significant impacts to Native American tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures No. 16-18 are recommended to reduce potential impacts to Native American tribal cultural resources, if found, to less than significant.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to construct a detention basin, diversion structure and underground storm drain. The project does not propose and would not require the construction of any new or the expansion of any other public utilities such as water lines, sewer lines, natural gas or electrical lines. The site for the detention basin is vacant and its construction would not require the expansion of any existing or the construction of any new public utilities other than storm drain facilities to connect with Calimesa Creek adjacent to and south of the basin. The construction of the underground storm drain and diversion structure would not require the expansion of any public utilities or the extension of any existing facilities.

Therefore, the project would not have any significant public utility impacts. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact. The project would require the consumption of potable water for dust control as required by SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403 during construction of the detention basin, diversion structure and underground storm drain. The amount of Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 85
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 water that would be required to control dust would be minimal and cease once construction is completed.

The project would not have an impact on future water supplies. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of the proposed storm drain improvements would indirectly generate minimal quantities of wastewater associated with on-site portable toilets for the construction workers. Once construction is complete the project would not generate any wastewater. The project would not have any wastewater treatment impacts. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate solid waste due to various types of construction debris and waste during the construction of the proposed improvements. Concrete and/or asphalt that is removed from the site can either be ground and reused on the site as base material for the detention basin and/or storm drains, or sold to a recycler. Other types of debris such as rocks, metal, wood, etc. that cannot be recycled would be hauled to the Timoteo Landfill. Due to the small scale of the project the construction debris that would be hauled to the landfill would be minimal and not significantly impact the capacity and life expectancy of the landfill. Once construction is completed, the project would not generate any solid waste. The project will have less than significant solid waste impacts. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The City of Calimesa would require the project contractor to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project would not have any solid waste impacts because the project would generate a small amount of construction debris and all development in Calimesa is required to comply would all applicable solid waste statues and regulations.

XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project will not impact emergency response or evacuation plans. The project site is not within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas or State and Federal Responsibility Areas.
45 The closest designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas are more than a mile from the project site. The project site is adjacent to the southern border of the City of Yucaipa. The project site is not within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas or State and Federal Responsibility Areas of Yucaipa. 46 The closest designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas in the City of Yucaipa are generally along the perimeter of the city and approximately two miles from the project site.

The project would not impair or impact any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan associated with an emergency response to a wildfire in the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa that are designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or any other designated local, state or Federal fire hazard zones in the general project area.
45 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5908/calimesa.pdf 46 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5953/yucaipa.pdf Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 86
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in section “XX. a)” above, the project is not in a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas or State and Federal Responsibility Areas. The project site and surrounding properties are generally flat with no significant topographic relief and expose project occupants to wildfire risks. Prevailing winds and Santa Ana winds could expose construction workers to smoke and wildfire pollutants associated with wildfires located locally and regionally, however, that exposure would not be site specific because much of the city and general geographic area would also be exposed to smoke and wildfire pollutants and not the project site specifically. Project construction workers would only be exposed to smoke and wildfire pollutants during the fire season and the time of project construction. Once project construction is completed the exposure by construction workers to smoke and wildfire pollutants would cease. The project would not significantly impact and expose project construction workers to smoke and wildfire pollutants or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slopes or other factors from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The construction of a detention basin, underground storm drain and diversion structure would not require the installation of any infrastructure, including roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that could exacerbate a fire risk. The project would not construct any utilities that would result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As discussed in XX “a” above, the project is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. As also discussed in section XX “b” above, the project site and surrounding properties are generally flat with no significant topographic relief that would expose structures or project occupants to significant risks due to downslope or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Because the project is not located in a fire hazard zone or downstream of any hillsides of areas of topographic relief the project would not expose construction workers to significant risks due to downstream or downstream flooding or landslides due to post-fire slope instabilities.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project proposes to construct a detention basin, an underground storm drain and diversion structure to reduce flooding along Calimesa Creek from 3rd Street on the east to Interstate 10 on the west. As identified in the biology report, there are fish and wildlife habitats that would be impacted with the construction of the proposed storm drain improvements. Mitigation Measures No. 1-9 are recommended to reduce potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. The project would impact one intersection associated with trucks hauling export material from the site to the Timoteo Landfill.

Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project Page 87
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 The project would not demolish any buildings. Therefore, there are no examples of California history or prehistory on the site or suspected to be found on the site that would be impacted by the project.

Mitigation Measures No. 10-11 are recommended to reduce potential cultural resources impacts uncovered during project construction to less than significant. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians contacted the City of Calimesa and identified the potential for tribal cultural resources to be located within the project site and if present, a potential for tribal cultural resources to be impacted during construction.

Mitigation measures No. 15-17 are recommended to reduce potential tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area that, along with the proposed project, could result in cumulative impacts. The Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa has not identified any individual projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, the project would not have any cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant impacts associated with the project that would cause substantial adverse effects and significantly impact human beings either directly or indirectly that cannot be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

Calimesa Creek Stage
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Appendix A – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Report

AIR QUALITY AND GHG IMPACT ANALYSES

CALIMESA CREEK STAGE III PROJECT
CITY OF CALIMESA and YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:

Sara Friedman-Gerrick
Giroux & Associates
Prepared for:

Phil Martin & Associates
Attn: Phil Martin
Date:

February 15, 2022
Project No.: P22-006 AQ
Calimesa Creek AQ
- 1 -

ATMOSPHERIC SETTING

REGIONAL CLIMATE
The climate of the Calimesa area, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength and location of the semi-permanent high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions are characterized by very warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and comfortable humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of the local atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population and industry attracted in part by the climate. The City of Calimesa is located within Riverside County near the San Bernardino County line. The project is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles basin undergo photochemical reactions and then move inland during the daily sea breeze cycle with limited regional meteorological dispersion potential.

Winds across the proposed Calimesa project site are an important meteorological parameter because they control both the initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as controlling their regional trajectory. The wind patterns in this portion of Riverside County display a very unidirectional onshore flow from the west-southwest/west-northwest that is strongest in summer with a weaker offshore return flow from the north-northeast/east-northeast that is strongest on winter nights when the land is colder than the ocean. The onshore winds during the day average 6-10 mph while the offshore flow is often calm or drifts slowly westward at 1-3 mph. During the daytime, any locally generated air emissions are thus rapidly transported eastward toward the Banning Pass/Palm Springs, or upslope within the rising thermal chimneys on the south slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains without generating any localized air quality impacts. The nocturnal drainage winds which move slowly across the area have some potential for localized stagnation, but fortunately, these off-shore winds have their origin in the nearby mountains where background pollution levels are low such that any localized contributions do not create any unhealthful impacts.

In conjunction with the two characteristic wind regimes that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. The summer on-shore flow is capped by a massive dome of warm, sinking air which caps a shallow layer of cooler ocean air.

These marine/ subsidence inversions act like a giant lid over the basin. They allow for local mixing of emissions, but they confine the entire polluted air mass within the basin until it escapes into the desert or along the thermal chimneys formed along heated mountain slopes. In winter, when the air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, radiation inversions are formed that trap low-level emissions such as automobile exhaust near their source. As background levels of primary vehicular exhaust rise during the seaward return flow, the combination of rising non-local baseline levels plus emissions trapped locally by these radiation inversions creates micro-scale air pollution "hot spots" near freeways, shopping centers and other traffic concentrations in coastal areas of the Los Angeles Basin. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the often degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in winter in the Calimesa area.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 2 -

AIR QUALITY SETTING

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)
In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard.

National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods.

The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2.

The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects.

EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate.

EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM-2.5"). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants.

Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM-2.5 and for ozone (8-hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health-based standards did not require preparation of a cost-benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment-planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to “non-attainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 3 -
Table 1
Calimesa Creek AQ
- 4 -
Table 1 (continued)
Calimesa Creek AQ
- 5 -
Table 2
Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
• Incomplete combustion of fuels and
other carbon-containing substances, such
as motor exhaust.
• Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.
• Reduced tolerance for exercise.
• Impairment of mental function.
• Impairment of fetal development.
• Death at high levels of exposure.
• Aggravation of some heart diseases
(angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
• Motor vehicle exhaust.
• High temperature stationary combustion.
• Atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory illness.
• Reduced visibility.
• Reduced plant growth.
• Formation of acid rain.

Ozone
(O3)
• Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Impairment of cardiopulmonary
function.
• Plant leaf injury.

Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction.
• Behavioral and hearing problems in
children.

Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM-10)
• Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
• Construction activities.
• Industrial processes.
• Atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function.
• Aggravation of the effects of gaseous
pollutants.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardio
respiratory diseases.
• Increased cough and chest discomfort.
• Soiling.
• Reduced visibility.

Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-2.5)
• Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
• Residential and agricultural burning.
• Industrial processes.
• Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants, including
NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.
• Increases respiratory disease.
• Lung damage.
• Cancer and premature death.
• Reduces visibility and results in surface
soiling.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
• Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil
fuels.
• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
• Industrial processes.
• Aggravation of respiratory diseases
(asthma, emphysema).
• Reduced lung function.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Reduced visibility.
• Plant injury.
• Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 6 -
Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment.

Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8-hour standard. The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of nonattainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard.

As part of EPA’s 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM-2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5-to-10-micron size was created, some PM-10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December 2012, the federal annual standard for PM-2.5 was reduced from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin’s non-attainment status for PM-2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM-2.5 attainment.

In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8-hour standard. A new 8-hour ozone standard was adopted in 2015 after extensive analysis and public input. The adopted national 8-hour ozone standard is 0.07 ppm which matches the current California standard. It will require three years of ambient data collection, then 2 years of nonattainment findings and planning protocol adoption, then several years of plan development and approval. Final air quality plans for the new standard are likely to be adopted around 2022.

Ultimate attainment of the new standard in ozone problem areas such as Southern California might be after 2025.

In 2010 a new federal one-hour primary standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SO2 is typically not a problem pollutant.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 7 -

BASELINE AIR QUALITY
Existing and probable future levels of air quality in the project area can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its Redlands air monitoring station located less than one mile west of the proposed site. That station, however, only monitors ozone and large particulates. The closest data resource for a more comprehensive spectrum of monitored pollutants is the Central San Bernardino monitoring station. Table 3 summarizes the last four years of published data from the Redlands and Central San Bernardino monitoring stations.

Ozone and particulates are seen to be the two most significant air quality concerns. Ozone is the primary ingredient in photochemical smog. Slightly more than 21 percent of all days exceed the California one-hour standard. The 8-hour state ozone standard has been exceeded an average of 31 percent of all days in the past four years. The federal 8-hour standard is exceeded 23 percent of all days. For the last four years, ozone levels have neither improved nor gotten noticeably worse.

While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current decade.

In addition to gaseous air pollution concerns, Riverside experiences frequent violations of standards for 10-micron diameter respirable particulate matter (PM-10). High dust levels occur during Santa Ana wind conditions, as well as from the trapped accumulation of soot, roadway dust and byproducts of atmospheric chemical reactions during warm season days with poor visibility.

Table 3 shows that two percent of all days in the last four years experienced a violation of the State PM-10 standard. However, the three-times less stringent federal standard has not been exceeded in the same time period.

A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Peak annual PM-2.5 levels are sometimes almost as high as PM-10, which includes PM-2.5 as a sub-set. Only one day of all measurement days in the last four years experienced a violation of the 24-hour standard of 35 g/m3.

While many of the major ozone precursor emissions (automobiles, solvents, paints, etc.) have been substantially reduced, most major PM-10 sources (construction dust, vehicular turbulence along roadway shoulders, truck exhaust, etc.) have not been as effectively reduced. Prospects of ultimate attainment of ozone standards are better than for particulate matter.

More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, etc. are very low near the project site because background levels, never approach allowable levels. There is substantial excess dispersive capacity to accommodate localized vehicular air pollutants such as NOx or CO without any threat of violating applicable AAQS.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 8 -
Table 3
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2020)
(Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and
Maximum Levels During Such Violations)
(Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken) Pollutant/Standard 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 79 53 73 104
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 114 94 109 141
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 60 66 88 127
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.156 0.136 0.137 0.173
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.135 0.114 0.117 0.136
Carbon Monoxide
8- Hour > 9. ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0
Max 8-hour Conc. (ppm) 2.3 2.5 1.1 1.4
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.065 0.057 0.059 0.054
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 2/59 2/59 0/59 1/40
24-hour > 150 g/m3(F) 0/59 0/59 0/59 0/40
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 77. 74. 44. 57.

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 1/116 0/114 0/97 0/115
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 38.2 30.1 34.8 25.7
Source: South Coast AQMD Air Monitoring Station Data Summary Redland Monitoring Station: Ozone, PM-10
San Bernardino 4th Street Monitoring Station: CO, NOx, PM-2.5 Calimesa Creek AQ
- 9 -

AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.

The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades.

Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.

The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal onehour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8-hour federal standard.

Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated.

With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to “slip” from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard.

Because projected attainment by 2021 required control technologies that did not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation was to allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on “black-box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This reclassification set a later attainment deadline (2024), but also required the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 10 -
Table 4
South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2015a 2020b 2025b 2030b
NOx 357 289 266 257
VOC 400 393 393 391
PM-10 161 165 170 172
PM-2.5 67 68 70 71
a2015 Base Year.
bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of Air Quality In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA had disapproved part of the SCAB PM-2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA stated that the current attainment plan relied on PM2.5 control regulations that had not yet been approved or implemented. It was expected that a number of rules that were pending approval would remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues were not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the current California State Implementation Plan (SIP) was expected to remedy identified PM-2.5 planning deficiencies.

The federal Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one-hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked almost ten years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the onehour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now required to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one-hour federal ozone standard. Because the current SIP for the basin contains a number of control measures for the 8-hour ozone standard that are equally effective for one-hour levels, the 2012 AQMP was believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements.

AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013.

An updated AQMP was required for completion in 2016. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board in March, 2017, and has been submitted the California Air Resources Board for forwarding to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill flares, etc.) The current attainment deadlines for all federal non-attainment pollutants are now as follows:
8-hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032
Annual PM-2.5 (12 g/m3) 2025
8-hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (old standard)
1-hour ozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard)
Calimesa Creek AQ
- 11 -
24-hour PM-2.5 (35 g/m3) 2019
The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional stringent NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, ozone attainment goals may not be met.

The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing storm water improvement projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 12 -

AIR QUALITY IMPACT

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact.

Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following four tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it would:
a) Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Primary Pollutants
Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction.

Secondary Pollutants
Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact.

Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact Calimesa Creek AQ
- 13 -
significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.

Table 5
Daily Emissions Thresholds
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
There are residences surrounding the proposed detention basin site County Line Road near 3rd Street. The closest homes are immediately adjacent to the eastern site perimeter and take access from 3rd Street. The existing land uses adjacent to the proposed storm drain improvements from include vacant land and single-family detached residential units to the south and multi-family to the north in the City of Yucaipa. The closest residence is approximately 50 feet from the roadway centerline.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS
CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The project entails construction of a 53 acre-foot detention basin at County Line Road near 3rd Street. Additionally, a storm drain system will run from between 5th Street and I-10. Tie-Ins will connect the new storm drain lines to the creek. A low-flow water diversion structure is proposed within Calimesa Creek. This concrete structure would allow low flow water in Calimesa Creek to be diverted west into the Calimesa Creek to maintain existing low water flows in the creek.

Estimated construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod2020.4.0 to identify maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project construction. The construction schedule and equipment list was provided by the project engineer and is shown in Table 6.

Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Calimesa Creek AQ
- 14 -
Table 6
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet
Detention Basin
120 days
Export 31,000 CY earthworks
1 Excavator
1 Dozer
1 Scraper
1 Loader
1 Water Truck
Storm Drain Installation
60 days
2 Excavators
1 Loader
1 Backhoe
1 Water Truck
Tie-Ins
30 days
1 Excavator
1 Loader
1 Backhoe
Low-Flow Diversion Structures
60 days
1 Mixer
1 Pump
1 Excavator
1 Loader/Backhoe
CEQA Thresholds
Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet and durations shown in Table 6 the following worst-case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table 7.

Table 7
Construction Activity Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction
Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
2022
Detention Basin 2.4 25.9 18.0 0.1 4.0 2.4
Storm Drain 1.2 10.7 12.3 0.0 0.5 0.4
Tie-Ins 0.5 1.7 5.8 0.0 0.2 0.2
Diversion Structures 0.6 1.7 6.9 0.0 0.3 0.3
Total 4.7 40.0 43.0 0.1 5.0 3.3
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds even if the worst-case days for all activities were to overlap.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 15 -
Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24-hour per day, 365 days per year, 70-year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction-related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9-, 30-, or 70-year timeframe and not over a relatively brief construction period due to the lack of health risk associated with such a brief exposure.

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the only possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility.

LSTs are applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 meter source-receptor distances.

For this project, there are residences adjacent to most project components such that the most conservative and restrictive 25-meter distance was modeled.

LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites for varying distances. Because construction of a storm drain is linear, equipment only operates in front of any single residence for a short period of time (progress rate is estimated to be 100 linear feet per day). The most stringent thresholds for a 1 acre site were applied for storm drain activity.

However, the detention basin is larger such that thresholds for a 4-acre site were interpolated from available data. One acre-sites were used for other ancillary activities.

The following thresholds and emissions in Table 8 are therefore determined (pounds per day):

Table 8
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
Storm Drain LST
Calimesa Creek AQ
- 16 -
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 750 162 4 3
Max On-Site Emissions 12 11 1 1
Detention Basin LST
LST 4 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 1,677 325 11 7
Max On-Site Emissions 18 26 4 2
Tie-Ins LST
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 750 162 4 3
Max On-Site Emissions 6 2 1 1
Diversion Structures LST
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Hemet/San Jacinto Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 750 162 4 3
Max On-Site Emissions 7 2 1 1
LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. Emissions are below the LST construction thresholds. LST impacts are less-than-significant.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Because a detention basin is a passive structure requiring negligible long-term access, there are no operational air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. There should be a requirement for periodic desilting or vegetation removal, but the frequency and intensity of such actions is purely conjectural. There are no operational emissions associated with the project.

ODORS
The proposed detention pond is designed to not have a significant pool of water remaining after a storm event. Periodic cleaning of both vegetation and trash will ensure no smells arise because of rotting vegetation or other organic material.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINIMIZATION
Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, emissions minimization through enhanced dust control measures is Calimesa Creek AQ
- 17 -
recommended for use because of the non-attainment status of the air and proximity of residential uses. Recommended measures include:

Fugitive Dust Control
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Combustion emissions control options include:

Exhaust Emissions Control
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better rated heavy equipment. • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 18 -

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (onroad motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07.

AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California’s reputation as a “national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have wideranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented.

Major components of the AB 32 include:
• Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.
• Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020.
• Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants.

Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.

Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been Calimesa Creek AQ
- 19 -
developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on-and offroad mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or,
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.

CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis.

The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.

In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 20 -

PROJECT RELATED GHG EMISSIONS GENERATION
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The project is assumed to require less than one year for construction. During project construction, the CalEEMod2020.4.0 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2e emissions identified in Table 9.

Table 9
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)
Year 2022 CO2e
Detention Basin 304.3
Storm Drain 78.6
Tie-Ins 15.6
Diversion Structures 28.9
Total 427.4
Amortized 14.2
CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30- year lifetime. The amortized level is provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered less-than-significant.

CONSISTENCY WITH GHG PLANS, PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
The City of Calimesa prepared a Climate Action Plan in September 2014. The purpose was to integrate local planning efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve the quality of life in the community. The Western Riverside Energy Leader Partnership (WRELP) Program builds upon the existing policies and programs in the region to analyze energy-sector emissions and propose energy conservation and renewable energy measures that reduce GHG emissions within Energy Action Plans for 11 jurisdictions served by SCE. The WRELP partners include Calimesa. The City of Yucaipa has not yet completed a finalized Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The applicable GHG planning document is AB-32.

No recommendations or action items would apply to the proposed storm water project. Except for construction impacts there are no associated operational emissions. Therefore, since the project results in GHG emissions below the SCAQMD 3,000 ton threshold, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.

Calimesa Creek AQ
- 21 -
CALEEMOD2020.4.0 COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT

DETENTION BASIN
• DAILY EMISISONS
• ANNUAL EMISSIONS

STORM DRAIN
• DAILY EMISISONS
• ANNUAL EMISSIONS

DIVERTION STRUCTURE
• DAILY EMISISONS
• ANNUAL EMISSIONS

TIE-INS
• DAILY EMISISONS
• ANNUAL EMISSIONS
Calimesa Creek Stage III Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 9, 2023 Appendix B – Biology and Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports 12200
1 October 2019
October 18, 2019 12200
Mr. Steve Ledbetter, P.E.

TKE Engineering Inc.
2305 Chicago Avenue
Riverside, California 92507
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Ledbetter:

This biological resources habitat assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) consistency analysis letter report describes the existing biological conditions of the proposed Calimesa Creek Stage III Project (project) site. The proposed project is analyzed in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the MSHCP. This report is intended to describe the existing conditions of the project site and the existing conditions within 500 feet of the project site where access was granted, which is referred to in this report as the study area. This report also describes the general biological reconnaissance survey methods and results, special-status biological resources present or potentially present on site, and potential constraints to development that may be posed by biological resources on the project site. This report also provides an MSHCP consistency assessment including the following requirements of the MSHCP (relevant MSHCP sections are identified in parentheses):
 Riparian/riverine, vernal pool, and fairy shrimp requirements (Section 6.1.2)  Urban/wildlife interface guidelines (Section 6.1.4)
The proposed project design is in the process of being finalized; therefore, this report does not analyze potential impacts to special-status biological resources in the context of CEQA or the MSHCP. An impacts analysis will be added to this report once the project design has been finalized. 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Location and Description
The 18.5-acre project site is located south of County Line Road, east of Interstate 10 (I-10) and west of 3rd Street, in the City of Calimesa in Riverside County (Figure 1, Project Location; figures can be found in Attachment A, Figures). The project site occurs within U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Yucaipa quadrangle map, Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Township 2 South, Range 2 West. The approximate center of the property is at longitude 117°03ʹ19.83″W and latitude 33°00ʹ11.94″N.

The proposed project is considered a continuation of the Calimesa Channel “Stage I” and Stage II” projects completed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The proposed project is a component of a storm drain system that will provide 100-year flood protection to existing developments along Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
2 October 2019
County Line Road and would consist of a detention basin and a storm drain system for the Calimesa Channel watershed upstream from the existing storm drain system at I-10 Freeway. The proposed project will provide the following benefits: (1) reduce peak 100-year flow rate to downstream facilities; (2) reduce storm drain infrastructure cost; (3) eliminate flooding at Park Avenue and Calimesa Boulevard; (4) alleviate flooding along the County Line Road and I-10 Freeway underpass; and (5) provide flood protection for the Fire Station, City Hall, and City of Calimesa proposed Downtown Business District.

1.2 Applicable Regulations
This section outlines the federal, state, and local regulations pertinent to the biological resources located in the proposed project area.

1.2.1 Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service. This legislation is intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, and to provide programs for the conservation of those species, thus preventing extinction of plants and wildlife. Under provisions of FESA Section 9(a)(1)(B), it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined in FESA Section 3(19) as, “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. In 2017, the Department of Interior Deputy Solicitor’s Opinion M-37050 stated that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act applies to “affirmative actions” that have “take” as their purpose. Projects may not “take” migratory birds if the action’s intent is to take or kill a migratory bird. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16 USC 703 et seq.). Additionally, Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). Nests are considered “active” if they currently support viable eggs, chicks, or young that are dependent on the nest and have not been abandoned by the parents.

1.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.), which prohibits the “take” of plant and animal species designated by the Fish and Game Commission as endangered or threatened in the State of California. Under CESA Section 86, “take” is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA Section 2053 stipulates that state agencies may not approve projects that will “jeopardize the continued Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
3 October 2019
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy.” CESA Sections 2080 through 2085 address the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating, “No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the Commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code, Sections 1900–1913), or the California Desert Native Plants Act (Food and Agricultural Code, Section 80001).”
Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and (c) authorizes take of endangered, threatened, or candidate species if take is incidental to otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally listed species that are also state-listed species.

In certain circumstances, CESA Section 2080.1 allows CDFW to adopt a federal incidental take statement, or a 10(a) permit as its own, based on its findings that the federal permit adequately protects the species and is consistent with state law. A Section 2081(b) permit may not authorize the take of “fully protected” species and “specified birds” (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3505, 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515, and 5517). If a project is planned in an area where a fully protected species or a specified bird occurs, an applicant must design the project to avoid take.

Fish and Game Code
Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey; or to take, possess, or destroy any nest or eggs of such birds. Birds of prey refer to species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes. Nests of all other birds (except English sparrow [house sparrow; Passer domesticus] and European starling [Sturnus vulgaris]) are protected under Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513.

According to Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 and 4700, which regulate birds and mammals, respectively, a “fully protected” species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission, and “incidental takes” of these species are not authorized.

1.2.3 Local
City of Calimesa Municipal Code
Chapter 18.80, Tree Preservation, of the City of Calimesa Municipal Code, sets forth the policy of the City to regulate the cutting, pruning, removal, relocation, or replacement of oak trees unless reasonable and conforming use of the property justifies the removal, cutting, pruning, and/or encroachment into the protected zone of an oak tree, heritage tree, or protected stand of oak trees.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
4 October 2019
3 Methods
For this biological resources letter report, “special-status” species are those that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under FESA; (2) listed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA; (3) a state fully protected species; (4) a CDFW Species of Special Concern; (5) a species listed on the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B or 2B; or (6) an MSHCP covered species not adequately conserved and species for which the MSHCP has additional surveys requirements for the project site. Special-status vegetation communities are those identified as high priority for inventory in the Natural Communities List (CDFW 2018) by a state rarity ranking of S1, S2, or S3 or identified as a protected resource by the City’s Municipal Code.

3.1 Literature Review
Special-status biological resources present or potentially present on the study area were identified through a literature search using the following sources: USFWS’s Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data (USFWS 2019a); CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2019b); the California Native Plant Society’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2019); the Calflora database, which compiles observation and plant data from both private and public institutions, including the Consortium of California herbaria (Calflora 2019); a Natural Resources Conservation Service soil map (USDA 2019a); the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS 2019); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results System (EPA 2019), which includes the National Hydrography Dataset; and the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS 2019b).

Searches were completed for the following USGSy quadrangles (which include the quadrangle within which the study area is located and the eight surrounding quadrangles): Harrison Mountain, Keller Peak, Big Bear Lake, Redlands, Yucaipa, Forest Falls, Sunnymead, El Casco, and Beaumont.

Additionally, previous reports prepared for the study area were reviewed including the Draft Biological Resources Letter Report (CALIFAUNA 2013) and Biological Field Report/Follow-Up (Froke 2016).

3.2 Field Reconnaissance
Dudek Biologist Britney Strittmater conducted a general biological survey of the study area on September 20, 2019, from 9:45 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Private properties within the study area were surveyed visually with binoculars from the project site boundary or public roads. The survey was conducted when weather conditions were favorable, with no cloud cover, wind speeds from 1 to 3 miles per hour, and temperatures ranging from 65°F to 79°F. All native and naturalized plant species encountered within the study area were identified and recorded. The potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur within the study area was evaluated based on the vegetation communities, soils present, and surrounding features. Vegetation communities and land covers on site were mapped directly in the field onto a 200-foot-scale (1 foot = 200 feet) aerial photograph-based field map of the study area. A formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted on September 20, 2019. The methodology and results are provided under a separate cover; therefore, they are not further discussed within this report.

Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank follow the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2019). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
5 October 2019
Rank, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2019), and common names follow the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2019b). Natural vegetation communities were mapped in the field using the Vegetation Alliances of Western Riverside County (Klein and Evens 2006). Land cover types (i.e., areas that lack vegetation communities) were described in accordance with Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Latin and common names of animals follow Crother (2012) for reptiles and amphibians, the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU 2018) for birds, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals, the North American Butterfly Association (NABA 2016) for butterflies, and Moyle (2002) for fish.

Geographic information system (GIS) analysts digitized the mapped biological resources from field maps to create the baseline biological conditions.

3.3 Survey Limitations
Access was not available within the 500-foot buffer from the project site because some of the properties are private and access was not granted. The 500-buffer was surveyed visually using binoculars. Therefore, vegetation mapping and habitat assessments were conducted from the project site or other public roads, in addition to being complimented with the use of aerial signatures of vegetation communities occurring within the study area.

The reconnaissance survey was conducted during the late summer/early fall season, which resulted in detection and identification of most perennial plant species that may potentially occur in the area. Due to the timing of the surveys, spring and summer annual and cryptic perennials may not have been detectable. Conditions were suitable for detection of most wildlife species (i.e., no cloud cover, 65°F–79°F temperatures, and light winds). However, timing of the survey limited the observations of neotropical breeding birds. 4 Results

4.1 Site Description
The study area is characterized as a mix of residential and commercial development, and vacant lots. The majority of the study area has been developed for over 50 years and the non-developed areas have been substantially disturbed by mowing and tilling (Google Earth 2019; NETRonline 2019). Based on aerial imagery (Google Earth 2019), vacant lots have been frequently disced, as recently as December 2018. This is presumed to be for weed abatement and fire prevention. One ephemeral drainage feature (Calimesa Creek) bisects the study area east to west. Elevations range from approximately 2,380 to 2,500 feet above mean sea level. A mix of developed and undeveloped lands (i.e., vacant lots) to the north, south, east, and west surrounds the study area. Representative photographs of the project site are included in Attachment B, Site Photographs.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
6 October 2019

4.2 Soils
Four soil types are mapped within the study area: Ramona sandy loam (2% to 5% slopes; eroded); Ramona sandy loam (2% to 9% slopes); Ramona very fine sandy loam (0% to 8% slopes; eroded), and San Timoteo (25% to 50% slopes; eroded) (USDA 2019a). The spatial distribution of these soils is depicted in Figure 2, Soils.  Ramona Series consists of well-drained soils formed in alluvium derived mostly from granitic and related rock sources. These soils typically occur on terraces and fans (USDA 2019b). This soil series occurs in the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the study area.  San Timoteo Series consists of moderately deep, well to somewhat excessively drained soils formed in material weathered from shale, sandstone, and calcified weathered granite. These soils typically occur on upland slopes (USDA 2019b). This soil series occurs in the western portion of the study area in between the Ramona Series.

4.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Two vegetation communities and three non-natural land cover types were documented within the study area:
eucalyptus/tree of heaven/black locust groves, Fremont cottonwood, disturbed habitat, non-vegetated channel or floodway, and urban/developed. Figure 3, Biological Resources, illustrates the distribution of vegetation communities and land covers, and Table 1 provides a summary of each vegetation community and land cover’s extent within the study area.

Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Study Area Vegetation Community/Land Cover Acreage
Vegetation Communities
Eucalyptus/Tree of Heaven/Black Locust Groves Semi-Natural Stand 2.38 Fremont Cottonwood Forest Association1 0.37
Non-Natural Land Covers
Disturbed Habitat 21.33
Non-vegetated Channel or Floodway1 1.36
Urban/Developed 118.56
Total2 144.02
Notes:
1 Considered special status by CDFW (CDFW 2018), MSHCP (County of Riverside 2003), or are riparian habitats. 2 Acreage may not total due to rounding.

4.3.1 Eucalyptus/Tree of Heaven/Black Locust Groves Semi-Natural Stands The eucalyptus/tree of heaven/black locust grove semi-natural stand is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), or black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) in the tree canopy, forming an open-to-continuous tree layer less than 60 meters tall with a sparse to intermittent shrub and herbaceous layer (Sawyer et al 2009).

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
7 October 2019
Within the study area, this semi-natural stand occurs along the banks of Calimesa Creek within the western portion of the study area and is co-dominated by tree of heaven and black locust with a few scattered eucalyptus trees present. Scattered giant reed (Arundo donax), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) were present, but did not create a continuous canopy or high enough cover to warrant their own community. This community contained a moderate amount of trash, debris, and litter resulting from homeless encampments and adjacent residential and commercial developments.

The eucalyptus/tree of heaven/black locust grove semi-natural stand does not have a rank in CDFW (2018); therefore, this semi-natural stand is not considered special status under CEQA.

4.3.2 Fremont Cottonwood Forest Association
Fremont cottonwood forest association is dominated or co-dominated by Fremont cottonwood with a continuous to open tree canopy less than 25 meters tall. The shrub layer is intermittent to open, and the herbaceous layer is variable (Sawyer et al. 2009). This community is found rivers, streams, lower canyons, alluvial fans and valleys with a subsurface water supply that various throughout the year (Sawyer et al. 2009).

Fremont cottonwood forest occurs along the downstream banks of Calimesa Creek within the western portion of the study area. This vegetation community contains greater than 5% absolute cover of Fremont cottonwood warranting a community; however, this community does include a high cover of tree of heaven. Scattered emergent coast live oaks and eucalyptus are present at lower covers. The understory is sparse and includes non-native grasses including brome species (Bromus spp.).

The Fremont cottonwood forest alliance is ranked by CDFW (2018) as a G3S3 alliance. This ranking indicates that globally and within California the alliance is considered vulnerable and at moderate risk (and is also considered rare and of high priority); therefore, it is considered special status under CEQA. All Fremont cottonwood associations are listed as a high priority for inventory (CDFW 2018) and are considered special status under CEQA.

4.3.3 Disturbed Habitat
The classification of disturbed habitat is due to the predominance of bare ground, non-native plant species, and other disturbance-tolerant plant species. Oberbauer et al. (2008) describes disturbed habitat as areas that have been physically disturbed by previous human activity and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association, but that continue to retain a soil substrate. Typically, vegetation, if present, is nearly exclusively composed of non-native annual plant species.

Within the study area, disturbed land includes vacant lots that contain a mix of non-native and ruderal species including dove weed (Croton setiger), prickly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus).

Disturbed habitat is not recognized by CDFW (2018); therefore, this non-natural land cover is not considered special status under CEQA.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
8 October 2019

4.3.4 Non-Vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Oberbauer et al. (2008) describes non-vegetated floodplain or channel as waterways or flood channels that are unvegetated on a relatively permanent basis that contain sandy, gravelly, or rocky substrates. Vegetation may be present, but is typically less than 10% total cover (Oberbauer et al. 2008).

Within the study area, non-vegetated floodplain or channel encompasses Calimesa Creek. The upstream portion of Calimesa Creek, east of 5th Street, includes a concrete-lined trapezoidal channel. The downstream portion of Calimesa Creek, west of 5th Street, includes a sandy bottom earthen-lined channel that is subject to frequent scouring associated with annual storm events. While the non-vegetated floodplain or channel within the study area was composed primarily of bare ground and a sandy substrate, a low cover of plant species observed in the study area within this land cover type include sacred thorn-apple (Datura wrightii), and bromes.

Non-vegetated floodplain or channel is not recognized by CDFW (2018); however, non-vegetated floodplain or channel may be jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or Porter Cologne Act, CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, or considered a special-status resource under the MSHCP. Thus, non-vegetated floodplain or channel may be afforded protection under CEQA.

4.3.5 Urban/Developed
Urban/developed is defined by Oberbauer et al. (2008) as areas that have been constructed on or disturbed so severely that native vegetation is no longer supported. Urban/developed lands includes areas with permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, landscaped areas, and areas with a large amount of debris or other materials.

Urban/developed land takes the form of residential and commercial development with landscaped ornamentals present, and paved roads.

Urban/Developed is not recognized by CDFW (2018); therefore, this non-natural land cover is not considered special status under CEQA.

4.4 Floral Diversity
A total of 34 species of native or naturalized plants, 13 native (38%) and 21 non-native (62%), were recorded within the study area. This relatively low plant diversity reflects the study area location in an urbanized area and the timing of the site visit, which was conducted in late summer/early fall, which would have precluded the detection of spring and summer blooming annuals. In addition, a majority of the study area was surveyed from public roads, which inherently constrains the ability to inventory all plant species. Plant species observed within the study area are listed in Attachment C, Vascular Plant Species.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
9 October 2019

4.5 Wildlife
A total of five bird species were detected within the study area, including house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). No active bird nests were observed within the study area during the reconnaissance survey; however, the ornamental vegetation and native vegetation (i.e., Fremont cottonwood forest) within the study area provides habitat for nesting birds and raptors. No amphibian species were observed, and no amphibian species are expected to occur. One reptile species was observed during the survey:
common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Three mammal species were detected during the survey:

California ground squirrel (Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Wildlife species observed within the study area are listed in Attachment D, Wildlife Species.

4.6 Special-Status Plant Species
Attachment E, Special-Status Plant Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Study Area, lists special-status plant species that have been documented in the USGS 7.5-minute Yucaipa quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles (CDFW 2019; CNPS 2019). For each species listed, a determination was made regarding the potential for the species to occur in the study area based on information gathered during the field reconnaissance, including the location of the site, habitats present, current site conditions, and past and present land use. Listed species with a potential to occur and non-listed special-status species with a moderate or higher potential to occur are discussed herein.

Focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted. No federally or state listed special-status plant species were incidentally detected within the study area. One non-listed special-status species, southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), which has a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1, was observed within the study area along the banks of Calimesa Creek; however, this species is a covered species under the MSHCP (County of Riverside 2003). No federally or state listed or other special-status species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the study area (Attachment E).

4.7 Special-Status Wildlife Species
Attachment F, Special-Status Wildlife Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Study Area, lists special-status wildlife species that have been documented in the USGS 7.5-minute Yucaipa quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles (CDFW 2019). For each special-status wildlife species, a determination was made regarding potential use of the study area based on information gathered during the field reconnaissance, known habitat preferences, and knowledge of the species’ relative distributions in the area. There are no federally or state listed wildlife species and other special-status wildlife species with a moderate or higher potential to occur in the study area.

Thirteen special-status wildlife species have a low potential to occur within the study area (Attachment F), including the state fully protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). White-tailed kite has a low potential to nest and forage within the study area, and this species is covered under the MSCHP.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
10 October 2019

4.8 Nesting Birds
The reconnaissance survey was conducted outside of nesting season; however, the study area provides potential nesting habitat for commonly occurring birds such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna) or house finch. The study area does contain large trees (e.g., eucalyptus, tree of heaven, black locust, coast live oak) suitable for raptor nesting.

4.9 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation; they may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping stones for wildlife dispersal. The study area is not within any designated wildlife corridors and/or habitat linkages identified in the South Coast Missing Linkages analysis project (South Coast Wildlands 2008), California Essential Habitat Connectivity project (Spencer et al. 2010), or as recognized by the MSHCP. The study area is isolated from designated wildlife corridors/habitat linkages and other open spaces by substantial developed areas and heavily traversed roadways, including I-10. Waters from Calimesa Creek flow into San Timoteo Creek, but Calimesa Creek is an ephemeral drainage, with a relatively small watershed (890 acres) that is highly developed, so native fish species are not expected to be present or use the creek within the study area for upstream or downstream movement.

On a local level, the study area is dominated by developed areas that support minimal vegetation (particularly native vegetation). Calimesa Creek bisects the study area; however, the natural portions of the creek west of I-10 are primarily limited to the study area. Waters from Calimesa Creek flow downstream from the study area into underground culverts beneath Calimesa Boulevard and then for approximately 500 feet beneath I-10 (Google Earth 2019). Calimesa Creek is within a concrete channel in the eastern portion of the study, and its waters are conveyed through underground culverts approximately 0.5 miles to the east of the study area (Google Earth 2019). The study area may provide local movement for some urban-adapted wildlife species (i.e., coyote, striped skunk, raccoon, opossum), but these species would be expected to be able to use similar urban habitat that is adjacent to the study area.
5 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis
The study area is located in the MSHCP Pass Area Plan and must comply with relevant sections of the MSHCP. The study area is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell (Figure 4, Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area); therefore, no Reserve Assembly requirements would apply to the project. The study area is not located within MSCHP Section

6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Species Survey Area or MSHCP Section 6.3.2 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for Criteria Area Plant Species, Burrowing Owl, Mammals, or Amphibians; therefore, additional survey requirements for these biological resources would not apply to the project and are not further discussed. The project’s compliance with the relevant sections of the MSHCP is discussed below.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
11 October 2019

5.1 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Resources
The MSHCP defines riparian/riverine areas as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.” The MSHCP further clarifies those areas “demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions” (County of Riverside 2003).

There are approximately 3.31 acres of MSHCP riparian/resources within the study area, specifically 2.94 acres of riverine resources and 0.37 acres of riparian habitat (Figure 5, Western Riverside MSHCP Biological Resources).

The study area contains one ephemeral drainage (Calimesa Creek) and associated riparian vegetation (Fremont cottonwood forest). Calimesa Creek conveys water ultimately connecting to Temescal Canyon Wash, which has surface connection ultimately flowing to the Santa Ana River. Because this feature conveys water to downstream resources, Calimesa Creek would be considered riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP. Additionally, the associated Fremont cottonwood forest would be considered a riparian resource as defined by the MSHCP.

5.1.1 Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp Habitat
The MSHCP defines vernal pools as the following (County of Riverside 2003):
[S]easonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics, and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology, must be made on a case-by-case basis. Such determinations should consider the length of the time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. Evidence concerning the persistence of an area's wetness can be obtained from its history, vegetation, soils, and drainage characteristics, uses to which it has been subjected, and weather and hydrologic records.

Fairy shrimp habitat also includes ephemeral pools and other features such as road ruts or stock ponds.

No vernal pool–indicator plant species were identified within the area, and no vernal pools were observed within the study area. Soils mapped in the region are Ramona sandy loam, Ramona very fine sandy loam, and San Timoteo soils.

These series are all considered well to moderately well draining and therefore are not known to retain ponded water.

However, based on historic aerial imagery (Google Earth 2019), a topographic low point southwest of the intersection of 3rd Street and County Line Road contained standing water as recently as December 2018. This area is consists of a dirt vacant lot that has been graded and lacks vegetation. This topographic low point has contained standing water over the years with standing water also observed in February 2016 and April 2014 (Google Earth 2019). Therefore, based on the fact that this area does hold water, this area was determined to potentially support habitat for Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) (Figure 5, Western Riverside MSHCP Biological Resources).

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
12 October 2019

5.1.2 Riparian Birds
The study area supports a few scattered individuals of mulefat, Fremont cottonwood, and giant reed along the central portion of Calimesa Creek as observed during the September 2019 field visit. These scattered individuals are not considered a riparian resource as defined by the MSHCP as they did not create a continuous canopy or high enough cover to warrant their own community. The study area also supports Fremont cottonwood forest at the downstream portion of Calimesa Creek, and this community is considered a riparian resource as defined by the MSHCP. This riparian vegetation is narrow and small in its extent, lacks understory or closed-canopy features, lacks continuity with higher quality habitat, and is not contiguous; therefore, it is not sufficient to support riparian bird species such as least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), or yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus).

5.2 MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines According to the MSHCP, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area (County of Riverside 2003, pp. 6–42). The study area is not within any conserved areas; however, Calimesa Creek flows to San Timoteo Creek, which ultimately flows to the Santa Ana River. Due to the proposed project having connectivity to areas described for conservation, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are applicable. 6 Conclusions
The study area includes the following special-status biological resources: southern California black walnut, coast live oak, MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat, and potential fairy shrimp habitat. If these resources are impacted as a result of project implementation, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are recommended for the project to be consistent with the MSHCP and that would result in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources under CEQA.

California black walnut is a covered species under the MSHCP; therefore, compliance with the MSHCP as well as payment of the applicable MSHCP Development Mitigation Fee offsets potential direct and indirect impacts to this species. Coast live oaks are a protected resource under the City of Calimesa Municipal Code; therefore, impacts to this species would require appropriate mitigation to offset potential direct and indirect impacts to this species.

Impacts to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine resources would require preparation of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation identifying avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to riparian and riverine resources. If the proposed project would result in impacts to potential fairy shrimp habitat, two seasons of fairy shrimp surveys would be required. If the proposed project cannot avoid at least 90% of the long-term conservation value of the habitat, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report would be required.

The results of the formal jurisdictional delineation are provided under a separate cover; however, the proposed project would result in potential impacts to non-wetland waters of the United States and streambeds under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
13 October 2019
Corps of Engineers, a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code, collectively referred to as waters permits.

If you have any questions regarding this biological resources letter report, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or at 760.601.3416.

Sincerely,
_________________________________
Britney Strittmater
Biologist
Att.: Attachment A – Figures
Attachment B – Site Photographs
Attachment C – Vascular Plant Species
Attachment D – Wildlife Species
Attachment E – Special-Status Plant Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Study Area Attachment F – Special-Status Wildlife Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Study Area 7 References
AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2018. “Checklist of North and Middle American Birds.” Accessed October 2018. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa.

Calflora. 2019. The Calflora Database. Berkeley, California: Calflora. Accessed February 2019. http://www.calflora.org.

CALIFAUNA. 2013. “Draft Biological Resources Letter Report for the Calimesa Creek Flood Control Project.” Prepared for City of Calimesa. October 4, 2013.

CALIFAUNA. 2016. “Biological Field Report/Follow-Up for the Calimesa Creek Flood Control Project.” Prepared for City of Calimesa. January 1, 2016.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. “Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form.” January 24, 2018. Accessed February 2019. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=153398&inline.

CDFW. 2019. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 5.0 (Commercial Subscription).

Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 2019. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online ed. Version 8-02.

Sacramento, California: CNPS. Accessed October 2019. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Mr. Steve Ledbetter
Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III, City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California
12200
14 October 2019
County of Riverside. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Riverside County Integrated Project. MSHCP adopted June 17, 2003. Accessed February 2019. http://www.rctlma.org/mshcp.

Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, edited by J.J. Moriarty. 7th ed.

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR); Herpetological Circular no. 39. August 2012.

Accessed March 2018. http://home.gwu.edu/~rpyron/publications/Crother_et_al_2012.pdf.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. “Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS).” Last updated December 15, 2017. Accessed September 2019. https://www.epa.gov/ waterdata/viewing-waters-data-using-google-earth.

Google Earth. 2019. Aerial photograph. 1:200 scale.

Jepson Flora Project. 2019. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed January 3, 2019. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html.

Klein, A., and J. Evens. 2006. Vegetation Alliances of Western Riverside County. Final report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division. California Native Plant Society.

Revised May 2006.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and expanded. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, and London, England: University of California Press.

NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2016. “Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico.” Adapted from North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist and English Names of North American Butterflies. 2nd ed. Morristown, New Jersey: NABA. December 29, 2016. Accessed October 2018. http://naba.org/pubs/enames2_3.html.

NETRonline. 2019. Historic Aerials, web-based viewer. Accessed October 2019. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. March 2008.

Accessed February 2019. http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/pdfs/veg_comm_sdcounty_2008_doc.pdf.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf., and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society.

South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion.

Produced in cooperation with partners in the South Coast Missing Linkages Initiative. Accessed October 2019. http://www.scwildlands.org.

Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Accessed October 2019. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019a. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed September 2019. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

USDA. 2019b. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed September 2019. http://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019a. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species [digital GIS data]. September 28, 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Accessed September 2019. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe 09893cf75b8dbfb77
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019b. “National Wetland Inventory.” Last updated October 17, 2018.

Accessed September 2019. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019. National Hydrography Dataset. https://www.usgs.gov/core-sciencesystems/ngp/national-hydrography.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. (MSW3 database). Accessed October 2018. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3.

Attachment A
Figures

§¨¦10
Project Location
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: USGS National Map 2019
Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 1 Project Location.mxd 0 1,000 2,000 n Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Project Site
!(^
Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 2 Soils.mxd RaB2
SmF2
PlB
ReC2
ReC2
RaD2
RaD2
SmF2
ShF
RmC
RmD
RmE2
RaB2 RmC
Soils
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: USGS NRCS
0 315 630 n Feet
ProjectBoundary
Study Area
Soils
PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, ero ded RmC - RAMONA SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES
RmD - RAMONA SANDY LOAM, 9 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES
RmE2 - RAMONA SANDY LOAM, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED ShF - SAUGUS SANDY LOAM, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES
SmF2 - San Timoteo loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, eroded FIGURE 2
Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 3a Biological Resources.mxd "J "J
"J
"J "J
"J
"J "J
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J
"J "J
"J
"J
"J
DEV
DEV
DEV
DEV
DEV
I-10 WBON

CALIMESA BLVD

COUNTY LINE RD
I-10 EBON

PARK AVE
5TH ST

COUNTY LINE RD
I-10
I-10

AVENUE B
I-10 WBOFF

AVENUE K

ERWIN ST
§¨¦10
POPFRE
DEV
DH
DH
DH DH
DH
DH
DH
DH
NVC
NVC
NVC
NVC

EUC-TH-BL

EUC-TH-BL
Biological Resources
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2018
0 100 200 n Feet
Project Boundary
Study Area
Special-Status Plant Species
"J Southern California Black Walnut (Juglans californica) "J Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Vegetation Communities and Landcovers
DEV - Urban/Developed
DH - Disturbed Habitat
EUC-TH-BL - Eucalyptus / Tree of Heaven / Black Locust Groves NVC - Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway
POPFRE - Fremont Cottonwood Forest Association
FIGURE 3A
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
S a n
B e r n a r d i n o
C o u n t y
Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 3b Biological Resources.mxd "J
"J
"J
4TH ST

CLING WAY

ROGERS CT
3RD ST

EL SERENE LN

COUNTY LINE RD

FLORDASON DR
DEV
DH
DH
DH
DH
DH
DH DH
DH
DH
DH
NVC
Biological Resources
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2018
0 100 200 n Feet
Project Boundary
Study Area
Special-Status Plant Species
"J Southern California Black Walnut (Juglans californica) "J Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Vegetation Communities and Landcovers
DEV - Urban/Developed
DH - Disturbed Habitat
NVC - Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway
FIGURE 3B
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
S a n
B e r n a r d i n o
C o u n t y
16 20
3 21
5 6
8 1
15 6
6 20
18 1
14 8
4 5
2 1
17 9
7 1
2 1
22 10
15 11
14 4
11 1
17 13
11 24
19 18
14 7
7 16
9 12
10 12
3 4
23 13
8 D
D
K
B
E
B
E
A
L
A M
I
A
A
B
A
K
C
F
A
L G
H
D
J
B
K
C
B
B
C
1 2 3
4 3
5 4
7 1
2 6
1 2
4 7
6 5
3 5 6
7 7
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2015; County of Riverside 2015 Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 4 Western Riverside MSHCP.mxd 0 12,500 25,000 n Feet
Proposed Linkages:

Constrained Linkage
Linkage
!!! !!! Existing Channel
Existing Cores &
Linkages:

Constrained Linkage
Core
Linkage
Noncontiguous
Habitat Block
Proposed Cores &
Habitat Blocks:

Core
Proposed Extension of
Existing Cores
Noncontiguous
Habitat Block
MSHCP Conserved
Lands
Conserved Lands
FIGURE 4
Project Site
!(^
Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 5a Western Riverside MSHCP Biological Resources.mxd DEV
DEV
DEV
DEV
DEV
I-10 WBON

CALIMESA BLVD

COUNTY LINE RD
I-10 EBON

PARK AVE
5TH ST

COUNTY LINE RD
I-10
I-10

AVENUE B
I-10 WBOFF

AVENUE K

ERWIN ST
§¨¦10
Western Riverside MSHCP Biological Resources
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2018
0 100 200 n Feet
Project Boundary
Study Area
Section 6.1.2 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources
Riverine
Riparian
FIGURE 5A
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
S a n
B e r n a r d i n o
C o u n t y
Date: 10/17/2019 - Last saved by: slucarelli - Path: Z:\Projects\j1220001\MAPDOC\CalimesaCreek\Bio Report\Figure 5b Western Riverside MSHCP Biological Resources.mxd DEV
DEV
DEV
4TH ST

CLING WAY

ROGERS CT
3RD ST

EL SERENE LN

COUNTY LINE RD

FLORDASON DR
Western Riverside MSHCP Biological Resources
Biological Resources Letter Report and MSHCP Consistency for the Calimesa Creek Stage III Project SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2018
0 100 200 n Feet
Project Boundary
Study Area
Section 6.1.2 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources
Riverine
Section 6.1.2 MSHCP Fairy Shrimp Habitat
Potential Fairy Shrimp Habitat
FIGURE 5B
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
S a n
B e r n a r d i n o
C o u n t y

Attachment B
Photo Documentation

ATTACHMENT B

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
12200
B-1 October 2019
Location 1: View of disturbed habitat and potential
fairy shrimp habitat within eastern portion of the
project site west of 3rd Street, facing west.

Location 2: View of disturbed habitat within the
within eastern portion of the project site west of
3rd Street, facing north.

Location 3: View of disturbed habitat and
California ground squirrel burrows within eastern
portion of the project site, facing west.

Location 4: View of non-vegetated floodplain or
channel within eastern portion of project site west
of 3rd Street, facing west.

ATTACHMENT B

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
12200
B-2 October 2019
Location 5: View of non-vegetated floodplain or
channel within eastern portion of study area east of
3rdrd Street, facing east.

Location 6: View of eucalyptus/tree of
heaven/black locust groves within the project site
west of 5th Street, facing east.

Location 7: View of non-vegetated floodplain or
channel and eucalyptus/tree of heaven/black locust
groves west of 5th Street, facing east.

Location 8: View of eucalyptus/tree of
heaven/black locust groves within the project site
west of Park Avenue, facing east.

ATTACHMENT B

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
12200
B-3 October 2019
Location 9: View of eucalyptus/tree of
heaven/black locust groves within the project site
west of Park Avenue, facing west.

Location 10: View of non-vegetated floodplain or
channel west of Park Avenue, facing south.

Location 11: View of Fremont cottonwood forest
within the project site west of Calimesa Boulevard,
facing east.

Location 12: View of Fremont cottonwood forest
within the project site west of Calimesa Boulevard,
facing west.

ATTACHMENT B

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
12200
B-4 October 2019

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment C
Vascular Plant Species

APPENDIX C

PLANT COMPENDIUM
12200
C-1 October 2019

EUDICOTS

VASCULAR SPECIES
APOCYNACEAE—DOGBANE FAMILY
* Nerium oleander—oleander
ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia acanthicarpa—flatspine bur ragweed
Baccharis salicifolia—mulefat
Helianthus annuus—common sunflower
Xanthium strumarium—cocklebur
BRASSICACEAE—MUSTARD FAMILY
* Hirschfeldia incana—shortpod mustard
CHENOPODIACEAE—GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
* Salsola tragus—prickly Russian thistle
CUCURBITACEAE—GOURD FAMILY
Cucurbita foetidissima—Missouri gourd
EUPHORBIACEAE—SPURGE FAMILY
Croton setiger—dove weed
FABACEAE—LEGUME FAMILY
* Albizia julibrissin—silktree
* Parkinsonia aculeata—Jerusalem thorn
* Robinia pseudoacacia—black locust
FAGACEAE—OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia—coast live oak
JUGLANDACEAE—WALNUT FAMILY
Juglans californica—Southern California black walnut
* Juglans regia—English walnut
LAMIACEAE—MINT FAMILY
Trichostema lanceolatum—vinegarweed
MYRTACEAE—MYRTLE FAMILY
* Eucalyptus globulus—Tasmanian bluegum
* Eucalyptus polyanthemos—redbox

APPENDIX C

PLANT COMPENDIUM
12200
C-2 October 2019
OLEACEAE—OLIVE FAMILY
* Fraxinus spp.—ash
POLYGONACEAE—BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum—California buckwheat
* Polygonum aviculare—prostrate knotweed
ROSACEAE—ROSE FAMILY
* Rubus armeniacus—Himalayan blackberry
SALICACEAE—WILLOW FAMILY
Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii—Fremont cottonwood
SIMAROUBACEAE—QUASSIA OR SIMAROUBA FAMILY
* Ailanthus altissima—tree of heaven
SOLANACEAE—NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii—sacred thorn-apple
ULMACEAE—ELM FAMILY
* Ulmus parvifolia—Chinese elm
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE—CALTROP FAMILY
* Tribulus terrestris—puncturevine]

MONOCOTS

VASCULAR SPECIES
ARECACEAE—PALM FAMILY
* Washingtonia robusta—Washington fan palm
POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY
* Arundo donax—giant reed
* Avena barbata—slender oat
* Bromus diandrus—ripgut brome
* Bromus madritensis—compact brome
Distichlis spicata—salt grass
* Stipa miliacea var. miliacea—smilograss
* signifies introduced (non-native) species
Attachment D
Wildlife Species

APPENDIX D

WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
12200
C-1 October 2019
BIRD

FINCHES
FRINGILLIDAE—FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES Haemorhous mexicanus—house finch

JAYS, MAGPIES AND CROWS
CORVIDAE—CROWS AND JAYS
Aphelocoma californica—California scrub-jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow

MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
MIMIDAE—MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos—mockingbird

PIGEONS AND DOVES
COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS AND DOVES
Zenaida macroura—mourning dove
MAMMAL

DOMESTIC
CANIDAE—WOLVES AND FOXES
* Canis lupus familiaris—domestic dog

HARES AND RABBITS
LEPORIDAE—HARES AND RABBITS
Sylvilagus audubonii—desert cottontail

SQUIRRELS
SCIURIDAE—SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi—California ground squirrel

APPENDIX D

WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
12200
C-2 October 2019

REPTILE

LIZARDS
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE—IGUANID LIZARDS
Uta stansburiana—common side-blotched lizard
Attachment E
Special-Status Plant Species Detected or Potentially
Occurring in the Study Area

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES DETECTED OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA 12200
E-1 October 2019
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/

CRPR) MSHCP
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
chaparral sandverbenaNone/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Desert dunes; sandy/annual
herb/(Jan)Mar–Sep/245–5,250
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Allium howellii var.
clokeyi
Mt. Pinos onion None/None/1B.3 None Great Basin scrub, Meadows and seeps (edges), Pinyon and
juniper woodland/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Apr–
June/4,265–6,070
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion None/None/1B.2 Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Chaparral (clay,
openings)/perennial bulbiferous
herb/Apr–May/2,490–3,495
Not expected to occur. No
suitable chaparral or clay soils
present.

Arenaria lanuginosa
var. saxosa
rock sandwort None/None/2B.3 None Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous
forest; mesic, sandy/perennial
herb/July–Aug/4,770–8,530
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort FE/SE/1B.1 None Marshes and swamps (freshwater or brackish); sandy,
openings/perennial stoloniferous
herb/May–Aug/5–560
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range
and there is no suitable
vegetation present. The nearest
known occurrence is
approximately 10 miles west of
the study area (CDFW 2019).

Astragalus
lentiginosus var.
coachellae
Coachella Valley milkvetchFE/None/1B.2 None Desert dunes, Sonoran desert scrub (sandy)/annual/perennial
herb/Feb–May/130–2,150
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range
and there is no suitable
vegetation present. The nearest
known occurrence is
approximately 10 miles
southeast of the study area
(CDFW 2019).

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES DETECTED OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA 12200
E-2 October 2019
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/

CRPR) MSHCP
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Astragalus
lentiginosus var.
sierrae
Big Bear Valley milkvetchNone/None/1B.2 None Mojavean desert scrub, Meadows and seeps, Pinyon and
juniper woodland, Upper
montane coniferous forest;
gravelly or rocky/perennial
herb/Apr–Aug/5,905–8,530
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Astragalus
leucolobus
Big Bear Valley
woollypod
None/None/1B.2 None Lower montane coniferous
forest, Pebble (Pavement) plain,
Pinyon and juniper woodland,
Upper montane coniferous
forest; rocky/perennial
herb/May–July/3,605–9,465
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Astragalus
pachypus var.
jaegeri
Jaeger’s bush milkvetchNone/None/1B.1 Covered Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley
and foothill grassland; sandy or
rocky/perennial shrub/Dec–
June/1,195–3,200
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located within this
species’ known elevation range;
however, there is no suitable
vegetation to support this
species.

Atriplex coronata
var. notatior
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
FE/None/1B.1 Criteria Area
Survey Plant
Species
Playas, Valley and foothill
grassland (mesic), Vernal pools;
alkaline/annual herb/Apr–
Aug/455–1,640
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

The nearest known occurrence is
approximately 7.5 miles south of
the study area (CDFW 2019).

Atriplex serenana
var. davidsonii
Davidson’s saltscale None/None/1B.2 Criteria Area
Survey Plant
Species
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
scrub; alkaline/annual
herb/Apr–Oct/30–655
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES DETECTED OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA 12200
E-3 October 2019
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/

CRPR) MSHCP
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry FE/SE/1B.1 Criteria Area Survey Plant
Species
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Riparian scrub; sandy or
gravelly/perennial evergreen
shrub/(Feb)Mar–June/225–
2,705
Low potential to occur. The study
area is located within the
species’ known elevation range,
and sandy soils are present;
however, this species is known to
occur in coarse soils and rocky
slopes in chaparral and gravelly
wash margins in alluvial scrub
(County of Riverside 2003),
which are absent. The nearest
known occurrence is
approximately 7.6 miles west of
the study area (CDFW 2019).

Boechera parishii Parish’s rockcress None/None/1B.2 None Pebble (Pavement) plain, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Upper
montane coniferous forest;
rocky, quartzite on clay, or
sometimes carbonate/perennial
herb/Apr–May/5,805–9,810
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Botrychium
crenulatum
scalloped moonwort None/None/2B.2 None Bogs and fens, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and
seeps, Marshes and swamps
(freshwater), Upper montane
coniferous forest/perennial
rhizomatous herb/June–
Sep/4,160–10,760
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Calochortus palmeri
var. palmeri
Palmer’s mariposa lily None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and
seeps; mesic/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Apr–
July/2,325–7,840
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES DETECTED OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA 12200
E-4 October 2019
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/

CRPR) MSHCP
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Calyptridium
pygmaeum
pygmy pussypaws None/None/1B.2 None Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous
forest; sandy or gravelly/annual
herb/June–Aug/6,495–10,205
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Carex occidentalis western sedge None/None/2B.3 None Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and
seeps/perennial rhizomatous
herb/June–Aug/5,395–10,285
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Castilleja cinerea ash-gray paintbrush FT/None/1B.2 None Mojavean desert scrub, Meadows and seeps, Pebble
(Pavement) plain, Pinyon and
juniper woodland, Upper
montane coniferous forest (clay
openings)/perennial herb
(hemiparasitic)/June–
Aug/5,905–9,710
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present. The nearest
known occurrence is
approximately 14 miles northeast
of the study area (CDFW 2019).

Castilleja
lasiorhyncha
San Bernardino
Mountains owl'sclover
None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Meadows and seeps,
Pebble (Pavement) plain,
Riparian woodland, Upper
montane coniferous forest;
mesic/annual herb
(hemiparasitic)/May–
Aug/4,265–7,840
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant None/None/1B.1 Criteria Area
Survey Plant
Species
Chenopod scrub, Meadows and
seeps, Playas, Riparian
woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland; alkaline/annual
herb/Apr–Sep/0–2,100
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES DETECTED OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA 12200
E-5 October 2019
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/

CRPR) MSHCP
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh bird’s-beak FE/SE/1B.2 None Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/annual
herb (hemiparasitic)/May–
Oct(Nov)/0–100
Not expected to occur. The study
area is located outside of the
species’ known elevation range,
and there is no suitable
vegetation present. The nearest
known occurrence is
approximately 10 miles west of
the study area (CDFW 2019).

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry’s spineflower None/None/1B.1 Covered Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley
and foothill grassland; sandy or
rocky, openings/annual
herb/Apr–June/900–4,005
Low potential to occur. The study
area is located within the
species’ known elevation range,
and sandy soils and terraces are
present within Calimesa Creek;
however, the study area lacks
suitable vegetation to support
this species. This species is
known to occur within alluvial
chaparral and scrub habitats
(County of Riverside 2003). The
nearest known occurrence is
approximately 2.8 miles
northeast of the study area
(CDFW 2019).

Calimesa City CouncilAugust 21, 2023

Calimesa City Council
August 21, 2023