DELINEATION OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE
U.S. AND WATERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHITEWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MURRIETA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Dr, Suite 1223
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attn: Suzanne Charnley
[email protected]
WRA, Inc.
3033 Fifth Ave, Suite 315
San Diego, CA 92103
Attn: Michael Nieto
[email protected]
WRA #31314
MAY 2024
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................2
2.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act .................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Non-Wetland Waters ................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.3 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States .............................................................. 3
2.1.4 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.5 Areas Potentially Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction ............................................................. 3
2.2 Waters of the State ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ........................................................................... 5
2.4 Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan ................................................ 5
3.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................6
3.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 7
4.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.1 Routine Method ........................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.2 Difficult Wetland Situations ......................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Non-Wetland Waters .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark........................................................................................................... 9
5.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................9
5.1 404/401 Wetland and Non-Wetland Waters ...................................................................................... 9
5.1.1 Southern Willow Scrub. (Salix gooddingii - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance) ......... 10
5.1.2 Emergent Marsh. (Juncus xiphioides Provisional Herbaceous Alliance).................................... 10
5.1.3 Ephemeral Streams .................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 CDFW and MSHCP Riparian /Riverine Wetlands .............................................................................. 11
5.2.1 Mulefat Scrub (Baccharis salicifolia) .......................................................................................... 11
5.2.2 Coast Live Oak Woodland (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance) ............................. 12
6.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 12
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 13
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page ii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Figures
Figure 1. Study Area Location
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Study Area
Figure 3. Vegetation Communities within Project Area
Figure 4. Soils Mapped within Survey Area
Figure 5. Potential Jurisdictional Features Located within the Study Area Figure 6. CDFW 1602 & MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Jurisdiction within Survey Area Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix C – Study Area Photographs
LIST OF PREPARERS
Michael Nieto- Senior Wetland Biologist
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency
FAC Facultative Plant
FACU Facultative Upland Plant
FACW Facultative Wetland Plant
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NWPL National Wetland Plant List
OBL Obligate Wetland Plant
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
TNW Traditional Navigable Waterway
UPL Upland Plant
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WRA WRA, Inc.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page iv
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a delineation of potential waters of the U.S. as defined by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and waters of the s tate as defined by the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Wetland Policy, SWRCB 2019). The Study Area for this delineation includes Whitewood I (West) Residential Development located in Murrieta, Riverside County , California (Study Area; Appendix A – Figures 1 and 2 ). The Study Area consists of approximately 17.26 acres and includes the following parcels: (APN: 392-330-003, 392-330-007, 392-330- 021, 392-330-020).
On May 20th, 2022, WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted a delineation within the Study Area to identify wetlands and non-wetland waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the CWA. In addition, this report identifies wetlands and other features potentially subject to jurisdiction of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as defined in the State Wetland Policy ( SWRCB 2019 ). The following sections describe the regulatory background and methods used to guide the delineatio n and provide a summary of wetlands and non -wetland waters within the Study Area. This delineation is considered “potential” subject to the approval of the Corps and, where appropriate, RWQCB 0F
1. This report depicts wetland and non-wetland waters features which are jurisdictional under the CWA and State Wetland Policy. Differences between these jurisdictions are represented wh ere appropriate on tables and maps associated with this report. Some features may be included that qualify for exemptions under either or both jurisdictional scopes. For all potentially exempt features, regardless of whether or not they are identified as such in this report, the applicant(s) reserve the right to request that the Corps, RWQCB, and/or SWRCB make a determination that such features are not waters of the U.S. or waters of the state subject to State Wetland Policy regulation.
1 Per the State Wetland Policy, the SWRCB or local RWQCB is required to verify any wetlands present that are not included on delineation maps verified by the Corps (Lines 77-81 of the State Wetland Policy).
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 2
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
The objective of the CWA is to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. (33 CFR Part 328 Section 328.4). Waters of the U.S. is the encompassing term for areas that qualify for federal regulation under Section 404 of the CWA . Section 404 of the CWA gives the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable” waters of the U.S. Section 502(7) of the CWA defines navigable waters as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.” Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines the term “waters of the United States” as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the CWA. A summary of this definition of “waters of the U nited States” in 33 CFG 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce and subject to tides; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) “other waters” such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries of waters; (6) territo rial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the CWA, “navigable waters” as defined in the CWA are the same as “waters of the U nited States” defined in the CFR above. Waters of the U.S include non-isolated wetlands and “other waters,” also referred to as non-wetland waters.
2.1.1 Wetlands
Wetlands are defined in 33 CFR 328.3 (b) as:
…those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
The basis for determining whether a given area is a wetland for the purposes of Section 404 of the CWA is outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual for the respective region (Arid West, Valleys, and Coast for California). As defined in 33 CFR 328.4 (c), the extent of federal jurisdiction within wetlands is defined as extending to the limit of the wetland as determined using the methods outlined in the manuals.
2.1.2 Non-Wetland Waters
The limit of federal jurisdiction in non-tidal non-wetland waters extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) which is defined in 33 CFR 328.3 (e) as:
...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 3
2.1.3 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States On June 5, 2007, the Corps and the EPA issued joint guidance on implementing the June 19, 2006 , U.S.
Supreme Court opinions resulting from Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (Rapanos) cases. The agencies received 66,047 public comments on the Rapanos Guidance (65,765 form letters, 282 non-form letters), from States, environmental and conservation organizations, regulated entities, industry associations, and the general public. The EPA and the Corps jointly reviewed the comments and released a revised version of the guidance on December 2, 2008. The revised guidance states that the agencies will assert jurisdiction over:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and • Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non navigable tributary.
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) and
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological in tegrity of downstream traditional navigable waters.
• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.
2.1.4 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
In addition to areas that may be exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction, some isolated wetlands and non - wetland waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 [2001]). Isolated wetlands and non-wetland waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to and are not adjacent to navigable waters of the U.S. and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
2.1.5 Areas Potentially Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the CWA per Section 404 regulations and the Corps Manual. Included in this category are:
• Some man-induced wetlands, including areas that are maintained only due to the presence of man-induced hydrology (1987 Corps Manual)
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 4
• Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the CWA (33 CFR 328.3a)
• Ditches dug wholly in, and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water (51 Fed. Reg. 41206, Corps 2008)
• Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing•(51 Fed. Reg. 41206)
• Artificial reflecting or swimming pools, or other similar ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons (51 Fed. Reg. 41206)
• Areas that are isolated from and/or do not have a significant nexus to navigable waters of the U.S. (Corps 2008)
Features meeting the criteria for wetlands and non-wetland waters within the Study Area were evaluated in the context of these exemptions for making determinations of areas potentially within the Corps’ jurisdiction.
2.2 Waters of the State
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act gives the SWRCB authority to regulate discharge of dredged or fill material that may affect the quality of “waters of the state.” “Waters of the state” are defined broadly as:
any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.
In April 2019 , the SWRCB adopted the State Wetland Policy, which provides a state wetland definition, procedures, and requirements for regulation of the discharge of dredge or fill material to wetlands and non-wetland waters of the state. The State Wetland Policy also includes exemptions from regulation of dredge and fill discharges for certain types of wetland and non -wetland waters features, as well as for certain classes of activities, such as activities covered by an existing RWQCB or SWRCB Order. The state wetland definition that became effective May 28, 2020, is similar to, but slightly different from that used by the Corps:
An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.
The State Wetland Policy utilizes existing Corps delineation procedures (Environmental Laboratory 1987, Corps 2008). According to the State Wetland Policy, the SWRCB and RWQCBs generally rely on the Corps for verification of wetland and non-wetland waters as part of an aquatic resource report. Any potential wetland area not identified in a report verified by the Corps is required to be delineated using Corps methods for consideration as a state wetland and verification by SWRCB or RWQCB staff. This report includes wetlands and non-wetland waters meeting both the Corps and state wetland definitions. Some Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 5
features mapped as non-wetland waters under the Corps wetland definition may be considered wetlands under the state definition.
This report identifies wetlands and non -wetland waters according to the Corps definitions and criteria, consistent with the State Wetland Policy’s reliance of these criteria. This report also recognizes that some non-wetland waters features may meet the wetland definition of the State Wetland Policy. Regardless of how they are defined, wetlands and non-wetland waters deemed jurisdictional may be regulated by the RWQCB and/or SWRCB under the State Wetland Policy.
2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.
CDFW’s definition of a stream (including creeks and rivers) includes:
a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs
CDFW also defines a stream as:
a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.
It is important to note that the Fish and game Code defines fish and wildlife to include: all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability (FGC Division 5, Chapter 1, section 45 and Division 2, Chapter 1 section 711.2(a) respectively).
2.4 Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act of 2001. The County identifies areas as riparian/riverine that “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.” Under the guidelines and requirements of MSHCP, areas including those determined to be vernal pools, freshwater marsh, riparian forests, riparian woodlands, riparian scrub, open water, disturbed wetlands, flood channel, river and stream beds within the Plan Area
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 6
3.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The approximately 17.26-acre Study Area is located in the city of Mu rrieta, Riverside County, California (Appendix A – see Figure 1 and 2). The study area is located within a region of Murrieta that has been designated for development under the MSCHP. As a result, the area is a combination of recent high - density development, new road infrastructure, and older sparse rural single-family homes. The biology at the site reflects its land use history containing elements of rural development, native vegetation and new influences of high-density infrastructure.
3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation within the Study Area consists of developed/disturbed land, chaparral, riparian scrub, and Coastal Sage scrub. The drainage which crosses through the property from southeast to northwest along the northeastern border of the Study Area contains riparian vegetation (and as such could be classified as riparian scrub, which is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW). WRA wetland specialists observed eight land cover types within the Study Area: developed, disturbed/ruderal, coastal sage scrub, chamise chaparral, coast live oak woodland, emergent wetland, streams, mulefat scrub, and southern willow scrub. Land cover types within the Study Area are illustrated in Figure 3 (Appendix A).
3.2 Soils
The Soil Survey of Riverside County (USDA 1971) soil mapping units within the Study Area: Cajalco and Las Posas series. Descriptions of the soil series that comprise the soil mapping units are provided below. The distribution of these soil mapping units within the Study Area is depicted in Appendix A – Figure 4.
Cajalco Series: Soils in the Cajalco series consist of well- drained soils formed in decomposing gabbro and other simple igneous rocks. They are also near Temescal, Las Posas, Honcut, and Wyman soils. They occur on uplands. The vegetation is chiefly annual grasses, forbs, and chamise.
The surface layer is yellowish -brown fine sandy loam that is about 10 inches thick. Its subsoil is brown fine sandy loam and loam. These soils are used for dryland pasture, grain, and range. • Cajalco fine sandy loam (CaC2), 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded. The depth of this soil to partly weathered rock is 30 to 36 inches. It has slow to medium runoff. It is used for dryland grain, pasture, and range, irrigated citrus and nonfarming purposes. This soil is not considered hydric (USDA 1971).
• Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam (CbD2), 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded. These soils occur on uplands. They have medium runoff with moderate soil permeability. It is 18 to 24 inches deep to weathered rock. Natural fertility is low. This soil is not considered hydric (USDA 1971).
• Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam (CbF2), 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded. The depth of this soil to partly weathered rock is 29 to 34 inches. It has rapid runoff. It is used for dryland grain, pasture, and range, irrigated citrus and nonfarming purposes. This soil is not considered hydric (USDA 1971).
Las Posas Series: This series of well -drained soils occurs on uplands. The vegetation is chiefly annual grasses, forbs, flat -top buckwheat, black sage, and chamise. They are near Temescal, Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 7
Cajalco, and Murrieta soils. The surface layer is reddish -brown loam and clay loam that is about 12 inches thick. Its subsoil is dark red clay and red heavy clay loam. • Las Posas loam (LaD2), 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded. These soils occur on uplands.
Its typical profile is on a north -facing slope of 8 percent. This soil is not considered hydric (USDA 2017).
3.3 Hydrology
The Study Area is located in the inland region of Murrieta, Riverside County. T he average monthly maximum temperature in the area is 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit, while the average monthly minimum temperature is 47.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The local watershed is Warm Springs Creek (HUC 12: 180703020401) and the regional watershed is the Santa Margarita River (HUC 8: 18070302). Predominantly, precipitation falls as rainfall between November and March with an annual average precipitation of 12.01 inches (WRCC 2022). The Study Area is located in the central portion of the Santa Margarita watershed. Other hydrological sources for the Study Area include high ground water table and urban runoff from adjacent residential and transportation infrastructure. There are no blue-line streams in the Study Area (USGS 2018), nor any mapped resources in the NWI (USFWS 2022) and California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI; SFEI 2017).
4.0 METHODS
WRA biologists performed a delineation of aquatic resources within the Study Area on May 20 th 2022.
Prior to conducting the evaluation, WRA reviewed a range of background materials including the Soil Survey of Riverside County (USDA 1971), the National Wetland s Inventory (NWI; USFWS 20 22), the California Aquatic Resource Inventory (SFEI 2 017), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Murrietta 7.5- minute quadrangle ma p (USGS 2018). WRA also reviewed historic aerial imagery from Google Earth (Google Earth 2022).
During the on -site evaluation, WRA followed the methods outlined in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987), the [Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Supplement; Corps 2008) and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Guide; Lichvar and McColley 2008). Potentially jurisdictional wetlands were identified, and their boundaries mapped using the Routine Method described in the Corps Manual. The jurisdictional limits of non -wetland waters under Section 404 of the CWA were mapped based on a combination of field indicators described in the OHWM Guide.
4.1 Wetlands
4.1.1 Routine Method
WRA followed the Routine Method to evaluate the Study Area for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) . Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils were collected at sample Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 8
points within potential wetland communities and adjacent upland areas. Sample points that contained positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology were considered to be wetland. Except in cases of atypical or problematic wetland situations (i.e., difficult wetland situations, as described below), sample points that lacked one or more indicators were considered to be upland. Sample point data were reported on [Arid West Supplement] data forms. Sample point locations were recorded using a handheld GPS unit with mapping grade accuracy. Plant species observed in the Study Area were identified using the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 202 2). Plants were assigned a wetland indicator status according to the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL; Corps 2020).
Wetland indicator statuses listed in the NWPL are based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands, as follows in Table 1:
Table 1. Explanation of the Wetland Indicator Statues in the National Wetland Plant List
CLASSIFICATION
(ABBREVIATION) DEFINITION* HYDROPHYTIC SPECIES?
(Y/N)
Obligate (OBL) Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands Y Facultative
Wetland (FACW)
Usually is a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands Y Facultative (FAC) Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or non-hydrophyte Y Facultative Upland
(FACU)
Occasionally is a hydrophyte but usually occurs in uplands N Upland/Not Listed
(UPL/NL)
Rarely is a hydrophyte, almost always in uplands N
*See Corps (2018)
Wetland boundaries were identified using a combination of indicators observed on the ground, most often corresponding to changes in topography and dominant vegetation, in addition to other indicators.
Where wetland boundaries were difficult to determine, wetland signatures visible in recent and historical aerial imagery from Google Earth ( 2022) w ere used to determine wetland boundaries. Based on a hydrologic analysis (see summary below and full analysis in Appendix A), WRA determined that the photos represent periods with normal to slightly below normal precipitation levels. Using imagery from normal periods allowed WRA to identify the normal extent of wetland conditions across the site. Using imagery from drier than normal periods allowed WRA to more easily visualize trends in vegetation and soil conditions due to the stronger juxtaposition of wet and dry areas.
4.1.2 Difficult Wetland Situations
The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) includes recommended procedures for completing wetland delineations in areas of “difficult wetland situations” in which wetlands may lack one or more indicators due to natural or anthropogenic factors; these are discussed as atypical or problematic wetland conditions in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Although the Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008) we Vireo bellii pusillus reutilized in the wetland determination, they do not provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations and problem areas that can arise during delineations in the Arid West. In these situations, the Corps Manual and Regional Supplements stress the importance of using best professional judgment and knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region during the collection and interpretation of data in difficult sites.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 9
4.2 Non-Wetland Waters
This study also evaluated the presence of non-wetland waters using Corps manuals and guidance for the identification of OHWM indicators (Lichvar and McColley 2008). Examples of non-wetland waters include lakes, rivers, and streams in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal influence. Non- wetland water types potentially subject to both Corps and RWQCB/SWRCB jurisdiction were investigated and identified in the field and as part of this report.
4.2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark
Consistent with Corps delineation methodology, the OHWM was used to identify the limits of non-wetland waters. The location of the OHWM was determined based on a combination of indicators observed on the ground (e.g., water stains, scour marks, and sediment sorting). Where direct access to the OHWM was feasible, it was mapped in the field using a GPS unit with mapping grade accuracy. Where direct access to the OHWM was not feasible, the location of the OHWM was hand drawn in the field on aerial photographs and topographical maps/on iPad for subsequent digitizing in ArcGIS. For smaller streams, t he width between the OHWM was visually estimated in the field and recorded for each feature. For larger features, the OHWM was mapped directly, and the average width measured with ArcGIS.
5.0 RESULTS
Descriptions of all aquatic resources identified within the Study Area are provided in the followi ng sections, including areas meeting both the Corps and RWQCB/SWRCB wetland definitions. As discussed above, features in this report are classified based on the Corps definition of wetlands. State-defined wetlands include areas lacking vegetation and containing anaerobic substrate. The State Wetland Policy regulates wetlands and non-wetland waters equivalently. Therefore, the classification of an unvegetated feature as a wetland or non-wetland water does not affect the scope of State regulation of that feature.
In contrast, feature classification for purposes of Corps jurisdiction can affect some regulatory permitting decisions, such as determining the applicability of Nationwide Permit Program thresholds. Therefore, the Corps definitions are relied upon for feature classifications in this report. In some cases, features mapped and classified as non-wetland waters may meet the State Wetland Policy definition of a wetland, where those features contain anaerobic substrates. Examples of such features include unvegetated lakes, ponds, and some portions of playas and p erennial streams. All features satisfying the technical criteria for wetlands and non -wetland waters are mapped as part of this report, including areas regulated by the State but not by the Corps and features exempted from regulation by the Corps and under the State Wetland Policy.
A map showing the location and extent of potential jurisdictional waters mapped within the Study Area is provided in Appendix A – Figures 5 and 6. Wetland Determination Data Forms are provided as Appendix B. Photographs of the Study Area are provided as Appendix C. A list of all plant species observed during the delineation site visits is included as Appendix D.
5.1 404/401 Wetland and Non-Wetland Waters
A summary of acreages of potential Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA and potential RWQCB jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CWA is provided in Table 2 belo w (see Appendix A - Figure 5) .
Descriptions of 404/401 jurisdictional features follow.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 10
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF 404/401 WETLANDS AND NON-WETLAND WATERS MAPPED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
FEATURE TYPE CLASSIFICATION
POTENTIAL SECTION 404 WATERS OF
THE U.S.
POTENTIAL 401 WATERS OF THE STATE
ACRES LINEAR FEET ACRES LINEAR FEET
Wetlands
Southern willow scrub R4UB 0.53 N/A- 0.53 N/A-
Emergent marsh R4UB 0.01 N/A- 0.01 N/A-
Non-Wetland Water
Ephemeral Drainage R4SBA 0.05 819 0.05 819
Total: 0.59 819 0.59 819
5.1.1 Southern Willow Scrub. (Salix gooddingii - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance)
Southern willow scrub totals 0.53 acres located in the northwest quarter of the Project Area. The forest and woodland alliance occurs throughout the state except for high elevation in the Sierra Nevada range and in the far northeast of the state. The alliance is commonly found along large rivers and canyon terraces, lake edges, seeps, springs, and stream floodplains.
Within the study area, t he dominant vegetation within the southern willow scrub is red willow ( Salix laevigata, FACW) in the tree canopy with Fremont’s cottonwood ( Populus fremontii, FAC) and scattered coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia, UPL) also present. Shrub cover within the alliance included coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis, UPL) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum, FACU). Herbaceous cover was light and included iris -leaved rush ( Juncus xiphioides, OBL ), annual beard grass ( Polypogon monspeliensi s, FACW), annual yellow sweet clover (Melilotus indicus, FACU), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum, FACW). Hydrologic indicators including dry season water table, water marks and dri ft deposits were observed within this community in addition to hydric soil indicators. Southern willow scrub vegetation on site are likely considered jurisdictional wetland waters by USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the MSHCP.
5.1.2 Emergent Marsh. (Juncus xiphioides Provisional Herbaceous Alliance) Emergent marsh totals 0.01 acres and includes areas dominated by herbaceous, low-growing hydrophytic vegetation often rooted in shallow water adjacent to a larger waterbody such as a stream or lake.
Emergent marsh within the Study Area was linear in nature and was associated with a small northeast trending drainage in the western portion of the study area. The dominant vegetation within the emergent marsh included iris-leaved rush ( Juncus xiphioides, OBL ), and included annual beard grass ( Polypogon monspeliensis, FACW), seep monkeyflower ( Erythranthe guttata, FACW), poison hemlock ( Conium maculatum, FACW), and curly dock (Rumex crispus, FACW). The emergent marsh appeared to be fed by a high-water table with substantial hydrologic indicators as well the presence of hydric soil. Emergent marsh Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 11
vegetation on site are likely considered jurisdictional wetland waters by USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the MSHCP.
5.1.3 Ephemeral Streams
Features in the ephemeral stream category are naturally formed, linear features that have indicators of OHWM and may convey flows only during or immediately after a precipitation event but remain dry otherwise. Ephemeral streams are the most abundant feature within the Study Area, numbering in the hundreds. They occur on all slopes and aspects and within forested, shrub -dominated, and herbaceous plant communities. Though they most commonly occur on medium - to high-gradient slopes, they also sometimes occur in low-gradient topography. While no wetland vegetation nor hydric soils were observed within these streambeds, using watershed maps and aerial photography, a hydrologic connection can be made to the Pacific Ocean, a traditional Navigable Waterway (TNW). Ephemeral streams on site are likely considered jurisdictional non-wetland waters by USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the MSHCP.
5.2 CDFW and MSHCP Riparian /Riverine Wetlands
In addition to the southern willow scrub, emergent marsh, and ephemeral drainages described above, CDFW and MSHCP wetlands have a more expansive definition described in sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this report. A summary of acreages of potential CDFW 1602 and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine is provided in Table 3 below (see Appendix A- Figure 6). Descriptions of jurisdictional features follow:
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF CDFW 1602 AND MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MAPPED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
FEATURE TYPE CLASSIFICATION
CDFW 1602 MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE
ACRES LINEAR FEET ACRES LINEAR FEET
Wetlands
Southern willow scrub R4UB 0.53 N/A 0.52 N/A-
Emergent marsh R4UB 0.01 N/A 0.01 N/A-
Ephemeral Drainage R4SBA 0.05 819 0.05 754
Mule fat scrub R4UB 0.04 N/A 0.04 N/A
Coast Live Oak
Woodland R4UB 0.35 N/A 0.35 N/A
Total: 0.98 819 0.98 819
5.2.1 Mulefat Scrub (Baccharis salicifolia)
Mulefat scrub occurs throughout the state except for the southeast deserts, high elevations of the Sierra Nevada range, and in the far northeast of the state. This vegetation alliance is commonly found in canyon bottoms, floodplains, and stream margins.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 12
Mulefat scrub total 0.04 acres in the southwest corner of the Study Area and are associated with a culvert at the intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Whitewood Road. Mulefat scrub within the Study Area is dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia, FAC). No hydrology nor hydric soil indicators were observed within the community. As such, mulefat scrub is likely considered jurisdictional to CDFW via the lake and streambed alteration program as wells as to the County of Riverside via the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine definition only.
5.2.2 Coast Live Oak Woodland (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance) Coast live oak woodland occurs along cismontane coastal foothills and valleys from San Diego County to southern Mendocino County.
Coast live oak woodland total 0.35 acres in the northwest corner of the Study Area. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia, UPL) is the dominant species of the upper canopy for this alliance with red willow ( Salix laevigata, FACW), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea, FACU), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum, FACU) forming a mixed, woody mid canopy. Herbaceous groundcover is sparse and primarily composed of ripgut brome ( Bromus diandrus, UPL). Coast live oak woodland is considered jurisdictional CDFW via the lake and streambed alteration program as wells as to the County of Riverside via the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine definition.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The results of this delineation of aquatic resources was based on conditions observed during the time of the assessment. Wetlands and non-wetland waters considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) were observed onsite totaling 0.59 acre and 819 linear feet. Riparian, Riverine, and Streambeds considered jurisdictional by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP) were also observed and total 0.98 acres and 819 linear feet. The delineation uses the federal methodology to determine the potential boundaries of wetlands and non-wetland features and is consistent with the approach used by the RWQCB, CDFW, and the MSHCP to determine wetlands subject their individual policy and guidance.
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 13
7.0 REFERENCES
Corps 2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version
2.0). September.
Corps 2020 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2020. National Wetland Plant List (NWPL). November.
Environmental
Laboratory 1987
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631.
Google Earth 2022 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial Imagery 1993-2022. Most recently accessed:
April 2022.
Jepson Flora Project 2022 Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2022. Jepson eFlora. Online at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html; most recently accessed: April 2022.
Lichvar and McColley 2008 Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August.
SFEI 2017 San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2017, December 28. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) version 0.3. Available online at:
https://www.sfei.org/data/california-aquatic-resource-inventory-cari- version-03-gis-data#sthash.9SjW0wBH.dpbs. Most recently accessed:
April 2022
SWRCB 2019 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, May 14, 2019.
USDA 1971 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside County, California. Soil Conservation Service. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.
USFWS 2022 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. National Wetlands Inventory. Online at: http://www.fws.gov/nwi; most recently accessed: April 2022.
USGS 2018 U.S. Geological Survey. 2018. Murrieta Quadrangle, California. 7.5 - minute topographic map.
WRCC 2022 Western Regional Climate Center. 2022. Record for Elsinore, California (04805), Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Period of Record:
03-10-1897 to 05-17-2022
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Page 14
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Appendix A
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx Project Area
View Extent
0 10.5
Miles
Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 12/13/2021
Figure 1. Study Area Location
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Arendt L
n
Clin ton K eith Rd
Clinton Ke ith Rd
Whitewood
Rd
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 100 50
US Feet
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 12/13/2021
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Study Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Whitew
oo
d
Rd
Mooref ie ld St
W
hitewo
od R
d
Whitewo d Rd
Clinton Keith Rd
Rocky Glen Pl
Cli nt on Ke it h R d
Rocky Glen Pl
Arendt L
n
Clinton Keith Rd
Arendt Ln
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 10050
Feet
o
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, Western Riverside Co Regional Conservation Authority, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/14/2024
Figure 3. Vegetation Communities within Project Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Land Cover T
ype
Chamise Chaparral (7.25 ac.)
Coastal sage scrub (restored) (1.18 ac.)
Developed (1.24 ac.)
Disturbed/Ruderal (6.94 ac.)
Mulefat Scrub (0.04 ac.)
Stream (0.05 ac.)
Coast Live Oak Woodland (0.35 ac.)
Emergent Marsh (0.01 ac.)
Southern Willow Scrub (0.53 ac.)
Arendt L
n
Clin ton K eith Rd
Clinton Ke ith Rd
Whitewood
Rd
CaC2
LaD2
CbF2
CbD2
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 100 50
US Feet
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 8/5/2022 Figure 4. Soils Mapped within Survey Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
CaC2 Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded CbD2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded LaD2 Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
W
hite w
ood
Rd
Mooref ield St
W
hitew
ood R
d
Wh
itewo
d Rd
Clinton Keith Rd
Rocky Glen Pl
Cli nt on Ke it h R d
Rocky Glen Pl
Arendt L
n
Clinton Keith Rd
Arendt Ln
S1
S2
S3
W1
W2
W3
S4
-117.162732,
33.599793
-117.158559,
33.598038
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 10050
F
eet
o
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, USFWS, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/14/2024 Figure 5. Potential Jurisdictional Features Located within the Survey Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Control Point
Culvert
P
otential 404/401 Jurisdiction
Emergent marsh (0.01 ac.)
Ephemeral drainage (0.05 ac. | 819 ln. ft.)
Southern willow scrub (0.53 ac.)
ID Type Acres Linear Feet
S1 Ephemeral drainage 0.01 520
S2 Ephemeral drainage <0.01 71
S3 Ephemeral drainage 0.01 163
S4 Ephemeral drainage 0.03 65
W1 Southern willow scrub 0.43 N/A
W2 Southern willow scrub 0.10 N/A
W3 Emergent marsh 0.01 N/A
S1 Ephemeral drainage 0.01 520
S2 Ephemeral drainage <0.01 71
S3 Ephemeral drainage 0.01 163
S4 Ephemeral drainage 0.03 65
W1 Southern willow scrub 0.43 N/A
W2 Southern willow scrub 0.10 N/A
W3 Emergent marsh 0.01 N/A
Waters of the U.S.
Waters of the State
White
w
oo
d
Rd
Mooref ie ld St
W
hitewo
od R
d
Whitewo d Rd
Clinton Keith Rd
Rocky Glen Pl
Cli nt on Ke it h R d
Rocky Glen Pl
Arendt L
n
Clinton Keith Rd
Arendt Ln
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base_20240514.aprx 0 10050
Fee
t
o
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, USFWS, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/14/2024 Figure 6. CDFW 1602 & MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Jurisdiction within Survey Area Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California ±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Culvert
Potential MSHCP F
eatures
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine (0.98 ac.)
Potential CDFW 1602 F
eatures
Ephemeral drainage (0.05 ac. | 819 ln. ft.)
Riparian (0.93 ac.)
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Appendix B
APPENDIX B – WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Whitewood West Residential Development City/County: Murrieta, Riverside Co. Sampling Date: 5-20-2022 Applicant/Owner: Sancerra State: CA Sampling Point: SP-1 Investigator(s): Michael Nieto Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 33.59888 Long: -117.161975 Datum: W GS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Calaco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15 % slopes, eroded (CbD2) NWI classification: upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
Sampling Point taken within emergent marsh vegetation community. This community is located within the banks of a stream course
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: - ) % Cover Species? Status
1. - n/a n/a n/a
2. 3.
4. n/a = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: - )
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1
Total Number of Dominant
Species A cross All Strata: 1
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 00
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
1. - n/a n/a n/a Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
n/a = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft radius )
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
1. Juncus xiphioides 55 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Polypogon monspeliensis 10 N FACW
3. Erythranthe guttata 7 N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
4. Conium maculatum 10 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
✔ Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index i s ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. Rumex crispus 5 N FACW
6. Melilotus indicus 7 N FACU
7. 8.
94 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: n/a )
1. n/a
2. n/a = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum _____________ % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation is present at this sample point US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP- 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Ty pe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 7.5 YR 3/3 100 - SL
2-8 7.5 YR 3/1 95 5 Yr 4/6 5 C PL SCL
8-16 7.5 YR 4/3 100 SCL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol ( A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A 2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) B lack Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A 4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A 5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR D) ✔ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below D ark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Th ick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy M ucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy G leyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: n/a
Depth (inches): n/a Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ✔ Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ✔ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) ✔ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔ Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water M arks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B 2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B 3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B 6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation V isible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B 9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology is present at this ample point
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Whitewood West Residential Development City/County: Murrieta, Riverside Co. Sampling Date: 5-20-2022 Applicant/Owner: Sancerra State: CA Sampling Point: SP-2 Investigator(s): Michael Nieto Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 3359936 Long: - 117.16235 Datum: W GS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Calaco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15 % slopes, eroded (CbD2) NWI classification: upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✔
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
Sample Point taken beneath coast live oak canopy in north western corder of property. Sample point does not include unvegetated stream bed slowing through vegetation community VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0
Total Number of Dominant
Species A cross All Strata: 4
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
1. Quercus agrifolia 70 Y UPL
2. Salix laevigata 3 N FACW
3. 4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius )
3 = Total Cover
1. Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea 4 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Toxicodendron diversilobum 6 Y FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species 0 x 1 =
4. FACW species 3 x 2 = 6
5. FAC species 0 x 3 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius )
10 = Total Cover FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 73 x 5 = 365
1. Bromus diandrus 3 Y UPL Column Totals: 86 (A) 411 (B)
2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.77
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dom inance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index i s ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. 8.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: n /a )
3 = Total Cover
1. n/a
2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
n/a = Total Cover
% Cover of Biotic Crust 0
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation does not occur at this sample point US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP- 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Ty pe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 10 YR 4/2 100 - - - - SL Duff and organics
2-18 10 YR 5/3 100 - - - - SL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol ( A1) Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A 2) Stripped Matrix (S6)
B lack Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A 4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A 5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below D ark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Th ick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy M ucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy G leyed Matrix (S4)
1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) ( LRR B)
Reduced V ertic (F18)
Red Parent Material ( TF2)
Other (Explain i n Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: n/a
Depth (inches): n/a Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
Hydric Soil indicators are not present at this sample point
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A 1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High W ater Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water M arks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B 2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B 3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B 6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation V isible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B 9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present at sample point
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Whitewood West Residential Development City/County: Murrieta, Riverside Co. Sampling Date: 5-20-2022 Applicant/Owner: Sancerra State: CA Sampling Point: SP-3 Investigator(s): Michael Nieto Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 33.59907 Long: - 117.16235 Datum: W GS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15 % slopes, eroded (CbD2) NWI classification: upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✔
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
Sampling point taken within disturbed habitat within study area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. n/a n/a n/a
2. 3.
4. n/a = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius )
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0
Total Number of Dominant
Species A cross All Strata: 6
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
1. Eriogonum fasciculatum 10 Y UPL Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Acmispon glaber 15 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species 0 x 1 =
4. FACW species 0 x 2 =
5. FAC species 0 x 3 =
25 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft radius )
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 77 x 5 = 385
1. Deinandra paniculata 12 Y UPL Column Totals: 87 (A) 425 (B)
2. Hirshfeldia incana 25 Y UPL
3. Melilotus indicus 10 N FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.8
4. Bromus diandrus 15 Y UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dom inance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index i s ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. 8.
62 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: n/a )
1. n/a
2. n/a = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum _____________ % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation does not occur at this sample point US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP- 3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Ty pe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10 TR 5/4 100 - - - - SL -
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol ( A1) Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A 2) Stripped Matrix (S6)
B lack Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A 4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A 5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below D ark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Th ick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy M ucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy G leyed Matrix (S4)
1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) ( LRR B)
Reduced V ertic (F18)
Red Parent Material ( TF2)
Other (Explain i n Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: n/a
Depth (inches): n/a Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
Hydric Soil indicators are not present at this sample point
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A 1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High W ater Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water M arks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B 2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B 3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B 6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation V isible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B 9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present at sample point
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Whitewood West Residential Development City/County: Murrieta, Riverside Co. Sampling Date: 5-20-2022 Applicant/Owner: Sancerra State: CA Sampling Point: SP-4 Investigator(s): Michael Nieto Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 33.598146 Long: -117.16254 Datum: W GS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Calaco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15 % slopes, eroded (CbD2) NWI classification: upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
Sampling Point taken within mule fat scrub vegetation. Sampling point does not include unvegetated stream bed bisecting vegetation community.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radiu ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Washingtonia robusta 5 Y FACW
2. 3.
4. n/a = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft radius )
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2
Total Number of Dominant
Species A cross All Strata: 3
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66%
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
1. Baccharis salicifolia 60 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
n/a = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius )
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
1. Bromus madritensis 3 Y UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A =
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
✔ Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index i s ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: n/a )
1. n/a
2. n/a = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum _____________ % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates this sample point
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP- 4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Ty pe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10 YR 5/3 100 SL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol ( A1) Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A 2) Stripped Matrix (S6)
B lack Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A 4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A 5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below D ark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Th ick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy M ucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy G leyed Matrix (S4)
1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) ( LRR B)
Reduced V ertic (F18)
Red Parent Material ( TF2)
Other (Explain i n Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: n/a
Depth (inches): n/a Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
Hydric Soil indicators are not present at this sample point
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A 1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High W ater Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water M arks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B 2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B 3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B 6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation V isible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B 9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present at sample point
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Whitewood West Residential Development City/County: Murrieta, Riverside Co. Sampling Date: 5-20-2022 Applicant/Owner: Sancerra State: CA Sampling Point: SP-5 Investigator(s): Michael Nieto Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 33.59940 Long: -117.16113 Datum: W GS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Calaco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15 % slopes, eroded (CbD2) NWI classification: upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
Sampling Point taken within southern willow scrub vegetation community VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: - ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Salix laevigata 55 Y FACW
2. Populus fremontii 5 N FAC
3. Quercus agrifolia 2 N UPL
4. 62 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: - )
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2
Total Number of Dominant
Species A cross All Strata: 4
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
1. Toxicodendron diversilobum 8 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Baccharis pilularis 3 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species 16 x 1 = 16
4. FACW species 63 x 2 = 124
5. FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
11 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft radius )
FACU species 11 x 4 = 44
UPL species 5 x 5 = 10
1. Juncus xiphioides 16 Y OBL Column Totals: 100 (A) 209 (B)
2. Polypogon monspeliensis 5 N FACW
3. Conium maculatum 3 N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.09
4. Melilotus indicus 3 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dom inance Test is >50%
✔ Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. 8.
27 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: n/a )
1. n/a
2. n/a = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation is present at this sample point US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP- 5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Ty pe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10 YR 3/1 96 2.5 YR 4/8 4 C PL SC
5-18 10 YR 4/3 100 -
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol ( A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A 2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) B lack Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A 4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A 5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) ( LRR D) ✔ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below D ark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Th ick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy M ucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy G leyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: n/a
Depth (inches): n/a Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A 1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High W ater Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) ✔ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✔ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water M arks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B 2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B 3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B 6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation V isible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B 9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology is present at this sample point
Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S. and the State of California WRA, Inc.
May 2024 Appendix C
APPENDIX C – STUDY AREA PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1: Emergent marsh vegetation observed at Sample Point 1 Photograph 2: Coast live oak woodland vegetation observed at Sample Point 2. Note ephemeral drainage running through center of woodland
Appendix C Site Photographs 1
Photograph 3: Disturbed/Ruderal vegetation observed at Sample Point 3.
Photograph 4: Mulefat scrub vegetation observed at sample point 4. Note culvert and riprap in background Appendix C. Site Photographs 2
Photograph 5: Southern willow scrub observed at Sample Point 5.
Appendix C. Site Photographs 3