Agenda packet — San Jacinto City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 4 of 11)

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Lateral Displacement
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
Full vs Light Weight Fill
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E41
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Crown) Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab (Pipe Crown) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Crown) Step 5.a.1: Apply Various Loads - Unload 100-yr Flood (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 3 to 5.a.1: 100-yr Flood Load
Sequence
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E42
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
Approximate Peak
Displacement: 0.4 in 325 ft
DRAFT
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab (Pipe Invert) Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E43
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Invert) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 5.a: 100-yr Flood Load
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E44
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 5.a.1: Apply Various Loads - Unload 100-yr Flood (Pipe Invert) Step 5.a.1: Apply Various Loads - Unload 100-yr Flood (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 5.a.1: Remove 100-yr Flood Load
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E45
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Lateral Displacement (in) Positive (+) Downstream, Negative (-) Upstream Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Downstream) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Upstream) Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab (Downstream) Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab (Upstream) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Downstream) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Upstream) Step 5.a.1: Apply Various Loads - Unload 100-yr Flood (Downstream) Step 5.a.1: Apply Various Loads - Unload 100-yr Flood (Upstream) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill
Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Lateral Displacement
Step 3 to 5.a.1: 100-yr Flood Load
Sequence
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E46
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Crown) Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab (Pipe Crown) Step 5.b: Apply Various Loads - Transverse Excavator on Left (Pipe Crown) Step 5.c: Apply Various Loads - Transverse Excavator on Center (Pipe Crown) Step 5.d: Apply Various Loads - Transverse Excavator on Right (Pipe Crown) Step 5.e: Apply Various Loads - Longitudinal Excavator on Left (Pipe Crown) Step 5.f: Apply Various Loads - Longitudinal Excavator on Center (Pipe Crown) Step 5.g: Apply Various Loads - Longitudinal Excavator on Right (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill
Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 5.b to 5.g: Various Equipment Load
Cases
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E47
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
PLAXIS Local Axes for Pipe
Stresses & Conversion of Output
Forces to Stresses
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E48
a: PLAXIS Local Axes for MWD Pipe Stresses b: Converting PLAXIS Output Forces to Stresses DRAFT
-100
-50
0 50
100
150
200
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Longitudinal Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Crown): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Crown): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Longitudinal Stress at Pipe
Crown
Step 1e: Excavate and Place Footings
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E49
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
-50
0 50
100
150
200
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Longitudinal Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Crown): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Crown): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Longitudinal Stress at Pipe
Crown
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E50
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
-50
0 50
100
150
200
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Longitudinal Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Crown): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Crown): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Longitudinal Stress at Pipe
Crown
Step 5a: Apply Various Loads - 100 yr
Flood
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E51
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
-50
0 50
100
150
200
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Longitudinal Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Invert): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Invert): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Longitudinal Stress at Pipe
Invert
Step 1e: Excavate and Place Footings
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E52
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
-50
0 50
100
150
200
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Longitudinal Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Invert): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Invert): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Longitudinal Stress at Pipe
Invert
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E53
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
-50
0 50
100
150
200
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Longitudinal Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Invert): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Invert): Longitudinal Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Longitudinal Stress at Pipe
Invert
Step 5a: Apply Various Loads - 100 yr
Flood
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E54
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Crown): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Crown): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress at Pipe Crown
Step 1e: Excavate and Place Footings
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E55
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Crown): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Crown): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress at Pipe Crown
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E56
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Crown): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Crown): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress at Pipe Crown
Step 5a: Apply Various Loads - 100 yr
Flood
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E57
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Invert): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Invert): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress at Pipe Invert
Step 1e: Excavate and Place Footings
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E58
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Invert): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Invert): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress at Pipe Invert
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E59
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Pipe Invert): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Pipe Invert): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Downstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Downstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress
Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings
Excavate Right 1/3 (Downstream)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E61
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Downstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Downstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
Light Weight Fill (Downstream)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E62
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Downstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Downstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress
Step 5a: Apply Various Loads
100-yr Flood Load (Downstream)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E63
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Upstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Upstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress
Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings
Excavate Right 1/3 (Upstream)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E64
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Upstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Upstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
Light Weight Fill (Upstream)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E65
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Hoop Stresses (psi) [Positive (+) Tension, Negative (-) Compression] Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe (Upstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load (Upstream): Hoop Extreme Fiber Stress (Tension Side) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Embankment Channel
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Hoop Stress
Step 5a: Apply Various Loads
100-yr Flood Load (Upstream)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E66
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
A

LINE E DOWNSTEAM PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1440
1450
1460
1470
8+50 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 29+501480 OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #1
(50,000 S.F.) 144 SPACES
110 ROOMS HOTEL #1 (4-STORY) 100 ROOMS HOTEL #2 (4-STORY) QSR # A
(4,150 SF)
QSR # B
(4,150 SF)

PARKING

NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING

NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO
RETAIL
(19,000 SF) FOOD
(10,000 SF) PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

NO PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

NO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO RETAIL (19,000 SF) FOOD
(10,000 SF)
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #2
(100,000 S.F.) 165 SPACES
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #3
(100,000 S.F.) 163 SPACES
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #4
(50,000 S.F.) 144 SPACES
BLD'G 'A' (12,000) BLD'G 'C' (12,000)
N WEBB
W
E
S

INDEX MAP
SEE SHEET 2
BC
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
150027+50 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 WEBB N W E S MATCH LINE STA. 48+50 MATCH LINE STA. 48+50 SEE SHEET 1
D
E
49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00 64+00 65+00 66+00 67+00 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 WEBB
N
W E
S MATCH LINE STA. 48+50 MATCH LINE STA. 48+50 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00

LINE E UPSTREAM PROFILE
72+00 73+00 74+00 75+00 76+00 77+00 78+00 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 85+00 86+00 87+00 88+00 89+00 90+00 91+00 92+00 93+00 94+00 95+00 ROWED VEGETATION ROWED VEGETATION ROWED VEGETATION ASPH ASPHASPHASPH / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / F MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 MATCH LINE STA. 95+00 MATCH LINE STA. 95+00 WEBB
N
W E
S
N WEBB
W
E

S MATCH LINE SEE LEFT

SEE RIGHT MATCH LINE
PIPE

ROWED VEGETATION

ROWED VEGETATION ASPH POST POST / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / G H 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 ROWED VEGETATION ROWED VEGETATION PARKING NO BLD'G 'C' (12,000) I JK MATCH LINE STA. 95+00 STA. 95+00 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE SEE LEFT
SEE RIGHT MATCH LINE MATCH LINE STA. 124+25
WEBB N W E S N WEBB WE S MATCH LINE STA. 124+00
110 ROOMS
HOTEL #1 (4-STORY) 100 ROOMS HOTEL #2 (4-STORY)
QSR # A
(4,150 SF)
RETAIL
(19,000 SF)
FOOD
(10,000 SF) PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO L M N 1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00 130+00 131+00 131+501500 PARKING NO FOOD (10,000 SF) RETAIL (19,000 SF) BLD'G 'C' (12,000) L

LINE E INLET PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
131+00 132+00 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00 141+00 142+00 143+00 144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 149+501500 MATCH LINE STA. 124+25 N WEBB WE S MATCH LINE STA. 124+25 WEBB N W E S MATCH LINE STA. 131+00 MATCH LINE STA. 131+00 MATCH LINE STA. 131+00 STA. 131+00 MATCH LINE
LINE E STA: 84+00 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+751490
LINE E STA: 70+00 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501490
LINE E STA: 60+00 PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1440
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501480
LINE E STA: 46+00 PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1440
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501480
LINE E STA: 37+00 PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1440
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501480
LINE E STA: 84+00 PROFILE
LINE E STA: 112+00 PROFILE
1460
1470
1480
1490
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001490
LINE E STA: 104+50 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501490
LINE E STA: 95+00 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501490
LINE E STA: 136+00 PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 15+501490
LINE E STA: 130+00 PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
1500
1470
1480
1490
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001500
LINE E STA: 120+00 PROFILE
1460
1470
1480
1490
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001490
LINE E STA: 116+00 PROFILE
1460
1470
1480
1490
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001490
LINE E STA: 112+00 PROFILE
CASA LOMA BARREL 1 CL PROFILE
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1430
1440
1450
1460
9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 16+501470 LINE E STA: 142+00 PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 17+501490 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
1 / 27
MDP LIne E Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2028) - Unmitigated

3.5. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2029) - Unmitigated

3.7. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2030) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
2 / 27

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
3 / 27

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
4 / 27

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name MDP LIne E
Construction Start Date 8/3/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 22.4
Location 33.81646365711711, -117.00760059525169
County Riverside-South Coast
City San Jacinto
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5574
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Construction 3.01 Mile 88.0 0.00 — — — —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
5 / 27

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.63 3.86 32.7 43.1 0.09 1.22 1.88 3.10 1.13 0.35 1.48 — 10,381 10,381 0.40 0.28 4.60 10,478 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.61 3.84 32.8 42.2 0.09 1.22 1.88 3.10 1.13 0.35 1.48 — 10,322 10,322 0.40 0.28 0.12 10,415 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.16 2.65 22.2 30.1 0.06 0.80 1.34 2.14 0.74 0.25 0.98 — 7,370 7,370 0.29 0.20 1.29 7,437 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.58 0.48 4.04 5.49 0.01 0.15 0.24 0.39 0.13 0.05 0.18 — 1,220 1,220 0.05 0.03 0.21 1,231

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 4.63 3.86 32.7 43.1 0.09 1.22 1.88 3.10 1.13 0.35 1.48 — 10,381 10,381 0.40 0.28 4.60 10,478 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
6 / 27
2028 4.46 3.72 30.8 42.7 0.09 1.12 1.88 3.00 1.03 0.35 1.38 — 10,341 10,341 0.40 0.28 4.17 10,437 2029 4.29 3.59 29.2 42.2 0.09 1.03 1.88 2.91 0.95 0.35 1.30 — 10,300 10,300 0.40 0.27 3.76 10,394 2030 4.15 3.45 28.0 41.8 0.09 0.98 1.88 2.86 0.89 0.35 1.24 — 10,260 10,260 0.40 0.27 3.37 10,354 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 4.61 3.84 32.8 42.2 0.09 1.22 1.88 3.10 1.13 0.35 1.48 — 10,322 10,322 0.40 0.28 0.12 10,415 2028 4.41 3.69 31.0 41.9 0.09 1.12 1.88 3.00 1.03 0.35 1.38 — 10,283 10,283 0.40 0.28 0.11 10,375 2029 4.27 3.55 29.3 41.4 0.09 1.03 1.88 2.91 0.95 0.35 1.30 — 10,243 10,243 0.40 0.27 0.10 10,333 2030 4.13 3.43 28.1 41.1 0.09 0.98 1.88 2.86 0.89 0.35 1.24 — 10,205 10,205 0.40 0.27 0.09 10,295 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.36 1.14 9.69 12.5 0.03 0.36 0.55 0.91 0.33 0.10 0.44 — 3,052 3,052 0.12 0.08 0.59 3,080 2028 3.16 2.65 22.2 30.1 0.06 0.80 1.34 2.14 0.74 0.25 0.98 — 7,370 7,370 0.29 0.20 1.29 7,437 2029 3.05 2.54 20.9 29.7 0.06 0.73 1.33 2.07 0.68 0.25 0.92 — 7,321 7,321 0.28 0.19 1.16 7,387 2030 1.74 1.45 11.8 17.3 0.04 0.41 0.78 1.20 0.38 0.15 0.52 — 4,296 4,296 0.17 0.11 0.61 4,335 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.25 0.21 1.77 2.28 < 0.005 0.07 0.10 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.08 — 505 505 0.02 0.01 0.10 510 2028 0.58 0.48 4.04 5.49 0.01 0.15 0.24 0.39 0.13 0.05 0.18 — 1,220 1,220 0.05 0.03 0.21 1,231 2029 0.56 0.46 3.81 5.42 0.01 0.13 0.24 0.38 0.12 0.04 0.17 — 1,212 1,212 0.05 0.03 0.19 1,223 2030 0.32 0.26 2.15 3.17 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.10 — 711 711 0.03 0.02 0.10 718

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
7 / 27
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

4.24 3.56 30.4 38.3 0.08 1.20— 1.20 1.11— 1.11— 8,439 8,439 0.34 0.07— 8,468 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 0.84 0.84— 0.09 0.09———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

4.24 3.56 30.4 38.3 0.08 1.20— 1.20 1.11— 1.11— 8,439 8,439 0.34 0.07— 8,468 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 0.84 0.84— 0.09 0.09———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

1.25 1.05 8.98 11.3 0.02 0.36— 0.36 0.33— 0.33— 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02— 2,502 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 0.25 0.25— 0.03 0.03———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
8 / 27
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.19 1.64 2.07 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 413 413 0.02 < 0.005 — 414 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.23 0.20 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 778 778 0.01 0.03 2.42 789 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.25 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 236 236 0.01 0.04 0.60 248 Hauling 0.11 0.06 1.85 0.92 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 926 926 0.04 0.15 1.58 972 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.22 0.23 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 716 716 0.01 0.03 0.06 724 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.26 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 237 237 0.01 0.04 0.02 247 Hauling 0.11 0.05 1.95 0.94 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 929 929 0.04 0.15 0.04 974 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 214 214 < 0.005 0.01 0.31 217 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 69.9 69.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 73.1 Hauling 0.03 0.02 0.57 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 274 274 0.01 0.04 0.20 287 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.5 35.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 35.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.1 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.4 45.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 47.6 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
9 / 27

3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.08 3.43 28.6 38.2 0.08 1.10 — 1.10 1.01 — 1.01 — 8,439 8,439 0.34 0.07 — 8,468 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.84 0.84 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.92 2.45 20.5 27.3 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.72 — 0.72 — 6,044 6,044 0.25 0.05 — 6,065 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
10 / 27
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.60 0.60 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.53 0.45 3.74 4.99 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,001 1,001 0.04 0.01 — 1,004 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.22 0.20 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 764 764 0.01 0.03 2.17 774 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 231 231 < 0.005 0.04 0.55 242 Hauling 0.11 0.06 1.81 0.91 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 907 907 0.04 0.15 1.45 952 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.69 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 703 703 0.01 0.03 0.06 711 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.25 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 231 231 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 242 Hauling 0.11 0.05 1.91 0.94 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 910 910 0.04 0.15 0.04 954 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.16 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 510 510 0.01 0.02 0.67 516 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 166 166 < 0.005 0.03 0.17 173 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
11 / 27
Hauling 0.08 0.04 1.35 0.66 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.06 — 650 650 0.03 0.10 0.45 682 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.4 84.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 85.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.7 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 108 108 0.01 0.02 0.07 113

3.5. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.95 3.32 27.0 37.9 0.08 1.01 — 1.01 0.93 — 0.93 — 8,438 8,438 0.34 0.07 — 8,467 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.84 0.84 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.95 3.32 27.0 37.9 0.08 1.01 — 1.01 0.93 — 0.93 — 8,438 8,438 0.34 0.07 — 8,467 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.84 0.84 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
12 / 27
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.82 2.37 19.3 27.1 0.06 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66 — 6,027 6,027 0.24 0.05 — 6,048 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.60 0.60 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.51 0.43 3.52 4.94 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 998 998 0.04 0.01 — 1,001 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.17 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 750 750 0.01 0.03 1.94 760 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.23 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 225 225 < 0.005 0.03 0.49 236 Hauling 0.11 0.06 1.78 0.91 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 886 886 0.04 0.14 1.34 930 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.18 0.20 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 690 690 0.01 0.03 0.05 699 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
13 / 27
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 225 225 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 235 Hauling 0.11 0.05 1.87 0.94 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 889 889 0.04 0.14 0.03 932 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.14 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 499 499 0.01 0.02 0.60 506 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 161 161 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 168 Hauling 0.08 0.04 1.32 0.66 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.06 — 634 634 0.03 0.10 0.41 665 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 82.7 82.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 83.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27.8 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 105 105 0.01 0.02 0.07 110

3.7. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2030) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.82 3.21 25.8 37.8 0.08 0.96 — 0.96 0.88 — 0.88 — 8,438 8,438 0.34 0.07 — 8,467 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.84 0.84 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
14 / 27
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.61 1.35 10.9 15.9 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 3,550 3,550 0.14 0.03 — 3,562 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.35 0.35 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.29 0.25 1.98 2.90 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 588 588 0.02 < 0.005 — 590 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.18 0.15 3.09 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 738 738 0.01 0.03 1.72 748 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.03 0.43 229 MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
15 / 27
Hauling 0.11 0.06 1.75 0.92 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 866 866 0.04 0.14 1.21 910 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.17 0.17 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 679 679 0.01 0.03 0.04 687 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.23 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 219 219 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 229 Hauling 0.10 0.05 1.84 0.94 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 869 869 0.04 0.14 0.03 912 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 289 289 < 0.005 0.01 0.31 293 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 91.9 91.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 96.3 Hauling 0.04 0.02 0.76 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 365 365 0.02 0.06 0.22 383 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.9 47.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 48.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.9 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.4 60.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 63.4

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
16 / 27
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
17 / 27
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
18 / 27

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
8/3/2027 8/3/2030 5.00 784 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 6.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
19 / 27
Linear, Grading & Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 57.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 8.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 82.2 3.00 HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Linear, Grading & Excavation — 515,734 88.0 0.00 —
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
20 / 27

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Construction 88.0 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 176 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 176 532 0.03 < 0.005
2029 176 532 0.03 < 0.005
2030 176 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
21 / 27

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 24.6 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
22 / 27
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
23 / 27

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.1
AQ-PM 42.7
AQ-DPM 12.5
Drinking Water 10.2
Lead Risk Housing 27.2
Pesticides 84.0
Toxic Releases 26.4
Traffic 42.0
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 53.4
Groundwater 94.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 51.7
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 76.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 66.8
Cardio-vascular 87.6
Low Birth Weights 41.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 63.8
Housing 36.7
Linguistic 13.3
Poverty 64.0
Unemployment 85.8
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
24 / 27

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 36.48145772
Employed 12.39573977
Median HI 48.73604517
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 24.38085461
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 53.81752855
Transportation —
Auto Access 75.69613756
Active commuting 40.7160272
Social —
2-parent households 64.62209675
Voting 19.49185166
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 92.78839985
Park access 17.11792634
Retail density 4.18324137
Supermarket access 6.082381625
Tree canopy 1.462851277
Housing —
Homeownership 79.07096112
Housing habitability 75.93994611
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 94.54638778 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 20.28743744
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
25 / 27
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 45.81034262
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 38.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 81.1
Cognitively Disabled 66.4
Physically Disabled 21.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 11.3
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 1.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
26 / 27
Children 5.0
Elderly 80.7
English Speaking 40.0
Foreign-born 48.9
Outdoor Workers 27.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 79.0
Traffic Density 34.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 70.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 38.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 68.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 35.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

MDP LIne E Detailed Report, 8/16/2024
27 / 27

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Per Engineering Estimates Construction: Off-Road Equipment Per Engineering Estimates Construction: Trips and VMT Eight (8) daily vendor trips per day were added to account for material delivery and water truck trips. Soil export trip length 3 miles.

BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT
FOR

SAN JACINTO VALLEY MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN LINE E

LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:

Shea Properties
50 California Street, Suite 1544
San Francisco, California 94111
Contact: Landon Browning
Phone: (415) 806-4705
Email: [email protected]
Prepared By:

Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Phone: (949) 340-2562
Report Preparer: David F. Moskovitz
January 28, 2025
Revised March 9, 2026
ii

INFORMATION SUMMARY
A. Report Date: January 28, 2025 (Revised March 9, 2026) B. Report Title: Biological Technical Report for the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan Line E
C. Project Site
Location: The San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (SJV MDP) Line E Project (Project site) in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County comprises approximately 120.33 acres as depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps Lakeview and San Jacinto, California.

D. Owner/Applicant: Shea Properties
Landon Browning
50 California Street, Suite 1544
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: (415) 806-4705
Email: [email protected]
E. Principal
Investigator: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Phone: (949) 837-0404
Report Preparer: Jeff Ahrens
F. Individuals Conducting Fieldwork:

Jeff Ahrens, Amy Black, Stephanie Cashin, Hannah Craddock, Wanisa Jaikwang, Brinna Lee, Lesley Lokovic, Velvet Park, Bailey Perrizo, David Smith, Jillian Stevens, Joseph Vu, Chris Waterston, and Frank Wegscheider iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #

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

1.1 Background and Scope of Work ............................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Location ........................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Project Description.................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Relationship of the Project Site to the MSHCP ........................................................ 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................5

2.1 Botanical Resources .................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Wildlife Resources .................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................... 17

2.4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools .............................................. 18

3.0 REGULATORY SETTING ...............................................................................................19

3.1 Endangered Species Acts ........................................................................................ 19

3.2 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................... 21

3.3 Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................... 25

4.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................30

4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 30

4.2 Vegetation Mapping................................................................................................ 31

4.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities................................................................. 33

4.4 Special-Status Plants ............................................................................................... 33

4.5 Special-Status Animals ........................................................................................... 39

4.6 Bats ......................................................................................................................... 49

4.7 Nesting Birds .......................................................................................................... 50

4.8 Wildlife Linkages/ Corridors and Nursery Sites ..................................................... 50

4.9 Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................ 51

4.10 Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................... 51

4.11 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools .............................................. 58

4.12 Local Policies or Ordinances .................................................................................. 61

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................61

5.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ..................................................... 62

5.2 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................ 63

5.3 Impacts to Raptor Use ............................................................................................. 68

5.4 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ......................................................................... 68

5.5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 69

5.6 Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ......................................... 69

5.7 Local Policies or Ordinances .................................................................................. 70

5.8 Habitat Conservation Plans ..................................................................................... 70

5.10 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas ........................................................................... 71

5.11 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources ............................................................... 72 iv

5.12 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources ......................................................... 75

6.0 RECOMMENDED AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................................................76

6.1 Burrowing Owl ....................................................................................................... 76

6.2 Crotch’s Bumble Bee .............................................................................................. 77

6.3 Least Bell’s Vireo ................................................................................................... 77

6.4 Nesting Birds .......................................................................................................... 79

6.5 Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................... 79

6.6 MSHCP Riverine Areas .......................................................................................... 79

7.0 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS .............................................................................80

7.1 Project Relationship to Reserve Assembly ............................................................. 80

7.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools 80

7.3 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plants..................................................................... 81

7.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland Interface .......................................... 81

7.5 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures............................................................... 81

7.6 Conclusion of MSHCP Consistency ....................................................................... 82

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................82 TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site .....................................................6 Table 2-2. Summary of 2022 Burrowing Owl Surveys ................................................................12 Table 2-3. Summary of 2024 Burrowing Owl Surveys ................................................................12 Table 2-4. Summary of Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys .....................................................................13 Table 2-5. Summary of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys ..............................................14 Table 2-6. Summary of Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys ................................................................15 Table 2-7. Summary of Focused Bat Surveys ..............................................................................17 Table 3-1. California Rare Plant Ranks 1, 2, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions ......................24 Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site ....................................31 Table 4-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Site ...................................................33 Table 4-3. Special-Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Site ................................................39 Table 4-4. Summary of Regional Board Jurisdiction ....................................................................52 Table 4-5. Summary of CDFW Jurisdiction ..................................................................................55 Table 4-6. Non-jurisdictional Agricultural Features ......................................................................58 Table 4-7. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Areas...........................................................................58 Table 5-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Impacts .................................................................69 Table 5-2. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Area Impacts ..............................................................71

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3A Aerial Map
v
Exhibit 3B Survey Areas
Exhibit 4A MSHCP Overlay Map
Exhibit 4B MSHCP Survey Areas Map
Exhibit 5 Vegetation Map
Exhibit 6 Soils Map
Exhibit 7 MSHCP Riverine Areas
Exhibit 8 Smooth Tarplant Location Map
Exhibit 9 Burrowing Owl Survey Map
Exhibit 10 Site Photographs
Exhibit 11 Fairy Shrimp Survey Results Map
Exhibit 12 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Results
Exhibit 13A RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Exhibit 13B CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map

APPENDICES
Appendix A Floral Compendium
Appendix B Faunal Compendium
Appendix C Preliminary Design Report for Line E
Appendix D 2021/2022 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix E 2023 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix F 2023/2024 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix G 2025 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix H Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report Appendix I Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Report
Appendix J Jurisdictional Delineation Report
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Scope of Work
This document provides the results of general biological surveys and focused biological surveys for the 120.33-acre San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (SJV MDP) Line E (the Project) located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. This report identifies and evaluates impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project in the context of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State and Federal regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Fish and Game Code.

The overall SJV MDP was prepared and approved in 2013 by the City of San Jacinto and in 2015 by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. In 2008, GLA performed a general biological resource analysis for the SJV MDP, which included some focused surveys for portions of the MDP alignments. GLA recommended measures to be applied to future studies of specific facilities, such as Line E. The current Line E alignment is mostly not in the same location as when GLA evaluated the MDP in 2008, and none of the current alignment was accessed for focused surveys in 2008. However, the studies that were performed by GLA in 2024 for the current Line E alignment generally followed the measures for future studies that GLA recommended in the 2009 report. This included recommendations for focused plant surveys, focused animal surveys (fairy shrimp, burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo), the mapping of MSHCP riparian and/or riverine resources and vernal pools, and the delineation of jurisdictional waters. As described below, each of these recommendations were implemented for the current Line E Project site.

The scope of this report includes a discussion of existing conditions for the 120.33-acre Project site, all methods employed regarding the general biological surveys and focused biological surveys, the documentation of botanical and wildlife resources identified (including specialstatus species), and an analysis of impacts to biological resources. Methods of the study include a review of relevant literature, field surveys, and a Geographical Information System (GIS)-based analysis of vegetation communities. As appropriate, this report is consistent with accepted scientific and technical standards and survey guideline requirements issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and other applicable agencies/organizations.

The field study focused on a number of primary objectives that would comply with CEQA and MSHCP requirements, including (1) general biological surveys; (2) vegetation mapping; (3) habitat assessments for special-status plant species (including species with applicable MSHCP survey requirements); (4) habitat assessments for special-status wildlife species (including species with applicable MSHCP survey requirements); (5) assessment for the presence of wildlife migration and colonial nursery sites; (6) assessments for MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools; and (7) assessments for areas subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and CDFW jurisdiction 2 pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Observations of all plant and wildlife species were recorded during the biological studies and are included as Appendix A: Floral Compendium and Appendix B: Faunal Compendium.

1.2 Project Location
The Project site is in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California [Exhibit 1 – Regional Map] within unsectioned portions of Township 4 South, and Range 1 West of the Lakeview and San Jacinto, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps [Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Map]. The Project site is generally bound by San Jacinto Reservoir to the south, North Sanderson Avenue to the east and west, and Ramona Expressway to the north. Exhibit 3 identifies the general study area for the Project. Specifically, the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates corresponding to the site are 499923.20 mE and 3740091.36 mN.

1.3 Project Description
For this report, the term “Project site” is defined as the 120.33 acres of land that is proposed for direct impact by the Project [Exhibit 3A – Aerial Map]. The Project site consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 430-100-002, 430-100-009, 430-100-012, 430-100-013, 430-100-018, 432-030-006, 432-030-010, 432-030-012, 436-010-003, 436-010-005, 436-030-004, and 436- 170-001.

The proposed Project (Line E) is an implementing project of the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (SJV MDP). The SJV MDP was prepared and approved in 2013 by the City of San Jacinto and approved in 2015 by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Facilities associated with the Line E Project include a channel, basin, training berms, and access roads. The Project is a planned regional drainage facility that would provide a service to an approximately 1,870-acre tributary area.

Starting north of the San Jacinto Reservoir, the Project includes two training berms, continuing north as an earthen trapezoidal channel parallel to, and east of, Sanderson Avenue, turning west underneath Sanderson Avenue onto the northern portion of the proposed San Jacinto Commerce Center Specific Plan (SJCCSP) property and turning north, then west to the proposed MDP Line E-Y-Z Confluence Basin (Confluence Basin), which will be located on the site proposed to be the SJCCSP, continuing north from the Confluence Basin as a concrete channel and crossing over a buried pipeline known as Casa Loma Barrel No. 1, which is owned and operated by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Access roads would be provided on both sides of the Line E Channel and the training berms. The Confluence Basin will not be lined with concrete and will include a pump station to drain the basin.

The Line E channel alignment will consist of an earthen channel with a 65-foot base width, heights up to 10 feet, side slopes inclined at 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), and several sloped rip-rap drops along the nearly three-mile alignment.

The Project design includes 20-foot-wide access roads (included within the permanent impacts) located on both sides of the channel along with reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts, one of 3 which will intersect Sanderson Avenue, while the remaining culverts will intersect future roadways. Storm water flow will generally occur from southeast to northwest. To maintain as much of the existing flow patterns at the southern end of the alignment, at the outlet of the San Jacinto Reservoir, training berms are proposed as opposed to channelization.

At the northern portion of the alignment the proposed earthen channel terminates at a proposed Confluence Basin and the remainder of the alignment converts to a concrete trapezoidal channel with a 155-foot base width, height up to 5.5 feet, and side slopes inclined at 1.5:1 (H:V). At the northern end of the proposed concrete channel portion, the proposed alignment crosses the existing MWD buried pipeline (Casa Loma Siphon No. 1) via a bridge-type structure to avoid adding loads to the existing pipeline.

Since the Project will be a regional flood control facility pursuant to the adopted SJV MDP, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control) will need to be able to maintain the channel and access roads throughout the life of the facility. Maintenance activities include vegetation management, cleaning out of debris, slope and bottom repairs, access road maintenance and repair. All the intended maintenance areas have been coordinated with and are included within the permanent impact acreages reported herein. Given the sensitivity of the biological resources in the area, the Flood Control District will not use rodenticides or pesticides for vegetation management; rather mechanical and hand removal of vegetation will be utilized.

1.4 Relationship of the Project Site to the MSHCP

1.4.1 MSHCP Background
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation/planning program for Western Riverside County. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special-status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to special-status species and associated native habitats.

Through agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW, the MSHCP designates 146 special-status animal and plant species as Covered Species, of which the majority have no project-specific survey/conservation requirements. The MSHCP provides mitigation for project-specific impacts to these species for Projects that are compliant/consistent with MSHCP requirements, such that the impacts are reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to CEQA.

The Covered Species that are not yet adequately conserved have additional requirements in order for these species to ultimately be considered “adequately conserved”. A number of these species have survey requirements based on a project’s occurrence within a designated MSHCP survey area and/or based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.3), as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2) 4 identified by the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas (CAPSSA); animals species (burrowing owl, mammals, amphibians) identified by survey areas (MSHCP Volume I, Section

6.3.2); and species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, i.e., least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and three species of listed fairy shrimp (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2). An additional 28 species (MSHCP Volume I, Table 9.3) not yet adequately conserved have species-specific objectives for the species to become adequately conserved. However, these species do not have project-specific survey requirements.

The goal of the MSHCP is to have a total Conservation Area of more than 500,000 acres, including approximately 347,000 acres on existing Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands, and approximately 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands targeted within the MSHCP Criteria Area. The MSHCP is divided into 16 separate Area Plans, each with its own conservation goals and objectives. Within each Area Plan, the Criteria Area is divided into Subunits and further divided into Criteria Cells and Cell Groups (a group of criteria cells). Each Cell Group and ungrouped, independent Cell has designated “criteria” for the purpose of targeting additional conservation lands for acquisition. Projects located within the Criteria Area are subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process to determine if lands are targeted for inclusion in the MSHCP Reserve. In addition, all Projects located within the Criteria Area are subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process, where the Project is reviewed by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to determine overall compliance/consistency with the biological requirements of the MSHCP.

1.4.2 Relationship of the Project Site to the MSHCP
The Project site is located within San Jacinto Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area or the MSHCP Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA) [Exhibit 4B – MSHCP Survey Areas Map]. The northwestern portion of the Project site is located adjacent, but outside of the MSHCP Criteria Area [Exhibit 4A – MSHCP Overlay Map]. The Project site is also not located within the MSHCP Mammal or Amphibian Survey Areas, or Core and Linkage areas.

Most of the Project site is located within the MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) [Exhibit 4B], except for approximately 3,000 linear feet of the Project alignment corresponding with the northeastern corner of the SJCCSP property. Therefore, pursuant to the MSHCP, the following target plant species must be evaluated through habitat assessments and focused surveys within the survey area: California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), Munz’s onion (Allium munzii), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), and Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii).

Nearly all the Project site is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area [Exhibit 4B]. Therefore, pursuant to the MSHCP, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) must be evaluated through a habitat assessment and focused surveys (if suitable habitat is present). 5 Within the designated Survey Areas, the MSHCP requires habitat assessments, and focused surveys within areas of suitable habitat. For locations with positive survey results, the MSHCP requires that 90 percent of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the identified species shall be avoided until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the particular species have been met throughout the MSHCP. Findings of equivalency shall be made demonstrating that the 90-percent standard has been met, if applicable. If equivalency findings cannot be demonstrated, then “biologically equivalent or superior preservation” must be provided.

2.0 METHODOLOGY
In order to adequately identify biological resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) assembled biological data consisting of the following main components:
• Delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands and riparian habitat) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), CDFW, and MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools policy
• Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project site • Performance of habitat assessments, and site-specific biological surveys, to evaluate the presence/absence of special-status species in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the MSHCP
• Performance of a focused survey for rare plants
• Performance of a focused survey for burrowing owl
• Performance of a focused survey for least Bell’s vireo • Performance of a focused survey for the southwestern willow flycatcher • Performance of a focused survey for Crotch’s bumble bee The focus of the biological surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024), CNPS 9th edition online inventory (CNPS 2024), Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data (NRCS 2024), MSHCP species and habitat maps and sensitive soil maps (Dudek 2003), other pertinent literature, and knowledge of the region. Site-specific general surveys within the Project site were conducted on foot in the proposed impacted areas for each target plant or animal species identified below. Table 2-1 provides a summary list of survey dates and survey types. 6 Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site Survey Type 2021
Survey
Dates
2022
Survey
Dates
2023
Survey
Dates
2024
Survey
Dates
2025
Survey
Dates
Biologist(s)
General Biological
Survey
Habitat Assessment
3/2 2/22 3/11, 3/15 CW, JA, JS, WJ
Vegetation Mapping 3/2 2/22 3/15, 6/12 CW, JA
Evaluation of
MSHCP
Riparian/Riverine
Areas
5/23, 5/24,
6/27, 9/20
LL, VP
Evaluation of
MSHCP Vernal Pools
and Fairy Shrimp
Habitat
12/15 1/5 CW, FW, SC
Delineation of Federal
and State
Jurisdictional Waters
5/23, 5/24,
6/27, 9/20
LL, VP
Focused Botanical
Surveys
3/2, 4/13,
5/30
2/22,
4/27,
5/26, 6/1
3/15, 4/8,
6/25, 6/26

AB, DS, IR, JA,
JS, WJ
Focused Least Bell’s
Vireo Surveys
4/11, 4/23,
5/7, 6/12,
6/27, 7/9,
7/19, 7/29

CW, JV, SC
Focused
Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher Surveys
5/20, 6/11,
6/21, 6/27,
7/3
JA
Wet Season Fairy
Shrimp Surveys1
12/15,
12/17,
12/25,
12/26,
12/31
1/1, 1/7,
1/8, 1/15,
1/22,
1/29, 2/5,
2/12,
2/19,
2/26, 3/5,
3/12,
3/19,
3/26, 4/2,
4/9, 4/16,
4/23,
4/30,
11/16,
11/23,
11/30
12/6,
12/14,
12/20,
12/27,
1/6, 1/14,
1/20,
1/26, 2/2,
2/9, 2/16,
2/23, 3/2,
3/9, 3/16,
3/23,
3/30, 4/6,
4/13,
4/19,
4/26, 5/3,
5/10, 5/17
1/5, 1/12,
1/18, 1/26,
2/2, 2/8,
2/15, 2/22,
2/28, 3/7,
3/15, 3/20,
3/28, 4/4,
4/12, 4/18,
4/22, 4/29,
5/9, 5/17,
5/22

CW, DS, FW,

JA, SC, VP,
Dry Season Fairy
Shrimp Surveys
10/9 8/26, 9/20 CW, DS, SC,
VP, FW
Focused Burrowing
Owl Surveys
3/7, 3/14,
4/6, 4/18,
3/20, 4/18,
5/9, 7/8

AB, BL, DS, JV,
SC, WJ
1 Includes visits where ponded features were sampled for fairy shrimp, as well as additional visits to monitor hydrology.
7 Survey Type 2021
Survey
Dates
2022
Survey
Dates
2023
Survey
Dates
2024
Survey
Dates
2025
Survey
Dates
Biologist(s)
5/4, 5/9,
6/6, 6/13
Special-Status Bat
Survey
4/29 JA, SC
Focused Crotch’s
Bumble Bee Surveys
3/28, 4/18,
5/7, 6/3,
6/12, 6/25

JA, SC, IR
JA = Jeff Ahrens, AB = Amy Black, SC = Stephanie Cashin; LLG = Lesley Lokovic Gamber; WJ = Wanisa Jaikwang; BL = Brinna Lee, VP = Velvet Park, IR = Ian Rhodes, DS = David Smith, JS = Jillian Stephens, JV = Joseph Vu; CW = Chris Waterston, FW = Frank Wegsheider
Individual plants and wildlife species were evaluated in this report based on their “specialstatus.” For this report, plants were considered “special-status” based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Listing through the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Act (ESA) • California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, or 4
Wildlife species were considered “special-status” based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Listing through the Federal and/or State ESA
• Designation by the State as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) or California Fully Protected (FP) species
Vegetation communities and habitats were considered “special-status” based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Global (G) and/or State (S) ranking of category 3 or less (see Section 3.2.2 below for further explanation)
• Riparian/riverine habitat

2.1 Botanical Resources
A site-specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Project site, and consisted of five components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation of a list of target special-status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Project site; (3) general field reconnaissance survey(s); (4) vegetation mapping according to the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations; and (5) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants (including those with MSHCP requirements). 8 2.1.1 Literature Search
Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records.

These resources included the following:
• California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9.5) (CNPS 2024); and • CNDDB for the USGS 7.5′ quadrangle(s): Lakeview and San Jacinto (CDFW 2024).

2.1.2 Vegetation Mapping
The MSHCP utilizes vegetation mapping for the overall Plan area derived from baseline mapping conducted in 1995, with updates provided in 2005 and 2012. Vegetation types were classified according to Holland (1986). The MSHCP states that the baseline vegetation map is limited by the timeframe within which the data were assembled as well as the precision of those data, and that the current extent and character of vegetation communities may differ from that depicted on the MSHCP vegetation map.

Vegetation communities within the Project site were mapped according to the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or Natural Communities List). The list is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition or MCVII, which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification. Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact vegetation descriptions. These vegetation communities were named based on the dominant plant species present. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200- scale (1”=200’) aerial photograph.

2.1.3 Special-Status Plant Species and Habitats Evaluated for the Project Site A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special-status plants with the potential to occur within the Project site. The CNDDB was initially consulted to determine well-known occurrences of plants and habitats of special concern in the region. Other sources used to develop a list of target species for the survey program included the CNPS online inventory 2024 and the MSHCP (Dudek 2003).

Most of the Project site is located within the MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) [Exhibit 4B], except for approximately 3,000 linear feet of the Project alignment corresponding with the northeastern corner of the SJCCSP property. Pursuant to the MSHCP, the following target species must be evaluated through habitat assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat is present): Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, many-stemmed dudleya, spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, and Wright’s trichocoronis.

Based on this information, vegetation profiles and a list of target sensitive plant species and habitats that could occur within the Project site were developed and incorporated into a mapping and survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations 9 and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floristic compendium; (3) identify the potential for any special-status plants that may occur within the Project site; and (4) prepare a map showing the distribution of any sensitive botanical resources associated with the Project site, if applicable.

2.1.4 Botanical Surveys
GLA biologists performed general and focused plant surveys for the Project site in 2022 and 2023 (middle segment) and 2024 (northwestern and southeastern segments). In 2022, surveys were performed on March 2 (Jillian Stephens and Wanisa Jaikwang), and April 13 and May 30 (Jillian Stephens). In 2023, focused surveys were performed on February 22 and April 27 (Jillian Stephens), May 26 (Amy Black), and June 1 (Amy Black and David Smith). In 2024, focused surveys were performed on April 8 (Ian Rhodes), June 25 (Amy Black and Bailey Perrizo) and June 26 (Ian Rhodes).

Survey(s) were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines (CDFW 2018, CNPS 2001, Nelson 1984, USFWS 2000). As applicable, survey(s) were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site.

Survey(s) were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field survey(s) were identified and recorded following the above-referenced guidelines. A complete list of the plant species observed is provided in Appendix A. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Baldwin et al. (2012), and Munz (1974).

2.2 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during the field survey(s) by sight, call, tracks, and scat. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the entire Project site by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during the visit(s). A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Project site is provided in Appendix B.

Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow the Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (CDFW 2016), Standard Common and Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians 6th Edition, Collins and Taggart (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, and the American Ornithological Society Checklist of Middle and North American Birds (Chesser et al. 2024) for birds. The methodology (including any applicable survey protocols) utilized to conduct general survey(s), habitat assessment(s), and/or focused surveys for special-status animals are included below.
10 2.2.1 General Surveys
Birds
During the general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, birds were identified incidentally within each habitat type. Birds were detected by both direct observation and by vocalizations and were recorded in field notes.

Mammals
During general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, mammals were identified incidentally within each habitat type. Mammals were detected both by direct observations and by the presence of diagnostic sign (i.e. tracks, burrows, scat, etc.).

Reptiles and Amphibians
During general biological and reconnaissance surveys within the Project site, reptiles and amphibians were identified incidentally during surveys within each habitat type. Habitats were examined for diagnostic reptile sign, which include shed skins, scat, tracks, snake prints, and lizard tail drag marks. All reptiles and amphibian species observed, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes.

2.2.2 Special-Status Animal Species Evaluated for the Project Site A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site. Species were evaluated based on three factors, including: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in vicinity of the Project site, (2) species survey areas as identified by the MSHCP for the Project site; and 3) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the Project site.

2.2.3 Habitat Assessment for Special-Status Animal Species GLA biologists conducted habitat assessments for special-status animal species for the Project site, including on March 2, 2022 (Jillian Stephens and Wanisa Jaikwang) and on March 11 and 15, 2024 (Jeff Ahrens and Chris Waterston). An aerial photograph, soil map and/or topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support special-status and uncommon taxa within the Project site.

2.2.4 Focused Surveys for Special-Status Animals Species Burrowing Owl
The Project site is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Area and therefore a habitat assessment is required (in accordance with the 2006 MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions) to determine if focused burrowing owl surveys are warranted for the Project 11 site. The Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions are divided into three components: Step I (habitat assessment), Step II-A (focused burrow survey), and Step II-B (focused burrowing owl survey).

The Step I habitat assessment is used to determine if a Project site exhibits the base-habitat conditions for burrowing owls, i.e., whether a site contains open habitats with the potential to contain fossorial mammal burrows to support burrowing owls.

Burrowing owl surveys were performed in 2022 for the middle portion of the Project alignment and in 2024 for the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Project [Exhibit 9 – Burrowing Owl Survey Map]. Step I habitat assessments were conducted by Stephanie Cashin and Wanisa Jaikwang on March 7, 2022, and by Jeff Ahrens on March 20, 2024. The Step I habitat assessments were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout the Project site to identify small mammal burrows or man-made structures that may be used by owls, as well as assessing the vegetation for suitability (i.e., areas of low growing grassland vegetation and/or lacking dense scrub). Additionally, a 500 feet buffer zone around the project boundary was visually inspected with binoculars.

Focused burrow surveys (Step II-A) were conducted on March 7, 2022, and March 20, 2024, concurrent with the first focused survey visits (Step II-B). The remaining focused survey visits for the respective survey areas were conducted on March 14, April 6, April 18, May 4, May 9, June 6 and June 13, 2022 (Amy Black, Stephanie Cashin, Brinna Lee, David Smith, Wanisa Jaikwang, and Joseph Vu), and on April 18, May 9, and July 8, 2024 (David Smith and Brinna Lee). The burrowing owl survey visits are to be conducted during a period from one hour prior to sunrise to two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset. All survey visits were conducted in the morning within the allotted timeframe. The surveys were conducted during weather that was conducive to observing owls outside their burrows and detecting burrowing owl sign, and not during rain, high winds (> 20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90 °F. Additionally, all work was performed more than 5 days after a rain event.

At the start of each transect, and at least every 320 feet along transects, binoculars were used to scan the survey area for burrowing owls. All suitable burrows were inspected for diagnostic owl sign (e.g., pellets, prey remains, whitewash, feathers, bones, and decoration) in order to identify potentially occupied burrows. Exhibit 9 identifies the burrowing owl survey areas, transect locations, and the 500-foot buffer area. Table 2-2 summarizes the 2022 burrowing owl survey visits and Table 2-3 summarizes the 2024 burrowing owl survey visits. The results of the burrowing owl surveys are documented in Section 4.0 of this report. 12 Table 2-2. Summary of 2022 Burrowing Owl Surveys
Survey Date Survey
Number
Biologist(s) Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud Cover
(%)
03/07/2022 1 SC/WJ 51/53 0-2 0
03/14/2022 1 SC/BL 45/54 0-1 0
04/06/2022 2 SC/JV 57/63 0-2 0
04/18/2022 2 JV/WJ 52/59 0-6 100
05/04/2022 3 AB/DS 48/56 0-1 0
05/09/2022 3 SC/WJ 47/52 0-6 100
06/06/2022 4 SC/WJ 57/70 0-1 0
06/13/2022 4 SC/WJ 61/65 0-5 100
JA = Jeff Ahrens, AB = Amy Black, SC = Stephanie Cashin; WJ = Wanisa Jaikwang; BL = Brinna Lee, DS = David Smith, JV = Joseph Vu
Table 2-3. Summary of 2024 Burrowing Owl Surveys
Survey Date Survey
Number
Biologist(s) Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud Cover
(%)
03/20/2024 1 DS 58/62 0-3 50
04/18/2024 2 DS 68/70 0 100
05/09/2024 3 DS 64/70 0 100
07/8/2024 4 BL 66/72 0-4 0
BL = Brinna Lee, DS = David Smith
Least Bell’s Vireo
GLA biologists Stephanie Cashin, Hannah Craddock, Joseph Vu, and Chris Waterston conducted focused surveys for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) within the adjacent (offsite) riparian habitat. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the 2001 USFWS survey guidelines, which stipulate that eight surveys should be conducted between April 10 and July 31, with a minimum of ten days separating each survey visit.

Focused surveys were conducted on April 11, April 23, May 7, June 12, June 27, July 9, July 19, and July 29, 2024. Pursuant to the survey guidelines, the surveys were conducted between sunrise and 11:00 a.m. Weather conditions during the surveys were conducive to a high level of bird activity. Table 2-4 summarizes the vireo survey visits. The results of the vireo surveys are documented in Section 4.0 of this report.
13 Table 2-4. Summary of Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys
Survey Date Survey
Number
Biologist(s) Start/End
Time
Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
04/11/2024 1 JV 0645/1100 52/80 2-6 100
04/23/2024 2 JV 0630/1100 50/58 1-4 100
05/07/2024 3 JV 0645/1100 56/72 4-9 0
06/12/2024 4 CW 0650/1100 61/73 1-4 100
06/27/2024 5 CW 0600/1030 63/78 2-5 0
07/09/2024 6 HC 0730/1030 77/90 2-6 0
07/19/2024 7 HC 0630/0900 74/82 1-5 0
07/29/2024 8 SC 0645/1045 75/87 1-4 0
SC= Stephanie Cashin, HC = Hannah Craddock, JV = Joseph Vu, CW = Chris Waterston Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
GLA biologist Jeff Ahrens (TE 052159-6) conducted focused surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) within the adjacent (offsite) riparian habitat.

Surveys were conducted in accordance with the 2010 USFWS survey guidelines, which stipulate five survey visits between May 15 and July 17, divided into three survey periods. The southwestern willow flycatcher is one of four subspecies of willow flycatcher that occur within southern California but is the only subspecies that breeds in southern California. The other subspecies may occur in southern California as they migrate through the area onwards to northern breeding areas but will not breed in southern California. If present, these subspecies may be detected during the first and/or second survey periods. The presence of the southwestern willow flycatcher is determined by willow flycatchers that remain in southern California during the third survey period.

Focused surveys were conducted on May 20, June 11, June 21, June 27, and July 3, 2024. Mr.

Ahrens was accompanied by GLA biologist Chris Waterston (non-permitted) on June 27, 2024.

All surveys were conducted between one hour prior to sunrise and were completed before 10:45 a.m. Weather conditions during the surveys were conducive to a high level of bird activity. Table 2-5 summarizes the flycatcher survey visits. The southwestern willow flycatcher report is included as Appendix H.

14 Table 2-5. Summary of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys Survey
Date
Survey
Number
Biologist(s) Start/End
Time
Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover
05/20/20024 1 JA 0555/1030 52/62 2-5 100
06/11/2024 2 JA 0600/1030 80/90 2-5 20
06/21/2024 3 JA 0550/1045 61/84 1-3 0
06/27/2024 4 JA/CW 0600/1030 63/78 2-5 0
07/03/2024 5 JA 0605/1030 68/88 2-5 10
JA = Jeff Ahrens, CW (non-permitted)
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
GLA biologists Jeff Ahrens, Stephanie Cashin, and Ian Rhodes performed focused foraging surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CBB) in suitable habitat areas of the Project during the 2025 survey period. All three biologists are familiar with bumble bee natural history, bumble bee species identification and have detected the CBB on numerous sites throughout southern California. In addition, Ms. Cashin (S-202690004-20273-001) holds a Scientific Collecting Permit (SCP) and a Section 2081(a) permit authorizing capture and release of CESA Candidate and/or TVPICP List bumble bees, including CBB.

Surveys generally followed the methods described by CDFW (2023) in Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species, which is not a mandated survey protocol, but instead “is intended to assist CDFW staff, project proponents, and consultants in developing, proposing, and evaluating survey protocols and surveys on a projectspecific basis.” The Survey Considerations provides an overview of and incorporates the methodology of established protocols (e.g. the USFWS rusty patched bumble bee protocol [USFWS 2019]), while allowing for modifications to the number and type of surveys based on factors including the size of a Project site, the vegetation alliances and the phenology of the floral resources present within those alliances, and the patchiness of suitable habitat. The Survey Considerations state that survey efforts should include multiple survey visits, with the timing of the visits determined on a project-by-project basis based on seasonality and when CBB utilization will most likely occur. The timing of the surveys may vary depending on the location, elevation, seasonal rainfall, average ambient air temperatures, and local seasonal weather conditions.

To increase probability of detecting foraging bumble bees, survey efforts at the Project site were conducted during peak bloom periods that encompass the queen flight season (February through March) as well as the Colony Active Period (April through August) when the queen, daughters, and males are generally active. Surveys were spaced at least two to four weeks apart throughout the queen flight season and Colony Active Period to take advantage of the different blooming periods of floral resources.
15 The Project site supports both annual and perennial floral resources with the potential for utilization by CBB. The annual floral resources onsite (that CBB are known to use) consisted of common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), which was located primarily east of North Sanderson Avenue and along the edges of agricultural areas within the western portion of the site. Other annual species including smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp.), which have not been documented to be utilized by CBB were also surveyed. Perennial floral resources onsite with potential to be utilized by CBB was limited to alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Alfalfa is generally considered to be a perennial plant as it can live for more than two years, but at the Project site, alfalfa is generally grown as a short-season annual row crop that is rotated. Alfalfa within the Project site occurred west of North Sanderson Avenue. In addition to alfalfa, a small patch of branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima) was detected immediately offsite along the southeasternmost portion of the Project site within riparian habitat and was visually monitored when it was flowering as CBB is known to forage on it. Focused surveys were conducted on March 28, April 18, May 7, June 3, June 12, and June 25, 2025, which captured the peak blooming periods of both annual and perennial floral resources.

Photo vouchers of Bombus species were obtained by photographing bumble bees in situ from multiple angles with a professional level telephoto zoom lens and a camera body with a sensor capable of producing highly detailed images to ensure sufficient detail of identifying characteristics. Pursuant to the survey guidelines, the surveys were conducted between an hour after sunrise up until two hours before sunset, during times when weather conditions during the surveys are conducive to a high level of bee activity with temperatures generally 52-90 degrees Fahrenheit and wind less than seven miles per hour. Table 2-6 summarizes the CBB survey visits. The results of the CBB surveys are documented in Section 4.0 of this report. The CBB report is included as Appendix I.

Table 2-6. Summary of Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys
Survey
Date
Biologist(s) Start/End
Time
Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
03/28/25 JA/IR 0830/1300 52/62 4-7/3-6 100/100
04/18/25 SC/IR 0730/1230 52/55 2/4 100/100
05/07/25 JA 0900/1300 62/73 2-5/2-3 100/50
06/03/25 JA 1000/1600 70/78 2-4/2-5 0/80
06/12/25 JA/SC 1330/1800 90/74 5-7/5-7 0/0
06/25/25 JA/SC 1245/1750 85/84 3-7/4-6 0/0
JA = Jeff Ahrens, SC = Stephanie Cashin, IR = Ian Rhodes 16 Fairy Shrimp
The Project site contains five features/inundation areas that were surveyed by GLA biologists to determine the presence/absence of listed fairy shrimp. Three of the features, identified as #4, 5 and 46, were surveyed in 2021/2022 (wet season) and 2023 (dry season) for a separate project whose study area overlaps with that of the Line E Project site. The other two features, identified as E-1 and E-2, were surveyed in 2023/2024 (wet and dry seasons) for the Project.

Wet Season Surveys
The 2021/2022 wet season surveys (Features 4, 5 and 46) were conducted by GLA biologist Frank Wegscheider (TE-038716-4). The 2023/2024 wet season surveys (Features E-1 and E-2) were conducted by GLA biologists Stephanie Cashin (TE-20280D-0) and Chris Waterston (ESPER-2380694), assisted by GLA field staff David Smith and Velvet Park.

The wet season surveys were performed in accordance with the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (Survey Guidelines) dated November 13, 2017. Prior to the initiation of sampling, site visits were conducted following rainfall events to identify those features meeting the minimum hydrologic conditions for sampling. The Survey Guidelines generally consider that features containing a minimum of three centimeters (cm) of ponding at least 24 hours after rain events should be evaluated for surveys, but more specifically, sampling is required for any features ponded for at least seven days, and every seven days thereafter until the features are dry or have remained inundated continuously for 120 days. Surveys are to be reinitiated for any features that dry up and re-inundate.

Sampling for the presence of fairy shrimp was performed using a dip net within representative portions of the depression bottom, edges, and vertical water column when there was adequate ponding. Specimens were placed into vials, with labels containing identifying each depression with its unique identifying number. The vials contained a 95% ethanol solution to preserve the specimens. Specimens were identified in the field when feasible, otherwise identification was completed in a lab setting.

Dry Season Surveys
Dry season surveys for Features 4, 5 and 46 were initiated in October 2023 with the collection of soil samples by GLA biologist David Moskovitz (PER0010680-0), with assistance from Stephanie Cashin and Chris Waterston, and from GLA trainees David Smith and Velvet Park (under supervision). Soil processing and culturing was performed by Brent Helm (TE-795930- 12). The dry season surveys for Features E-1 and E-2 were conducted on September 20, 2024, by GLA biologist Chris Waterston (ESPER-2380694) with assistance from Stephanie Cashin (PER11730977-1), and from GLA trainee Velvet Park (under supervision). Soil processing and culturing was performed by Frank Wegscheider (TE-038716-4).

Soil sample collection followed the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (Survey Guidelines).2 Soil samples were collected when the pools were dry using 2 USFWS. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods, Revised: November 13, 2017. 17 a hand trowel to collect intact chunks of soil from the top 1–3 cm of pool sediment. The number of soil samples collected from each of features was based on feature size according to the Survey Guidelines. Starting at the edge of each depression, samples were taken from equidistant points along the longest transect and widest transect of each depression. Additional samples were taken at the deepest part of each feature. Soil samples of approximately 100 milliliters (ml) each were removed at each sub-sample location using a hand trowel and were combined into a labeled bag for each feature with the collection date, location and feature ID, and name of collector for future processing.

Special-Status Bats
GLA biologists Jeff Ahrens and Stephanie Cashin conducted a focused bat survey on April 29, 2024, within the adjacent (offsite) riparian habitat. The bat survey was comprised of a combination of acoustic and emergence surveys and focused on detecting potential roosting areas (day and night) that included, but were not limited to, rocky outcroppings, palm trees, eucalyptus trees, and riparian vegetation. Potential roosting areas were inspected visually for evidence of roosting that included urine staining, guano concentrations, and/or audible bats. A Seek Compact Pro Thermal imager attached to an iPhone or iPad was used to assist in detecting heat signatures of bats within and exiting from potential roost areas.

Four ultrasonic acoustic recording devices were deployed throughout the bat Study area.

Recording devices included two Pettersson M500-384 microphones attached to two Microsoft Surface Pros running Sonobat Live recording software and also included two Wildlife Acoustics EchoMeter 2 Pro microphones attached to an Apple iPad.

All acoustic data was recorded in full spectrum and was processed and analyzed with Sonobat

4.2.2 bat call analysis software using the California Southwest classifier. All acoustic calls were manually reviewed and vetted using multiple Sonobat acoustic reference libraries and reference materials including Echolocation Call Characteristics of California Bats (Humboldt State University, 2018) and Echolocation Call Characteristics of Western U.S. Bats (Humboldt State University, 2018). Table 2-7 summarizes the focused bat survey visits.

Table 2-7. Summary of Focused Bat Surveys
Survey Date Biologist(s) Start/End
Time
Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud Cover
04/29/2024 JA/SC 1800/2230 71/63 4-5/2-4 None
JA = Jeff Ahrens, SC = Stephanie Cashin

2.3 Jurisdictional Waters
The Project site was delineated on May 23, May 24, June 27, and September 20, 2024, by GLA regulatory specialists Lesley Lokovic-Gamber and Velvet Park to identify the limits of 18 jurisdictional waters, including waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps and Regional Board pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, waters of the State (including wetlands) subject to Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 13260 of the CWC, and streambed/riparian vegetation subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Prior to beginning the field delineation a 200-scale color aerial photograph and the previously cited USGS topographic maps were examined to determine the locations of potentially jurisdictional areas. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Potential wetland habitats at the subject site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual3 (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement)4
. The presence of an Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) was determined using the 2008 Field Guide to Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States5 in conjunction with the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.6 While in the field the limits of the OHWM, wetlands (if applicable), and CDFW jurisdiction were recorded using GPS technology and/or on copies of the aerial photography. Other data were recorded onto the appropriate datasheets.

2.4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process through which protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools would occur within the MSHCP Plan Area. The purpose is to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas throughout the MSHCP Plan Area are maintained such that habitat values for species inside the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained. The MSHCP requires that as projects are proposed within the overall Plan Area, the effect of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools must be addressed.

The MSHCP defines riparian/riverine areas as lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soils moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.
3 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-

16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 5 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. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH: U.S.

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. (http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf). 6 Curtis, Katherine E. and Robert Lichevar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TN-10-1. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 19 The MSHCP defines vernal pools as “seasonal 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 wetland indictors of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season.” With the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands habitat or resulting from human actions to create open waters or from the alteration of natural stream courses, areas demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.

GLA surveyed the Project site for riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool/seasonal pool habitat, including features with the potential to support fairy shrimp. To assess for vernal/seasonal pools (including fairy shrimp habitat), GLA biologists evaluated the topography of the site, including whether the site contained depressional features/topography with the potential to become inundated; whether the site contained soils associated with vernal/seasonal pools; and whether the site supported plants that suggested areas of localized ponding. The Project site was evaluated for riparian/riverine areas on May 23 and 24, June 27, and September 20, 2024.

3.0 REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project is subject to state and federal laws and regulations associated with a number of regulatory programs. These programs often overlap and were developed to protect natural resources, including state and federally listed plants and animals; aquatic resources including rivers and creeks, ephemeral streambeds, wetlands, and areas of riparian habitat; special-status species which are not listed as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; and special-status vegetation communities.

3.1 Endangered Species Acts

3.1.1 California Endangered Species Act
California’s Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” The State defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985, is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” 20 Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission.

Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses 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.” Under the CESA, “take” is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the state to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Section 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code provides that notification is required prior to disturbance.

3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act
The FESA of 1973 defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Further, the USFWS, through regulation, has interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification that result in injury to, or death of species as forms of “take.” These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case-by-case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants.

3.1.3 State and Federal Take Authorizations
Federal or state authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual or other private entity would be granted in one of the following ways:
• Section 7 of the FESA stipulates that any federal action that may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered requires a formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). • In 1982, the FESA was amended to give private landowners the ability to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA. Upon development of an HCP, the USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species where the HCP specifies at minimum, the following: (1) the level of impact that will result from the taking, (2) steps that will minimize and mitigate the impacts, (3) funding necessary to implement the plan, (4) alternative actions to the taking considered by the applicant and 21 the reasons why such alternatives were not chosen, and (5) such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the plan. • In certain circumstances, Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code allows CDFW to adopt the federal incidental take statement or the 10(a) permit as its own based on its findings that the federal permit adequately protects the species under state law.

3.1.4 Take Authorizations Pursuant to the MSHCP
The Western Riverside County MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003, and an Implementing Agreement (IA) was executed between the federal and state wildlife agencies and participating entities. The MSHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation-planning program for western Riverside County. The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. As such, the MSHCP is intended to streamline review of individual projects with respect to the species and habitats addressed in the MSHCP, and to provide for an overall Conservation Area that would be of greater benefit to biological resources than would result from a piecemeal regulatory approach. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special-status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA.

Through agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the MSHCP designates 146 special-status animal and plant species that receive some level of coverage under the plan. Of the 146 “Covered Species” designated under the MSHCP, most of these species have no additional survey/conservation requirements. In addition, through project participation with the MSHCP, the MSHCP provides mitigation for project-specific impacts to Covered Species so that the impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to CEQA. As noted above, project-specific survey requirements exist for species designated as “Covered Species not yet adequately conserved”. These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species, as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); Criteria Area Plant Species identified by the Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA); animal species as identified by survey area; and plant and animal species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats (Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP document).

For projects that have a federal nexus such as through federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting, take authorization for federally listed covered species would occur under Section 7 (not Section 10) of FESA and that USFWS would provide a MSHCP consistency review of the proposed project, resulting in a biological opinion. The biological opinion would require no more compensation than what is required to be consistent with the MSHCP.

3.2 California Environmental Quality Act

3.2.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380
CEQA requires evaluation of a project’s impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts.

Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.2 below set forth these thresholds and guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant 22 to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non-listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW recognizes that plants with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants that are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants, or plants with a CRPR of 3 or

4. 3.2.2 Special-Status Plants, Wildlife and Vegetation Communities Evaluated Under CEQA
Federally Designated Special-Status Species
Within recent years, the USFWS instituted changes in the listing status of candidate species.

Former C1 (candidate) species are now referred to simply as candidate species and represent the only candidates for listing. Former C2 species (for which the USFWS had insufficient evidence to warrant listing) and C3 species (either extinct, no longer a valid taxon or more abundant than was formerly believed) are no longer considered as candidate species. Therefore, these species are no longer maintained in list form by the USFWS, nor are they formally protected. This term is employed in this document but carries no official protection. All references to federally protected species in this report (whether listed, proposed for listing, or candidate) include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS.

For this report the following acronyms are used for federal special-status species:
• FE Federally listed as Endangered
• FT Federally listed as Threatened
• FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered
• FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened
• FC Federal Candidate Species (former C1 species)
State-Designated Special-Status Species
Some mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected (FP) Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively. California SSC are designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s CNDDB project. Informally listed taxa are not protected but warrant consideration in the preparation of biotic assessments. For some species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nest sites.

For this report the following acronyms are used for State special-status species:
• SE State-listed as Endangered
• ST State-listed as Threatened
23 • SR State-listed as Rare
• SCE State Candidate for listing as Endangered
• SCT State Candidate for listing as Threatened
• FP State Fully Protected
• SSC State Species of Special Concern
CNDDB Global/State Rankings
The CNDDB provides global and state rankings for species and communities based on a system developed by The Nature Conservancy to measure rarity of a species. The ranking provides a shorthand formula about the rarity of a species/community and is based on the best information available from multiple sources, including state and federal listings, and other groups that recognize species as sensitive (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Audubon Society, etc.). State and global rankings are used to prioritize conservation and protection efforts so that the rarest species/communities receive immediate attention. In both cases, the lower ranking (i.e., G1 or S1) indicates extreme rarity. Rare species are given a ranking from 1 to 3. Species with a ranking of 4 or 5 is considered to be common. If the exact global/state ranking is undetermined, a range is generally provided. For example, a global ranking of “G1G3” indicates that a species/community global rarity is between G1 and G3. If the animal being considered is a subspecies of a broader species, a “T” ranking is attached to the global ranking. The following are descriptions of global and state rankings:

Global Rankings
• G1 – Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. • G2 – Imperiled globally because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of some other factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. • G3 – Either very rare and local throughout its range (21 to 100 occurrences) or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g., a physiographic region), or because of some other factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
• G4 – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
• G5 – Common, widespread and abundant.

State Rankings
• S1 – Extremely rare; typically 5 or fewer known occurrences in the state; or only a few remaining individuals; may be especially vulnerable to extirpation. • S2 – Very rare; typically between 6 and 20 known occurrences; may be susceptible to becoming extirpated.
• S3 – Rare to uncommon; typically 21 to 50 known occurrences; S3 ranked species are not yet susceptible to becoming extirpated in the state but may be if additional populations are destroyed.
24 • S4 - Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
• S5 - Common, widespread, and abundant in the state.

California Native Plant Society/CNDDB California Rare Plant Ranks CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. In a collaborative effort with CDFW’s CNDDB Project, the CNPS Ninth Edition of the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California categorizes plants of interest into six California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) based on their geographic distribution and potential threats to existing populations. The CNPS Inventory is used by CDFW as the candidate species list for plants that may be listed as state Threatened and Endangered by CDFW. The six categories of rarity that are summarized in Table 3-1 Table 3-1. California Rare Plant Ranks 1, 2, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions CRPR Comments
Rank 1A – Plants Presumed
Extirpated in California and
Either Rare or Extinct
Elsewhere
Thought to be extinct in California based on a lack of observation or detection for many years.

Rank 1B – Plants Rare,
Threatened, or Endangered in
California and Elsewhere
Species, which are generally rare throughout their range that are also judged to be vulnerable to other threats such as declining habitat.

Rank 2A – Plants presumed
Extirpated in California, But
Common Elsewhere
Species that are presumed extinct in California but more common outside of California
Rank 2B – Plants Rare,
Threatened or Endangered in
California, But More
Common Elsewhere
Species that are rare in California but more common outside of California
Rank 3 – Plants About Which
More Information Is Needed
(A Review List)
Species that are thought to be rare or in decline but CNPS lacks the information needed to assign to the appropriate list. In most instances, the extent of surveys for these species is not sufficient to allow CNPS to accurately assess whether these species should be assigned to a specific rank. In addition, many of the Rank 3 species have associated taxonomic problems such that the validity of their current taxonomy is unclear.

Rank 4 – Plants of Limited
Distribution (A Watch List)
Species that are currently thought to be limited in distribution or range whose vulnerability or susceptibility to threat is currently low. In some cases, as noted above for Rank 3 species, CNPS lacks survey data to accurately determine status in California. Many species have been placed on Rank 4 in previous editions of the “Inventory” and have been removed as survey data has indicated that the species are more common than previously thought. CNPS recommends that species currently included on this list should be monitored to ensure that future substantial declines are minimized.

Extension Comments
.1 – Seriously endangered in
California
Species with over 80% of occurrences threatened and/or have a high degree and immediacy of threat.
25 CRPR Comments
.2 – Fairly endangered in
California
Species with 20-80% of occurrences threatened.
.3 – Not very endangered in
California
Species with <20% of occurrences threatened or with no current threats known.

3.3 Jurisdictional Waters

3.3.1 Army Corps of Engineers
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term “waters of the United States” is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) exclude the following from being “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) above:
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities.

Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water 26 Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA;
(3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased;
(5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons;
(7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(4) as:
...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
“Adjacent” wetlands are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(c)(2) as those wetlands “having a continuous surface connection” to other waters of the United States.

Wetland Definition Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the United States”) is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(1) as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” In 1987 the Corps published the Wetland Manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the Wetland Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the Wetland Manual and Arid West Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria:
27 • More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be hydrophytic in nature as published in the most current national wetland plant list; • Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and
• Whereas the Wetland Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with “problematic hydrophytic vegetation”, which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, federal regulatory authority extends only to activities that affect interstate commerce. In the early 1980s the Corps interpreted the interstate commerce requirement in a manner that restricted Corps jurisdiction on isolated (intrastate) waters. On September 12, 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that Corps jurisdiction extended to isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species, and the definition of “waters of the United States” in Corps regulations was modified as quoted above from 33 CFR 328.3(a).

On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. (SWANCC).

In this case the Court was asked whether use of an isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is a sufficient interstate commerce connection to bring the pond into federal jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The written opinion notes that the court’s previous support of the Corps’ expansion of jurisdiction beyond navigable waters (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.) was for a wetland that abutted a navigable water and that the court did not express any opinion on the question of the authority of the Corps to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. The current opinion goes on to state:

In order to rule for the respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. We conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this.

Therefore, we believe that the court’s opinion goes beyond the migratory bird issue and says that no isolated, intrastate water is subject to the provisions of Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (regardless of any interstate commerce connection). However, the Corps and EPA have issued a joint memorandum which states that they are interpreting the ruling to address only the migratory bird issue and leaving the other interstate commerce clause nexuses intact. 28 3.3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resource Control Board and each of its nine Regional Boards regulate the discharge of waste (dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States7 and waters of the state. Waters of the United States are defined above in Section II.A and waters of the state are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code 13050[e]).

Section 401 of the CWA requires certification for any federal permit or license authorizing impacts to waters of the U.S. (i.e., waters that are within federal jurisdiction), such as Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Safe Rivers and Harbors Act, to ensure that the impacts do not violate state water quality standards. When a project could impact waters outside of federal jurisdiction, the Regional Board has the authority under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that impacts do not violate state water quality standards. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, WDRs, and waivers of WDRs are also referred to as orders or permits.

State Wetland Definition
The Water Boards define an area as wetland8 as follows: “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The following wetlands are waters of the state:

1. Natural wetlands;

2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state;9 and

3. Artificial wetlands10 that meet any of the following criteria:
7 Therefore, wetlands that meet the current definition, or any historic definition, of waters of the U.S. are waters of the state. In 2000, the State Water Resources Control Board determined that all waters of the U.S. are also waters of the state by regulation, prior to any regulatory or judicial limitations on the federal definition of waters of the U.S. (California Code or Regulations title 23, section 3831(w)). This regulation has remained in effect despite subsequent changes to the federal definition. Therefore, waters of the state includes features that have been determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to be “waters of the U.S.” in an approved jurisdictional determination; “waters of the U.S.” identified in an aquatic resource report verified by the Corps upon which a permitting decision was based; and features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of “waters of the U.S.” or any current or historic federal regulation defining “waters of the U.S.” under the federal Clean Water Act. 8 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. [For Inclusion in the Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California]. 9 “Created by modification of a surface water of the state” means that the wetland that is being evaluated was created by modifying an area that was a surface water of the state at the time of such modification. It does not include a wetland that is created in a location where a water of the state had existed historically, but had already been completely eliminated at some time prior to the creation of the wetland. The wetland being evaluated does not become a water of the state due solely to a diversion of water from a different water of the state. 10 Artificial wetlands are wetlands that result from human activity. 29 a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state;
c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or
d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment,
iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program, iv. Treatment of surface waters,
v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering,
vi. Fire suppression,
vii. Industrial processing or cooling,
viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values,
ix. Log storage,
x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or
xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.11
All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state.
11 Fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that have not been abandoned due to five consecutive years of non-use for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that are determined to be a water of the state in accordance with these Procedures shall not have beneficial use designations applied to them through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, except as otherwise required by federal law for fields that are considered to be waters of the United States. Further, agricultural inputs legally applied to fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) shall not constitute a discharge of waste to a water of the state.

Agricultural inputs that migrate to a surface water or groundwater may be considered a discharge of waste and are subject to waste discharge requirements or waivers of such requirements pursuant to the Water Board’s authority to issue or waive waste discharge requirements or take other actions as applicable. 30 3.3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
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 defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “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 manmade 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 0.5, Chapter 1, section 89.5). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities.

4.0 RESULTS
This section provides the results of general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants and animals, an assessment for MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools, and a jurisdictional delineation for Waters of the United States (including wetlands) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps and Regional Board, and streams (including riparian vegetation) and lakes subject to the jurisdiction of CDFW.

4.1 Existing Conditions
The Project site is flat and supports active agricultural uses throughout most of the alignment.

Elevation ranges from approximately 1,488 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,446 feet AMSL. A review of historical aerial photography confirmed that since the late 1960’s, most of the Project site and environs have been used for agricultural purposes. As a result, the agricultural lands cycle between periods of vegetation with field crops and periods where the lands are generally unvegetated due to tilling. Other fields that are not consistently farmed are vegetated with a mixture of non-native ruderal plant species and remnant crop plants. The edge areas of the agricultural fields are dominated by non-native plant species, but in some areas support native species, such as smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), which is discussed later in this report. The Project site also contains disturbed/developed areas including unpaved roadways. The Project site contains agricultural ditches (Drainages A-F) that convey storm runoff and irrigation water through portions of the Project site, as well as an area where 31 constructed berms and debris-clogged culverts result in a backup of storm flows and irrigation runoff (Drainage Area A). These drainage features are further discussed below in Section 4.10 and 4.11.

As depicted on Exhibit 6 [Soils Map], the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) has identified the following soil types as occurring (currently or historically) within the Project site:
• Chino silt loam, drained, saline-alkali;
• Chino silt loam, drained, strongly saline-alkali;
• Dello loamy find sand, 0-2% slopes;
• Dello loamy fine sand, saline-alkali, 0-5% slopes;
• Grangeville loamy fine sand, drained, 0-5%slopes;
• Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum, drained, saline-alkali, 0-5% slopes; • Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alkali, 0-5% slopes; • Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline-alkali, 0-5% slopes; • Grangeville fine sandy loam, loamy substratum drained, saline-alkali, 0-2% slopes; • Traver loamy fine sand, saline-alkali, eroded;
• Traver fine sandy loam, saline-alkali; and
• Traver fine sandy loam, strongly saline-alkali, eroded; and water.

4.2 Vegetation Mapping
The Project site supports the following five vegetation types: Disturbed Agricultural Areas (Agricultural Fields), Bromus hordeaceus Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Annual Brome Grasslands), Disturbed/Developed Areas (Disturbed and Developed Areas), Lepidium latifolium – Lactuca serriola Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Perennial Pepper Weed –Prickly Lettuce Patches), and Eucalyptus globulus Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance (Eucalyptus Groves).

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the vegetation types and their corresponding acreage.

Descriptions of each vegetation type follow the table. A Vegetation Map is attached as Exhibit 5.

Photographs depicting the Project site are provided as Exhibit 10.

Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site Vegetation/Land Use Type Project Site
(acres)
Disturbed Agricultural Areas (Agriculture Fields) 94.41 Bromus hordeaceus Herbaceous Semi-Natural
Alliance (Annual Brome Grasslands)

11.92 Disturbed and Developed Areas 10.43
Eucalyptus globulus Woodland Semi-Natural
Alliance (Eucalyptus Groves)

0.03 32
Vegetation/Land Use Type Project Site
(acres)
Lepidium latifolium – Lactuca serriola
Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Perennial
Pepper Weed-Prickly Lettuce Patches)

3.54 Total 120.33

Disturbed Agricultural Areas (Agriculture Fields)
The Agricultural Fields are areas used for agricultural operations. Notable herbaceous species within these areas in order of descending dominance include summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), common stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), and Menzie’s fiddlenecks (Amsinckia menziesii). During the growing season, watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) is the primary crop being grown.

The Project site supports approximately 94.41 acres of Agricultural Fields. In general, these areas occur in the middle and southeastern portions of the Project site [Exhibit 5 – Vegetation Map].

Bromus hordeaceus Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Annual Brome Grasslands) The Annual Brome Grasslands is dominated by soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), which comprises a minimum of thirty to fifty percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer, per the membership rules of the MCV. Co-dominant herbaceous species in order of descending dominance include foxtail barley, common stork’s bill, cheeseweed, branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima), smooth tarplant, stinknet, London rocket, slender wild oat, and Menzie’s fiddlenecks.

The Project site supports approximately 11.92 acres of the Annual Brome Grasslands. In general, the alliance occurs in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Project site [Exhibit 5 – Vegetation Map].

Disturbed/Developed Areas
The Disturbed/Developed Areas are bare areas or spaces with historic or present land use.

Notable herbaceous species within these areas in order of descending dominance include foxtail barley, common stork’s bill, cheeseweed, smooth tarplant, stinknet, London rocket, slender wild oat, and Menzie’s fiddlenecks.

The Project site supports approximately 10.43 acres of Disturbed/Developed Areas. In general, these disturbed areas occur throughout the Project site on roads and other areas with previous or current land use, including greenhouses [Exhibit 5 – Vegetation Map].

Eucalyptus globulus Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance (Eucalyptus Groves) The Eucalyptus Groves are dominated by blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), which comprises a minimum of fifty to eighty percent relative cover in the tree canopy, per the membership rules of 33 the MCV. Associated species in the herbaceous understory in order of descending dominance include foxtail barley, common stork’s bill, cheeseweed, branching phacelia, smooth tarplant, stinknet, London rocket, slender wild oat, summer mustard, and Menzie’s fiddlenecks.

The Project site supports approximately 0.03 acre of Eucalyptus Groves. In general, the alliance occurs in the southeastern portion of the Project site [Exhibit 5 – Vegetation Map].

Lepidium latifolium – Lactuca serriola Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Perennial Pepper Weed-Prickly Lettuce Patches)
The Perennial Pepper Weed-Prickly Lettuce Patches are dominated by perennial pepper weed (Lepidium latifolium) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), which comprise a minimum of thirty to fifty percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer, per the membership rules of the MCV. Co-dominant herbaceous species in order of descending dominance include fivehorn smotherweed (Bassia hyssopifolia), spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), foxtail barley, smilo grass (Stipa miliacea), creeping rye (Elymus triticoides), common Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), and Menzie’s fiddlenecks (Amsinckia menziesii).

The Project site supports approximately 3.54 acres of the Perennial Pepper Weed-Prickly Lettuce Patches. In general, the alliance occurs in the middle and southeastern portions of the Project site [Exhibit 5 – Vegetation Map].

4.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities
The CNDDB identifies the following five special-status vegetation communities for the Lakeview and San Jacinto quadrangle maps: desert fan palm oasis woodland, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern riparian scrub. The Project site does not contain any special-status vegetation types, including those identified by the CNDDB.

4.4 Special-Status Plants
The following special-status plants were detected at the Project site: smooth tarplant. Table 4-2 provides a list of special-status plants evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys. Species were evaluated based on the following factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, 2) applicable MSHCP survey areas, and 3) any other special-status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the site.

Table 4-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Alvin Meadow beadstraw
Galium californicum ssp.
primum
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP(f)
Granitic and sandy soils in chaparral
and lower montane coniferous
forest.

Does not occur.
34 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
California beardtongue
Penstemon californicus
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy soils in chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, and
pinyon and juniper woodland.

Does not occur.

California Orcutt grass
Orcuttia californica
Federal: FE
State: SE
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Vernal pools Confirmed absent.

California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.1
MSHCP: None
Mesic soils in chaparral, coastal
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps (often alkali),
and riparian scrub.

Does not occur.

California screw moss
Tortula californica
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Sandy soil in chenopod scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland.

Does not occur.

Chaparral sand-verbena
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: None
Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal
sage scrub.

Does not occur.

Coachella Valley milk-vetch
Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae
Federal: FE
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Desert dunes, sandy Sonoran desert
scrub.

Does not occur.

Coulter's goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Playas, vernal pools, marshes and
swamps (coastal salt).

Confirmed absent.

Davidson's saltscale
Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Alkaline soils in coastal sage scrub,
coastal bluff scrub.

Does not occur.

Engelmann oak
Quercus engelmannii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland, valley and
foothill grassland.

Does not occur.

Horn's milk-vetch
Astragalus hornii var. hornii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: None
Lake margins with alkaline soils,
meadows and seeps, and playas.

Confirmed absent.

Intermediate mariposa-lily
Calochortus weedii var.
intermedius
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Rocky soils in chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.

Does not occur.

Jaeger's (bush) milk-vetch
Astragalus pachypus var.
jaegeri
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy or rocky soils in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill grassland.

Does not occur.
35 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Laguna Mountains jewelflower
Streptanthus bernardinus
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: None
Chaparral and lower montane
coniferous forest.

Does not occur.

Latimer's woodland-gilia
Saltugilia latimeri
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Rocky or sandy, often granitic soils
(sometimes washes) in chaparral,
Mojavean desert scrub, and Pinyon
and juniper woodland.

Does not occur.

Lemon lily
Lilium parryi
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP(f)
Mesic soils in lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, riparian forest, and upper
montane coniferous forest.

Does not occur.

Little mousetail
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 3.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools (alkaline soils).

Confirmed absent
Long-spined spineflower
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, meadows and seeps, and
valley and foothill grasslands
Does not occur.

Mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: None
Sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral
(maritime), cismontane woodland,
and coastal scrub.

Does not occur.

Mojave tarplant
Deinandra mohavensis
Federal: None
State: SE
CRPR: Rank 1B.3
MSHCP: MSHCP(e)
Chaparral (mesic soils) and riparian
scrub.

Does not occur.

Mud nama
Nama stenocarpum
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Marshes and swamps Confirmed absent.

Munz's onion
Allium munzii
Federal: FE
State: ST
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, and valley and foothill
grasslands
Does not occur.

Narrow-leaf sandpaper-plant
Petalonyx linearis
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.3
MSHCP: None
Sandy or rocky canyons, Mojavean
desert scrub, and Sonoran desert
scrub.

Does not occur.

Palmer's grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley
and foothill grassland. Occurring in
clay soils.

Does not occur.

Palmer's mariposa lily
Calochortus palmeri var.
palmeri
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Mesic soils in chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, and
meadows and seeps.

Does not occur.
36 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Paniculate tarplant
Deinandra paniculata
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: None
Usually in vernally mesic,
sometimes sandy soils in coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools.

Confirmed absent.

Parish's brittlescale
Atriplex parishii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Chenopod scrub, playas, vernal
pools.

Confirmed absent.

Parry's spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy or rocky soils in open
habitats of chaparral and coastal
sage scrub.

Does not occur.

Payson's jewelflower
Caulanthus simulans
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy or granitic soils in chaparral
and coastal scrub.

Does not occur.

Peninsular spineflower
Chorizanthe leptotheca
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Alluvial fan, granitic. Chaparral,
coastal scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest.

Does not occur.

Plummer's mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerae
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Granitic, rock soils within chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal sage
scrub, lower montane coniferous
forest, valley and foothill grassland.

Does not occur.

Robinson's pepper grass
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: None
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub Does not occur.

Salt Spring checkerbloom
Sidalcea neomexicana
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: None
Mesic, alkaline soils in chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, Mojavean desert
scrub, and playas.

Confirmed absent.

San Bernardino aster
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous
forest, meadows and seeps, marshes
and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland (vernally mesic).

Confirmed absent.

San Felipe monardella
Monardella nana ssp.
leptosiphon
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Chaparral and lower montane
coniferous forest.

Does not occur.

San Jacinto mariposa-lily
Calochortus palmeri var.
munzii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps.

Confirmed absent.

San Jacinto Mountains
bedstraw
Galium angustifolium ssp.
jacinticum
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.3
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Lower montane coniferous forest. Does not occur.
37 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
San Jacinto Valley crownscale
Atriplex coronata var. notatior
Federal: FE
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools.

Confirmed absent.

Slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras
Federal: FE
State: SE
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Sandy soils in alluvial scrub,
chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Does not occur.

Smooth tarplant
Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, playas, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill
grasslands, disturbed habitats.

Occurs on site.

Southern mountains skullcap
Scutellaria bolanderi ssp.
austromontana
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Mesic soils in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest.

Does not occur.

Spiny-hair blazing star
Mentzelia tricuspis
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.1
MSHCP: Noe
Sandy, gravelly, slopes, and washes.

Mojavean desert scrub.

Does not occur.

Spreading navarretia
Navarretia fossalis
Federal: FT
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Vernal pools, playas, chenopod
scrub, marshes and swamps
(assorted shallow freshwater).

Confirmed absent.

Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
Federal: FT
State: SE
CRPR: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(d)
Clay soils in chaparral (openings),
cismontane woodland, coastal sage
scrub, playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.

Confirmed absent.

Vernal barley
Hordeum intercedens
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 3.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland (saline
flats and depressions), vernal pools.

Confirmed absent.

White rabbit-tobacco
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: None
Sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
and riparian woodland.

Does not occur.

White-bracted spineflower
Chorizanthe xanti var.
leucotheca
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Sandy or gravelly soils in Mojavean
desert scrub and pinyon and juniper
woodland.

Does not occur.

Wright's trichocoronis
Trichocoronis wrightii var.
wrightii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 2B.1
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Alkaline soils in meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps,
riparian scrub, vernal pools.

Confirmed absent.
38 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Yucaipa onion
Allium marvinii
Federal: None
State: None
CRPR: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP:

MSHCP(b)
Chaparral (clay, openings). Does not occur.

STATUS
Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate
CNPS
Rank 1A – Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.

Rank 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

Rank 2A – Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere.

Rank 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

Rank 3 – Plants about which more information is needed (a review list).

Rank 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

Threat Code extension
.1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) MSHCP
MSHCP = No additional action necessary
MSHCP(a) = Surveys may be required as part of wetlands mapping MSHCP(b) = Surveys may be required within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area MSHCP(c) = Surveys may be required within locations shown on survey maps MSHCP(d) = Surveys may be required within Criteria Area MSHCP(e) = Conservation requirements identified in species-specific conservation objectives need to be met before classified as a Covered Species
MSHCP(f) = Covered species when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service Land

OCCURRENCE
 Does not occur – The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species.
 Confirmed absent – The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys.
 Not expected to occur – The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out.
 Potential to occur – The species has a potential to occur based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.
 Confirmed present – The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys.

4.4.1 Special-Status Plants Detected at the Project Site Smooth Tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) is a CRPR 1B.1 species, indicating that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and is seriously endangered in 39 California. This species is an annual herb in the sunflower family that blooms from April to September. It is adapted to disturbed areas, and poorly drained flats, depressions, and grasslands.

A population of approximately 2,500 individuals was detected at the Project site during the 2024 focused plant surveys. The majority of smooth tarplant was detected in the northwestern portion of the Project site [Exhibit 8 – Smooth Tarplant Survey Results Map]. The majority of the mapped smooth tarplant was in disturbed areas on either side of a dirt access road within the MWD property, as well as three other locations associated with disturbed areas. A portion of the smooth tarplant individuals are associated with the Riparian/Riverine Resources. As is discussed further below, the Line E alignment is not within the CAPSSA for smooth tarplant.

4.5 Special-Status Animals
No special-status animals were detected at the Project site, although some special-status species were detected offsite in the adjacent riparian habitat, including least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, northern harrier, western mastiff bat and western yellow bat. Table 4-3 provides a list of special-status animals evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys. Species were evaluated based on the following factors, including: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, 2) applicable MSHCP survey areas, and 3) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the site.

Table 4-3. Special-Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Invertebrates
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
Federal: None
State: CE
(candidate
endangered)
MSHCP: None
Relatively warm and dry sites,
including the inner Coast Range of
California and margins of the
Mojave Desert.

Confirmed absent during
focused surveys.

Quino checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas editha
quino
Federal: FE
State: None
MSHCP: MSHCP
Larval and adult phases each have
distinct habitat requirements tied to
host plant species and topography.

Larval host plants include Plantago
erecta and Castilleja exserta.

Adults occur on sparsely vegetated
rounded hilltops and ridgelines, and
are known to disperse through
disturbed habitats to reach suitable
nectar plants.

Does not occur.

Riverside fairy
shrimp
Streptocephalus
woottoni
Federal: FE
State: None
MSHCP:

MSHCP(a)
Restricted to deep seasonal vernal
pools, vernal pool-like ephemeral
ponds, and stock ponds.

Confirmed absent during
focused surveys.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
Federal: FT
State: None
Seasonal vernal pools Confirmed absent during
focused surveys.
40 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
MSHCP:

MSHCP(a)
Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus
californicus
Federal: FE
State: SSC
MSHCP:

MSHCP(c)
Breed, forage, and/or aestivate in
aquatic habitats, riparian, coastal
sage scrub, oak, and chaparral
habitats. Breeding pools must be
open and shallow with minimal
current, and with a sand or pea
gravel substrate overlain with sand
or flocculent silt. Adjacent banks
with sandy or gravely terraces and
very little herbaceous cover for
adult and juvenile foraging areas,
within a moderate riparian canopy
of cottonwood, willow, or oak.

Does not occur.

Southern mountain
yellow-legged frog
Rana muscosa
Federal: FE
State: SE
MSHCP:

MSHCP(c)
Streams and small pools in
ponderosa pine, montane
hardwood-conifer, and montane
riparian habitat types.

Does not occur.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Seasonal pools in coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, and grassland
habitats.

Not expected to occur.

Reptiles
California glossy
snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, chaparral.

Not expected to occur.

Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occurs in a variety of vegetation
types including coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, annual grassland, oak
woodland, and riparian woodlands.

Not expected to occur.

Coast patch-nosed
snake
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Occurs in coastal chaparral, desert
scrub, washes, sandy flats, and
rocky areas.

Does not occur.

Coastal whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
(multiscutatus)
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Open, often rocky areas with little
vegetation, or sunny microhabitats
within shrub or grassland
associations.

Not expected to occur.

Red-diamond
rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Habitats with heavy brush and rock
outcrops, including coastal sage
scrub and chaparral.

Not expected to occur.

San Diego banded
gecko
Coleonyx variegatus
abbotti
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Primarily a desert species, but also
occurs in cismontane chaparral,
desert scrub, and open sand dunes.

Does not occur.

Southern California
legless lizard
Anniella stebbinsi
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Broadleaved upland forest,
chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub; found in a broader range of
habitats that any of the other
species in the genus. Often locally
abundant, specimens are found in
Not expected to occur.
41 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
coastal sand dunes and a variety of
interior habitats, including sandy
washes and alluvial fans
Southern rubber boa
Charina umbratica
Federal: None
State: ST
MSHCP:

MSHCP(f)
Restricted to the San Bernardino
and San Jacinto Mountain, in a
variety of montane forest habitats.

Found in vicinity of streams or wet
meadows. Requires loose, moist
soil for burrowing. Seeks cover in
rotting logs.

Does not occur.

Southwestern pond
turtle
Emys marmorata
Federal: Proposed
Threatened
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Slow-moving permanent or
intermittent streams, small ponds
and lakes, reservoirs, abandoned
gravel pits, permanent and
ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock
ponds, and treatment lagoons.

Abundant basking sites and cover
necessary, including logs, rocks,
submerged vegetation, and undercut
banks.

Not expected to occur.

Birds
Black swift (nesting)
Cypseloides niger
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Nests in forested areas near rivers
in dark, damp areas. Forages in
skies over mountainous areas and
on coastal cliffs.

Does not occur.

Burrowing owl
(burrow sites &
some wintering sites)
Athene cunicularia
Federal: None
State: CE, SSC
MSHCP:

MSHCP(c)
Shortgrass prairies, grasslands,
lowland scrub, agricultural lands
(particularly rangelands), coastal
dunes, desert floors, and some
artificial, open areas as a year-long
resident. Occupies abandoned
ground squirrel burrows as well as
artificial structures such as culverts
and underpasses.

Confirmed absent during
focused surveys.

Coastal cactus wren
(San Diego &
Orange County only)
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occurs almost exclusively in cactus
(cholla and prickly pear) dominated
coastal sage scrub.

Does not occur.

Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila
californica
californica
Federal: FT
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Low elevation coastal sage scrub
and coastal bluff scrub.

Does not occur.

Golden eagle
(nesting &
wintering)
Aquila chrysaetos
Federal: None
State: FP
MSHCP: MSHCP
In southern California, occupies
grasslands, brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous forests,
and montane valleys. Nests on rock
outcrops and ledges.

Does not nest on site.

Potential to forage
opportunistically over the
Project site and environs.

Le Conte's thrasher
Toxostoma lecontei
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Desert scrub, mesquite, tall riparian
brush and, locally, chaparral.

Does not occur.
42 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Least Bell's vireo
(nesting)
Vireo bellii pusillus
Federal: FE
State: SE
MSHCP:

MSHCP(a)
Dense riparian habitats with a
stratified canopy, including
southern willow scrub, mule fat
scrub, and riparian forest.

Does not occur in the
Project site due to the
absence of suitable habitat.

Detected offsite
immediately south of the
Project site during focused
surveys.

Loggerhead shrike
(nesting)
Lanius ludovicianus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Forages over open ground within
areas of short vegetation, pastures
with fence rows, old orchards,
mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf
courses, riparian areas, open
woodland, agricultural fields, desert
washes, desert scrub, grassland,
broken chaparral and beach with
scattered shrubs.

Low potential to nest on
site due to a general lack of
suitable habitat. Potential to
forage on site.

Northern harrier
(nesting)
Circus hudsonius
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
A variety of habitats, including
open wetlands, grasslands, wet
pasture, old fields, dry uplands, and
croplands.

Occurs on site foraging.

Not expected to nest onsite
due to historic and current
agricultural practices.

Purple martin
(nesting)
Progne subis
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Forage over towns, cities, parks,
open fields, dunes, streams, wet
meadows, beaver ponds, and other
open areas. Nest in woodpecker
holes in mountain forests or Pacific
lowlands.

Potential to forage on site.

Not expected to nest onsite
due to lack of suitable
nesting habitat on site.

Southwestern willow
flycatcher (nesting)
Empidonax traillii
extimus
Federal: FE
State: SE
MSHCP:

MSHCP(a)
Riparian woodlands along streams
and rivers with mature dense
thickets of trees and shrubs.

Does not occur onsite.

Confirmed absent during
focused surveys conducted
offsite, adjacent to the
southernmost portion of the
Project site.

Swainson's hawk
(nesting)
Buteo swainsoni
Federal: None
State: ST
MSHCP: MSHCP
Summer in wide open spaces of the
American West. Nest in
grasslands, but can use sage flats
and agricultural lands. Nests are
placed in lone trees.

Has potential to forage
onsite when wintering.

Does not nest onsite –
outside known nesting
range of the species.

Tricolored blackbird
(nesting colony)
Agelaius tricolor
Federal: None
State: CE, SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Breeding colonies require nearby
water, a suitable nesting substrate,
and open-range foraging habitat of
natural grassland, woodland, or
agricultural cropland.

Not expected to nest onsite.

Potential to forage on site.

Western yellowbilled cuckoo
(nesting)
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
Federal: FT
State: SE
MSHCP:

MSHCP(a)
Dense, wide riparian woodlands
with well-developed understories.

Does not occur onsite.

White-tailed kite
(nesting)
Elanus leucurus
Federal: None
State: FP
MSHCP: MSHCP
Low elevation open grasslands,
savannah-like habitats, agricultural
areas, wetlands, and oak
woodlands. Dense canopies used
for nesting and cover.

Not expected to nest on site
due to a lack of suitable
habitat. Potential to forage
onsite.
43 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
Yellow warbler
(nesting)
Setophaga petechia
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Breed in lowland and foothill
riparian woodlands dominated by
cottonwoods, alders, or willows and
other small trees and shrubs typical
of low, open-canopy riparian
woodland. During migration,
forages in woodland, forest, and
shrub habitats.

Does not occur onsite.

Detected offsite, adjacent
to the southernmost portion
of the Project site.

Yellow-breasted chat
(nesting)
Icteria virens
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Dense, relatively wide riparian
woodlands and thickets of willows,
vine tangles, and dense brush with
well-developed understories.

Does not occur onsite.

Detected offsite, adjacent
to the southernmost portion
of the Project site.

Yellow-headed
blackbird (nesting)
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Breed and roost in freshwater
wetlands with dense, emergent
vegetation such as cattails. Often
forage in fields, typically wintering
in large, open agricultural areas.

Not expected to nest onsite.

Potential to forage on site.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Most abundant in drier open stages
of most scrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with friable
soils.

Does not occur onsite.

Los Angeles pocket
mouse
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP:

MSHCP(c)
Fine, sandy soils in coastal sage
scrub and grasslands.

Not expected to occur due
to high levels of soil
disturbance associated with
past and current
agricultural operations.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: None
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting.

Does not occur on site. Not
detected during offsite
focused surveys.

Palm Springs roundtailed ground squirrel
Xerospermophilus
tereticaudus chlorus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Sandy desert in low, flat areas,
commonly in communities
dominated by mesquite and
creosotebush. Also in urban areas
and parks.

Does not occur onsite.

San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys merriami
parvus
Federal: FE
State: SC (state
candidate)
MSHCP:

MSHCP(c)
Typically found in Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub and sandy
loam soils, alluvial fans and
floodplains, and along washes with
nearby sage scrub.

Does not occur onsite.

San Diego desert
woodrat
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occurs in a variety of shrub and
desert habitats, primarily associated
with rock outcrops, boulders, cacti,
or areas of dense undergrowth.

Does not occur onsite.

Southern
grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus
ramona
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Desert areas, especially scrub
habitats with friable soils for
digging. Prefers low to moderate
shrub cover.

Not expected to occur due
to high levels of soil
disturbance associated with
past and current
agricultural operations.

Stephens' kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys stephensi
Federal: FE
State: ST
MSHCP: MSHCP
SKR HCP: Covered
Open grasslands or sparse
shrublands with less than 50%
vegetation cover during the
summer.

Not expected to occur due
to high levels of soil
disturbance associated with
44 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence
historic and current
agricultural operations.

Townsend's bigeared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: None
Coniferous forests and woodlands,
deciduous riparian woodland, semidesert and montane shrublands.

Does not occur on site. Not
detected during offsite
focused surveys.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: None
Occurs in many open, semi-arid to
arid habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees, and tunnels.

Does not roost on site.

Detected offsite
acoustically during focused
surveys.

Western yellow bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: None
Found in valley foothill riparian,
desert riparian, desert wash, and
palm oasis habitats. Roosts in trees,
particularly palms. Forages over
water and among trees.

Does not roost on site.

Detected offsite
acoustically during focused
surveys.

STATUS
Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FPT – Federally Proposed Threatened SC– State Candidate FC – Federal Candidate CFP – California Fully-Protected Species BGEPA– Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act SSC – Species of Special Concern MSHCP
MSHCP = No additional action necessary
MSHCP(a) = Surveys may be required as part of wetlands mapping MSHCP(b) = Surveys may be required within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area MSHCP(c) = Surveys may be required within locations shown on survey maps MSHCP(d) = Surveys may be required within Criteria Area MSHCP(e) = Conservation requirements identified in species-specific conservation objectives need to be met before classified as a Covered Species
MSHCP(f) = Covered species when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service Land Western Bat Working Group (WBWG)
H – High Priority
LM – Low-Medium Priority
M – Medium Priority
MH – Medium-High Priority
45 OCCURRENCE
 Does not occur – The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species.
 Confirmed absent – The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys.
 Not expected to occur – The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out.
 Potential to occur – The species has a potential to occur based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.
 Confirmed present – The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys.

4.5.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed
No special-status animals were detected within the disturbance limits of the Project; however, several species were detected adjacent to the Project site (to the south) in areas that were evaluated for potential indirect effects and/or for mitigation opportunities. These species are described below.

Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) – The least Bell’s vireo (LBV) is state and federally listed as endangered, and is covered under the MSHCP. The LBV is typically associated with dense riparian habitats with a stratified canopy, including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and riparian forest.

Three LBV territories were detected in the offsite riparian habitat adjacent to the Project footprint, two of which were detected within 300 feet of the Project, with third located about 800 feet from Project footprint [Exhibit 12 – LBV Survey Results]. Based on observed behavior, the LBV in all three locations appeared to be paired and nesting.

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) - The northern harrier is designated as a CDFW SSC when nesting, but is a common, often abundant, winter visitor throughout California. The northern harrier is a MSHCP covered species. Characteristically, this hawk inhabits marshlands, both coastal salt and freshwater, but often forages over grasslands, fields, and low open scrub. It glides and flies low over open habitats searching for prey.

One northern harrier was detected flying offsite within agricultural and riparian areas during the biological surveys and would be expected to forage opportunistically over the Project site. The Project site does not support nesting habitat for northern harriers due to the historical and current land practices at the site.

Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus) – The western mastiff bat is designated as a CDFW SSC and a WBWG high priority species. This species is not covered under the MSHCP.

The western mastiff bat occurs year-round in southern California and is typically associated with open, semi-arid to arid habitats including dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, montane meadows, grassland and agricultural areas. This species roosts in cliff faces and occasionally in buildings that provide unobstructed entry and exit access. 46 The western mastiff bat was detected faintly acoustically during the focused bat survey conducted in the offsite (adjacent) habitat located south of the Project footprint. The adjacent area contains suitable roosting habitat, including for maternity roosting. Although the Project site does not contain any roosting habitat, the site provides opportunistic foraging habitat as part of the mastiff bat’s large foraging range, which can exceed 24 kilometers from roost sites.

Western Yellow Bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) – The western yellow bat is designated as a CDFW SSC and a WBWG high priority species. This species is not covered under the MSHCP. The western yellow bat occurs year-round in southern California and is typically associated with valley foothill, riparian, desert wash, desert riparian and palm oasis habitats, where they often roost in trees taller than three meters in height. Native and non-native palm trees are also known to provide suitable roosting habitat for the species.

The western yellow bat was detected acoustically during the focused bat survey conducted in the offsite (adjacent) habitat located south of the Project footprint. The adjacent area contains suitable roosting habitat, including for maternity roosting. Although the Project site does not contain any roosting habitat, the site provides opportunistic foraging habitat as part of the yellow bat’s large foraging range.

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) – The yellow-breasted chat is designated as a CDFW SSC and is a MSHCP covered species. Yellow-breasted chats in southern California (including within the MSHCP Plan Area) are primarily found in dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well-developed understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds.

The Project site does not contain habitat for the yellow-breasted chat, but at least one chat was detected in riparian habitat located immediately adjacent to the southern end of the Project footprint. The chat was detected in the same area occupied by least Bell’s vireo that was part of broader study area surveyed to evaluate the potential for indirect effects during construction.

Yellow warbler (Setophagia petechia) – The yellow warbler is designated as a CDFW SSC and is a MSHCP covered species. Yellow warblers in southern California breed in lowland and foothill riparian woodlands dominated by cottonwoods, alders, or willows and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland. The yellow warbler is found at elevations from 100 meters to 2,700 meters within riparian habitat and at higher elevations along watercourses with riparian growth.

The Project site does not contain habitat for the yellow warbler, but at least one warbler was detected in riparian habitat located immediately adjacent to the southern end of the Project footprint. The warbler was detected in the same area occupied by least Bell’s vireo that was part of broader study area surveyed to evaluate the potential for indirect effects during construction. 47 4.5.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Not Observed, but with a Potential to Occur at the Project Site
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) – The golden eagle is designated as a CDFW Fully Protected species and is a MSHCP covered species. Golden eagles prefer open areas with hills, cliffs, and bluffs including prairies, grasslands and tundra. They can also be found in forests, mountains, and deserts. Golden eagles nest in rugged areas generally with cliffs or bluffs or large trees.

The golden eagle was not detected during the biological surveys. However, historical records show the golden eagle occurs in the region. The Project site does not support suitable nesting habitat for the golden eagle, but the agricultural fields would provide limited low quality opportunistic foraging habitat for the species.

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) – The loggerhead shrike is designated as a CDFW SSC and is a MSHCP covered species. The loggerhead shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands throughout California. Loggerhead shrikes prefer open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other perches and will eat mostly large insects, but will also take small birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish, carrion, and various other invertebrates. Shrikes usually fly directly to prey on ground or in a shrub; sometimes hovering.

Occasionally this species will hawk aerial insects in mid-air. This species was not detected during the biological surveys but is historically known from the area. The shrike has a low potential to nest on site due to the general absence of suitable nesting habitat. However, the Project site does provide foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike.

Purple martin (Progne subis) – The purple martin is designated as a CDFW SSC and is a MSHCP covered species. The purple martin was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The purple martin is not expected to nest on site due to the general absence of cavities. However, the Project site does provide suitable foraging habitat for this species.

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) – The Swainson’s hawk is State Threatened and is a MSHCP covered species. The Swainson’s hawk was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The Swainson’s hawk is expected to opportunistically forage within the agricultural fields in the region during the winter, which could include portions of the Project site. The Project site is not expected to provide suitable nesting habitat due to overall general absence of trees (especially solitary trees) on site.

Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) – The tricolored blackbird is designated as State Threatened and CDFW SSC and is a MSHCP covered species. The tricolored blackbird was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The tricolored blackbird is not expected to nest on site due to the majority of the Project site being used for active agriculture and the Project site lacks wetland habitat. However, the Project site does provide foraging habitat for this species.

White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) – The white-tailed kite is a CDFW Fully Protected species and is a MSHCP covered species. The white-tailed kite was not detected during the biological 48 studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The white-tailed kite is not expected to nest on site due to the general absence of trees within the Project site. However, the Project site does provide foraging habitat for this species.

Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) – The yellow-headed blackbird is designated as a CDFW SSC but is not a MSHCP covered species. The yellow-headed blackbird was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The yellow-headed blackbird is not expected to nest on site due to the majority of the Project site being used for active agriculture and the Project site lacks wetland habitat. However, the Project site does provide foraging habitat for this species.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii) - Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) is designated as a State Candidate Endangered (CE) species under CESA. CBB also has a State Ranking of S2 (“imperiled”), which conveys special status to CBB independent of its CESA status. CBB is not a covered species under the MSHCP, meaning that the MSHCP does not grant authorization to “take” CBB and does not directly mitigate the loss of habitat occupied by CBB.

CBB was not detected during the 2025 focused surveys [Appendix I], meaning that there was no evidence that CBB occupied the site in 2025. However, the site contains herbaceous floral resources suitable to support CBB for foraging, including common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). In addition, the site contains substrates suitable to support nesting and/or overwintering, although due to the regular disturbance of much of the site for agricultural operations, CBB is less likely to utilize the site for those purposes. Because the Project site contains suitable for foraging, and CBB has been documented in the vicinity of the Project site, it is possible for CBB to utilize the site during the 2026 season and future seasons.

Potential impacts to CBB and its habitat are discussed below in Section 5.2.2.

4.5.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Confirmed Absent Through Focused Surveys Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) - The burrowing owl is designated as a CDFW Candidate Endangered species and is a covered species not adequately conserved under the MSHCP, which means that projects located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area may have to evaluate avoidance and/or mitigation measures if burrowing owls are present. The Project site is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area.

GLA biologists did not observe burrowing owls during the focused burrowing owl surveys performed in 2022 and 2024. Although the Project site contains multiple suitable burrows, no evidence of burrowing owls (e.g., cast pellets, preened feathers, or whitewash clustered at a burrow) were detected at any of the burrows. Therefore, the species was confirmed absent.

Fairy Shrimp – Five features that pond seasonally (4, 5, 46, E-1, and E-2) were surveyed for fairy shrimp. The non-listed versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) was detected in just one of the five features during the wet season surveys (Feature 5), which consists of vehicle ruts within a dirt road. The dry season survey of Feature 5 detected Branchinecta cysts, which were successfully hatched and reared to identify individuals as the versatile fairy shrimp, thus corroborating the results of the wet season survey.
49 No fairy shrimp were detected in the other five features during the wet season surveys. Features 4, 46, and E-2 also consist of vehicle ruts in dirt roads. Feature E-1 corresponds with the large inundation area associated with Drainage Area A. No Branchinecta cysts were detected within Feature 4 and 46 during the 2023 dry season surveys. No Branchinecta cysts were detected within Features E-1 and E-2 during the 2025 dry season surveys. Fairy shrimp survey reports are provided as Appendices D, E, F and G.

4.5.4 Raptor Use
The Project site is disturbed and primarily used for agricultural purposes; however, it does provide suitable foraging habitat for a number of raptor species, including special-status raptors.

Southern California holds a diversity of birds of prey (raptors), and many of these species are in decline. For most of the declining species, foraging requirements include extensive open, undisturbed, or lightly disturbed areas, especially grasslands. This type of habitat has declined severely in the region, affecting many species, but especially raptors. A few species, such as redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius), are somewhat adaptable to low-level human disturbance and can be readily observed adjacent to neighborhoods and other types of development. These species still require appropriate foraging habitat and low levels of disturbance in the vicinity of nesting sites.

Many of the raptors that would be expected to forage and nest within western Riverside are fully covered species under the MSHCP with the MSHCP providing the necessary conservation of both foraging and nesting habitats. Some common raptor species (e.g., American kestrel and redtailed hawk) are not covered by the MSHCP but are expected to be conserved with implementation of the Plan due to the parallel habitat needs with those raptors covered under the Plan. However, the MSHCP does not provide MBTA and Fish and Game Code take for raptors covered under the Plan.

Appendix B (faunal compendium) provides a list of the raptors detected over the course of the field studies (both onsite, but adjacent). These species include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). In addition, the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba) and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) were detected offsite, but adjacent to the Project site. In addition, the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco columbarius), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) were not detected during field studies but would be expected to forage and/or winter within Project site opportunistically.

4.6 Bats
Eight species of bats were detected adjacent to the southern portion of the Project site during the focused bat survey: big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), western yellow 50 bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis).12 The western mastiff bat and western yellow bat are both designated as CDFW Species of Special Concern and are designated by the WBWG as high priority species. The western yellow bat is strongly tied to palm trees which occur offsite, but adjacent to the southern Project site boundary.

The western mastiff is strongly tied to cliff areas and is a strong flyer capable of flying over 24 kilometers in a night. The faint acoustic signatures detected from outside the Project site were indicative of individuals flying high over or near the Project site as part of their foraging foray.

The Project site is generally devoid of trees and does not support suitable roosting habitat (including maternity roosts) for both species.

4.7 Nesting Birds
The Project site contains shrubs, ground cover and some trees that provide suitable habitat for nesting native birds. Mortality of native birds (including eggs) is prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code.13

4.8 Wildlife Linkages/ Corridors and Nursery Sites
Habitat linkages are areas which provide a connection between two or more other habitat areas which are often larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Such linkage sites can be quite small or constricted but still be vital to the long-term health of connected habitats. Linkage values are often addressed in terms of “gene flow” between populations, with movement taking potentially many generations.

Corridors are like linkages but provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate between areas, generally extensive but otherwise partially or wholly separated regions. Adequate cover and tolerably low levels of disturbance are common requirements for corridors. Habitat in corridors may be quite different than that in the connected areas, but if used by the wildlife species of interest, the corridor will still function as desired.

Wildlife nurseries are sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries, spawning areas, and bat colonies. Nurseries can be important to both special-status species as well as commonly occurring species.

The Project site may provide for local movement by common urban-adapted mammal species such as coyote, striped skunk, raccoon, and opossum through the agricultural fields and disturbed areas. However, the Project site is not located within a regionally significant wildlife linkage or corridor. The Project site does not contain any wildlife nursery habitat. 12 Because both the Yuma myotis and California myotis have very similar echolocation call signatures within the 45 to 50 kilohertz (kHz) range and are both known to occur in the general vicinity, both species are presumed present based on calls recorded and from individual echolocation calls that appear diagnostic for each species. 13 The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R.

Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R.21). In addition, Sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. 51 4.9 Critical Habitat
The Project site is not located within an area designated as critical habitat by USFWS.

4.10 Jurisdictional Waters
The Project site contains six ditches (Ditches A-F), Drainage Area A and a constructed agricultural basin (Basin A). Drainage Area A consists of a large inundation area that resulted from above-normal rainfall during the 2023 and 2024 wet seasons, supplemented by agricultural irrigation.

4.10.1 Corps Jurisdiction
No Corps jurisdiction is present within the Project site.

Ditches A, B, D, E, and F and Drainage Area A flow and/or collect water only in direct response to precipitation and were completely dry during the most recent field investigation. Therefore, they are not relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water and are not considered waters of the U.S. as defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a). Additionally, ditches that are excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water, and artificial ponds used as stock watering, irrigation, and/or settling basins, are excluded from being waters of the waters of the U.S. pursuant to 33 CFR Part 328.3(b).

Basin A was constructed in uplands for the sole purpose of capturing and storing agricultural waste runoff from the adjacent active dairy operation. Similarly, Drainage C functions as a closed irrigation system, capturing irrigation runoff from adjacent irrigated row crop fields and transporting this runoff to irrigate row crop fields to the north and northeast. These features are also frequently modified (i.e. filled in, reconfigured) as a part of ongoing agricultural operations and are isolated and do not have a surface connection to jurisdictional resources. Therefore, these facilities are excluded from regulation as waters of the waters of the U.S. pursuant to 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) as Ditch C is a ditch that was excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that does not carry a relatively permanent flow of water, and Basin A and Ditch C are artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased.

4.10.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Regional Board jurisdiction associated with the Project site totals 3.83 acres, none of which consist of wetland waters of the State. A total of 4,283 linear feet of ephemeral stream is present.

Regional Board jurisdiction within the Project site is limited to Ditches A, B, D, E, and F, and Drainage Area A. These features exhibited flow sign indicators as demonstrated by changes in soil characteristics and incised channel banks. These features convey surface flow with the potential to support beneficial uses and therefore meet the definition of waters of the State as defined in Section 13050(e) of the Clean Water Code.

There are also two non-jurisdictional features constructed wholly in uplands that do not convey flows and/or or support any beneficial uses identified in the Regional Board Basin Plan. These 52 features were created specifically to capture agricultural runoff from the surrounding areas and do not represent regulated aquatic resources (See Section D, below). Such features are not considered waters of the State as defined in Section 13050(e) of the Clean Water Code and should not be regulated under Section 13260 of the CWC.

Table 4-4 below summarizes Regional Board jurisdiction associated with the Project site. The boundaries of Regional Board jurisdiction are depicted on the enclosed jurisdictional delineation map [Exhibit 13A].

Table 4-4. Summary of Regional Board Jurisdiction
Feature Name
Regional Board
Non-Wetland
Waters
(acres)
Regional Board
Jurisdictional
Wetlands
(acres)
Total
Regional Board
Jurisdiction
(acres)
Length
(linear feet)
Drainage Area A 3.30 0.00 3.30 -
Ditch A 0.17 0.00 0.17 980
Ditch B 0.03 0.00 0.03 302
Ditch D 0.11 0.00 0.11 2,303
Ditch E 0.04 0.00 0.04 279
Ditch F 0.18 0.00 0.18 419
Total 3.83 0.00 3.83 4,283
Drainage Area A
Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainage Area A totals 3.30 acres, none of which consists of State wetlands. Drainage Area A is located in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Drainage Area A consists of relatively flat undeveloped land that appears to have been disced as recently as December 2020, according to historic aerial imagery. Since then, it does not appear that this area has been planted or otherwise maintained. Instead, Drainage Area A conveys flows in a generally northwestern direction towards Drainage A during periods following heavy precipitation when adjacent agricultural ditches have flooded. Furthermore, corrugated metal culverts that convey flows within Drainage A under a dirt access road appear to have been clogged by debris, which likely contributes to backup of flood waters in Drainage Area A.

Drainage Area A was assessed for wetland indicators. Drainage Area A contained two dominant plant species, salt heliotrope (FACU) and alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa; FACU), which did not meet the parameters for hydrophytic vegetation. A 12-inch deep soil pit was dug within Drainage Area A which contained silty loam and a color of 2.5Y 3/2. No redox features or other 53 indicators of hydric soils were observed, however, soils within this area are strongly alkali.

Primary indicators of hydrology were observed within Drainage Area A (i.e., surface soil cracks). Drainage Area A met the indicators for hydrology but lacked hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. Therefore, Drainage Area A was determined not to be a wetland. See Appendix A for further details regarding the wetland assessment.

Other vegetation associated with Drainage Area A consists of five horn bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia; FACU), London rocket (NI), perennial pepperweed (FAC), Canada horseweed (Erigeron canadensis; FACU), black mustard (NI), fiddleneck (NI), Bermuda grass (FACU), ripgut brome (NI), and red brome (UPL).

Ditch A
Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Ditch A totals 0.17 acre, none of which consists of State wetlands. Ditch A is located in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Ditch A consists of several man-made earthen ditches that together convey agricultural runoff in a northwestward direction for approximately 980 linear feet before continuing offsite and eventually terminating in a basin adjacent to Ramona Expressway, which ultimately conveys water downstream to the San Jacinto River. Ditch A exhibits an OHWM that ranges from one (1) to 15 feet in width.

Vegetation associated with Ditch A consists of non-native upland grasses and forbs including ripgut brome (NI), red brome (UPL), black mustard, fiddleneck, cheeseweed (NI), Russian thistle (FACU), stinknet (FACU).

Ditch B
Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Ditch B totals 0.03 acre, none of which consists of State wetlands. Ditch B is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch B is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the alignment and conveys agricultural runoff in a northward direction for approximately 302 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch B exhibits an OHWM that averages four (4) feet in width. The offsite portion of Ditch B, to the north of the alignment, appears to convey flows to Drainage Area A during periods of heavy precipitation. Ditch B is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, Russian thistle (FACU), Canada horseweed (FACU), and black mustard (NI) were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch D
Approximately 0.11 acre of Regional Board jurisdiction is associated with Ditch D. Ditch D is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch D is a constructed earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the western side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 2,303 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch D exhibits a stream course that averages two feet in width. Ditch D is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. 54 However, Russian thistle (FACU) and non-native grasses such as Bermuda grass (FACU) and red brome (UPL) were observed immediately adjacent to this ditch along the top of the bank.

Ditch E
Approximately 0.04 acre of Regional Board jurisdiction is associated with Ditch E. Ditch E is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch E is a constructed earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the eastern side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 279 linear feet before leaving the Project site.

Ditch E exhibits a stream course that averages six feet in width. Ditch E is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, five horn bassia (FACU), Russian thistle (FACU), stinknet (FACU), and non-native grasses such as red brome were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch F
Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Ditch F totals 0.18 acre, none of which consists of State wetlands. Ditch F is located in the southeastern portion of the Project site. Ditch F is a manmade earthen ditch that conveys flows northward away from the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow for approximately 419 linear feet before continuing offsite and terminating as sheet flow in an adjacent agricultural field. Ditch F exhibits an OHWM ranging from 10 to 30 feet in width. A rip-rap headwall and culvert previously existed separating the offsite riparian area to the south from the remainder of Ditch F to the north. Currently, the rip-rap headwall and culvert appear to have been destroyed and flows now bypass the culvert and continue around the riprap through a highly eroded area to the east of the culvert. According to historic aerial imagery, Ditch F is typically characterized by an ephemeral flow regime. However, at the time of the initial site visit, Ditch F contained surface water in the southernmost reach, immediately adjacent to the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow area. Ditch F was completely dry during the most recent site visit.

Vegetation associated with Ditch F includes a mix of native and non-native species such as Bermuda grass (FACU), stinknet (FACU), annual yellow sweetclover (FACU), Canada horseweed (FACU), alkali mallow (FACU), cocklebur (FAC), and various other non-native grasses.

4.10.3 CDFW Jurisdiction
CDFW jurisdiction associated with the Project site totals 4.03 acres, none of which consists of riparian stream. A total of 4,283 linear feet of stream is present.

CDFW jurisdiction within the Project site is limited to Ditches A, B, D, E, and F and Drainage Area A. These features exhibited defined stream flow indictors (i.e., change in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, and/or incised channel banks). Since these features exhibited a discernable stream course and/or riparian vegetation, they are subject to regulation by the CDFW under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. 55 There are also two features within the Project site that do not meet CDFW’s definition of a river, stream, or lake, Basin A and Ditch C [Exhibit 13B – CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map].

These features were created specifically to capture runoff from the surrounding agricultural areas and were constructed wholly in the uplands, are not associated with any river, stream, or lake, and do not contain habitat or riparian resources upon which fish or wildlife depend for continued viability (See Section D, below). As a result, these features should not be subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Table 4-5 below summarizes CDFW jurisdictional waters associated with the Project site. The boundaries of CDFW jurisdiction are depicted on the enclosed jurisdictional delineation map [Exhibit 13B].

Table 4-5. Summary of CDFW Jurisdiction
Feature Name
CDFW NonRiparian Stream
(acres)
CDFW
Riparian
Stream
(acres)
Total
CDFW
Jurisdiction
(acres)
Length
(linear feet)
Drainage Area A 3.30 0.00 3.30 -
Ditch A 0.26 0.00 0.26 980
Ditch B 0.03 0.00 0.03 302
Ditch D 0.11 0.00 0.11 2,303
Ditch E 0.04 0.00 0.04 279
Ditch F 0.29 0.00 0.29 419
Total 4.03 0.00 4.03 4,283
Drainage Area A
CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage Area A totals 3.30 acres, none of which consists of riparian habitat. Drainage Area A is located in the northwestern portion of the Project site.

Drainage Area A consists of relatively flat undeveloped land that appears to have been disced as recently as December 2020, according to historic aerial imagery. Since then, it does not appear that this area has been planted or otherwise maintained. Instead, Drainage Area A conveys flows in a generally northwestern direction towards Drainage A during periods following heavy precipitation when adjacent agricultural ditches have flooded. Furthermore, corrugated metal 56 culverts that convey flows within Drainage A under a dirt access road appear to have been clogged by debris, which likely contributes to backup of flood waters in Drainage Area A.

Vegetation associated with Drainage Area A consists of five horn bassia, London rocket, perennial pepperweed, Canada horseweed, black mustard, Bermuda grass, ripgut brome, red brome, salt heliotrope, and alkali mallow.

Ditch A
CDFW jurisdiction associated with Ditch A totals 0.26 acre, none of which consists of riparian habitat. Ditch A is located in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Ditch A consists of several man-made earthen ditches that together convey agricultural runoff in a northwestward direction for approximately 980 linear feet before continuing off site and eventually terminating in a basin adjacent to Ramona Expressway, which ultimately conveys water downstream to the San Jacinto River. Ditch A exhibits a stream course that ranges from one (1) to 25 feet in width.

Vegetation associated with Ditch A consists of non-native upland grasses and forbs including ripgut brome, red brome, black mustard, fiddleneck, cheeseweed, Russian thistle, and stinknet.

Ditch B
CDFW jurisdiction associated with Ditch B totals 0.03 acre, none of which consists of riparian habitat. Ditch B is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch B is a constructed earthen ditch that crosses the alignment and conveys agricultural runoff in a northward direction for approximately 302 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch B exhibits a stream course that averages four (4) feet in width. The off-site portion of Ditch B, to the north of the alignment, appears to convey flows to Drainage Area A during periods of heavy precipitation. Ditch B is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, Russian thistle, Canada horseweed, and black mustard were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch D
Approximately 0.11 acre of CDFW jurisdiction is associated with Ditch D, none of which consists of riparian habitat. Ditch D is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch D is a constructed earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the western side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 2,303 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch D exhibits a stream course that averages two feet in width. Ditch D is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, Russian thistle and non-native grasses such as Bermuda grass and red brome were observed immediately adjacent to this ditch along the top of the bank.
57 Ditch E
Approximately 0.04 acre of CDFW jurisdiction is associated with Ditch E, none of which consists of riparian habitat. Ditch E is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch E is a constructed earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the eastern side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 279 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch E exhibits a stream course that averages six feet in width. Ditch E is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, five horn bassia, Russian thistle, stinknet, and nonnative grasses such as red brome were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch F
CDFW jurisdiction associated with Ditch F totals 0.29 acre, none of which consists of riparian habitat. Ditch F is located in the southeastern portion of the Project site. Ditch F is a constructed earthen ditch that conveys flows northward away from the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow for approximately 419 linear feet before continuing offsite and terminating as sheet flow in an adjacent agricultural field. Ditch F exhibits a stream course ranging from 10 to 30 feet in width.

Based on the review of aerial imagery, Ditch F is typically characterized by an ephemeral flow regime. However, at the time of the initial site visit, Ditch F contained surface water in the southernmost reach, immediately adjacent to the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow area. Ditch F was completely dry during the most recent site visit.

Vegetation associated with Ditch F includes a mix of native and non-native species such as Bermuda grass, stinknet, annual yellow sweetclover, Canada horseweed, alkali mallow, cocklebur, and various other non-native grasses.

4.10.4 Non-jurisdictional Agricultural Features
Table 4-6, below, summarizes one agricultural ditch (Ditch C) and an agricultural basin (Basin A), which both function as a closed agricultural system [Exhibit 13A – RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Map and Exhibit 13B – CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map].

Therefore, these facilities are excluded from regulation as waters of the waters of the U.S. pursuant to 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) as Ditch C is a ditch that was excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that does not carry a relatively permanent flow of water, and Basin A and Ditch C are artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased.

Similarly, Basin A and Ditch C are not considered jurisdictional under the Porter-Cologne Water 58 Quality Control Act or FGC Section 1600 et Seq. as closed agricultural systems dependent upon irrigation as an artificial water source and do not represent manipulated natural surface waters.

Table 4-6. Non-jurisdictional Agricultural Features
Feature Name Area
(acres)
Length
(linear feet)
Ditch C 0.02 331
Basin A 0.13 --
Total 0.15 331

4.11 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
The Project site contains 4.03 acres of MSHCP non-riparian riverine areas, associated with six features (Ditches A, B, D, E, and F and Drainage Area A). These features exhibited defined stream flow indictors (i.e., change in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, and/or incised channel banks). Table 4-7 below summarizes the riverine areas associated with the Project site. The boundaries of riverine areas are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas].

Table 4-7. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Areas
Feature Name Riverine
(acres)
Riparian
(acres)
Total
(acres)
Drainage Area A* 3.30 0.00 3.30
Ditch A* 0.26 0.00 0.26
Ditch B 0.03 0.00 0.03
Ditch D* 0.11 0.00 0.11
Ditch E 0.04 0.00 0.04
Ditch F 0.29 0.00 0.29
Total 4.03 0.00 4.03
*Indicates MSHCP Riverine Areas that support smooth tarplant.

Drainage Area A
Approximately 3.30 acres of unvegetated riverine areas area associated with Drainage Area A.

Drainage Area A is in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Drainage Area A consists of relatively flat undeveloped land that appears to have been disced as recently as December 2020, according to historic aerial imagery. Since then, it does not appear that this area has been planted or otherwise maintained. Instead, Drainage Area A conveys flows in a generally northwestern direction towards Drainage A during periods following heavy precipitation when adjacent 59 agricultural ditches have flooded. Furthermore, corrugated metal culverts that convey flows within Drainage A under a dirt access road appear to have been clogged by debris, which likely contributes to backup of flood waters in Drainage Area A.

Ditch A
Approximately 0.26 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch A. Ditch A is in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Ditch A consists of several man-made earthen ditches that together convey agricultural runoff in a northwestward direction for approximately 980 linear feet before continuing offsite and eventually terminating in a basin adjacent to Ramona Expressway. Ditch A exhibits a stream course that ranges from 1 to 25 feet in width.

Vegetation associated with Ditch A consists of non-native upland grasses and forbs including ripgut brome, red brome, black mustard, fiddleneck, cheeseweed, Russian thistle, stinknet.

Ditch B
Approximately 0.03 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch B. Ditch B is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch B is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the alignment and conveys agricultural runoff in a northward direction for approximately 302 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch B exhibits a stream course that averages four feet in width. The offsite portion of Ditch B, to the north of the alignment, appears to convey flows to Drainage Area A during periods of heavy precipitation. Ditch B is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, Russian thistle, Canada horseweed, and black mustard were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch D
Approximately 0.11 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch D. Ditch D is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch D is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the western side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 2,337 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch D exhibits a stream course that averages two feet in width. Ditch D is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated.

However, Russian thistle and non-native grasses such as Bermuda grass and red brome were observed immediately adjacent to this ditch along the top of the bank.

Ditch E
Approximately 0.04 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch E. Ditch E is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch E is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the 60 alignment along the eastern side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 279 linear feet before leaving the Project site.

Ditch E exhibits a stream course that averages six feet in width. Ditch E is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, five horn bassia, Russian thistle, stinknet, and non-native grasses such as red brome were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch F
Approximately 0.29 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch F. Ditch F is in the southeastern portion of the Project site. Ditch F is a man-made earthen ditch that conveys flows northward away from the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow for approximately 419 linear feet before continuing offsite and terminating as sheet flow in an adjacent agricultural field.

Ditch F exhibits a stream course that averages approximately 10 feet in width. A rip-rap headwall and culvert previously existed separating the offsite riparian area to the south from the remainder of Ditch F to the north. Currently, the rip-rap headwall and culvert appear to have been destroyed and flows now bypass the culvert and continue around the riprap through a highly eroded area to the east of the culvert. According to historic aerial imagery, Ditch F is typically characterized by an ephemeral flow regime. However, at the time of the initial site visit, Ditch F contained surface water in the southernmost reach, immediately adjacent to the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow area. Ditch F was completely dry during the most recent site visit.

Approximately 1,670 smooth tarplant individuals were documented as occurring within portions of the Project site that support MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas]. Smooth tarplant is a species identified by MSHCP Section 6.1.2 as being associated with MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources. Therefore, these approximately 1,670 smooth tarplant individuals are considered as an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resource in the context of the Project, occupying a total of approximately 0.50 acre occurring throughout Ditches A and D and Drainage Area A [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas; Table 4-7.

Summary of MSHCP Riverine Areas]. Additional smooth tarplant individuals were documented in upland areas and not associated with any of the features outlined on Table 4-6 and were therefore not considered as an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resource, and are discussed in Section

5.1 of this document.

Table 4-7 summarizes one additional agricultural ditch (Ditch C) and an agricultural basin (Basin A) that are not riparian/riverine areas [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas]. These features are frequently modified (i.e. filled in, recreated) as a part of ongoing agricultural operations and are isolated and do not drain to a downstream MSHCP Conservation Area (San Jacinto River). 61 Therefore, these facilities are not considered as MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, as they are artificially created and do not provide biological functions supporting Section 6.1.2 species.

Table 4-7. Summary of Non-Riparian/Riverine Features
Feature Acreage
Basin A 0.13
Ditch C 0.02
Total 0.15
Vernal Pools
The Project site does not contain MSHCP vernal pools. Five areas were noted as inundated within the Project site, corresponding to the five features (4, 5, 46, E-1 and E2) that are described below as having been evaluated through focused surveys for listed fairy shrimp. Features 4, 5, 46 and E-2 are all unvegetated vehicle ruts in dirt roads. Feature E-1 consists of a large, inundated area that is described above as Drainage Area A. Drainage Area A was determined not to exhibit all three parameters of a wetland, specifically the inundated area did not exhibit a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and therefore the feature is not considered as a vernal pool.

4.12 Local Policies or Ordinances
There are no local policies or ordinances that apply to the Project site.

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that would occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts (or effects) can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or animals, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability.

Indirect impacts pertain to those impacts that result in a change to the physical environment, but which is not immediately related to a project. Indirect (or secondary) impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects, to biological resources located downstream from projects, and other offsite areas where the effects of the project may be experienced by plants and wildlife. Examples of indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light; predation by domestic pets; competition with exotic plants and animals; introduction of toxics, including pesticides; and other human disturbances such as 62 hiking, off-road vehicle use, unauthorized dumping, etc. Indirect impacts are often attributed to the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build-out, such as increased noise, the use of artificial light sources, and invasive ornamental plantings that may encroach into native areas. Indirect effects may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by non-native invasive species, as well as changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.

Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. A cumulative impact can occur from multiple individual effects from the same project, or from several projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment resulting from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

5.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

5.1.1 Thresholds of Significance
Environmental impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State of California:

Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities...

Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in the CEQA process. According to CEQA, Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation) thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA provides guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect where:

The project has 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 self-sustaining levels, threaten to 63 eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species...

Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the following criteria discussed below would result from implementation of the proposed project.

5.1.2 Criteria for Determining Significance Pursuant to CEQA Appendix G of the 2018 State CEQA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to:
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 Game 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 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.

5.2 Special-Status Species
Appendix G(a) of the CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

5.2.1 Special-Status Plants
The proposed Project will impact one special-status plant species: smooth tarplant. As described above, approximately 2,500 smooth tarplant individuals were detected within the Project site 64 during focused plant surveys. The plants are generally associated with disturbed areas adjacent to agricultural fields and/or roadways (Exhibit 8); however, approximately 1,670 of the plants detected are associated with disturbed ditches that are considered MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, and therefore the plants are considered as riparian/riverine resources.

The MSHCP provides coverage for the impacts to smooth tarplant, provided that the Project is consistent with requirements pertaining to the species. The Project site is not located within a survey area for smooth tarplant and therefore MSHCP avoidance/conservation requirements pursuant to Section 6.3.2 do not apply to the Project. However, as noted above, just over half of the mapped smooth tarplant individuals are considered as MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and therefore impacts to these specific areas of must be addressed pursuant to the Section 6.1.2 riparian/riverine policies. As described in the Project’s DBESP, impacts to smooth tarplant associated with the riparian/riverine areas will be mitigated by incorporating smooth tarplant seed into the restoration plant palette of the HMMP that will address the overall mitigation for impacts to riparian/riverine areas.

5.2.2 Special-Status Animals
Based on the results of the biological studies performed for the Project site, the proposed Project will not directly impact special-status animals. Although the Project site does not contain nesting habitat for special-status bird species, the site could potentially be used for foraging by special-status birds as described below, including Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, purple martin, white-tailed kite and yellow-headed blackbird. In addition, the Project could result in indirect impacts to special-status animals that utilize the riparian habitat located immediately adjacent to the Project site at the southern end, including the least Bell’s vireo, yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler.

Special-status species evaluated in this section for impacts are organized below as either “listed” or “non-listed” species. “Listed” species refers to those designated as FESA and/or CESA Endangered or Threatened species, including Candidate species (CESA).

Impacts to Listed Species
Crotch’s Bumble Bee – As noted above in Section 4.5.2, CBB was not detected at the Project site in 2025 during focused surveys. This establishes a CEQA biological baseline for CBB absence, supporting a determination that the Project, following that baseline, would not impact CBB. Furthermore, without CBB detected, there is no evidence that the Project would “take” CBB. However, because portions of the Project site contain floral resources to attract CBB for foraging and there is limited potential for nesting and/or overwintering uses, and the results of absence surveys are only valid for one season, it is possible for CBB to be present at the site when grading commences for the Project.

As the Project site has been heavily modified through agricultural practices and other land uses, even if CBB were to be detected in the future, the loss of habitat should not be construed as an adverse impact to CBB as a species, and therefore such habitat loss would not be potentially significant. Agriculture is recognized as one factor that has led to the decline of CBB as a species 65 and although agricultural sites (such as the Project site) can contain floral resources with the potential to attract CBB for foraging, the soil disturbance and management make it unlikely for nesting and/or overwintering uses, although those uses are theoretically possible. Furthermore, the suitable floral resources at the Project site are limited to a few annual/herbaceous species, including alfalfa (a crop plant), and due to ongoing plowing/planting, mowing/disking and other disturbances, the presence of suitable plant resources is limited and inconsistent.

If CBB were to be detected at the site in the same season that the site (or portions of the site) is to be disturbed for construction, assuming that CBB is a CESA-listed species at the time of disturbance, then the Project activities might cause “take” of CBB individuals. Any “take” of CBB would require authorization from CDFW through their issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). If CBB were to be detected, but the species is no longer CESA-listed, then an ITP would not apply. However, CBB also has a State Ranking of S2 (“imperiled”), which conveys special status to CBB under CEQA independent of its CESA status. But the loss of CBB habitat relative to the Project would not be substantial and adverse to the species. If CBB were to be confirmed absent from the site during the season that impacts would be completed, affirming the CEQA baseline, then no further actions would be required relative to those applicable portions of the Project site.

Since future potential action for the site relative to CBB would be limited to obtaining an ITP from CDFW predicated on the presence of CBB and its status of a CESA-listed species, then Section 6.0 of this report includes a measure to conduct updated focused CBB surveys at the site prior to disturbance of the site if the CBB remains CESA-listed at that time, and, if detected, to coordinate with CDFW to determine of an ITP would be needed. Any mitigation for loss of occupied habitat would be based on CESA authorization for “take” and would be determined during the ITP process.

Least Bell’s Vireo – The Project does not contain riparian habitat to support the least Bell’s vireo (LBV). As previously described, the southern (upstream) end of the proposed Project is adjacent to habitat occupied by LBV where overflows from the San Jacinto Reservoir would enter the proposed channel facility. Construction of the facility would not remove any riparian habitat; however, because of the adjacency there is a potential for temporary noise impacts during construction of the facility adjacent to the riparian habitat if work were to occur while LBV are present. Objective 3 of the MSHCP Species Conservation Objectives for LBV states that avoidance of occupied LBV habitat must include a 100-meter (approximately 300 feet) buffer, which is meant to address the potential for edge effects from development. The proposed Project limits are within 100 feet of the nearest occupied habitat for LBV, and although no indirect impacts would be anticipated after the completion of construction activities, temporary indirect effects are possible if construction activities occur within 300 feet. Because LBV is a federal listed species, noise from construction would have the potential to “harass” LBV individuals, which can constitute “take” under FESA. As such, temporary measures are recommended (described below in Section 6.0) to prevent the harassment of LBV individuals from construction noise.

Swainson's hawk – The Swainson’s hawk was not detected during the biological surveys, and the Project site does not support suitable nesting habitat for the Swainson’s hawk; however, the 66 Project will impact potential foraging habitat for the species. As the Swainson’s hawk is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

Tricolored blackbird –The tricolored blackbird was not detected during the biological surveys but is historically known to occur in the area. Tricolored blackbird colonies are not expected to nest at the site due to the lack of suitable habitat. However, the Project would impact potential foraging habitat for the species. As the tricolored blackbird is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

Impacts to Non-Listed Species
In addition to the listed species discussed above, the proposed Project would impact (directly or indirectly) habitat for non-listed, special-status species that have either been observed within the Project footprint, or that have the potential to occur. The analysis presented in this section is split into those listed species covered by the MSHCP and those that are not covered by the MSHCP.

MSHCP Covered Species
Burrowing owl - The Project site is in the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. GLA biologists conducted focused burrowing owl surveys in 2022 and 2024, and no burrowing owls were detected within the Project footprint. Based on the survey results, the Project will not impact burrowing owl habitat with long-term conservation value, and therefore MSHCP avoidance/mitigation requirements due not apply to the Project. However, because the Project site does contain suitable habitat, including burrows, a pre-construction burrowing owl survey is required by Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Refer to Section 6.0 for details.

The burrowing owl was recently designated by CDFW as a Candidate for listing as Endangered under CESA. However, because the burrowing owl is already a MSHCP covered species, the listing of the burrowing owl does not affect how projects covered by the MSHCP address impacts to burrowing owls. Projects are still required to comply with MSHCP objectives for burrowing owls, and if projects are consistent with those objectives, any “take” of burrowing owls pursuant to CESA would be covered.

Golden eagle – The golden eagle was not detected during the biological surveys. However, historical records show that the golden eagle occurs in the region. The Project site does not support suitable nesting habitat for the golden eagle; however, the Project will impact potential foraging habitat for the species. As the golden eagle is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

Loggerhead shrike – The majority of the Project site consists of active agricultural fields and is therefore disturbed on a regular basis. The loggerhead shrike was not detected during the biological studies; however, this species is known to occur in the region. The proposed Project would impact potential foraging habitat for the shrike; however, due to the disturbed nature of the Project site from agricultural practices, there are limited nesting opportunities for the species.

As the loggerhead shrike is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.
67 Northern harrier – One northern harrier was detected flying offsite within agricultural and the adjacent riparian areas during the biological surveys. The Project site does not support nesting habitat for northern harriers due to the historical and current land practices at the site; however, the Project will impact potential foraging habitat. As the northern harrier is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

Purple martin – The purple martin was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The purple martin is not expected to nest on site due to the absence of trees with cavities. However, the Project will impact foraging habitat for the species. As the purple martin is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

White-tailed kite –The white-tailed kite was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The white-tailed kite is not expected to nest on site due to the absence of suitable trees; however, the Project will impact potential foraging habitat. As the white-tailed kite is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

Yellow-breasted chat - The Project site does not contain riparian habitat to support the yellowbreasted chat. However, as discussed above, the Project is adjacent to riparian habitat where the yellow-breasted chat was observed. Although the Project will not remove habitat supporting the chat, there is a potential for temporary noise impacts during Project construction adjacent to the riparian habitat. Measures included below in Section 6.0 to address the least Bells’ vireo during construction will also benefit the yellow-breasted chat to avoid or minimize indirect effects.

Yellow-headed blackbird – The yellow-headed blackbird was not detected during the biological studies but is historically known to occur in the area. The yellow-headed blackbird is not expected to nest on site due to most of the site being used for active agriculture; however, the Project will impact potential foraging habitat for this species. As the yellow-headed blackbird is a MSHCP covered species, no avoidance/mitigation requirements apply to the Project.

Yellow warbler – The Project site does not contain riparian habitat to support the yellow warbler. However, as discussed above, the Project is adjacent to riparian habitat where the yellow warbler was observed. Although the Project will not remove habitat supporting the warbler, there is a potential for temporary noise impacts during Project construction adjacent to the riparian habitat. Measures included below in Section 6.0 to address the least Bells’ vireo during construction will also benefit the yellow warbler to avoid or minimize indirect effects.

68 Species That Are Not Covered by the MSHCP
Sensitive Bats – The Project site does not contain habitat to support roosting bats (including maternity roosting), including for sensitive bat species such as the western mastiff and the western yellow bat, which were both detected acoustically offsite in the adjacent riparian habitat located south of the Project footprint. Although the mastiff bat and yellow bat were not confirmed roosting offsite, potential roosting habitat including palm trees are located more than 200 feet from the Project’s limits of disturbance. As such, the Project is not expected to indirectly affect roosting bats. The Project does have the potential to impact bat foraging habitat; however, the loss of foraging habitat would not be considered as a substantial adverse effect because of the presence of foraging habitat on surrounding lands.

5.3 Impacts to Raptor Use
Raptors include owls, hawks, eagles, and falcons. Common species of raptors (e.g. red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, great horned owl) have potential to forage on the Project site within the agricultural fields. The proposed Project would impact foraging habitat for raptors.

During the field studies, no raptors were observed nesting within the Project site as the majority vast majority of the Project site lacks trees. Two raptor species, the red-tailed hawk and turkey vulture, were detected flying over the site. Other common raptor species including the Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, great horned owl, and barn owl were detected offsite, but adjacent to the Project site and would be expected to also forage opportunistically onsite. The Project site also including the agricultural fields would provide potential foraging and/or wintering habitat for other common and sensitive species including the American kestrel, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, merlin, and golden eagle. However, except for burrowing owls, the MSHCP does not have requirement pertaining to these various raptor species, and the loss of foraging habitat would be covered by the MSHCP.

5.4 Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
The proposed Project will not impact sensitive vegetation communities. The proposed Project would permanently impact approximately 87.10 acres of lands through grading, including areas of remedial grading that will not be restored to pre-project conditions. Permanent impacts include approximately 69.34 acres of agricultural fields, 8.49 acres of annual brome grasslands,

6.17 acres of disturbed and developed areas, and 3.10 acres of perennial pepper weed-prickly lettuce patches.

The proposed Project would also temporarily impact approximately 33.22 acres of lands through project implementation. The temporary impacts consist of narrow construction easements along either side of the proposed facilities where disturbance will be required to construct the facilities, 69 but there will not be any permanent structures in these areas. The temporary impact areas will be restored to pre-construction contours and can be hydroseeded with a native plant mix. The temporary impacts include approximately 25.07 acres of agricultural fields, 3.43 acres of annual brome grasslands, 4.26 acres of disturbed and developed areas, 0.03 acre of eucalyptus groves, and 0.44 acre of perennial pepper weed-prickly lettuce patches. Impacts to vegetation communities are summarized in Table 5-1 below.

Table 5-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Impacts
Vegetation/Land Use
Type
Direct Impacts Total Project
(Acres) Permanent
(acres)
Temporary
(acres)
Agriculture Fields 69.34 25.07 94.41
Annual Brome
Grasslands 8.49 3.43 11.92
Disturbed and Developed
Areas 6.17 4.26 10.43
Eucalyptus Groves 0 0.03 0.03
Perennial Pepper WeedPrickly Lettuce Patches 3.10 0.44 3.54 Total 87.10 33.22 120.33

5.5 Wetlands
Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.” The Project site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands.

5.6 Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “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.” The Project site is not located within a regionally significant wildlife linkage or corridor, including any Core Areas or MSHCP existing or proposed Linkages. Additionally, the development of the Project would not preclude the movement of wildlife through the Project site.

As such, the Project would not “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors”. The Project site does not contain any wildlife nursery sites.

The Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15). Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited by the 70 MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. The native birds with potential to nest on the Project site would be those that are extremely common to the region and highly adapted to human landscapes (e.g., house finch, killdeer). The number of individuals potentially affected by the Project would not significantly affect regional, let alone local populations of such species. A measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

5.7 Local Policies or Ordinances
Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.” The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

5.8 Habitat Conservation Plans
Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.” As discussed throughout this report, the Project is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Section 7.0 of this report analyzes compliance of the Project with the Reserve Assembly and species/habitat requirements of the MSHCP. Through compliance with the applicable requirements, the Project will not conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP.

5.9 Jurisdictional Waters
The Project will impact several drainage features during construction, at a maximum of 3.88 acres of direct impact. The purpose of the impacts is to re-route the flows into the proposed channel, although the general direction of flows from the southeast (starting at the San Jacinto Reservoir) to the northwest (across Ramona Expressway) will be maintained. The proposed Line E channel will be subject to flood control maintenance (vegetation management and structural repairs, as needed); however, the channel will have approximately 10.02 acres with a soft (unpaved) bottom and will function in the same or similar manner as the existing, human-altered drainage features. Nonetheless, the impacts to the existing drainage features will be considered permanent since the segments of the exact features will not be restored in the same configuration.

5.9.1 Corps Jurisdiction
No Corps jurisdiction is present within the Project site.

5.9.2 Regional Board Jurisdiction
The Project will impact 3.83 acres of Waters of the State Regional Board jurisdiction, none of which consists of wetlands. A total of 4,283 linear feet of ephemeral stream is present. Regional Board jurisdiction within the Project site is limited to Drainages A, B, C, and Drainage Area A.

Because the waters are not Corps jurisdiction, the Project must process a dredge and fill permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) for impacts to Waters of the State. 71 5.9.3 CDFW Jurisdiction
The Project will impact 4.03 acres of CDFW jurisdiction, none of which supports riparian vegetation. A total of 4,283 linear feet of stream is present. CDFW jurisdiction within the Project site is associated with Ditches A, BD, E and F, and Drainage Area A. Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction will require a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.

5.10 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
The Project will impact all 4.03 acres of riverine features associated with the Project site. In each instance, the riverine areas will be replaced by the Line E drainage facilities, with the proposed channel re-routing the hydrology that will ultimately end up at the same location at the northwestern end of the Project alignment. As described above in Section 2.2, the proposed Line E channel would begin downstream of (north of) the San Jacinto Reservoir Spillway where it would extend north as an earthen trapezoidal channel parallel to, and east of, Sanderson Avenue, turning west underneath Sanderson Avenue, entering the SJCCSP property. The proposed channel would then turn north and then west just before Record Road, extending west to the proposed Confluence Basin. The outflows from the proposed Confluence Basin would be conveyed north in a concrete-lined channel across Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 and outflow to an existing low-flow drainage channel, representing the terminus of the proposed Line E facilities.

Impacts to MSHCP riverine areas require the approval of a DBESP by the MSHCP Wildlife Agencies. A separate DBESP Analysis will be provided to the Wildlife Agencies for compliance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Table 5-2 summarizes Project impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, which include 3.49 acres of permanent impacts associated with the permanent Line E facility and 0.54 acres of temporary impacts associated with construction access. For the purpose of this analysis, both permanent and temporary impacts are proposed, as described in Section 5.10, to be mitigated entirely as permanent impacts at a 2:1 ratio.

Table 5-2. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Area Impacts
Feature Name Riverine
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Riparian
Temporary
Impacts
(acres)
Drainage Area A 2.92 0.38
Ditch A 0.23 0.03
Ditch B 0.02 0.01
Ditch D 0.01 0.10
Ditch E 0.03 0.01
Ditch F 0.28 0.01
Total 3.49 0.54
72 5.11 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources
In the context of biological resources, indirect effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to adjacent native open space. The MSHCP requires that projects occurring adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area incorporate measures pursuant to the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Volume I, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP). These guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating projects (particularly development) in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize potential edge effects, the guidelines are to be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project will not be located adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area; however, the beginning (upstream) portion of the Line E will be located adjacent to existing riparian habitat that supports sensitive species and that will be enhanced/restored as mitigation for the proposed Project. The Project will implement measures pertaining to the adjacent riparian habitat consistent with the MSHCP guidelines to address the following, as applicable.

5.11.1 Drainage
Proposed projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff 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.

Although the proposed riparian mitigation will not be part of the MSHCP Conservation Area, best management practices (BMPs) will still apply. As the waters exiting the San Jacinto Reservoir and the existing riparian area flow to the northwest, which will be collected into the Line E channel, the drainage will continue to the northwest, i.e., away from the riparian habitat.

Therefore, the Line E Project will not drain into the riparian habitat area and will not introduce pollutants to the riparian area. Nonetheless, the Project’s contractor will develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address runoff and water quality during construction.

5.11.2 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. As noted above, since drainage 73 occurs from the southeast to the northwest, i.e., away from the riparian habitat area, the Project is not expected to introduce toxics to the adjacent riparian habitat area. Nonetheless, the proposed Project will implement a SWPPP that will address runoff during construction.

5.11.3 Lighting
Night lighting shall be directed away from the existing riparian habitat proposed for enhancement/restoration to protect animal species from direct night lighting. If night lighting is required during construction, shielding shall be incorporated to ensure ambient lighting in the riparian habitat area is not increased. The Project will not require night lighting after construction.

5.11.4 Noise
As described above, the southern (upstream) end of the proposed Project is adjacent to riparian habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo (and other non-listed, but sensitive riparian birds). Because of the adjacency of the proposed Project, there is a potential for temporary noise impacts during construction of the portion of the facility adjacent to the existing riparian habitat, if work were to occur while the least Bell’s vireo is present. The following measure is proposed to avoid or minimize temporary edge effects to the least Bell’s vireo. • To avoid indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo (LBV), project construction and site preparation activities including but not limited to vegetation clearing and grubbing within 300 feet of LBV habitat will be conducted outside of the LBV breeding season (March 15 to September 30), if feasible. This will require that a qualified biologist oversee the establishment of a highly visible and maintained 300-foot buffer. Maintenance of the buffer will be performed weekly, but more often if needed.

If construction activities must occur during the breeding season and have not yet already begun within the 300-foot buffer by March 15 of any given year, pre-construction surveys will commence after March 15 and will occur once a week for three consecutive weeks to confirm the presence of LBV, with the last visit no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The preconstruction survey visits will be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with songs, whisper songs, calls, scolds, and plumage characteristics of adult and juvenile vireos. Surveys will be conducted between dawn and 11:00 am. Surveys will not be conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather that individually or collectively may reduce the likelihood of detection. Prior to performing the preconstruction surveys, a map will be created illustrating the LBV habitat and all detections of LBV will be mapped and tracked.

If LBV are not detected during the initial three preconstruction surveys, then weekly clearance surveys will continue following the same methodology stated above for the preconstruction surveys. Again, all detections of LBV are to be mapped with behavior tracked across detections/sightings. The qualified biologist must have experience with nesting ecology and behavior of LBV to determine pre-nesting/nesting behavior. The 74 MSHCP does not provide “take” of LBV which includes negatively modifying foraging and nesting behavior. If at any time it is determined by the qualified biologist that construction activities are negatively affecting LBV, including modification of behavior, work will be halted and CDFW and USFWS will be contacted on next steps. However, if LBV are not detected after a minimum of eight survey visits (three preconstruction surveys and five additional clearance surveys), then the weekly visits will cease and work within the 300-foot buffer will be allowed to continue without additional restrictions.

If construction activities within the 300-foot buffer have already begun before March 15, then the qualified biologist will simply initiate the weekly clearance surveys after March 15 while the construction activities continue, and if LBV are detected, then the additional measures will be implemented. However, if LBV are not detected after a minimum of nine clearance surveys, then as noted above, the weekly visits will cease and work within the 300-foot buffer will be allowed to continue without additional restrictions.

Daily noise monitoring will be required during the breeding season if LBV are detected at any point during preconstruction surveys or weekly clearance surveys. A qualified biological monitor must be present to measure noise levels at the edge of all suitable habitat and work shall cease if, at any time, noise levels exceed 60 dB due to construction activities, or the existing ambient level if that is over 60 dB. For areas where preconstruction ambient noise levels exceed 60 dB, pre-construction, ambient noise measurements can be taken by a qualified entity during the full daylight period (sunrise to sunset), and subsequently, the median average ambient noise level can be used as the baseline in lieu of 60 dB. For projects that need to perform nighttime construction activities the same would be done as above but with measurements taken during the full nighttime period (sunset to sunrise). Noise monitoring will continue throughout the breeding season or until construction activities have halted within 300 feet of occupied LBV habitat. CDFW and USFWS can be contacted on next steps if the project is not able to reduce the noise.

Although not proposed here, it may be prudent to construct a temporary noise wall between the construction area and the habitat to maximize avoidance of indirect effects to LBV and reduce potential for project halts. Preconstruction ambient noise levels will be taken into consideration by CDFW and USFWS when deciding whether noise attenuation measures are prudent. The preconstruction and clearance surveys will still be required to ensure full avoidance has been met by the project during the LBV breeding season unless USFWS and CDFW have confirmed in writing that such surveys are not necessary.

5.11.5 Invasive Species
Projects adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in landscaping, including invasive, non-native plant species listed in Volume I, Table 6-2 of the MSHCP. The Project facilities will not include any landscaping that will contain invasive species identified in MSHCP Table 6-2.
75 5.11.6 Barriers
Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs 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. Although the proposed riparian restoration area will not be part of the MSHCP Conservation, since the restoration is proposed to satisfy mitigation requirements for impacts to MSHCP riverine areas, and will be preserved in perpetuity, the boundary between the Line E facility and the riparian habitat area will be managed to minimize unauthorized access. The HMMP to be provided to the Wildlife Agencies will describe fencing (or other barriers), signage, and/or other mechanisms to manage access.

5.11.7 Grading/Land Development
The MSHCP states that manufactured slopes associated with development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Although not part of the MSHCP Conservation Area, the Line E facilities will not encroach into the riparian habitat that will be proposed for protection via the conservation easement.

5.12 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project.

Anticipated cumulative impacts are addressed by the MSHCP, which, as currently adopted, addresses 146 “Covered Species” that represent a broad range of habitats and geographical areas within Western Riverside County, including threatened and endangered species and regionally or locally sensitive species that have specific habitat requirements and conservation and management needs. The MSHCP addresses biological impacts for take of Covered Species within the MSHCP area. Impacts to Covered Species and establishment and implementation of a regional conservation strategy and other measures included in the MSHCP are intended to address the federal, state, and local mitigation requirements for these species and their habitats.

Specifically, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP states that:

The MSHCP was specifically designed to cover a large geographical area so that it would protect numerous endangered species and habitats throughout the region. It is the projected cumulative effect of future development that has required the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP to protect multiple habitats and multiple endangered species.

As the construction of buildings, infrastructure, and all alterations of the land within areas that are outside of the Criteria Area are permitted under the MSHCP (see MSHCP Section 2.3.3), 76 cumulative impacts to biological resources (with the exception of MSHCP non-covered species) would be less than significant provided that the terms of the MSHCP are fully implemented (MSHCP Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.1.6). The Project would be required to pay the MSHCP mitigation fees. The MSHCP database was consulted for the proposed Project and the recommended focused surveys (rare plants, burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo, listed fairy shrimp, sensitive bats, and southwestern willow flycatcher) were conducted. The proposed Project would comply with the requirements of the MSHCP and thus would not conflict with its adopted policies.

6.0 RECOMMENDED AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION

MEASURES
As noted above, the SJV MDP was approved in 2013 by the City of San Jacinto and in 2015 by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. In 2008, GLA performed a general biological resource analysis for the SJV MDP, which included some focused surveys for portions of the MDP alignments. GLA recommended measures to be applied to future studies of specific facilities, such as Line E. The following recommended measures have been developed based on the current studies for Line E, which themselves were recommended as part of the original MDP analysis. The following measures are intended to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources as a result of the development of the Line E Project, as well as a mitigation measures to offset impacts to jurisdictional waters/MSHCP riverine areas.

6.1 Burrowing Owl
The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owls; however, burrowing owls were not detected onsite during focused surveys. MSHCP Objective 6 for burrowing owls requires preconstruction surveys prior to site grading. As such, the following measure is recommended to avoid direct impacts to burrowing owls and to ensure consistency with the MSHCP. • A 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to future grounddisturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, etc.) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies and will need to coordinate in the future with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that burrowing owl have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owls are found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.
77 6.2 Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Although CBB was not detected during focused surveys conducted in 2025, because the Project site has the potential to support CBB and absence results for CBB are only valid for one year, if CBB is still CESA-listed when Project-related disturbance is to begin at the site, then Project could potentially cause “take” of CBB individuals. The following measure includes steps to update focused CBB surveys, and if detected, to coordinate with CDFW to determine if an ITP might be required:
• If Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) is a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate or listed species when the Project is anticipated to start ground-disturbing activities, then a qualified CBB biologist (i.e., at least 1-2 years of experience performing CBB surveys, or, has a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) shall perform updated focused surveys for CBB. The surveys will follow the “Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species” (CDFW 2023) or subsequent document that supersedes CDFW 2023. The focused surveys will be conducted during the CBB Colony Active Period (generally April to August) but focusing on the timeframe when floral resources at the Project site area blooming when the surveys are performed. If CBB is detected at the site, then the Project proponent will coordinate with CDFW to determine whether an ITP is recommended if determined that “take” of CBB is possible. If CBB is not detected, then ground-disturbing activities can proceed without additional coordination with CBB and provided compliance with any other applicable pre-construction measures. If the grounddisturbing activities are not completed before January 31 of the following year that updated CBB surveys are conducted, then the surveys will be repeated.

6.3 Least Bell’s Vireo
The following measure is designed to avoid or minimize indirect effects to least Bell’s vireo during construction activities adjacent to the occupied LBV habitat:
• To avoid indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo (LBV), Project construction and site preparation activities including but not limited to vegetation clearing and grubbing within 300 feet of LBV habitat will be conducted outside of the LBV breeding season (March 15 to September 30), if feasible. This will require that a qualified biologist oversee the establishment of a highly visible and maintained 300-foot buffer. Maintenance of the buffer will be performed weekly, but more often if needed.

If construction activities must occur during the breeding season and have not yet already begun within the 300-foot buffer by March 15 of any given year, pre-construction surveys will commence after March 15 and will occur once a week for three consecutive weeks to confirm the presence of LBV, with the last visit no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The preconstruction survey visits will be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with songs, whisper songs, calls, scolds, and plumage characteristics of adult and juvenile vireos. Surveys will be conducted between dawn and 11:00 am. Surveys will not be conducted during periods of excessive or 78 abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather that individually or collectively may reduce the likelihood of detection. Prior to performing the preconstruction surveys, a map will be created illustrating the LBV habitat and all detections of LBV will be mapped and tracked.

If LBV are not detected during the initial three preconstruction surveys, then weekly clearance surveys will continue following the same methodology stated above for the preconstruction surveys. Again, all detections of LBV are to be mapped with behavior tracked across detections/sightings. The qualified biologist must have experience with nesting ecology and behavior of LBV to determine pre-nesting/nesting behavior. The MSHCP does not provide “take” of LBV which includes negatively modifying foraging and nesting behavior. If at any time it is determined by the qualified biologist that construction activities are negatively affecting LBV, including modification of behavior, work will be halted and CDFW and USFWS will be contacted on next steps. However, if LBV are not detected after a minimum of eight survey visits (three preconstruction surveys and five additional clearance surveys), then the weekly visits will cease and work within the 300-foot buffer will be allowed to continue without additional restrictions.

Preconstruction ambient noise levels will be taken into consideration by CDFW and USFWS when deciding whether noise attenuation measures are prudent. The preconstruction and clearance surveys will still be required to ensure full avoidance has been met by the project during the LBV breeding season unless USFWS and CDFW have confirmed in writing that such surveys are not necessary. If daily noise levels are expected to exceed 60 dB due to construction activities, a temporary noise wall will be 79 constructed between the construction area and the habitat to maximize avoidance of indirect effects to LBV.

6.4 Nesting Birds
The Project site contains vegetation with the potential to support native nesting birds. As discussed above, the California Fish and Game Code prohibits mortality of native birds, including eggs. The following measure is recommended to avoid mortality to nesting birds:
• As feasible, vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

6.5 Jurisdictional Waters
As noted above, the Project will impact 3.83 acres of non-wetland waters regulated by the Regional Board and 4.03 acres of non-riparian streambed regulated by CDFW. • Prior to impacting jurisdictional waters, the Project will obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and will process a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) through the Regional Board.
• The proposed Line E channel will include at least 10.02 acres of soft-bottom channel that will function in the same or similar manner as the existing, human-altered drainage features. Although the Line E channel will be subject to flood control maintenance (vegetation management, clean out of debris, slope and bottom repairs, and access road maintenance and repair), the maintained channel will still partially mitigate impacts to the existing waters.
• The Project will additionally mitigate impacts to jurisdictional waters by restoring at a minimum 2:1 ratio over the CDFW impacts (at least 8.06 acres) lands within the existing San Jacinto River 100-year floodplain, immediately north of the Line E alignment and west of Sanderson Avenue within the City of San Jacinto. The proposed mitigation site contains alkaline soils that support a remnant alkali flora and/or that has the potential to support additional plants (including sensitive species) associated with alkali playa, meadow grassland, or other similar habitat types. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) will be prepared that will detail the methods to implement the proposed restoration. The HMMP will identify the proposed plant palettes, maintenance, and monitoring efforts, and will propose success criteria.

6.6 MSHCP Riverine Areas
As noted above, the Project will impact 4.03 acres of MSHCP riverine areas, which are identical to the areas of CDFW jurisdiction.
80 • Prior to impacting MSHCP riverine areas, the Project will submit a DBESP Analysis to Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFW) for review and approval. • Mitigation for impacts to MSHCP riverine areas will be approved through the DBESP process.

7.0 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to provide an analysis of the proposed Project with respect to compliance with biological aspects of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Specifically, this analysis evaluates the proposed Project with respect to the Project’s consistency with MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements, Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and Section

6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures).

7.1 Project Relationship to Reserve Assembly
The Project site is not in the MSHCP Criteria Area and therefore the Project is not subject to MSHCP Reserve Assembly requirements. Furthermore, Joint Project Review (JPR) will not be required.

7.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools The Project will impact 0.15 acre of non-riparian riverine areas. The purpose of the Project is to re-route the flows into the proposed Line E channel, although the general direction of MSHCP non-riparian riverine flows from the southeast (starting at the San Jacinto Reservoir) to the northwest (across Ramona Expressway) will be maintained after implementation of Line E. The proposed Line E channel will be subject to flood control maintenance (vegetation management and structural repairs, as needed); however, the channel will have at least 10.02 acres with a soft (unpaved) bottom and will function in the same or similar manner as the existing, human-altered drainage features. Nonetheless, the impacts to the existing drainage features will be considered permanent since the segments of the exact features will not be restored in the same configuration.

Mitigation for impacts to MSHCP riverine areas will be approved through the DBESP process.

The Project has the potential to indirectly effect least Bell’s vireo within the riparian habitat located adjacent to the southern (upstream) end of the Project alignment due to construction noise. The measure proposed above in Section 6.3 is designed to avoid or minimize indirect effects to least Bell’s vireo.

The Project will not impact any vernal pools, nor will the Project impact listed fairy shrimp.

7.3 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plants
Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present.

7.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland Interface The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, development is expected to occur adjacent to the Conservation Area. Future development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in edge effects with the potential to adversely affect biological resources within the Conservation Area.

As described above, the Project will not be located adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area; however, the beginning (upstream) portion of the Line E will be located adjacent to existing riparian habitat that supports sensitive species and that will be enhanced/restored as mitigation for the proposed Project. Section 5.10 describes measures that will be implemented relative to the adjacent riparian habitat consistent with the MSHCP guidelines.

7.5 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
The proposed Project site occurs within the burrowing owl survey area but does not occur within the amphibian or mammal survey areas, or within the CAPSSA. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted for the proposed Project site, and no burrowing owls were detected. As indicated in Section 6.1 of this report, preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of site disturbance in compliance with MSHCP requirements. 82 7.6 Conclusion of MSHCP Consistency
As outlined above, the proposed Project will be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP; specifically pertaining to the Project’s relationship to reserve assembly, Section

6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section

6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures).

8.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. 1,568 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program, Sacramento.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Natural Community List.

California Natural Resources Agency, June 1, 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6, 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities.

State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Special Animals List. State of California Natural Resources Agency, July 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency.

Sacramento, California. July 2024.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v 9.5). Accessed February 2024. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
83 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2024. RareFind 5. Records of occurrence for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Lake View and San Jacinto. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Accessed February 2024. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-andData.

Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2009. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians, Sixth Edition. Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas. iv+44p.

Dudek & Associates. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Volumes 1 – 5. Prepared for the Transportation and Land Management Agency, County of Riverside, California as part of the Riverside County Integrated Project. https://www.rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/index.html.

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 407 pp.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp.

Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.

Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. 1996. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County, California.

Sawyer, J.O, T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. 1,300 pp.

Sogge, M.K., Ahlers, D., and Sferra, S.J. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. U.S Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10
Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill, New York. 536pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
84 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA: U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished memorandum; January 2000.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19, 2001 Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. March 29, 2006. https://www.wrcrca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf

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

Signed:______________________________ Date: 03/09/26
P:0640-68b.biotech
Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 4 8
Miles
Regional Map Exhibit 1
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT

PROJECT LOCATION
San Jacinto, CA quadrangles
Adapted from USGS Lakeview &
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Exhibit 2
Project Site
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\0640-86+84_Aerial.mxd
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Aerial Map
Exhibit 3A
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Project Site
Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\0640-86+84_SurveyAreas.mxd 0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Survey Areas
Exhibit 3B
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: January 30, 2026
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Project Site
2022 / 2023
Survey Area
2024 / 2025
Survey Area
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\MSHCP_GIS\0640-86_MSHCPOverlay.mxd

MDP LINE E PROJECT
MSHCP Overlay Map
Exhibit 4A
Project Site
Cell Group
Criteria Cell
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±
1 inch = 800 feet
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
N Sanderson Avenue
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
Ramona Expressway
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\MSHCP_GIS\0640-86_MSHCPSurveyAreas.mxd

MDP LINE E PROJECT
MSHCP Survey Areas Map
Exhibit 4B
Project Site
Burrowing Owl
Survey Area
Criteria Area
Species Survey Area
Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Survey Areas
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±
1 inch = 800 feet
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
N Sanderson Avenue
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
Ramona Expressway
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
2 3
4 6
7 11 12
9 10
5 1
8 X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDP E\GIS\Ve g e ta tionGIS\0640-86+84_ Ve g e ta tion_ wP hotos .m xd 0 400 800 1,600 Fe e t ±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Ve g e ta tion Ma p
Exhibit 5
Coord ina te Sys te m : Sta te P la ne 6 NAD 83
P roje ction: La m be rt Conform a l Conic
Da tum : NAD 1983 2011
Ma p P re pa re d by: B. Ga le , GLA
Da te P re pa re d : De ce m be r 24, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Inset Map
Not to Scale
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N Sanderson Avenue
!(
!(!(
11 9
10 P roje ct Site
P e rm a ne nt Im pa ct
Te m pora ry Im pa ct
Dis turbe d Ag ricultura l Are a s
(Ag ricultura l Fie ld s )
Brom us hord e a ce us
He rba ce ous Se m i-Na tura l Allia nce
(Annua l Brom e Gra s s la nd s )
Dis turbe d /De ve lope d Are a s
(Dis turbe d a nd De ve lope d Are a s )
Le pid ium la tifolium – La ctuca s e rriola
He rba ce ous Se m i-Na tura l Allia nce
(P e re nnia l P e ppe r We e d –
P rickly Le ttuce P a tche s )
Euca lyptus g lobulus
Wood la nd Se m i-Na tura l Allia nce
(Euca lyptus Grove s )
!(# P hoto Loca tion
Inset Map
Not to Scale
DpB
DpB
DoA
GvB
GvB
GvB
GvB
GvB
W
GsB GsB
Cg
Cg Cg
Cg
Ts
Tr2
Tr2
Tt2 Tt2
Tt2
W
DpB GuB
Tt2
Tt2
Cf
Tr2
GoB
GoB
Tr2
Tt2
Tr2
Tr2 Tr2
GuB GxA
GuB
GuB
GuB
GuB
GuB
Tr2 Tr2
GsB
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\SoilsGIS\0640-86+84_Soils.mxd 0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Soils Map
Exhibit 6
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Project Site
Chino silt loam,
drained, saline-alkali
Chino silt loam, drained,
strongly saline-alkali
Dello loamy fine sand,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Dello loamy fine sand, saline-alkali,
0 to 5 percent slopes
Grangeville loamy fine sand, drained,
0 to 5 percent slopes
Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum,
drained, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained,
saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Grangeville fine sandy loam,
saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Grangeville fine sandy loam, loamy substratum,
drained, saline-alkali, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Traver loamy fine sand, saline-alkali, eroded
Traver fine sandy loam, saline-alkali
Traver fine sandy loam,
strongly saline-alkali, eroded
Water
GsB
GuB
GvB
Tr2
Ts
Tt2
W
GoB
DpB
DoA
Cg
Cf
GxA
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
Ditch C
Ditch C
Ditch D
Ditch E
Ditch B
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\DelineationGIS\REV1\0640-86+84_JD_MSHCP_REV1_noPhotos.mxd

MDP LINE E PROJECT
MSHCP Riverine Areas
Exhibit 7
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
N Sanderson Avenue
Date Prepared: December 17, 2025
Ramona Expressway
Ditch A
Basin
A
Ditch A
Drainage
Area A
Inset Map
Not to Scale
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±
1 inch = 800 feet
Ditch F
Inset Map
Not to Scale
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
Project Site
Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
MSHCP Riverine
Agricultural Ditch
(Non-Riparian/Riverine)
Basin (Non-Riparian/Riverine)
Smooth Tarplant
2775
2666
2774
2878
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\RarePlantsGIS\0640-86+84_SmoothTarplant.mxd 0 400 800 1,600 Feet±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Smooth Tarplant Location Map
Exhibit 8
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N Sanderson Avenue
Project Site
2022 / 2023
Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Smooth Tarplant
Criteria Cell
Criteria Area
Species Survey Area
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\BUOW_GIS\0640-86+84_BUOW.mxd 0 450 900 1,800
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Burrowing Owl Survey Map
Exhibit 9
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
1 inch = 900 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Project Site
2022 / 2023 Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
500' Visual Survey Buffer
Burrowing Owl Transect
Burrow
Burrow Complex
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N Sanderson Avenue
Photograph 1: View of Drainage Area A located in the northwestern portion of the Project site, east of an unnamed dirt access road that lies adjacent to ponding areas.

Photograph taken June 27, 2024.

Photograph 3: View looking south in Drainage Area A from the fence depicted in Photograph 2 and at former commercial facilities in the background. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page 1

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 2: View looking east from northwestern portion of Project site at both ponded and non ponded areas in Drainage Area A . Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Photograph 4: View looking north within the northwestern portion of the Project site along an earthen berm located between basins and a former commercial facility.

Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Photograph 5: View of Drainage B looking south from the northern Project site boundary along a dirt access road. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Photograph 7: View looking west at agricultural area located near the southern Project site boundary. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page
2 MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 6: View looking from a dirt access road, north at a fallow field located adjacent to Sanderson Avenue. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Photograph 8: View looking southwest at an agricultural area located near the southern Project site boundary. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Photograph 9: View of Drainage C looking southeast from a dirt access road near the southern Project site boundary. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Photograph 11: View looking east at agricultural areas near the southern Project site boundary. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page
3 MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 10: View of Drainage C looking southeast from a dirt access road near the southern Project site boundary. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

Photograph 12: View looking west at agricultural areas near the southern Project site boundary. Photograph taken August 6, 2024.

E-1
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairyShrimpGIS\0640-86_FSSurveyResults.mxd 0 35 70 140
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Shrimp Survey Results Map
Exhibit 4 - Sheet 1
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: September 24, 2024
1 inch = 70 feet
Fairy Shrimp
Survey Area
Ponded Feature
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
E-3
E-2
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairyShrimpGIS\0640-86_FSSurveyResults.mxd 0 35 70 140 Feet ±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Shrimp Survey Results Map
Exhibit 4 - Sheet 2
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: September 16, 2024
1 inch = 70 feet
Fairy Shrimp
Survey Area
Ponded Feature
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
X:\0363-THE RES T\0640-86MDPE\GIS \Bird sGIS \0640-86+84_LBV.m xd 0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Least Bell’s Vireo S urvey Results
Exh ibit 12
Aerial S ourc e: Nearm ap (January 2024)
Coord inate S y stem : S tate Plane 6 NAD 83
Projec tion: Lam bert Conform al Conic
Datum : NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by : B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared : Decem ber 13, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Projec t S ite
LBV Territory
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N Sanderson Avenue
Ditch C
Ditch C
Ditch D
Ditch E
Ditch B
12/13
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\DelineationGIS\REV1\0640-86+84_RWQCB_REV1.mxd

MDP LINE E PROJECT
RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Exhibit 13A
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
N Sanderson Avenue
Date Prepared: February 3, 2026
Ramona Expressway
Ditch A
Basin
A
Ditch A
Drainage
Area A
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10/11
Inset Map
Not to Scale
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±
1 inch = 800 feet
Ditch F
14 15
16 Inset Map
Not to Scale
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
Project Site
Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
RWQCB Non-Wetland
Waters of the State
Agricultural Ditch
(Non-Jurisdictional)
Basin (Non-Jurisdictional)
# Photo Location
Ditch C
Ditch C
Ditch D
Ditch E
Ditch B
12/13
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\DelineationGIS\REV1\0640-86+84_CDFW_REV1.mxd

MDP LINE E PROJECT
CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Exhibit 13B
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
N Sanderson Avenue
Date Prepared: February 3, 2026
Ramona Expressway
Ditch A
Basin
A
Ditch A
Drainage
Area A
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10/11
Inset Map
Not to Scale
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±
1 inch = 800 feet
Ditch F
14 15
16 Inset Map
Not to Scale
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
Project Site
Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
CDFW Non-Riparian Stream
Agricultural Ditch
(Non-Jurisdictional)
Basin (Non-Jurisdictional)
# Photo Location
Appendices A-J will be
available upon request at the City of San Jacinto.

Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Analysis
For Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan Line E
Permittee:

City of San Jacinto
Prepared For:

Shea Properties
50 California Street, Suite 1544
San Francisco, California 94111
Contact: Landon Browning
Phone: (415) 806-4705
Email: [email protected]
Prepared By:

Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
1940 E Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Contact: David Moskovitz
Phone: (949) 340-2562
Email: [email protected]
January 28, 2025
[Revised January 20, 2026]

DBESP Report

i
Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5

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

2.2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 7

3.0 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2) ......................................................... 8

3.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Results .......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Impacts, Mitigation and Equivalency ............................................................................ 17

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

3.3.2 Indirect Effects ....................................................................................................... 24

4.0 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.3) ........................... 26

4.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 26

4.2 Results/Impacts ............................................................................................................ 27

4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency ........................................................................................... 27

5.0 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (SECTION 6.3.2) ............................................................. 27

5.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area - Plants .................................................................. 27

5.2 Burrowing Owl .............................................................................................................. 27

5.2.1 Methods ................................................................................................................. 27

5.2.2 Results/Impacts ..................................................................................................... 30

5.2.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................... 30

5.3 Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 30

5.4 Amphibians ................................................................................................................... 30

6.0 DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY ............................................................................. 31

7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 31

DBESP Report

ii
TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site .................... 8 Table 3-1. Summary of LBV Survey Dates and Weather Conditions ........................ 11 Table 3-2. Summary of SWFL Dates and Weather Conditions ................................. 12 Table 3-3. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Areas ....................................................... 12 Table 5-1. Summary of 2022 Burrowing Owl Surveys .............................................. 29 Table 5-2. Summary of 2024 Burrowing Owl Surveys .............................................. 29

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3A Aerial Map
Exhibit 3B Survey Areas
Exhibit 4A MSHCP Overlay Map
Exhibit 4B MSHCP Survey Areas Map
Exhibit 5 Vegetation Map
Exhibit 6 Soils Map
Exhibit 7 MSHCP Riverine Areas
Exhibit 8 Smooth Tarplant Location Map
Exhibit 9 Burrowing Owl Survey Map
Exhibit 10 Site Photographs
Exhibit 11 Fairy Shrimp Survey Results Map
Exhibit 12 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Results

APPENDICES
Appendix A Floral Compendium
Appendix B Faunal Compendium
Appendix C Preliminary Design Report for Line E
Appendix D 2021/2022 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix E 2023 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix F 2023/2024 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix G 2024 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report
Appendix H Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report DBESP Report

3 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document provides an analysis in support of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) for the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan Line E Project (the Project) located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, in regard to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requirements for Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2). The Project area evaluated is approximately 120 acres.

This document has been prepared following the MSHCP DBESP Report Template created by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), to demonstrate that with the appropriate mitigation, the Project will represent a “biologically equivalent or superior” alternative to avoidance. This document summarizes the findings of general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and vegetation mapping, as they relate to riparian and vernal pool resources, and species with MSHCP survey requirements.

The proposed Project (Line E) is an implementing project of the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (SJV MDP). The SJV MDP was prepared and approved in 2013 by the City of San Jacinto and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Facilities associated with the Line E Project include a channel, basin, training berms, and access roads. The Project is a planned regional drainage facility that would provide a service to an approximately 1,870-acre tributary area.

The proposed Project, through grading and reconfiguration, will impact 4.03 acres of existing riverine areas consisting of ditches within agricultural areas. These include five ditch segments, Ditch A (0.26 acre), Ditch B (0.03 acre), Ditch D (0.11 acre), Ditch E (0.04 acre), Ditch F (0.29 acre), and an area between Drainages A and B, referred to as Drainage Area A (3.30 acres) where, due to constructed berms, flood waters from cumulative rain events spread into a broad inundation area. None of these areas contain riparian vegetation; however, Ditches A and D and Drainage Area A support smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a MSHCP Section 6.1.2 species.

Functionally, these drainage features convey water that ultimately connects downstream (north) to the San Jacinto River, nearly three miles offsite from the terminus of the Project. The proposed channel will contain approximately 8.50 acres of earthen streambed that will provide the same functions of the drainage features to be impacted, but at a larger scale. As such, the proposed Project will be biologically equivalent or superior to the existing drainage conditions as it pertains to the hydrologic functions.

The Project site does not support least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), or western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). However, the Project site is adjacent to riparian habitat where focused surveys were conducted for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow DBESP Report

4 flycatcher in order to evaluate indirect impacts. Vireos were detected in the adjacent riparian habitat, but the flycatcher was absent. The adjacent riparian habitat does not have the potential to support western yellow-billed cuckoo. This DBESP includes measures to avoid indirect noise effects to least Bell’s vireo if construction of the southern end of the Project alignment would occur while vireos are present in the adjacent habitat.

The Project site does not contain vernal pools or listed fairy shrimp. Focused wet and dry season fairy shrimp surveys were conducted for several seasonally inundated features within the Project site, and no listed fairy shrimp were detected. Furthermore, the seasonally inundated areas did not exhibit the three parameters for a wetland, and therefore are not considered as MSHCP vernal pools pursuant to the MSHCP.

Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species are conducted for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present. The majority of the Project site is within the NEPSSA. To satisfy MSHCP survey requirements, focused plant surveys were performed on the Project site, including for the following target Narrow Endemic Plant species:
• Munz’s onion (Allium munzii)
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
• Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras)
• Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
• Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)
• California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)
• Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii).

None of the NEPSSA plant species were detected during focused surveys and were determined absent from the site.

Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas (CAPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Criteria Area Plant Species are conducted for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present. The Project site is not in the CAPSSA and therefore focused surveys are not required for CAPSSA plants. Smooth tarplant was detected during plant surveys; however, because the Project site is not in the CAPSSA, then impacts to smooth tarplant are covered without project-specific avoidance or mitigation requirements. A proportion of the smooth tarplant individuals are associated with the Riparian/Riverine Resources, and mitigation proposed to address impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 will incorporate smooth tarplant.

DBESP Report

5 The Project site is within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. To comply with MSHCP survey requirements pursuant to Volume I, Section 6.3.2, focused burrowing owl surveys were performed for the Project site. Burrowing owls were confirmed absent from the site. However, because of the potential suitability to support burrowing owls, consistent with the MSHCP burrowing owl survey guidelines and MSHCP objectives for the burrowing owls, pre-construction surveys will be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance within all areas of suitable habitat.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project Area
The San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (SJV MDP) Line E Project (the Project) consists of an approximately 14,000-linear-foot drainage alignment covering approximately 120.33 acres. The Project site is in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California [Exhibit 1 – Regional Map], depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lakeview, California 7.5” topographic quadrangle map [Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Map]. The Project is within Sections 29, 20, 19, 18, Township 4 South, Range 1 West.

The Project is comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 430-100-013, 430-100- 002, 430-100-009, 430-010-012, 430-100-018, 432-030-006, 432-030-012, 432-030- 010, 436-010-003, 436-030-004 and 436-170-001. The entire Project site is outside the MSHCP Criteria Area.

The Project is approximately 120.33 acres. Approximately 87.11 acres of the Project footprint will consist of permanent impacts, with approximately 33.22 acres of temporary impacts [Exhibit 3A – Aerial Map]. The temporary impacts consist of approximately 50- foot-wide construction easements along either side of the proposed facilities where disturbance will be required to construct the Line E channel, however there will not be any permanent structures in these areas. The temporary impact areas utilized only for construction activities will be restored to pre-construction contours and can be hydroseeded with a native plant mix.

The overall 120.33-acre Project site was not all studied in a single year. The middle portion of the Project alignment (approximately 67.26 acres), from Sanderson Avenue on the east to the proposed Confluence Basin to the west, was surveyed in 2022 and 2023 as a part of studies for a separate development project, whose study area overlapped with the current Line E Project limits [Exhibit 3B – Survey Areas]. The 2022/2023 studies included focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants, burrowing owls and listed fairy shrimp, as well as evaluations for riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. The southeastern portion of the Project alignment (between the San Jacinto Reservoir and Sanderson Avenue) and the northwestern portion of the Project DBESP Report

6 alignment were surveyed in 2024 (approximately 53.07 acres) for the same resources as referenced above for the 2022/2023 surveys.

2.2 Project Description
For this report, the term “Project site” is defined as the 120.33 acres of land that is proposed for direct impact by the Project [Exhibit 3A – Aerial Map]. The Project site consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 430-100-002, 430-100-009, 430-100- 012, 430-100-013, 430-100-018, 432-030-006, 432-030-010, 432-030-012, 436-010- 003, 436-010-005, 436-030-004, and 436-170-001.

The proposed Project (Line E) is an implementing project of the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (SJV MDP). The SJV MDP was prepared and approved in 2015 by the City of San Jacinto and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Facilities associated with the Line E Project include a channel, basin, training berms, and access roads. The Project is a planned regional drainage facility that would provide a service to an approximately 1,870-acre tributary area.

The Project design includes 20-foot-wide access roads (included within the permanent impacts) located on both sides of the channel along with reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts, one of which will intersect Sanderson Avenue, while the remaining culverts will intersect future roadways. Storm water flow will generally occur from southeast to northwest. To maintain as much of the existing flow patterns at the southern end of the alignment, at the outlet of the San Jacinto Reservoir, training berms are proposed as opposed to channelization.

7 inclined at 1.5:1 (H:V). At the northern end of the proposed concrete channel portion, the proposed alignment crosses the existing MWD buried pipeline (Casa Loma Siphon No. 1) via a bridge-type structure to avoid adding loads to the existing pipeline.

Since the Project will be a regional flood control facility pursuant to the adopted SJV MDP, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control) will need to be able to maintain the channel and access roads throughout the life of the facility. Maintenance activities include vegetation management, clean out of debris, slope and bottom repairs, access road maintenance and repair. All of the intended maintenance areas have been coordinated with and are included within the permanent impact acreages reported herein. Given the sensitivity of the biological resources in the area, the Flood Control District will not use rodenticides or pesticides for vegetation management; rather mechanical and hand removal of vegetation will be utilized.

2.3 Existing Conditions
The Project site is flat and supports active agricultural uses throughout the majority of the alignment. Elevation ranges from approximately 1,488 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,446 feet AMSL. A review of historical aerial photography confirmed that since the late 1960’s, that the majority of the Project site and environs has been used for agricultural purposes. As a result, the agricultural lands cycle between periods of being vegetation with field crops and periods where the lands are generally unvegetated due to tilling. Other fields that are not consistently farmed are vegetated with a mixture of non-native ruderal plant species and remnant crop plants. The edge areas of the agricultural fields are dominated by non-native plant species. The Project site also contains disturbed/developed areas including unpaved roadways. The Project site contains agricultural ditches (Ditches A-F) that convey storm runoff and irrigation water through portions of the Project site, as well as an area where constructed berms and debris-clogged culverts result in a backup of storm flows and irrigation runoff (Drainage Area A). These drainage features are further discussed below in Section 3.0.

GLA mapped five distinct vegetation/land use types for the Project site, including Bromus hordeaceus Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Annual Brome Grasslands), Disturbed Agricultural Areas (Agricultural Fields), Disturbed/Developed Areas (Disturbed and Developed Areas), Eucalyptus globulus Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance (Eucalyptus Groves) and Lepidium latifolium - Lactuca serriola Herbaceous SemiNatural Alliance (Perennial Pepper Weed - Prickly Lettuce Patches). Table 2-1 provides a summary of the vegetation types and their corresponding acreage. A Vegetation Map is attached as Exhibit 5. Photographs depicting the Project site are shown in Exhibit 10.

DBESP Report

8 Table 2-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site Vegetation/Land Use Type Permanent
(acres)
Temporary
(acres)
Total
(acres)
Annual Brome Grasslands 8.49 3.43 11.92
Agricultural Fields 69.35 25.07 94.42
Disturbed and Developed Areas 6.17 4.25 10.42
Eucalyptus Groves 0 0.03 0.03
Perennial Pepper Weed - Prickly
Lettuce Patches

3.10 0.44 3.54
Total 87.11 33.22 120.33

3.0 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2)

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Riparian/Riverine Areas
The MSHCP defines riparian areas as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to, or which depend upon soils moisture from a nearby fresh water source. In the absence of riparian habitat, the MSHCP defines riverine areas as areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.”
The Project site was evaluated for riparian/riverine areas on May 23 and 24, June 27, and September 20, 2024.

3.1.2 Vernal Pools
The MSHCP defines vernal pools as “seasonal 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 wetland indictors of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season.” GLA surveyed the Project site for vernal pools as part of the jurisdictional delineation to identify seasonal wetlands in conjunction with wet season fairy shrimp surveys (described below). GLA biologists evaluated the topography of the site, including whether the site contained depressional features/topography with the potential to become inundated; whether the site contained soils associated with vernal/seasonal pools; and whether the site supported plants that suggested areas of localized ponding.

The Project site was evaluated for vernal pools during fairy shrimp survey visits in 2022, 2023 and 2024, as well as during plant survey visits and wetland delineation visits in 2023 and 2024.

DBESP Report

9 3.1.3 Fairy Shrimp
The Project site contains a total of five features/inundation areas that were surveyed by GLA biologists to determine the presence/absence of listed fairy shrimp. Three of the features, identified as #4, 5 and 46, were surveyed in 2021/2022 (wet season) and 2023 (dry season) as part of fairy shrimp surveys for a separate project whose study area overlapped with that of the Line Project site (see Exhibit 11 – Sheets 2, 3 and 4). The other two features, identified as E-1 and E-2, were surveyed in 2023/2024 (wet and dry seasons) for the Project (see Exhibit 11 – Sheets 1 and 5).

Wet Season Surveys
The 2021/2022 wet season surveys (Features 4, 5 and 46) were conducted by GLA biologist Frank Wegscheider (TE-038716-4). The 2023/2024 wet season surveys (Features E-1 and E-2) were conducted by GLA biologists Stephanie Cashin (TE20280D-0) and Chris Waterston (ESPER-2380694), assisted by GLA field staff David Smith and Velvet Park [Appendix D – 2021/2022 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Report].

Dry Season Surveys
Dry season surveys for Features 4, 5 and 46 were initiated in October 2023 with the collection of soil samples by GLA biologist David Moskovitz (PER0010680-0), with assistance from Stephanie Cashin and Chris Waterston, and from GLA trainees David Smith and Velvet Park (under supervision). Soil processing and culturing was performed by Brent Helm (TE-795930-12) [Appendix E – 2023 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report]. The dry season surveys for Feature E-1 and E-2 were initiated in September DBESP Report

10 2024 with the collection of soil samples by Stephanie Cashin and Chris Waterston. Soil processing and culturing was performed by Frank Wegscheider (TE-038716-4) [Appendix G – 2024 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report]. No cysts of the genus Branchinecta or Streptocephalus, including listed species, were identified in samples from Feature E-1 and E-2. No cyst culturing was necessary as no cysts were detected during processing. Therefore, no listed
species were detected.

Soil sample collection followed the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (Survey Guidelines).1 Soil samples were collected when the pools were dry using a hand trowel to collect intact chunks of soil from the top 1–3 cm of pool sediment. The number of soil samples collected from each of features was based on feature size according to the Survey Guidelines. Starting at the edge of each depression, samples were taken from equidistant points along the longest transect and widest transect of each depression. Additional samples were taken at the deepest part of each feature. Soil samples of approximately 100 milliliters (ml) each were removed at each sub-sample location using a hand trowel and were combined into a labeled bag for each feature with the collection date, location and feature ID, and name of collector for future processing.

3.1.4 Riparian Birds
The MSHCP requires habitat assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat is present) for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). The Project site does not contain any riparian habitat with the potential to support the above-referenced species. However, riparian habitat is located adjacent to the Project footprint (to the south) that was acknowledged as having the potential to support least Bell’s vireo and southwestern flycatcher. As such, to address the potential for indirect effects from the Project, focused surveys were performed for the adjacent habitat in 2024.

Least Bell’s Vireo
GLA biologists Joseph Vu, Chris Waterston, Hannah Craddock and Stephanie Cashin conducted focused surveys for the least Bell’s vireo (LBV) for riparian habitat adjacent to (south of) the Project footprint. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the 2001 USFWS survey guidelines, which stipulate that eight surveys should be conducted between April 10 and July 31, with a minimum of ten days separating each survey visit.

Focused surveys were conducted on April 11 and 23, May 7, June 12 and 27, and July 9, 19 and 29, 2024. Pursuant to the survey guidelines, the surveys were conducted 1 USFWS. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods, Revised: November 13, 2017.

DBESP Report

11 between sunrise and 11:00 a.m. Weather conditions during the surveys were conducive to a high level of bird activity. Table 3-1 summarizes the vireo survey visits.

The results of the vireo surveys are summarized below.

Table 3-1. Summary of LBV Survey Dates and Weather Conditions Survey
Date
Biologist Start/End
Time
Start/End
Temperature
(degree F)
Wind Speed
Range (mph)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
4/11/24 JV 0645/1100 52/80 2-6 100
4/23/24 JV 0630/1100 50/58 1-4 100
5/7/24 JV 0645/1100 56/72 4-9 0
6/12/24 CW 0650/1100 61/73 1-4 100
6/27/24 CW 0600/1030 63/78 2-5 0
7/9/24 HC 0730/1030 77/95 2-6 0
7/19/24 HC 0630/0900 74/82 1-5 0
7/29/24 SC 0645/1045 75/87 1-4 0
JV = Joseph Vu; CW = Chris Waterston; HC = Hannah Craddock; SC = Stephanie Cashin

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) were conducted for riparian habitat adjacent to (south of) the Project footprint [Appendix H – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report]. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the 2010 U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines, which stipulate that five surveys (divided into three survey periods) shall be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat. One survey was conducted during the first survey period (May 15 to May 31). Two surveys were conducted during the second survey period (June 1 to June 24), and two surveys were conducted during the third survey period (June 25 to July 17). GLA biologist Jeff Ahrens (TE 052159-6) conducted SWFL surveys on May 20, June 11, June 21, June 27, and July 3, 2024. Mr. Ahrens was accompanied by GLA biologist Chris Waterston (nonpermitted) on June 27, 2024.

All surveys were conducted during the morning hours and were completed before 10:45 A.M. No surveys were conducted during extreme weather conditions (i.e., winds exceeding 15 miles per hour, rain, or temperatures in excess of 95ºF). All areas of suitable habitat were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically. Taped vocalizations primarily using the WIFL’s main contact call “fitz-bew” were used to elicit responses from WIFLs that might be present on site. The detection of WIFLs on site was based on both sight and call.

Weather conditions during the SWFL surveys was conducive to a high level of bird activity. Temperatures ranged from approximately 52 degrees Fahrenheit to 90 degrees DBESP Report

12 Fahrenheit. Wind speeds ranged from 1-5 miles per hour during the surveys. Table 3-2 summarizes the survey dates and weather information for each survey date. The results of the flycatcher surveys are summarized below in Section 3.2.4.

Table 3-2. Summary of SWFL Survey Dates and Weather Conditions Date Survey Start/End
Time
Surveyor Temp ºF,
(start/end)
Wind
Speed
(MPH)
(start/end)
% Cloud
Cover
(start/end)
5/20/24 SWFL 0555/1030 JA 52/62 2-4/3-5 100/100
6/11/24 SWFL 0600/1030 JA 80/90 3-5/2-4 20/20
6/21/24 SWFL 0550/1045 JA 61/84 1-3/2-3 0/0
6/27/24 SWFL 0600/1030 JA/CW 63/78 2-3/2-5 0/0
7/03/24 SWFL 0605/1030 JA 68/88 2-4/2-5 10/10
JA = Jeff Ahrens, CW (non-permitted)

3.2 Results

3.2.1 Riparian/Riverine Areas
The Project site contains 4.03 acres of MSHCP non-riparian riverine areas, associated with four features (Ditches A, B, D, E, and F and Drainage Area A). These features exhibited defined stream flow indictors (i.e., change in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, and/or incised channel banks).

Table 3-3 below summarizes the riverine areas associated with the Project site. The boundaries of riverine areas are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 7].

Table 3-3. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Areas
Feature Name Riverine
(acres)
Riparian
(acres)
Total
(acres)
Drainage Area A* 3.30 0.00 3.30
Ditch A* 0.26 0.00 0.26
Ditch B 0.03 0.00 0.03
Ditch D* 0.11 0.00 0.11
Ditch E 0.04 0.00 0.04
Ditch F 0.29 0.00 0.29
Total 4.03 0.00 4.03
*Indicates MSHCP Riverine Areas that support smooth tarplant.

DBESP Report

13 Drainage Area A
Approximately 3.30 acres of unvegetated riverine areas area associated with Drainage Area A. Drainage Area A is in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Drainage Area A consists of relatively flat undeveloped land that appears to have been disced as recently as December 2020, according to historic aerial imagery. Since then, it does not appear that this area has been planted or otherwise maintained. Instead, Drainage Area A conveys flows in a generally northwestern direction towards Drainage A during periods following heavy precipitation when adjacent agricultural ditches have flooded.

Furthermore, corrugated metal culverts that convey flows within Drainage A under a dirt access road appear to have been clogged by debris, which likely contributes to backup of flood waters in Drainage Area A.

Vegetation associated with Drainage Area A consists of five horn bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Canada horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), black mustard, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), ripgut brome, red brome, salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) and alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa).

Ditch A
Approximately 0.26 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch A.

Ditch A is in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Ditch A consists of several man-made earthen ditches that together convey agricultural runoff in a northwestward direction for approximately 980 linear feet before continuing offsite and eventually terminating in a basin adjacent to Ramona Expressway. Ditch A exhibits a stream course that ranges from 1 to 25 feet in width.

Vegetation associated with Ditch A consists of non-native upland grasses and forbs including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus rubens), black mustard (Brassica nigra), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum).

Ditch B
Approximately 0.03 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch B.

Ditch B is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch B is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the alignment and conveys agricultural runoff in a northward direction for approximately 302 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch B exhibits a stream course that averages four feet in width. The offsite portion of Ditch B, to the north of the alignment, appears to convey flows to Drainage Area A during periods of heavy precipitation. Ditch B is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, Russian thistle, Canada horseweed, and black mustard were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

DBESP Report

14 Ditch D
Approximately 0.11 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch D.

Ditch D is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch D is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the western side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 2,337 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch D exhibits a stream course that averages two feet in width. Ditch D is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, Russian thistle and non-native grasses such as Bermuda grass and red brome were observed immediately adjacent to this ditch along the top of the bank.

Ditch E
Approximately 0.04 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch E.

Ditch E is located in the center of the Project site. Ditch E is a man-made earthen ditch that crosses the alignment along the eastern side of Sanderson Avenue and conveys agricultural runoff and rainfall in a northward direction for approximately 279 linear feet before leaving the Project site. Ditch E exhibits a stream course that averages six feet in width. Ditch E is ephemeral and at the time of the surveys did not contain any surface water and was generally unvegetated. However, five horn bassia, Russian thistle, stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), and non-native grasses such as red brome were observed immediately adjacent to the drainage along the top of the bank.

Ditch F
Approximately 0.29 acre of unvegetated riverine areas are associated with Ditch F.

Ditch F is in the southeastern portion of the Project site. Ditch F is a man-made earthen ditch that conveys flows northward away from the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow for approximately 419 linear feet before continuing offsite and terminating as sheet flow in an adjacent agricultural field. Ditch F exhibits a stream course that averages approximately 10 feet in width. A rip-rap headwall and culvert previously existed separating the offsite riparian area to the south from the remainder of Ditch F to the north. Currently, the rip-rap headwall and culvert appear to have been destroyed and flows now bypass the culvert and continue around the riprap through a highly eroded area to the east of the culvert. According to historic aerial imagery, Ditch F is typically characterized by an ephemeral flow regime. However, at the time of the initial site visit, Ditch F contained surface water in the southernmost reach, immediately adjacent to the San Jacinto Reservoir Overflow area. Ditch F was completely dry during the most recent site visit.

Vegetation associated with Ditch F includes a mix of native and non-native species such as Bermuda grass, stinknet, annual yellow sweetclover (Melilotus indicus), Canada horseweed, alkali mallow, and various other non-native grasses.

DBESP Report

15 Approximately 1,670 smooth tarplant individuals were documented as occurring within portions of the Project site that support MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas]. Smooth tarplant is a species identified by MSHCP Section

6.1.2 as being associated with MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources. Therefore, these approximately 1,670 smooth tarplant individuals are considered as an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resource in the context of the Project, occupying a total of approximately 0.50 acre occurring throughout Ditches A and D and Drainage Area A [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas; Table 3-3. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Areas].

Additional smooth tarplant individuals were documented in upland areas and not associated with any of the features outlined on Table 3-3, and were therefore not considered as an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resource, and are discussed in Section 5.1 of this document.

Table 3-4 summarizes one additional agricultural ditch (Ditch C) and an agricultural basin (Basin A) that are not riparian/riverine areas [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas].

These features are frequently modified (i.e. filled in, recreated) as a part of ongoing agricultural operations and are isolated and do not drain to a downstream MSHCP Conservation Area (San Jacinto River). Therefore, these facilities are not considered as MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, as they are artificially created and do not provide biological functions supporting Section 6.1.2 species.

Table 3-4. Summary of Non-Riparian/Riverine Features
Feature Acreage
Basin A 0.13
Ditch C 0.02
Total 0.15
Table 3-4 summarizes Project impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, which include 3.49 acres of permanent impacts associated with the permanent Line E facility and 0.54 acres of temporary impacts associated with construction access. For the purpose of this analysis, both permanent and temporary impacts are proposed, as described in Section 3.3, to be mitigated entirely as permanent impacts at a 2:1 ratio.

DBESP Report

16 Table 3-5. Summary of MSHCP Riverine Area Impacts
Feature Name Riverine
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Riparian
Temporary
Impacts
(acres)
Drainage Area A 2.92 0.38
Ditch A 0.23 0.03
Ditch B 0.02 0.01
Ditch D 0.01 0.10
Ditch E 0.03 0.01
Ditch F 0.28 0.01
Total 3.49 0.54

3.2.2 Vernal Pools
The Project site does not contain any MSHCP vernal pools. Five areas were noted as inundated within the Project site, corresponding to the five features (4, 5, 46, E-1 and E2) that are described below as having been evaluated through focused surveys for listed fairy shrimp. Features 4, 5, 46 and E-2 are all unvegetated vehicle ruts in dirt roads. Feature E-1 consists of a large, inundated area that is described above as Drainage Area A. Drainage Area A was determined not to exhibit all three parameters of a wetland, specifically the inundated area did not exhibit a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and therefore the feature is not considered as a vernal pool.

3.2.3 Fairy Shrimp
A total of five features (4, 5, 46, E1 and E2) were surveyed for fairy shrimp. The nonlisted versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) was detected in just one of the five features during the wet season surveys (Feature 5), which consists of vehicle ruts within a dirt road. The dry season survey of Feature 5 detected Branchinecta cysts, which were successfully hatched and reared to identify individuals as the versatile fairy shrimp, thus corroborating the results of the wet season survey.

No fairy shrimp were detected in the other four features during the wet season surveys.

Features 4, 46 and E-2 also consist of vehicle ruts in dirt roads. Feature E-1 corresponds with the large inundation area associated with Drainage Area A. No Branchinecta cysts were detected within Feature 4 and 46 during the 2023 dry season surveys. No cysts of the genus Branchinecta or Streptocephalus, including listed species, were identified in samples from Feature E-1 and E-2 during 2024 dry season DBESP Report

17 surveys. No cyst culturing was necessary as no cysts were detected during processing.

Therefore, no listed fairy shrimp species were detected.

Fairy shrimp survey reports are provided as Appendices D, E F, and G.

3.2.4 Riparian Birds
The southwestern willow flycatcher was not detected within the adjacent (offsite) riparian habitat during the focused surveys. GLA biologists detected three least Bell’s vireo territories within the adjacent riparian habitat, as depicted on Exhibit 12.

3.3 Impacts, Mitigation and Equivalency

3.3.1 Direct Effects
The Project will impact all 4.03 acres of riverine features associated with the Project site. In each instance, the riverine areas will be replaced by the Line E drainage facilities, with the proposed channel re-routing the hydrology that will ultimately end up at the same location at the northwestern end of the Project alignment. As described above in Section 2.2, the proposed Line E channel would begin downstream of (north of) the San Jacinto Reservoir Spillway where it would extend north as an earthen trapezoidal channel parallel to, and east of, Sanderson Avenue, turning west underneath Sanderson Avenue, entering the SJCCSP property. The proposed channel would then turn north and then west just before Record Road, extending west to the proposed Confluence Basin. The outflows from the proposed Confluence Basin would be conveyed north in a concrete-lined channel across Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 and outflow to an existing low-flow drainage channel, representing the terminus of the proposed Line E facilities.

Where the proposed Line E facility begins at the San Jacinto Reservoir, an existing earthen drainage ditch (Ditch F) conveys flows to the north. Figure 11 of the Line E Preliminary Design Report (Appendix C of this DBESP Analysis) depicts the existing flow patterns coming away from the San Jacinto Reservoir. In the existing condition, Ditch F conveys flows northwards until the drainage ditch terminates and flows are conveyed to the northwest via sheet flow until crossing under Sanderson Avenue and extending west (south of the MWD Casa Loma facility) to where the terminus of the Line E channel is proposed. The proposed Project would directly impact 0.29 acre of Ditch F and flows from the San Jacinto Reservoir would enter the Line E channel, where as described above the channel would extend in a generally northwesterly direction and flows that currently extend farther north and then west would be re-routed through the northern portion of the SJCCSP property to the proposed Confluence Basin and then northwards to the proposed terminus where flows would leave Line E into the existing drainage channel (part of Drainage A described above). As such, the flows will still reach the same area to the northwest, just following a different route. Section 3 of Appendix C details the existing and proposed MDP hydrology. As depicted in Table 1 DBESP Report

18 and Figure 7 of Appendix C, the total existing Q100 flows is 24,279 cfs from the San Jacinto Reservoir to northerly side of the MWD right-of-way. In the proposed Line E condition, the total Q100 flows increases to only 25,315 cfs (Table 2 and Figure 9 of Appendix C) at this same location. Figure 15 from Appendix C depicts the pre-project and post-project floodplain.

Prior to reaching the proposed Confluence Basin, the Line E channel would cross another three MSHCP Riverine ditches (identified above as Ditches B, D, and E). Flows from these ditches currently extend through the SJCCSP property past the northern boundary and into an area identified in this DBESP Analysis as Drainage Area A. As described above, flows from these ditches extend north and west through Drainage Area A before crossing through culverts into Drainage A to the north. The culverts appeared to be clogged by debris, contributing to the back up of water within Drainage Area A during peak storm flows, resulting in a large inundation area. The proposed Line E will directly impact 0.03 acre of Ditch B, 0.11 acre of Ditch D, 0.04 acre of Ditch E, and then 3.30 acres of the inundation area associated with Drainage Area A. However, the flows/runoff that otherwise enter Drainage Area A via these ditches will under the proposed development be collected into the Confluence Basin and then outlet north through a proposed concrete portion of Line E where it will then terminate at Drainage A. Line E will intersect the existing agricultural ditch along the east side of Sanderson Avenue (Ditch E) and pick up the flows in that ditch coming from the south [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas]. The existing flows in the ditch along the west side of Sanderson (Ditch D; Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas) south of the Line E intersect will be incorporated into the onsite storm drain system of the SJCCSP, which is analyzed separately for that project. Again, the hydrology data summarized above addresses the proposed re-routing of flows.

The functions of the various ditches impacted by the construction of Line E are all hydrologic and particularly of hydrologic conveyance as that is what the constructed ditches are designed to accomplish. The proposed Line E channel will accomplish the same functions as these agricultural ditches but with a larger drainage area. As noted above, the Line E design will maintain roughly the same flows provided by the existing flow condition. The modification to the floodplain was contemplated in the SJV MDP, which was designed to confine the 100-year floodplain into the MDP facilities. Localized flows during rainfall events on areas outside the Line E channel will still sheet flow and be conveyed through the agricultural ditches as they do in the current condition. The conveyance of flows through the Project area are still being conveyed to the same location, ending up on the northern side of Ramona Expressway. Overall, because of these essentially unchanged conditions and for being consistent with the SJV MDP, the Project will maintain hydrologic connections into downstream MSHCP Conservation areas north of Ramona Expressway. However, because these riverine features will still be altered, the additionally proposed enhancement/restoration of the existing alkali habitat will increase the biological functions associated with the alkali habitat.

DBESP Report

19 The proposed Line E channel will be subject to flood control maintenance (vegetation management and structural repairs, as needed); however, the channel will have at least

10.02 acres with a soft (unpaved) bottom and will function in the same or similar manner as the existing, human-altered drainage features. Nonetheless, the impacts to the existing drainage features, with the exception of the temporary construction access areas [Exhibit 7 – MSHCP Riverine Areas], will be considered permanent since the segments of the exact features will not be restored in the same configuration.

The proposed Line E channel will partially offset the loss of the existing riverine areas by maintaining the riverine functions, through the continued conveyance of water to the MSHCP Conservation Area downstream of the Project, providing attenuation of pollutants such as nutrients, as well as provide a degree of groundwater recharge, etc.

In addition, the Project proposes to replace impacts to 4.03 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas through the restoration of 8.06 acres (2:1 ratio) of lands within the existing San Jacinto River 100-year floodplain, immediately north of the Line E alignment and west of Sanderson Avenue within the City of San Jacinto. The proposed mitigation site contains alkaline soils that support a remnant alkali flora and/or that has the potential to support additional plants (including sensitive species) associated with alkali playa, meadow grassland, or other similar habitat types. With the combination of the proposed Line E facility and the proposed mitigation, the proposed Project will be biologically equivalent or superior to the existing conditions.

The Project proponent will acquire the mitigation property and will place a Conservation Easement for a conservation entity to hold in perpetuity. Possible conservation entities include the Rivers and Lands Conservancy or the San Jacinto Valley Resource Conservation District. The Project proponent will provide a non-wasting endowment to fund the management of the mitigation site in perpetuity.

The proposed mitigation will include the removal of non-native vegetation and revegetation with native species. Smooth tarplant seeds will be incorporated into the plant palette for the restoration area.

The Project proponent will develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) that will be provided to the City of San Jacinto, RCA and Wildlife Agencies for review and approval prior to any initiation of ground disturbance associated with the Project.

The HMMP will document all aspects of the proposed habitat restoration, including site preparation, installation, maintenance and monitoring. The restoration program will consist of a two-phase program. Phase 1, or “Site Preparation Phase”, includes initial invasive species removals and two years of follow-up weed abatement. Phase 2, or “Installation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Phase”, includes a planting plan (native seed and container stock) and five years of follow-up maintenance and monitoring. The HMMP will also further detail the incorporation of smooth tarplant in the plant palette and will identify success criteria for smooth tarplant as will be approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies. The proposed restoration program presented here is conceptual and may be modified through the HMMP.

DBESP Report

20 Phase 1 – Site Preparation Phase (2 Years)
Site preparation shall consist of restoration area topsoil scraping, decompaction and contouring, and clearing and controlling all exotic plants, installation of irrigation components (above-ground), removing trash and debris, preparing planting holes, and doing any other work necessary to prepare the area for planting.

1. Restoration Area Topsoil Scraping and Contouring
Site preparation within the restoration area includes the removal of any debris associated with prior land uses including scraping and hauling offsite the top two inches of soil for purposes of clearing unnatural debris, decompaction, and contouring. Grading and soil removals would also function as an initial weed clearing and would remove existing non-native seed bank in the topsoil. Minor contouring throughout the site will provide hydrological surface conditions to support the alkaline plant species to be included in the restoration plant palette. Creation of micro-topography will support seasonal ponding and otherwise restore or enhance shallow inundation of the site.

2. Non-native Plant Control
Invasive species, as defined by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) as “high” or “moderate” invasiveness ranking will be targeted for removal from the restoration area. Eradication of ubiquitous annual grasses is not realistic in large parcels of open space, but these species will be controlled and suppressed significantly such that they don’t interfere with the establishment and/or functioning of the restored alkali plant communities.

The abundance of non-native grasses and forbs within and surrounding the proposed restoration area requires a persistent and prolonged site preparation regime to 1) clear the non-native biomass from the site, and 2) suppress the existing non-native seed bank in the soil prior to introduction of native plant material to the site. Quarterly treatment is recommended to suppress non-native species within the restoration area.

Work is recommended to commence following the initial scraping/contouring in the fall/winter months outside of avian breeding season, between September 1 and February 14 with follow-up treatments for at least two full years to treat seasonal weeds in their appropriate growth period and allow for re-treatment of the invasive species and thatch removal as much as possible prior to hydroseeding with native seeds.

A "grow and kill" cycle will be established during the two-year site preparation period.

Grow and kill is a cycle of applying water, germinating the non-native, invasive species, and spraying with the appropriate chemical. This allows a large portion of the seed load currently present in the soil to be removed. Removing the competition early in the life cycle of native plants helps to ensure more rapid growth and cover of the native species.

DBESP Report

21 Phase 2 – Installation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Phase (5 Years)

1. Installation
Following the two-year site preparation phase, the restoration area will be planted.

Planting shall consist of installing container stock with plant protection devices (if necessary), and hydroseeding. No planting shall be done in any area until the area concerned has been prepared in accordance with the HMMP and presents an appearance satisfactory to the Project Biologist. The Project Biologist shall be on-site during plant installation. The restoration area will be planted and seeded with a proposed alkali playa/meadow/grassland plant palette identified in the HMMP. The plant palette will be diverse with a variety of halophytic grasses, forbs, and shrubs that occur in alkaline soil conditions present within the restoration site. As discussed further below, smooth tarplant will be a component of the restoration.

Sources of all propagules and seed used for the restoration area will be from wild sources within Western Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to preserve regional genetic integrity. Contract growing of all container plants shall be by a local experienced native plant nursery. Substitution of plant material at the time of planting depends upon the discretion of the Project Biologist in coordination with the RCA and Wildlife Agencies. Plants must be ordered at least six months in advance of the scheduled planting date(s) to make sure the required quantities are available or can be custom grown for the Project.

All plant materials will be inspected by the Project Biologist and approved as healthy, disease and pest free, and of proper size prior to planting. Overgrown, root-bound container stock will be rejected. Container stock will be laid out in such a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (i.e., in clusters and islands) to emulate regional reference sites. Prior to container stock installation, the Project Biologist will flag individual plant locations in the field with pin-flags that will be color coded as to plant species. A list of species with their appropriate color code will be provided to the Contractor prior to plant installation.

Container stock will be thoroughly watered the day before planting. One-gallon container stock will be planted in a hole measuring at least twice the diameter of the container and twice the depth. Backfill the hole with native soil to a proper planting depth for placement of the plant within the hole so the top of the root ball will be set one inch above finish grade. The container will be upended into the palm of the hand to avoid damage to the root structure and placed in the planting hole. The planting hole will be backfilled with native soil. Container stock will be watered immediately after installation.

Due to relatively easy accessibility of the proposed restoration areas, hydroseed application will occur following the site preparation period. Hydroseeding will proceed after the Project Biologist has certified that restoration areas are adequately prepared DBESP Report

22 by clearing of non-native species. Seeding will occur in September or October, prior the onset of the first rain event. Hydroseeding will be performed only during low wind conditions.

2. Irrigation Plan
Supplemental irrigation is to be used solely for establishing the plant palette and seasonal wetland hydrology in the restoration area and intended to be temporary in nature. The goal of the irrigation program during the initial site preparation phase is to implement a grow and kill program to exhaust as much as possible the existing nonnative seed bank prior to installation of native container stock and hydroseed. Post-plant installation, the goal of irrigation will be to obtain germination and pooling hydrology mimicking that of seasonal wetlands.

The container stock will be irrigated as long as necessary to establish the alkali meadow, probably two or three summers. Irrigation will occur from November to April to ensure monthly rainfall is equal to or exceeds the 30-year average for each month.

Within the shallow inundation areas created for supporting seasonal ponding within the restoration area, irrigation should be sufficient to create ponding in the months of November and December continuing through March, at a minimum. These areas would then be allowed to dry out naturally. No irrigation will be applied from June through October.

The restoration area will initially be supported by a short-term automatic overhead irrigation system. The irrigation system will be installed as early as possible during the two-year site preparation phase to aid in the grow and kill weed abatement regime to prepare planting sites. The main line will be installed below-grade. All lateral lines will be installed above-grade for ease of removal and inspection.

When the plantings are sufficiently established and no longer require supplemental irrigation, the Project Biologist shall request the Contractor to cut and cap the main line and remove all above-grade irrigation system components from the mitigation site.

3. Maintenance
Maintenance will occur for a five-year period within the restoration site post-installation.

The Project Biologist will monitor all aspects of the restoration work to address any problems at an early state. Potential problems could arise from erosion, vandalism, competition from weeds and non-native species, disease, and predation. The HMMP identifies maintenance guidelines specifically tailored for native plant establishment.

The maintenance personnel will be fully informed regarding the habitat establishment program, so they understand the goals of the effort and the maintenance requirements.

A landscape contractor with experience and knowledge in native plant habitat restoration will supervise all maintenance personnel.

DBESP Report

23 4. Monitoring
The purpose of the monitoring program is to assess the effectiveness of the prescribed restoration activities. Qualitative monitoring will occur during the two years of site preparation and weed abatement. The quantitative monitoring program will begin after the complete installation of native plant container stock and seed for a period of five years or until sign-off by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies.

Restoration success is defined as the establishment of alkali playa/meadow/grassland habitats. The means of determining successful restoration will be by a series of measurements for cover by native species composition and cover. Native species composition and cover should generally increase each year, while non-native species will be targeted such that their cover decreases each year and remain below 10-percent of relative cover at the end of the five-year monitoring period.

Invasive species, as defined by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) as “high” and “moderate” invasiveness ranking will be removed from all restoration areas as a part of this Plan. Eradication of ubiquitous species such as annual grasses is not realistic in large parcels of open space, but these species will be controlled and suppressed within the restoration areas to less than 10-percent of relative cover and such that they don’t interfere with habitat functions of alkali playa and alkali meadow plant communities.

Qualified habitat restoration specialists, biologists, or horticulturists with appropriate credentials and experience in native habitat restoration shall perform monitoring.

Continuity within the personnel and methodology of monitoring will be maintained insofar as possible to ensure comparable assessments. The HRMP provides details regarding performance standards, qualitative monitoring, and quantitative monitoring.

5. Reporting
Annual status reports will be submitted to the City of San Jacinto, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies during the two-year site preparation period. Post-installation, at the end of each year within the five-year monitoring period, an annual report will be prepared for submittal to the City, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies describing the condition of restoration areas subject to monitoring. Reports will be submitted by December 31 of each monitoring year. These reports will assess both attainment of yearly target success criteria and progress toward final success criteria. These reports shall include a characterization of percent cover of native and non-native vegetation, plant species diversity data, and wildlife utilization. Additional details related to reporting will be provided in the HMMP.

DBESP Report

24 3.3.2 Indirect Effects
The proposed Project will result in indirect impacts to the northern/downstream portions of Ditches B, D, E, and F because Line E will intercept upstream flows and redirect into Line E. While the overall watershed size for each of these four features will be reduced, each of these features are still expected to convey localized rainfall and agricultural runoff from the surrounding reduced watershed. Importantly, as stated above, the flows currently conveyed by the upstream portions of these features will still reach the same area to the northwest, just following a different route. Therefore, this indirect effect will not result in a loss of hydrologic contribution to the downstream MSHCP Conservation Area.

As described above, the southern (upstream) end of the proposed Project is adjacent to habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo where flows from the San Jacinto Reservoir would enter the proposed channel facility [Exhibit 12]. Construction of the facility would not remove any riparian habitat; however, because of the adjacency there is a potential for temporary noise impacts during construction of the facility adjacent to the San Jacinto Reservoir, if work were to occur while vireos are present. The following measure is proposed to avoid or minimize temporary edge effects to the least Bell’s vireo.

To avoid indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo (LBV), project construction and site preparation activities including but not limited to vegetation clearing and grubbing within 300 feet of LBV habitat will be conducted outside of the LBV breeding season (March 15 to September 30), if feasible. This will require that a qualified biologist oversee the establishment of a highly visible and maintained 300-foot buffer. Maintenance of the buffer will be performed weekly, but more often if needed.

If construction activities must occur during the breeding season and have not yet already begun within the 300-foot buffer by March 15 of any given year, preconstruction surveys will commence after March 15 and will occur once a week for three consecutive weeks to confirm the presence of LBV, with the last visit no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The preconstruction survey visits will be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with songs, whisper songs, calls, scolds, and plumage characteristics of adult and juvenile vireos. Surveys will be conducted between dawn and 11:00 am.

Surveys will not be conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather that individually or collectively may reduce the likelihood of detection. Prior to performing the preconstruction surveys, a map will be created illustrating the LBV habitat and all detections of LBV will be mapped and tracked.

25 mapped with behavior tracked across detections/sightings. The qualified biologist must have experience with nesting ecology and behavior of LBV to determine pre-nesting/nesting behavior. The MSHCP does not provide “take” of LBV which includes negatively modifying foraging and nesting behavior. If at any time it is determined by the qualified biologist that construction activities are negatively affecting LBV, including modification of behavior, work will be halted and CDFW and USFWS will be contacted on next steps. However, if LBV are not detected after a minimum of eight survey visits (three preconstruction surveys and five additional clearance surveys), then the weekly visits will cease and work within the 300-foot buffer will be allowed to continue without additional restrictions.

Daily noise monitoring will be required during the breeding season if LBV are detected at any point during preconstruction surveys or weekly clearance surveys. A qualified biological monitor must be present to measure noise levels at the edge of all suitable habitat and work shall cease if, at any time, noise levels exceed 60 dB due to construction activities, or the existing ambient level if that is over 60 dB. For areas where pre-construction ambient noise levels exceed 60 dB, pre-construction, ambient noise measurements can be taken by a qualified entity during the full daylight period (sunrise to sunset), and subsequently, the median average ambient noise level can be used as the baseline in lieu of 60 dB. For projects that need to perform nighttime construction activities the same would be done as above but with measurements taken during the full nighttime period (sunset to sunrise). Noise monitoring will continue throughout the breeding season or until construction activities have halted within 300 feet of occupied LBV habitat. CDFW and USFWS can be contacted on next steps if the project is not able to reduce the noise.

DBESP Report

26 Furthermore, as described above, the Project is not expected to change the regional hydrology related to downstream resources and ultimate conveyance to the San Jacinto River. The Project will result in local hydrologic effects by re-routing flows as described above, but the hydrologic functions will be maintained within the proposed Line E channel and the flows to downstream resources will be maintained in the post-project condition.

4.0 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.3) Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present. Most of the Project site is located within NEPSSA [Exhibit 4B], except for approximately 3,000 linear feet of the Project alignment corresponding with the northeastern corner of the SJCCSP property. As shown on Exhibit 4B, the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Project alignment occur within the NEPSSA for the following target species:
• Munz’s onion (Allium munzii)
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
• Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras)
• Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
• Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)
• California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)
• Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii).

4.1 Methods
GLA biologists performed focused plant surveys for the Project site in 2022 (middle segment) and 2024 (northwestern and southeastern segments). In 2022, GLA biologist Jillian Stephens performed surveys on March 2, April 13, and May 30. In 2024, GLA biologist Ian Rhodes performed surveys on April 8 and June 25/26.

Surveys were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines (CDFW 2018, CNPS 2001, Nelson 1984, USFWS 2000). As applicable, surveys were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site. Surveys were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded following the abovereferenced guidelines. A complete list of the plant species observed is provided in DBESP Report

27 Appendix A. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Baldwin et al. (2012), and Munz (1974).

4.2 Results/Impacts
The Project will not impact Narrow Endemic Plants. None of the Narrow Endemic Plant species were detected during the 2022 and 2024 focused plant surveys. For many of these species, potentially suitable habitat was limited and marginal. The relatively highest potential for occurrence for many of the species was in the areas mapped as containing Traver soils in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the Project site, although microhabitats were lacking altogether for several of the species, i.e., vernal pools, and were generally not expected to occur.

4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Mitigation is not required for Narrow Endemic Plants.

5.0 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (SECTION 6.3.2)
Pursuant to MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2, the MSHCP requires habitat assessments and focused surveys (within areas of suitable habitat) for certain species as determined by a project’s occurrence in a designated survey area, including Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), burrowing owl survey area, amphibian survey area, and mammal survey area.

5.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area - Plants
The Project site is not located within the CAPSSA (Exhibit 4B). As such, focused surveys are not required for Criteria Area Plants. One Criteria Area Plant Species, smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) was detected within the Project site [Exhibit 8]. However, because the Project site does not occur within the CAPSSA, the MSHCP requirements pertaining to CAPSSA species such as smooth tarplant do not apply to the Project.

Approximately 1,670 smooth tarplant individuals were documented as occurring within portions of the Project site that support MSHCP Riverine resources and are discussed under Section 3.3 Riparian/Riverine Mitigation (Section 6.1.2), above.

5.2 Burrowing Owl

5.2.1 Methods
The Project site is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Area [Exhibit 4B] and therefore a habitat assessment is required (in accordance with the DBESP Report

28 2006 MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions) to determine if focused burrowing owl surveys are warranted for the Project site. The Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions are divided into three components: Step I (habitat assessment), Step II-A (focused burrow survey), and Step II-B (focused burrowing owl survey). The Step I habitat assessment is used to determine if a Project site exhibits the base-habitat conditions for burrowing owls, i.e., whether a site contains open habitats with the potential to contain fossorial mammal burrows to support burrowing owls.

Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout areas of suitable habitat. Transects were spaced between 22 feet and 65 feet apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density, in order to provide adequate visual coverage of the survey areas. At the start of each transect, and at least every 320 feet along transects, binoculars were used to scan the survey area for burrowing owls. All suitable burrows were inspected for diagnostic owl sign (e.g., pellets, prey remains, whitewash, feathers, bones, and decoration) in order to identify potentially occupied burrows. Exhibit 9 identifies the burrowing owl survey areas, transect locations, and the 500-foot buffer area. Table 5-1 summarizes the 2022 burrowing owl survey visits and Table 5-2 summarizes the 2024 burrowing owl survey visits.

DBESP Report

29 Table 5-1. Summary of 2022 Burrowing Owl Surveys
Survey
Number
Survey
Date
Biologist Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
1 3/7/2022 SC/WJ 51/53 0-2 0
1 3/14/22 SC/BL 45/54 0-1 0
2 4/6/2022 SC/JV 57/63 0-2 0
2 4/18/2022 JV/WJ 52/59 0-6 100
3 5/4/2022 AB/DS 48/56 0-1 0
3 5/9/2022 SC/WJ 47/52 0-6 100
4 6/6/2022 SC/WJ 57/70 0-1 0
4 6/13/2022 SC/WJ 61/65 0-5 100
SC = Stephanie Cashin, WJ = Wanisa Jaikwang, BL = Brinna Lee, JV = Joseph Vu, AB = Amy Black, DS = David Smith
Table 5-2. Summary of 2024 Burrowing Owl Surveys
Survey
Number
Survey
Date
Biologist Start/End
Temperature
(°F)
Start/End
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
1 3/11/2024 JA 48/62 2-4 50
2 4/18/2024 DS 68/70 0 100
3 5/9/2024 DS 64/70 0 100
4 7/8/2024 BL 66/72 0-4 0
JA = Jeff Ahrens, DS = David Smith, BL = Brinna Lee
Surveys were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout areas of suitable habitat. Exhibit 11 identifies the areas surveyed at the Project site, including a 500-foot visual survey area around the Project site. Transects were spaced at a maximum of 30 meters (100 feet) apart from each other, adjusting for vegetation height and density, to provide adequate visual coverage of the survey areas. At the start of each transect, and at least every 100 meters along the transects, the survey area was scanned for burrowing owls using binoculars. All suitable burrows were inspected for diagnostic owl sign (e.g., pellets, prey remains, whitewash, feathers, bones, and/or decoration) to identify potentially occupied burrows. The 500-foot visual survey area was at least inspected with binoculars but was also accessed on foot where feasible.

DBESP Report

30 5.2.2 Results/Impacts
No burrowing owls were detected within the Project site during focused surveys. Exhibit 9 provides the locations of areas surveyed, including approximate transect locations as well as the locations of suitable burrows that were mapped. No burrowing owl sign was observed at any of the burrows.

5.2.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Although burrowing owls were not detected during focused surveys, because the site has the potential to support burrowing owls, pre-construction surveys will be required to prevent harm to burrowing owls, should individuals occupy the site in the future. The following burrowing owl measure will apply to the Project:
• Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys will be conducted in areas of suitable habitat not more than 30 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies and will need to coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a preconstruction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.

5.3 Mammals
The Project site is not located within a mammal survey area. As such, focused surveys are not required for designated mammal species and there are no other requirements applicable to the Project for mammals.

5.4 Amphibians
The Project site is not located within an amphibian survey area. As such, focused surveys are not required for designated amphibian species and there are no other requirements applicable to the Project for amphibians.

DBESP Report

31 6.0 DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY
The Project site is not located within Delhi soils mapped within the MSHCP baseline data, and therefore habitat assessments/focused surveys are not required for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis).

7.0 REFERENCES
Dudek & Associates. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Volumes 1 – 5. Prepared for the Transportation and Land Management Agency, County of Riverside, California as part of the Riverside County Integrated Project. https://www.rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/index.html.

Sogge, M.K, Ahlers, D., and Sferra, S.J. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: U.S Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10, 39p.
https://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/surveys-protocol.html USFWS. 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19, 2001. Sacramento, California: USFWS.
https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/Recovery_Permitting/birds/least_bells_vireo/ LeastBellsVireo_SurveyGuidelines_20010119.pdf
USFWS. 2016. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. Prepared by M.

Halterman, M.J. Johnson, J.A. Holmes, and S.A. Laymon. Sacramento, California: USFWS. May 2016.
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/YellowBilled Cuckoo/YBCU%20Survey%20Protocol_%20DRAFT_2016.pdf
Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 4 8
Miles
Regional Map Exhibit 1
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT

PROJECT LOCATION
San Jacinto, CA quadrangles
Adapted from USGS Lakeview &
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Exhibit 2
Project Site
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\0640-86+84_Aerial.mxd
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Survey Areas
Exhibit 3B
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Project Site
2022 / 2023
Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\MSHCP_GIS\0640-86_MSHCPOverlay.mxd

MDP LINE E PROJECT
MSHCP Survey Areas Map
Exhibit 4B
Project Site
Burrowing Owl
Survey Area
Criteria Area
Species Survey Area
Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Survey Areas
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±
1 inch = 800 feet
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
N Sanderson Avenue
Date Prepared: December 13, 2024
Ramona Expressway
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N
Sanderson Avenue
X:\0363-THE R EST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\Ve g e ta tionGIS\0640-86+84_Ve g e ta tion.m xd 0 400 800 1,600 Fe e t±

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Ve g e ta tion Ma p
Exh ib it 5
Coordina te Syste m : Sta te Pla ne 6 NAD 83
Proje ction: La m b e rt Conform a l Conic
Da tum : NAD 1983 2011
Ma p Pre pa re d b y: B. Ga le , GLA
Da te Pre pa re d: De ce m b e r 13, 2024
1 inch = 800 feet
N Sanderson Avenue
Ramona Expressway
Proje ct Site
Pe rm a ne nt Im pa ct
Te m pora ry Im pa ct
Disturb e d Ag ricultura l Are a s
(Ag ricultura l Fie lds)
Brom us h orde a ce us
He rb a ce ous Se m i-Na tura l Allia nce
(Annua l Brom e Gra ssla nds)
Disturb e d/De ve lope d Are a s
(Disturb e d a nd De ve lope d Are a s)
Le pidium la tifolium – La ctuca se rriola
He rb a ce ous Se m i-Na tura l Allia nce
(Pe re nnia l Pe ppe r We e d –
Prickly Le ttuce Pa tch e s)
Euca lyptus g lob ulus
Woodla nd Se m i-Na tura l Allia nce
(Euca lyptus Grove s)
Inset Map
Not to Scale
Record Road / Ramona Boulevard
N Sanderson Avenue
DpB
DpB
DoA
GvB
GvB
GvB
GvB
GvB
W
GsB GsB
Cg
Cg Cg
Cg
Ts
Tr2
Tr2
Tt2 Tt2
Tt2
W
DpB GuB
Tt2
Tt2
Cf
Tr2
GoB
GoB
Tr2
Tt2
Tr2
Tr2 Tr2
GuB GxA
GuB
GuB
GuB
GuB
GuB
Tr2 Tr2
GsB
X:\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\SoilsGIS\0640-86+84_Soils.mxd 0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

Photograph taken May 23, 2024.

Photograph 3: View of Drainage Area A and Drainage A facing east from adjacent berm. Photograph taken June 27, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page 1

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 2: View from within previously ponded area in Drainage Area A facing northwest. Photograph taken September 20, 2024. Photograph 4: View from within Drainage Area A facing southwest towards fence that divides Drainage Area A from southern parcel. Note this area was ponded in May 2024. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Photograph 5: View of Drainage A facing north. Photograph taken May 23, 2024.

Photograph 7: View of area where Drainage A and Drainage Area A converge near dirt access road. Photo taken facing southwest towards Drainage Area A. Photograph taken June 27, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page 2

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 6: View of Drainage A culvert facing north from Drainage Area A. Note heavy debris and sediment blocking culvert. Photograph taken May 23, 2024.Photograph 8: View of culverts under dirt access road where Drainage A is conveyed north. Photo taken facing north from edge of Drainage Area A. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Photograph 9: View of Drainage A facing north from dirt access road. Photograph taken June 27, 2024.Photograph 11: View of Drainage A facing west. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page 3

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 10: View of Drainage A facing east. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Photograph 12: View of Drainage B facing south from northern Project boundary at dirt access road. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

Photograph 13: View of Drainage B facing south from northern Project boundary at dirt access road. Photograph taken May 23, 2024.

Photograph 15: View of Drainage C facing southeast from western bank. Photograph taken May 24, 2024.

Exhibit 10 – Page 4

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Site Photographs
Photograph 14: View of Drainage C looking southeast from the western bank depicting concrete culvert and rip rap at edge of Project site boundary. Photograph taken May 23, 2024.

Photograph 16: View of Drainage C looking north from within the channel. Note the tree in background is located offsite. Photograph taken September 20, 2024.

X:\0363-THE R EST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairySh rim pGIS\0640-86+84_FSSurveyR esults.m x d 0 30 60 120
Feet

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Sh rim p Survey R esults Map
Ex h ibit 11 - Sh eet 1
Aerial Sourc e: Nearm ap (January 2024)
Coord inate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lam bert Conform al Conic
Datum : NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared : Decem ber 13, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Project Site /
Fairy Sh rim p Survey Area
2022 / 2023 Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Dry Season Survey Results
Branc h inecta Cysts Detected
Branc h inecta Cysts Not Detec ted
Survey in Prog ress – R esults Pend ing
Wet Season Survey Results
B. lind ah li Detec ted
B. lind ah li Not Detec ted
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
±
X:\0363-THE R EST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairySh rim pGIS\0640-86+84_FSSurveyR esults.m x d 0 30 60 120
Feet

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Sh rim p Survey R esults Map
Ex h ibit 11 - Sh eet 2
Aerial Sourc e: Nearm ap (January 2024)
Coord inate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lam bert Conform al Conic
Datum : NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared : Decem ber 13, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Project Site /
Fairy Sh rim p Survey Area
2022 / 2023 Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Dry Season Survey Results
Branc h inecta Cysts Detected
Branc h inecta Cysts Not Detec ted
Survey in Prog ress – R esults Pend ing
Wet Season Survey Results
B. lind ah li Detec ted
B. lind ah li Not Detec ted
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
±
X:\0363-THE R EST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairySh rim pGIS\0640-86+84_FSSurveyR esults.m x d 0 30 60 120
Feet

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Sh rim p Survey R esults Map
Ex h ibit 11 - Sh eet 3
Aerial Sourc e: Nearm ap (January 2024)
Coord inate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lam bert Conform al Conic
Datum : NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared : Decem ber 13, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Project Site /
Fairy Sh rim p Survey Area
2022 / 2023 Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Dry Season Survey Results
Branc h inecta Cysts Detected
Branc h inecta Cysts Not Detec ted
Survey in Prog ress – R esults Pend ing
Wet Season Survey Results
B. lind ah li Detec ted
B. lind ah li Not Detec ted
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
±
X :\0363-THE REST\0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairyShrim pGIS\0640-86+84_FSSurveyResults.m xd 0 30 60 120
Feet

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Shrim p Survey Results Map
Exhibit 11 - Sheet 4
Coordin ate System : State Plan e 6 NAD 83
Projection : Lam bert Con form al Con ic
Datum : NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: Decem ber 13, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Project Site /
Fairy Shrim p Survey Area
2022 / 2023 Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Dry Season Survey Results
Bran chin ecta Cysts Detected
Bran chin ecta Cysts Not Detected
Survey in Progress – Results Pen din g
Wet Season Survey Results
B. lin dahli Detected
B. lin dahli Not Detected
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
±
X:\0363-T HE REST \0640-86MDPE\GIS\FairyShrim pGIS\0640-86+84_FSSurveyResults.m xd 0 30 60 120
Feet

MDP LINE E PROJECT
Fairy Shrim p Survey Results Map
Exhibit 11 - Sheet 5
Coordinate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lam bert Conform al Conic
Datum : NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: Decem ber 13, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Project Site /
Fairy Shrim p Survey Area
2022 / 2023 Survey Area
2024 Survey Area
Dry Season Survey Results
Branchinecta Cysts Detected
Branchinecta Cysts Not Detected
Survey in Progress – Results Pending
Wet Season Survey Results
B. lindahli Detected
B. lindahli Not Detected
Key Map
Not to Scale Ramona ExpresswayN Sanderson Avenue
±
X:\0363-THE RES T\0640-86MDPE\GIS \Bird sGIS \0640-86+84_LBV.m xd 0 400 800 1,600
Feet
±

Appendix A
Floral Compendium
Taxonomy sourced from The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012) and Jepson eFlora (2023) and, for sensitive species, the California Native Plant Society's Rare Plant Inventory, Online Edition v-9.5 (CNPS 2024). Common plant names are taken from Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Roberts et al. (2004), and Roberts (2008).
* Non-native/introduced species; + Detected offsite, but within the overall Study Area.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPECIAL
STATUS

MONOCOTS
Arecaceae – Palm Family
*+Phoenix canariensis Canary island date palm
*+Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Poaceae – Grass Family
*Avena barbata slim oat
*Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
*Bromus hordeaceus soft chess
*Bromus rubens red brome
*Ehrharta erecta upright veldt grass
*Hordeum marinum Seaside barley
*Hordeum vulgare common barley
*Schismus barbatus Old han schismus
*Triticum aestivum common wheat
Typhaceae – Cattail Family
+Typha domingensis cattail

EUDICOTS
Amaranthaceae – Amaranth Family
*Amaranthus blitoides prostrate pigweed
Anacardiaceae – Sumac Family
*Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Asteraceae – Sunflower Family
+Baccharis salicifolia mule fat
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis Smooth tarplant CRPR 1B.1 *Cirsium vulgare bullthistle
Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed
Helianthus annuus hairy leaved sunflower
*Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce
Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed
*Oncosiphon pilulifer stinknet
Pseudognaphalium californicum Ladies' tobacco
*Senecio vulgaris common groundsel
Boraginaceae – Borage
Amsinckia menziesii fiddleneck
Cryptantha intermedia common cryptanth
Plagiobothrys leptocladus Alkali plagiobothrys
Brassicaceae – Mustard Family
*Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse
*Hirschfeldia incana mustard
*Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed
*Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Chenopodiaceae – Goosefoot Family
*Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
*Bassia hyssopifolia five horn bassia
*Chenopodium album Lambs quarters
*Chenopodium murale nettle leaf goosefoot
Convolvulaceae – Morning Glory Family
*Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed
Crassulaceae – Stonecrop Family
Crassula connata sand pygmy weed
Fabaceae – Legume Family
*Melilotus indicus annual yellow sweetclover
*Parkinsonia aculeata Jerusalem thorn
Geraniaceae – Geranium Family
*Erodium cicutarium coastal heron's bill
Hydrophyllaceae – Waterleaf Family
+Phacelia ramosissima branching phacelia
Malvaceae – Mallow Family
*Malva parviflora cheeseweed
Myrtaceae – Myrtle Family
*Eucalyptus globulus blue gum
Polygonaceae – Buckwheat Family
*Rumex crispus curly dock
Salicaceae – Willow Family
+Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood
+Salix exigua narrowleaf willow
+Salix exigua var. exigua narrowleaf willow
Salix gooddingii Gooding's willow
+Salix laevigata polished willow
+Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Solanaceae – Nightshade Family
*Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco
Tamaricaceae – Tamarisk Family
*+Tamarix ramosissima tamarisk
Urticaceae – Nettle Family
*Urtica urens annual stinging nettle
Special Status Designations
Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate SR – State Rare
CNPS
Rank 1A – Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.

Rank 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

Rank 2A – Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere.

Rank 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

Rank 3 – Plants about which more information is needed (a review list).

Rank 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

Appendix B
Faunal Compendium
Taxonomy and common names sourced from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CDFW 2016), the CNDDB for special status species, and the following taxa-specific sources: American Ornithological Society (2024) for birds; Collins and Taggart (2009) and Crother (2017) for reptiles and amphibians; and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. * Non-native/introduced species; + Detected offsite, but within the overall Study Area.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPECIAL
STATUS

INVERTEBRATES
+Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble bee SCE

AMPHIBIANS
Bufonidae – True Toads
+Anaxyrus boreas halophilus California toad
Hylidae – Treefrogs and Allies
+Pseudacris hypochondriaca Baja California treefrog

REPTILES
Phrynosomatidae – Phrynosomatid Lizards
Sceloporus occidentalis longipes Great Basin fence lizard BIRDS
Accipitridae – Hawks, Eagles, Kites
+ Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
+Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk
+ Circus hudsonius northern harrier SSC
Aegithalidae – Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit
Alaudidae – Larks
Eremophila alpestris horned lark
Anatidae – Swans, Geese, Ducks
+Anas platyrhynchos mallard
Apodidae – Swifts
Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift
Ardeidae – Herons and Bitterns
+Ardea alba great egret
+Bubulcus ibis cattle egret
+Butorides virescens green heron
+Egretta thula snowy egret
+Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron
Cardinalidae – Cardinals
+Passerina amoena lazuli bunting
+Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak
+Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak
Cathartidae – American Vultures
Cathartes aura turkey vulture
Charadriidae – Plovers and Relatives
Charadrius vociferus killdeer
Columbidae – Pigeons, Doves
*+Columbia livia rock pigeon
*+Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared-dove
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Corvidae – Crows, Jays
+Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
Emberizidae – Old World Buntings
+Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
+Melozone crissalis California towhee
Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow
+Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee
Fringillidae – Finches
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
+Spinus lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch
+Spinus tristis American goldfinch
Hirundinidae – Swallows, Martins
Hirundo rustica barn swallow
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow
Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow
Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow
Icteridae – Blackbirds
+Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird
Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole
Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole
+Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark
Mimidae – Mockingbirds, Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
Parulidae – Wood Warblers
Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat
+Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat SSC
+Setophaga petechial yellow warbler SSC
+Leiothlypis celata orange-crowned warber
Picidae – Woodpeckers
+Colaptes auratus northern flicker
+Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker
+Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker
Rallidae – Rails, Gallinules and Coots
+Fulica americana American coot
+Porzana carolina sora
+Rallus limicola Virginia rail
Recurvirostridae – Avocets and Stilts
+Himantopus mexicanus black-necked stilt
Regulidae – Kinglets
+Corthylio calendula ruby-crowned kinglet
Strigidae – Typical Owls
+Bubo virginianus great-horned owl
Sturnidae – Starlings and Mynahs
*Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Trochilidae – Hummingbirds
Archilochus alexandri black-chinned hummingbird
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird
Troglodytidae –Wrens
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren
Troglodytes aedon house wren
Turdidae – Thrushes
Sialia mexicana western bluebird
Tyrannidae – Tyrant Flycatchers
+Empidonax difficilis western flycatcher
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
Tytonidae – Barn Owls
Tyto alba barn owl
Vireonidae – Vireos
+Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo
+Vireo huttoni Hutton’s vireo

MAMMALS
Canidae – Dogs, Wolves, and Foxes
Canis domesticus domestic dog
Canis latrans coyote
Leporidae – Rabbits and Hares
Sylvilagus adubonii desert cottontail
Mephitidae – Skunks
+Mephitis mephitis striped skunk
Molossidae – Free-Tailed Bats
+Eumops perotis western mastiff bat SSC
+Tadarida brasilensis Mexican free-tailed bat
Sciuridae – Squirrels, Chipmunks, Marmots
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Vespertilionidae – Evening Bats
+Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat
+Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
+Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat SSC
+Myotis californicus California myotis
+Myotis ciliolabrus western small-footed myotis
+Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis
+Parastrellus hesperus canyon bat
Special Status Designations
Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FPE – Federally Proposed Endangered SCE – State Candidate Endangered FPT – Federally Proposed Threatened FP – California Fully Protected Species FC – Federal Candidate SSC – Species of Special Concern Appendix C
Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Preliminary Design Report for Line E
San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District May 15, 2025

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Table of Contents
Section 1 Background ............................................................................... 1

1.1 Scope of Work _______________________________________________________________ 3

1.2 Stakeholder Involvement_______________________________________________________ 4 Section 2 Proposed Project ...................................................................... 5

2.1 Location _____________________________________________________________________ 5

2.2 Design Rationale _____________________________________________________________ 7

2.3 Access and Easements ________________________________________________________ 8

2.4 FEMA Flood Plain Zone _______________________________________________________ 10

2.5 Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 12

2.5.1 Hydrology _____________________________________________________________ 12

2.5.2 Hydraulics _____________________________________________________________ 12

2.5.3 Geotechnical Considerations ____________________________________________ 12

2.5.4 MWD Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing ___________________________________ 13 Section 3 Hydrology ................................................................................. 15

3.1 Existing MDP Hydrology ______________________________________________________ 15

3.2 Proposed MDP Hydrology ____________________________________________________ 17

3.2.1 Design Flow Rates _____________________________________________________ 19

3.2.2 Local Hydrology Analysis at Sanderson Avenue ____________________________ 19

3.2.3 Local Flow Pattern at Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 _____________________________ 21 Section 4 Hydraulics ................................................................................ 23

4.1 Model Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 23

4.1.1 Boundary Conditions ___________________________________________________ 23

4.1.2 Model Domain and 2D Grid ______________________________________________ 26

4.1.3 Topology ______________________________________________________________ 26

4.1.4 Manning’s “n” Value ____________________________________________________ 26

4.1.5 Model Time Step _______________________________________________________ 27

4.1.6 Model Error ___________________________________________________________ 27

4.2 Modeled Project Design Features ______________________________________________ 27

4.2.1 Freeboard _____________________________________________________________ 27

4.2.2 Drop Structures ________________________________________________________ 28 Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

4.2.3 Training Berms ________________________________________________________ 28

4.2.4 Scour Potential ________________________________________________________ 30

4.2.5 Onsite Basin, Confluence Basin, and Pump Station _________________________ 30

4.3 Hydraulic Model Results ______________________________________________________ 36 Section 5 Right of Way & Maintenance .................................................. 38 Section 6 Recommendations .................................................................. 41 Section 7 Next Steps ............................................................................... 42 Section 8 References ............................................................................... 43 Appendices ............................................................................................... 44 Appendix A Long Axis Plan
Appendix B MWD Approval Email - Geotechnical Report & Structural Report Appendix C Hydrology
Appendix D Hydraulics
Appendix E Hydroseed Mix
Appendix F Reference
Figures
Figure 1 – Boundary of San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan 1 Figure 2 – MDP Facilities Included in the 2013 EIR 2
Figure 3– Tributary Area of Proposed Line E Project 3
Figure 4 – Project Components 6
Figure 5 – Parcel Ownership Map 9
Figure 6 – FEMA Flood Zone 11
Figure 7 - Preferred structural design of Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 crossing. 14 Figure 8 – Original MDP Hydrology 16
Figure 9 – Proposed MDP Hydrology 18
Figure 10 – Local Hydrology 20
Figure 11 – Local Drainage & Facilities 22
Figure 12– Boundary Conditions 24
Figure 13 – Profile Along the Centerline of STRDS 28
Figure 14 – Training Berm 29
Figure 15 – Pre- and Post-Project Water Surface Elevations 31 Figure 16 – Basins and Conceptual Pump Station 35
Figure 17 – MDP Line E Maintenance Delineation Lower Reach 39 Figure 18 – MDP Line E Maintenance Delineation Upper Reach 40 Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Tables
Table 1 – Existing MDP Hydrology ................................................................................................. 15 Table 2 – Proposed MDP Flow Rates ............................................................................................. 19 Table 3– Model Domains ................................................................................................................. 26 Table 4 – Roughness Coefficients Used in this Study .................................................................. 26 Table 5 – Model Time Steps ............................................................................................................ 27 Table 6– 2D HEC-RAS Model Error ................................................................................................ 27 Table 7 -Basin’s & Pump Station Details ....................................................................................... 33

•
•
o
•
o

•
o
o
•
o
•
•
•
•

FIGURE 5 - PARCEL OWNERSHIP MAP Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.
430100018
430100013
430100012
ONSITE
SJCCSP
430100002
430100011
436030001 436080002
436170016
436170001
436010003
LEGEND
PARCEL

MDP LINE E
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 5 OWNERSHIP 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,000 1,500
I
Feet

APN OWNER
436010003 CHEN GUANG FEI
430100018 SENIOR INFO CARE LLC
430100012 MWD
430100011 MWD
430100002 RAMONA LAND DEVELOPMENT
436170001 GOLDEN OCEAN REALTY LLC
430100013 5 POINTS INC
436170016 CALIFORNIA EQUINE RETIREMENT FOUNDATION INC
436030001 RENNSPORT PROPERY LLC
436080002 JAB MILL CREEK

FIGURE 8 - EXISTING MDP HYDROLOGY Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

EMWD
Line 2
LINE G
LINE Y

EXISTING LOW

FLOW CHANNEL
LINE Z
EMWD

RECHARGE PONDS

SAN JACINTO
LINE E-2

RESERVOIR
LINE W
EX. 60" CULVERT
LINE V
4,179 cfs
5,825 cfs
3,939 cfs
2,861 cfs
2,729 cfs
2,598 cfs
2,148 cfs

R A M O N A E X P Y

W A R R E N R D

S A N D E R S O N A V E

D E A N Z A D R

F U T U R E

D E A N Z A S T

F U T U R E R E C O R D R D
D4
D-North
W8
W9
City
E-North
G-Downstream
Confluence
W7
SJ-RES
W10
G-South
E-2
W5-Cove
G-3
LEGEND

CONCRETE CHANNEL

EARTHEN CHANNEL

INLET-SPILLWAY

TRM CHANNEL

SJCCSP BOUNDARY

ROAD CL

FLOW PATH

FUTURE MDP FACILITES
GOLDEN_OCEAN_SP
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 8 ORGINAL MDP HYD 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,0001,500
I
Feet
100
Q = XX cfs
•••••••
FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED HYDROLOGY Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

W10
Confluence
W9
W8
W7
W5-Cove
D4
E-2 SJ-RES
E-North G-South
G-Downstream
D-North-A
EMWD
D-North-B

R A M O N A E X P Y

W A R R E N R D

S A N D E R S O N A V E

D E A N Z A D R

F U T U R E

D E A N Z A S T

F U T U R E R E C O R D R D LINE G
LINE Y
LINE Z
EMWD

FACILITY

SAN JACINTO

RESERVOIR
LINE E-2
LINE W
Line 2

EXISTING LOW

FLOW CHANNEL
3,550 cfs
5,440 cfs
3,550 cfs
3,800 cfs
3,035 cfs
2,970 cfs
2,970 cfs
LEGEND

CONCRETE CHANNEL

EARTHEN CHANNEL

FLOW PATH

SJCCSP BOUNDARY

ROAD CL

FUTURE MDP FACILITES
GOLDEN_OCEAN_SP
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 9 PROP HYD 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,0001,500
I
Feet
100
Q = XX cfs

FIGURE 10 - LOCAL FLOW ANALYSIS Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

KIRBY ST

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 10 LOCAL HYDROLOGY 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E - SANDERSON DITCH INLET
0 500
I
1,000 1,500
Feet
NODE 100
ELEV = 1501 HP
A=9.5 AC
L= 660 FT
!(
!(
NODE 400
ELEV = 1468
Tc=15.9 min
Q100= 94.2 cfs
A=18.5 AC
L= 1260 FT
A= 21 AC
L= 1430 FT
NODE 200
ELEV = 1489 HP !(
!(
NODE 300
ELEV = 1477 HP
Legend

FLOW PATH

LOCAL HYD BOUNDARY

ROAD CL

MDP LINE E

FIGURE 11 - EXISTING LOCAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

SPILLWAY
EXISTING (2) 24" CULVERTS
54" CULVERT
60" CULVERT

CULVERT SIZE UNKNOWN

STREET HIGHPOINT

CONCRETE DITCH

RAMONA EXPY

WARREN RD

LYON AVE

RAMONA BLVD

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

KIRBY ST

RECORD RD

BYRD ST

ECHO RD

SAVORY LN

ROJO LN

SKY VIEW LN

RANCH VIEW LN

BABBLING PL

AVENA WAY

AIRLIFT ST

STATUE ROW

VIBRANT GLEN

BEAM HOLLOW

YUKON DR

CHARDONNAY PL

LECHUGA WAY

OLD POTTER RD

PRAIRIE GLEN PL

GLISTEN TRAILS

WHEATFIELD WAY

STREAM POINTE

MISTY MEADOW LN

COUNTRY FAIR CT

CARAWAY CT
LEGEND

DE ANZA DR

EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES

EXISTING FLOW PATTERNS
EXISTING 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

MDP LINE E
RIVERSIDE CO. ROADS
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 11 LOCAL DRAINAGE & FACILITIES 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,000 1,500
I
Feet
•
oo
•
ooo
▪
•
ooo
1510
1450
1480
1460
1490
1500
1470
1500
1460
1500
1460
1490
1460
1450
1470
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1500
1500
1460
1490
1460
1500
1500
1480
1460
1490
1460
1470
1500
1480
1450
1480
1490
1510
1490
1480
1460
1470
1500
1500
1470
1450
1460
1460
1480
1470
1460
1490
1460
1450
1490
1460
1450
1500
1490
1500
1460
1500
1470
1480
1450
1490
1490
1450
1460
1460
1500
1480
1450
1450
1470
1490
1470
1470
1450
1470
1500
1500
1500
1460
1460
1470
1460
1460
1460
1500
1460
1480
1490
1500
1450
1450
1450
1460
1490
1490
1460
1450
1490
1450
1500
1450
1500
1480
1450
RAMONA
LYON
WARREN

SANDERSON

DE ANZA
RECORD
KIRBY
SCOTT
BYRD
ECHO
CHASE
JULIAN
SERENA
ROJO
PALM

SUNSWEPT
SAVORY

AMHERST
BAILEY
YOUNG

UPPERLINE
AVENA

CYPRESS

SKY VIEW

BLODGETT
REEDS
AMOR

WINDSONG
CANVAS
NICE

AIRLIFT

RANCH VIEW

SUNNYSIDE

BABBLING

SAGECREST
YUKON

STRATUS

LECHUGA

COTTONWOOD
LILA
BELLO

ENCANTO
BLAZE

RAINTREE

WHEATFIELD

CHARDONNAY

OLD POTTER

STATUE ROW

BORDEAUX

WHEELBARROW

PRAIRIE GLEN
HAYLOF

WINDRIDER

AUTUMN MIST

CLARITA
AUSTIN

MISTY MEADOW

BRILLIANCE

CORTINA

FLOURISH HILL

GLISTEN TRAILS
GLIDER

TRINKET

FLICKERING

WEST LINN

RADIANT
GRAVO
CIRRUS

SPRING MIST
SOMBRA

WAGON CREEK

HILLSBORO

COUNTRY FAIR

CARAWAY

DAYBREAK
MIRAGE

COOL BREEZE

SANTOLINA

DE ANZA
RAMONA
FIGURE 12 - BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

LEGEND

MDL LINE E
100-YEAR PROJECT FLOODPLAIN
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

MAJOR CONTOURS

MINOR CONTOURS
Riverside Co. roads
1D EXTENT

LOW FLOW MESH BOUNDARY

INLET MESH BOUNDARY
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 12 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
LINE E
1D HEC-RAS MODEL
0 500 1,0001,500
I
Feet

FOR MORE DETAILS ON BOUNDARY CONDITIONS PLEASE SEE HEC-RAS EXHIBITS LINE E
2D HEC-RAS MODEL
LINE E
2D HEC-RAS MODEL
•
o

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 30 ends

San Jacinto City CouncilJune 2, 2026

San Jacinto City Council
June 2, 2026