Agenda — Temecula City Council, April 12, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

Once construction activities are completed, the proposed shared -use trail would be paved, the remaining of the Project Site would be revegetated, and the retaining walls would support their respective slopes. Due to the nature of the proposed shared -use path, operation of the Project has a low potential to result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Operational impacts would be less than significant.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 46 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
d) Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils typically include fine-grained clay soils that have the potential to expand and retract according to changes in moisture content.

Changes in the water content of an expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed upon such soil. According to the Foundation Report, the Project Site is underlain predominately by sandy soils; an upper layer consisting of clayey sand and silty sand, and a lower sand layer consisting of clayey sand, which may have the potential to expand (Appendix F). Prior to commencement of grading operations, debris, organic material, and/or other unsuitable materials would be removed of and disposed of before receiving fill as recommended by the Foundation Report. All removals would be observed by qualified geotechnical personnel, ensuring all exposed subgrade contains competent materials. The recommendations included in the Foundation Report also include general construction considerations, which would reduce the potential for expansion pressures to risk loss of life and/or property. As such, the Project would not create substantial risks of loss to life or property due to expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The Project does not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and wastewater disposal would not be required. No impact would occur.
f) Less than Significant Impact. Paleontological resources are the preserved fossilized remains of plants and animals. Fossils and traces of fossils are preserved in sedimentary rock units, particularly fine- to medium -grained marine, lake, and stream deposits, such as limestone, siltstone, sandstone, or shale, and in ancient soils (paleosols). Such resources are also found in coarse -grained sediments; such as conglomerates or coarse alluvium sediments. Additionally, fossils are rarely preserved in igneous or metamorphic rock units. Fossils may occur throughout a sedimentary unit and are more likely to be preserved subsurface, where they have not been damaged or destroyed by previous ground disturbance, amateur collecting, or natural causes such as erosion.

Implementation of the Project would demolish the existing SGCT along the east and western sides of Margarita Road and construct the proposed shared -use path and infrastructure under Margarita Road along the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Although it is unknown the full level of disturbance that occurred on the Project Site as a result of previous channel wall construction, any significant paleontological resources would have likely been unearthed during past grading of the Project Site during the construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek channel walls.

Construction of the Project would include grading and removal of existing pavements along channel wall of Santa Gertrudis Creek, however, this grading would be similar in depths to that used to construct the channel walls and would not be anticipated to result in the discovery of paleontological resources. As a result, the Project would have a low potential to directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource, and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 47 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
References
California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation — webpage. Available, accessed February 3, 2021.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. Standard Plans and Standard Specifications. Available https:Hdot.ca.gov/programs/design/ccs-standard-plans-and- standard-specifications, accessed January 2022.

City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan — Public Safety Element. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/288/Public-Safety-PDF?bidld= , accessed February 1, 2021.

City of Temecula. 2020. Engineering and Construction Manual. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3083/Engineering-and-Construction- Manual, accessed February 1, 2021.

City of Temecula Department of Public Works (DPW). 2020. Standard Drawings 2020. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/217 , accessed February 3, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 48 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑
❑
❑X
❑
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ❑
❑
0 ❑
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The major concern with GHGs is that increases in their concentrations are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the rate of global climate change and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most in the scientific community agree that there is a direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long-term global temperature increases.

The State of California defines GHGs as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different GHGs have different global warming potentials (GWPs) and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, CH4 has a GWP of 25 (over a 100-year period); therefore, 1 metric ton (MT) of CH4 is equivalent to 25 MT of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e). The State uses the GWP ratios available from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and published in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). By applying the GWP ratios, Project -related CO2e emissions can be tabulated in metric tons (MT) per year. Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.

Some of the potential effects of global warming in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more forest fires, and more drought years (GARB 2008). Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous enviromnental resources through potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally, but are expected to include the following direct effects (IPCC 2001):
• Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas; • Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas;
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 49 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
• Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas; • Increase of heat index over land areas; and
• More intense precipitation events.

Also, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great.

California generated 429.4 MMTCO2e in 2016, the most recent year data are available.

Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California's GHG emissions in 2016, accounting for approximately 39 percent of total GHG emissions in the state. This sector was followed by the industrial sector (21 percent) and the electric power sector (including both in -state and out-of-state sources) (16 percent).

Impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; however, it is clear that the quantity is enormous, and no single project would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or micro climates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

The City of Temecula has not adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions that would be applicable to this Project. CEQA Guidelines 15064.4 states that the lead agency has the discretion to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance -based standards in determining the significance of a project's GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis herein examines the extent to which the Project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions, consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.4 (b)(3).

The Project would demolish the existing SGCT along the east and western sides of Margarita Road and construct the proposed shared -use path and infrastructure under Margarita Road along the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Therefore, the Project would not result in the generation of operational emissions. The Project would improve an existing portion of the SGCT system, encouraging the use of bicycles while reducing the use of passenger vehicles. The Project's highest GHG contributors are from off -road construction equipment sources. The Proposed Project would utilize construction contractors who demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations restricting the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off -road equipment. CARB has adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 50 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CARB has also adopted emission standards for off -road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower. The emissions standards are referred to as "tiers" with Tier 4 being the most stringent (i.e., less polluting). The requirements are phased in, with full implementation for large and medium fleets by 2023 and for small fleets by 2028.

Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable standards. As a result, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2018 Edition. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm . Accessed October 2020.
2020. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data , access October 22, 2020.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups 1, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 51 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Impact
Incorporated
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
❑
❑X ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
❑
0 ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
❑
❑
0 ❑
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
❑
❑
❑X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ El
❑X
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, ❑ ❑ El
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials can result in hazards to the public through the potential for accidental release.

Such hazards are typically associated with certain types of land uses, such as chemical manufacturing facilities, industrial processes, waste disposal, and storage and distribution facilities.

Construction of the Project may result in temporary hazards related to transport and use of hazardous materials, including those used for construction vehicle use and maintenance (e.g., diesel fuel, motor oil). During Project construction, contractors would be required to uphold standard BMPs to ensure that all hazardous materials are stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with federal and State law. Conformance with these standards would effectively avoid and minimize significant hazards related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and would reduce the Project's impacts to less than significant levels.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 52 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project operation would not involve a land use creating a significant hazard to the environment due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Operation of the Project would be similar in handling of hazardous materials to what occurs under existing conditions. As such, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No significant operational impacts would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Response IX(a), above. During the short-term excavation and construction period, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of petroleum -based fuels, lubricants, and other materials used for construction equipment. During construction of the Proposed Project, contractors would be required to use standard construction safety procedures and controls that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment. Standard construction BMPs would be observed such that any hazardous materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law. Conformance with these standards would reduce impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level.

The Proposed Project would not substantially alter any existing land uses on the Project Site, Margarita Road, or within Santa Gertrudis Creek. Therefore, following Project implementation, the trail would continue to operate as it presently does under current conditions, with exception of the new undercrossing beneath Margarita Road. The use of limited amounts of hazardous materials (i.e. maintenance equipment and hand tools, oil, gasoline, solvents, etc.) may be required during periodic maintenance activities, as needed; however, such activities would be temporary and typical of similar activities that currently occur along the trail corridor. The proposed improvements would not result in long-term operational effects related to hazardous materials release. No long-term impacts would occur in this regard.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located approximately 0.13 miles west of Big Future Preschool, and approximately 0.23 miles southwest of Chaparral High School. No other schools are located within one -quarter mile from the Site.

As stated in Response IX(a), minor quantities of hazardous materials used during Project construction would be subject to existing standard BMPs to ensure that all hazardous materials are stored, transported, used, and disposed of in accordance with federal and State law. Operation of the Project would not involve the routine use of hazardous materials, and periodic trail maintenance would only require the use of limited quantities of potentially hazardous materials on a short-term, temporary basis when needed.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 53 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
d) No impact. According to both the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2021; SWRCB 2021). As such, there would be no impact in this regard. e) No impact. French Valley Airport is a Riverside County -owned public -use airport located on State Route (SR) 79, north of Temecula in its sphere of influence, and adjacent to the City of Murrieta's eastern boundary. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) establishes policies applicable to land use compatibility planning in the vicinity of airports throughout Riverside County. According to the Riverside County ALUCP, the northern portion of the Project Site is located approximately 2.75 miles southwest of French Valley Airport and is located in Airport Compatibility Zone E, which includes airspace review for objects over 100 feet tall (Riverside County 2004). As a trail improvement project, the Project does not propose the installation of aboveground structures, other than 4-foot high chain -link fencing and wayfinding signage, which are not elevated enough to represent a safety hazard to air traffic. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Less than Significant Impact. While the Proposed Project would minimally impact traffic flow during the temporary construction period, it would not conflict with or interfere with emergency evacuation of the Project area. Project construction would not substantially interfere with traffic circulation, as emergency access to Margarita Road would be maintained during Project construction. The users of the SGCT and Margarita Road would have improved safety and circulation with the proposed undercrossing. As such, the proposed improvements would enhance Margarita Road's roadway function as a potential emergency evacuation route. No revisions to an adopted emergency plan would be required as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
g) No impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the Project Site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2009). The Project Site is located in an urbanized area with minimal potential for wildland fires. Furthermore, the Project would not construct any habitable structures or propose any uses in which would exacerbate wildfire risk.

Consequently, there would be no impact regarding the potential for wildland fires.

References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE. City of Temecula. December 21, 2009.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor Database Search.

Available https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ , accessed February 1, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 54 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. Geotracker Database Search.

Available https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ , accessed February 1, 2021.

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (Riverside County). 2004. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Volume 1 Policy Document. Adopted October 14, 2004. Available http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/01- %20Cover%20&%2OTitle%2OPage%2OVol%201.pdf. accessed February 1, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 5555 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hydrology and Water Quality
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
X.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste
El
El
0 El
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b)
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
El
El
0 El
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of El D 0 El surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would El El 0 El exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? 0 El
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release 0 El of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water El El nX El quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. Surface water quality is subject to federal, State, and local water quality requirements administered and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with cooperation from each county. The principal law governing pollution of the nation's surface waters is the Clean Water Act (CWA) (formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). Under the CWA, regulatory requirements for industrial and municipal dischargers were set, as well as requirements for states to adopt water quality standards.

Furthermore, the City implements its Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP), which describes the City's urban runoff management programs implemented to comply with the requirements of the National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit. The City's Storm Water Ordinance (City of Temecula Municipal Code Title

8.28) is also implemented to address water quality and outlines the City's NPDES requirements in accordance with the NPDES MS4 Permit.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 56 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
According to the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that was prepared for the Project (Appendix G), runoff below Santa Margarita Road flows to the north towards Santa Gertrudis Creek. Margarita Road flows are contained in the roadway and directed to an existing catch basin approximately 700 feet north of the existing SGCT.

Project implementation would result in ground disturbance from excavation and grading activities, thereby loosening onsite soils and increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation deposition, as well as polluted runoff from the site, to occur. Water discharge from Project construction may consist of oil and grease, trash, heavy metals, and pathogens, as well as other potential pollutants. These potential discharges can be of concern for development projects, as damage to downstream water bodies can occur.

However, the majority of the Project would be constructed within the existing channel wall footprint, and the existing trail which would be removed would be revegetated.

Additionally, the Proposed Project is required to comply with the latest adopted NPDES Permit. Compliance with federal, state, and local water quality standards, as well and the implementation of construction BMPs, would prevent impacts to water quality. As such, impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant
b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the Open Space/Conservation Element of the City's General Plan, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies most of the domestic and commercial water to Temecula, paid for by user fees (City of Temecula 2005). The City's water supply is drawn from the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and supplemented with imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD).

This aquifer is recharged by underflow, surface flow from the creeks in the area, and by direct precipitation in the valley. The General Plan indicates that in 2005, local groundwater provided 35 percent of the City's water supplies, with 26 percent of supplies being provided by local groundwater under future buildout conditions (City of Temecula 2005). Other water sources include reclaimed water and untreated MWD water used for groundwater recharge.

Construction of the Project may include use of groundwater for soil compaction and landscaping activities. As such, a portion of the water supply to serve the Project Site would indirectly come from local groundwater reserves. Project implementation would not require an increase in RCWD water supplies that would severely impair groundwater recharge, as construction would only occur for six months. Long-term operation would not have the potential to interfere with groundwater recharge, as the Project would result in 7,241 square feet (sf) of impervious surfaces, which is a 0.72 percent increase from existing conditions (7,189 sf) (Appendix G). As such, groundwater recharge would not be affected as a result of the Proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant. c.i) Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in the WQMP for the Project, existing drainage patterns would be maintained with the Project, and therefore, the Project Site would not disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 57 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
Construction impacts that may result in on- or off -site erosion or siltation would be minimized to less than significant levels; refer also to Response VII(b), above.

Operational impacts related to siltation or erosion would be minimized to less than significant levels by the development and use of standard stormwater drainage features.

Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site.

Impacts are considered to be less than significant in this regard. c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Response X(b) above, the Project would result in minimal alterations of the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site, and would not require the traversing of any streams or rivers. Furthermore, standard BMPs and construction considerations would be required during construction, which would further reduce the potential for flooding on- or off -site. The finished trail undercrossing would consist of a paved surface, and would continue to relay flows to Santa Gertrudis Creek. A less than significant impact related to on- or off -site flooding would occur.
c.iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located directly south of Santa Gertrudis Creek, which is an ephemeral drainage channel which flows to the Santa Margarita River, which ultimately flows to the Pacific Ocean. Existing flows from the Project Site are conveyed into the channel, which continues to discharge downstream.

The Project would be constructed along the channel creek walls, and would be gently sloped to continue to convey discharged flows into the creek. Furthermore, as the Project would only increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Site by 0.72 percent, runoff into the Santa Gertrudis Creek is not expected to substantially increase. As such, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. c.iv) Less than Significant Impact. According to Figure PS-2, Flood Hazards and Dam Inundation Areas, of the City's General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a 100-year flood zone (City of Temecula 2005). As a trail improvement project, the Project would not involve the development of any new residential housing.

Therefore, housing units would not be developed or placed within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located approximately 25.3 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is divided by the Santa Ana Mountains/Santa Margarita Mountains, which are located to the west and northwest of the Project Site alignment and rise to an elevation of approximately 2,800 feet to 5,689 feet at Santiago Peak. Local large bodies of water, including Lake Skinner (located approximately 5.7 miles to the northeast), Diamond Valley Lake Dam (located approximately 10.0 miles to the northeast), and Vail Lake (located approximately 10.4 miles to the southeast), are also distanced from the Project Site.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 58 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
According to Figure PS-2, Flood Hazards and Dam Inundation Areas, of the City's General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a Dam Inundation Area. While potential accidental release could impact the Project Site, as indicated in the City of Temecula General Plan EIR, incorporation of State and federal regulations, and in conjunction with the City of Temecula Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, such impacts are considered less than significant. As such, with conformance to such measures, Project impacts from flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam are considered to be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Response X(b), the Project overlies the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin (Basin), which meets approximately 35 percent of water needs within the City (City of Temecula 2018). Regulating the Basin is the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which establishes water quality standards to protect waters in the region through implementation of NPDES permits which include waste discharge requirements and the control of point and non - point source pollutants. Under the Proposed Project, construction and operation would be required to conform with all applicable NPDES permits. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not involve the direct extraction or depletion of groundwater and would not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any water quality control plan or groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

References
City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan — Open Space and Conservation Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/287/Open- Space-Conservation-PDF?bidld=, accessed February 3, 2021.

City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan — Public Safety Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005.

Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/288/Public-Safety-PDF?bidld= , accessed February 3, 2021.

City of Temecula. 2018. Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program: Santa Margarita Region. Adopted January 4, 2018. Available at
https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/903/City-of-Temecula-Jurisdictional- Runoff-Management-Plan-2018JRMPPDF?bidld=, accessed February 3, 2021.

City of Temecula. 2020. Water Quality Management Plan for PW19-04. Prepared December 10, 2020. Included as Appendix G.

Earth Mechanics, Inc. 2021. Foundation Report for Retaining Walls: Santa Gertrudis Creek Phase II, Temecula, California, City Project No. PW19-04. Prepared January 20, 2021. Included as Appendix F.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 59 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING —Would the project:

Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a El El 0 El conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project is located along Santa Gertrudis Creek, and consists of demolition of existing pavements, grading, and construction of a new multi -use path with accompanying structural infrastructure, vegetation, and wayfinding signage and striping.

The Proposed Project would not result in changes to the Project Site's land use or any surrounding land use. In addition, Project implementation would not introduce a new use within the Project area that would physically divide existing residential uses or cause existing residential uses to be separated from the remaining community. Therefore, no impact would occur regarding the division of an established community. b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response XI(a), the Project would not result in any land use changes. The Project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan — Circulation Element Goal 5, in that the Project would provide safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City, by providing an undercrossing to the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail which currently maintains a surface -level crossing along Margarita Road (City of Temecula 2005). In addition, the Project would be consistent with the City's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update (City of Temecula 2016), which is designed to meet the bicycle goals and policies of the General Plan. Project implementation would benefit alternative transportation opportunities for the community near Margarita Road by providing a trail undercrossing that would improve safety and traffic operations in both the eastbound and westbound directions and along Margarita Road. As discussed in Response IV(f), the Project Site is located outside of MSHCP conserved lands and is not within a criteria cell of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact and would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.

References
City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan — Circulation Element. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/278/Circulation-PDF?bidld= , accessed February 3, 2021.

City of Temecula. 2016. Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. March, 2016. Available at https://issuu.com/ktua/docs/temecula_tbmp_final_lores , accessed February 3, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 60 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mineral Resources
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important ❑ ❑ ❑X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a) No Impact. According to the City's General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element, the State has applied a classification of MRZ-3a in the Temecula Planning Area, which includes the Project Site. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate; however, based on available data, MRZ-3 areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value (City of Temecula 2005). As a result, Project development would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources that would be of economic value and no impact would occur.
b) No Impact. As discussed in Response XII(a), the Project Site does not contain any mineral resources that would be of significant value (City of Temecula 2005).

Furthermore, the Project Site has been previously developed with concrete channel walls, which would reduce the potential to mine the Project Site for any locally -important mineral resources. Project implementation would result in additional impervious surfaces and would utilize the Project Site for recreational purposes, where no mineral resources extraction have been planned for the site. As the Project Site is not identified within the City's General Plan to contain known mineral resources of value or be used in the future for extraction of mineral resources, no impact would occur in this regard.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 61 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Noise
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent El El 0 El increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or El El 0 El groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private 0 El airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. A project would have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. The applicable noise standards governing the Project Site are detailed as follows:

Existing Regulations
City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element
In accordance with the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, a noise exposure of up to 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior of noise -sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition, all new residential development in the City would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA Ld„ or CNEL or less.

The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the Project:

Goal 1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors.

Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 62 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Temecula Noise Control Ordinance
Section 9.20.060 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code specifies that no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one - quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter.

Sensitive Land Uses
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due to the types of activities typically involved at the receptor location and effect that noise can have on those activities and the persons engaged in them. According to the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, sensitive receptors include residential uses and schools. The Project Site is located within a residential and commercial area. Sensitive land uses within one -quarter mile of the Project Site includes residential to the west and east and Chaparral High School to the northeast.

Construction
Project construction consists of demolition of existing pavements, grading, and construction of a new multi -use path with accompanying structural infrastructure, vegetation, and wayfinding signage and striping. Project construction would generate noise from the daytime operation of construction equipment.

A list of the construction equipment that would be used during each phase of construction is provided in Table 5. The noise from construction equipment would generate both steady-state and episodic noise that could be heard within and adjacent to the Project Site.

Construction noise levels fluctuate throughout a given workday as construction equipment move from one location to another within a project site. When construction equipment would be in use further away from a sensitive receptor location, construction noise levels would be lower than the calculated values provided herein, which assumes construction equipment would be in use nearest to a sensitive receptor location. Exposure to fluctuating construction noise levels that would at times be lower than the noise levels shown in the analysis below would not rise to the level (greater than 120 dBA) that would result in hearing loss or adverse health impacts.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 63 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE 5

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Phase
Equipment
No. of Pieces of Equipment
Concrete/Industrial Saw
1 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Concrete/Industrial Saw
1 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Crane
1 Building Construction
Forklift
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Striping
Air Compressors
1 SOURCE: CalEEMod 2021
Individual pieces of construction equipment that would be used for construction of the Project produce maximum noise levels of 75 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 6. The construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet distance (Referenced Maximum Noise Levels) are based on the FHWA RCNM (Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model) User's Guide, which is a technical report containing actual measured noise data for construction equipment (FHWA 2006).

TABLE 6

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE REFERENCE LEVELS AND USAGE FACTORS Type of Equipment
Acoustical Usage
Factor' (%)
Reference Maximum
Noise Levels at
50 Feet,ae Lmax (dBA)
Backhoe
40 78
Concrete Saw
20 90
Forklift
10 75
Crane
16 81
Dozer
40 82
Front End Loader
40 80
Air Compressor
50 78
Tractor
40 84
NOTES:
a The usage factor is the
percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction is operating
at full power.
b Construction equipment
noise levels are based on the FHWA RCNM.

SOURCE: FHWA, Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, 2006, Table 1.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 64 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites often operates under less than full power conditions or part power. To more accurately characterize construction -period noise levels, the average (hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction phase is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction phase.2 These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 200 feet west of the Project Site. Table 7 lists the potential construction noise levels at 200 feet from the active construction sources, factoring in the number and type of construction equipment that would be in operation during the same period of time, and their individual utilization factors.

TABLE 7

CONSTRUCTION NOISE IN DIFFERENT PHASES
Noise Level at 200 feet from Active
Construction Phase Construction Area, dBA Leq
Demolition 75
Grading 75
Building Construction 72
Striping 63
SOURCE: ESA 2021.

Table 7 shows that during each construction phase, depending on the number of pieces of construction equipment and individual utilization factor, the noise level at a distance of 200 feet from an active construction area on the Project Site ranges from 63 to 75 dBA Leq.

This scenario assumed that the equipment listed during each construction phase would be operating during the same period of time (with individual utilization factor included) and is located in close range that can be viewed as a point source from a distance of 200 feet. In reality, it is not practical to have all these pieces of equipment operating in a small area at the same time when considering the terrain variation. It is assumed this way to obtain the worst -case possible noise exposure for receivers in the Project vicinity. If the equipment is spread out over the entire Project Site, even though some pieces of equipment may be closer to an adjacent receiver, other pieces of equipment would be located at a longer distance from the same receiver, and the overall combined noise level would not be greater than the one estimated using the worst -case scenario.

Pursuant to Section 9.20.060 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code, construction activity within one -quarter mule of an occupied residence is prohibited between the hours 2 Pursuant to the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, 2005, the usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction is operating at full power.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 65 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
of 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays and during all ours on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays.

The Proposed Project would comply with the permitted construction hours as identified in the City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.20.060. In addition, standard construction best practices would occur related to equipment noise, including, but not limited to, the following:

Equipment would use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. Construction noise would be reduced by using quiet or "new technology," equipment, particularly the quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers where feasible. All internal combustion engines used at the Project Site would be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment would be maintained in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive -train and other components.
• During all demolition, grading, and construction, contractors would minimize the staging of construction equipment and unnecessary idling of equipment in the vicinity of noise sensitive land uses.
• The equipment staging area would be situated so as to provide the greatest distance separation between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site during all Project construction Because construction of the Proposed Project would be temporary and short term, and construction noise would not rise to a level that would cause harm (120 dB), there would be no impacts related to significant construction noise.

Operation
Operation of the Proposed Project would not generate any substantial noise. The Proposed Project would realign the SGCT to use a new undercrossing below Margarita Road as well as construct associated infrastructure. Therefore, operational noise would be similar to what the existing trail generates. Long term operational noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The amount of construction and demolition required for the Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate excessive groundbome vibrations or noise levels. Additionally, this Project does not include pile driving activities, therefore, ground borne vibration is not expected to occur. Due to the temporary nature of construction activities, impacts in this regard are considered to be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to airports. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 66 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
References
City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan — Noise Element.

City of Temecula Municipal Code, Chapter 9.20 Noise
United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Standards Part 1910, Standard 1910.95. Available Online:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95 , accessed October 2020.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 67 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:

Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an El El F70 area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or 0 housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a, b) No Impact. Implementation the Proposed Project would not directly induce population growth as no housing or new businesses are proposed. In addition, the Proposed Project would not add a new road or expand roadway capacity, and would not indirectly induce population growth. Construction of the Project would occur beneath a currently developed roadway, which maintains an existing trail crossing, and would not require land acquisition of any residences or habitable structures. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth or result in the displacement of residents or housing. No impact to population and housing would occur.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 68 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑X
❑
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
0 a.i) No Impact. With Project implementation the Project Site would continue to be served by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), which maintains a mutual service agreement with the City of Temecula (RCFD 2021). The nearest RCFD Station is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Project Site at 27415 Enterprise Circle West.

The Proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with local and State fire codes.

In addition, emergency access would continue to be provided during construction of the Project. The Project would not induce population growth, and thus demand for fire protection services would not increase. As such, no impacts would occur regarding the need for new or improved fire protection services.
a.ii) No Impact. Law enforcement and police protection are provided by the City of Temecula Police Department (TPD), which has two storefront police stations (Old Town Temecula and Promenade Mall). The closest TPD station to the Project Site is the Promenade Mall location, which is located approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the Project Site.

The Proposed Project would not induce population growth, and thus demand for police protection services would not increase. Additionally, the Project would not include any road closures in which may interfere with emergency access on local roadways. Existing emergency access would continue to be maintained. As such, no impact would occur related to police protection services as a result of the Proposed Project. a.iii) No Impact. The Project would involve the construction of an undercrossing beneath Margarita Road, and would continue to serve the community as a shared -use trail. The Project would not result in the addition of any residential housing or employment Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 69 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
facilities that would increase the number of school -age children. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded schools, and no impact would occur. a.iv) No Impact. Implementation of the Project would realign the SGCT to use a new undercrossing below Margarita Road as well as construct associated infrastructure.

While these improvements would improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at the Project Site, implementation of the Project would not improve connectivity to nearby parks compared to existing conditions as the SGCT overall would remain relatively unchanged. The Proposed Project does not include any new connections to other pedestrian and/or bicycle lanes or facilities and would not cause an increase in park usage within the City. Moreover, the Project does not have the potential to induce population growth, either directly or indirectly, and as such would not require additional parkland or parks be provided in the community. For these reasons, no impact to parks and parklands would occur.
a.v) No Impact. Other public facilities would not be affected by the Project, as the Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. The Project would increase general circulation and bike access throughout the Project area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact associated with the provision of new or expanded public facilities.

References
City of Temecula Police Department (TPD). 2021. Temecula Police Department — webpage.

Available at https://temeculaca.gov/196/Police , accessed February 3, 2021.

Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD). 2021. Riverside County Fire Department Service Area — webpage. Available at
http://www.rvcfire.org/ourDepartment/ServiceArea/Pages/default.aspx , accessed February 3, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 70 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Recreation
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
XVI. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
❑
❑
❑X
❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
❑
❑
❑X
❑
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. As shown in Figure 2, the Project Site is located near multiple parks in the City, including the Harveston Lake Park, which is 0.6 miles northwest of the Project Site. As stated in Response XV(a.iv), the Project would realign the SGCT to use a new undercrossing below Margarita Road as well as construct associated infrastructure. While these improvements would improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at the Project Site, implementation of the Project would not improve connectivity to nearby parks compared to existing conditions as the SGCT overall would remain relatively unchanged. The Proposed Project does not include any new connections to other pedestrian and/or bicycle lanes or facilities and would not cause an increase in park usage within the City. Additionally, the Project is intended to serve the surrounding local neighborhood, and is not anticipated to draw a substantial number of new park users to local parks near the Project Site from outside of the community. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of existing parks or recreational facilities and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. While the Project includes recreational facilities and related components such facilities are intended to increase multi -modal transportation, connectivity, and safety. Although the Project is considered an expansion of transportation infrastructure, the shared -use pathway improvements and undercrossing would also be used for recreational purposes. Since the Proposed Project would realign the existing SGCT to use the new undercrossing at Margarita Road, no new recreational facility would be created with Project implementation. Furthermore, the Project would not induce population growth in the City and therefore would not necessitate the need for new recreational facilities to be built. Since the Project would improve an existing recreational facility, construction and operational impacts associated with Project development have been considered throughout the discussion of environmental impacts in this document. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed in this document, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant physical effect on the environment.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 71 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Transportation
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVII. TRANSPORTATION — Would the project
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
❑
❑
❑X
❑
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA ❑X
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
0 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
0 ❑
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site extends for 610 feet beneath Margarita Road and parallel to the Santa Gertrudis Creek, near the intersection of the existing SGCT. Regional access to the Project Site is provided by SR-79. Local access to the Project Site is currently provided via ramps on either side of Margarita Road accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians only.

Construction is expected to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and would comply with the City of Temecula Municipal Code (Section 9.20.060) limits regarding construction activity. No nighttime construction would occur. Construction of the Proposed Project is scheduled to begin in 2021 and would last approximately six months. Based on the assumptions for the Air Quality analysis (see Section III), maximum traffic loading conditions construction of the Proposed Project would generate a maximum of 4 round-trip construction haul trips and 10 round-trip worker trips. This peak would occur during the trail and retaining wall construction phase over the course of 90 days.

Local Roadways
During the construction period, construction vehicles would use the roadways that surround the Project Site to deliver materials and haul waste. Workers' vehicles and construction vehicles could access the site from the above -mentioned local streets.

Roadway users could experience temporary delays from material deliveries, but these delays would be both brief and infrequent. Therefore, they would not affect overall traffic circulation in the Project vicinity. Construction staging would occur on -site and would not affect traffic operations on adjacent roadways. Construction of the Project would not impede on non -motorized travel or public transportation in the Project vicinity. The Proposed Project would, however, require temporary trail closures while the existing SGCT is being demolished and constructed, including temporary traffic control measures that would direct trail users to alternative routes. However, any delays would be temporary and not considered to be significant. Temporary traffic control during Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 72 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
construction would be implemented in accordance with encroachment and construction permits from the City of Temecula.

As proposed, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures for the effectiveness of the performance of the circulation system, such as the Temecula General Plan and the Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, in that the Project would provide similar trail operations with increased multi -modal function within an identified transit corridor. Since the Proposed Project would construct new alternative transportation facilities and would not generate any new vehicle trips, a traffic impact analysis is not warranted. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade traffic operations or roadways in the Project vicinity, nor would it impede non -motorized travel or public transportation. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
Public transportation in the City of Temecula is provided by Riverside Transit Agency bus service and Greyhound bus service. RTA route 61 is located along Margarita Road from the Perris Station Transit Center to Promenade Mall. The nearest stop is 0.05 miles south of the Project Site (RTA 2021). Greyhound does not operate any bus lines near the Project Site.

Class II bike lanes are provided in both travel directions along Margarita Road. In addition, SGCT ramps on either side of Margarita Road accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians only are located south of the overpass along Margarita Road.

The Proposed Project would replace the existing ramps south of the Margarita Road overpass, and would construct 610 feet of a shared bicycle/trail undercrossing beneath the overpass. Margarita Road is a heavily traveled four -lane divided collector roadway, and has two lanes of traffic in each direction, a partially -landscaped median, and Class 11 bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides.

The proposed undercrossing would begin where the ramps begin to elevate to meet the grade of the existing overcrossing. The proposed upgrades to the trail network would be consistent with the City of Temecula's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, adopted March 2016, to guide the City's future trail and bicycle facility implementation and provide an enhanced connection through the SGCT. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 8 and Figure 9 of the City's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update, the existing overcrossing is a localized hotspot for both bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

The undercrossing would improve safety at this location by removing the need for existing at -grade roadway crossing for the trail, which would reduce the occurrence of collisions at this trail segment.

Construction of the Project would be temporary and last for approximately six months.

The Project would not alter any public or emergency access along Margarita Road, nor would the Project result in any alterations of the roadway design, in which may affect transit operations. The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly eliminate Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 73 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
alternative transportation corridors or facilities (e.g., bus stops). In addition, the Proposed Project would not preclude increased alternative transportation services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project would not impede non -motorized travel or public transportation in the Project vicinity; it would not decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Approved in 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 amended the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the new CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was adopted in December 2018 by the California Natural Resources Agency. These revisions to the CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts are primarily focused on projects within transit priority areas and shift the focus from automobile delay to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creation of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses. Automobile delay, as measured by LOS and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impacts. VMT is a measure of the total number of miles driven to or from a development and is sometimes expressed as an average per trip or per person.

Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less -than -significant transportation impact. The City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's VMT Guidelines on May 26, 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-33). The City's VMT Guidelines includes OPR's CEQA Technical Advisory (pages 20-21), which is a complete list of transportation projects that:
"would likely not lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis. "
Included in the list of exempt projects are the addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi- use paths, or other off -road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel. Since the Proposed Project is an alternative transportation project that would not generate any new vehicle trips, there would be no increase in VMT. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. An impact would occur if the Project substantially increases roadway hazards due to a geometric design feature or the introduction of incompatible uses (i.e., farming equipment). The Proposed Project would not include any alterations of existing roadway features (e.g., road realignment) or introduce any new driveways that would create hazardous conditions. On the contrary, the Proposed Project would remove the existing pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing of Margarita Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 74 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
construct a new undercrossing under Margarita Road to provide users of the SGCT a safer option to cross that roadway. Project implementation would create new visual and physical barriers separating pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic by removing the need to use the roadway and allowing users to use new shared -use pathway, thereby reducing hazards for bicyclists and vehicles. These facility improvements would be constructed without requiring any changes to vehicle travel lanes (e.g., number of lanes, lane widths, turn restrictions) that could affect hazardous conditions for drivers.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the design of the Proposed Project would not satisfy local emergency access requirements. The Proposed Project would not include any alterations of existing roadway features (e.g., road realignment) that would create a permanent change to access for emergency vehicles.

References
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). 2021. Route 61 Perris Station Transit Center — Sun City — Menifee — Murrieta — Temecula: schedule and map. January 10, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 75 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES —
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:

Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact No Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California 0
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources. Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its 0
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Discussion
The following discussion is based on the results of a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), as well as the City's Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) government -to -government consultation efforts. a.i) No Impact. The NAHC maintains the confidential SLF, which contains sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. The NAHC was contacted on December 8, 2020 to request a search of the SLF. The NAHC responded to the request in a letter dated December 28, 2020. The results of the SLF search conducted by the NAHC indicate that Native American cultural resources are located within the Project area or its vicinity. The NAHC did not provide further details regarding the resources, but recommended the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians be contacted for more information.

Pursuant to AB 52, the County contacted five California Native Tribes who have previously requested in writing to be informed by the City through formal notification of proposed projects within the geographic area in which the tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated. The five tribes include the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The City sent notification letters to individuals associated with the five tribes on February 24, 2021.

The letters included a Project description as well as a figure depicting the Project's location.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 76 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Three tribal groups have responded to the City's outreach letters including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. In an email dated March 11, 2021, Arysa Gonzalez Romero, Historic Preservation Technician for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, stated the Project is outside Agua Caliente's Traditional Use Area and they defer to tribal groups in closer proximity to the Project area.

In a letter dated March 10, 2021, Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, stated the Project area is located within Rincon's Area of Historic Interest and requested documents pertaining to the Project such as the cultural resources assessment report, shape files, archaeological record search results, geotechnical reports, and grading plans. Ms. Madrigal also stated that Rincon would like to consult following review of the provided materials. On September 15, 2021, the cultural resources assessment report was provided to Ms. Madrigal for review and comment. In a letter dated November 15, 2021, Ms. Madrigal responded to the City stating that the provided documents were reviewed, and that Rincon was in agreement with the proposed mitigation measures regarding cultural resources. In the letter, Ms.

Madrigal stated that Rincon has no further comments on the Project and defers any future consultation regarding the mitigation measures to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.

In an email dated, March 19, 2021, Juan Ochoa, Assistant Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, requesting to engage with the City in AB 52 consultation regarding the Project. Mr. Ochoa also requested the Tribe be added to distribution lists for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological reports, development plans, conceptual grading plans if available, and all other applicable documents pertaining to this Project.

Mr. Ochoa also requested Pechanga be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning the Project, and that these comments be incorporated into the record of approval for the Project. On May 25, 2021, the City provided a draft of the cultural resources assessment report prepared for the Project to Mr. Ochoa. On August 26, 2021, the Mr. Ochoa returned the report with comments, that were addressed and incorporated into a second draft of the report. The City provided Mr. Ochoa with the second draft of the report September 8, 2021. Upon receipt of the report, Ebru Ozdil, cultural analyst for the Pechanga, requested that construction monitoring be incorporated as a mitigation measure based on the discovery or cultural resources along other segments of Santa Gertrudis Creek as part of other projects. Per Ms. Ozdil's request construction monitoring has been incorporated as Mitigation Measure CUL-3 in Response V(a), Cultural Resources, of this document. In an email dated December 30, 2021, Molly Earp, Cultural Planning Specialist for the Pechanga Cultural Resources Department, requested that Mitigation Measure CUL-4 regarding inadvertent discovery protocols be updated to include the wording preferred by Pechanga for such mitigation.

Based on Ms. Earp's request, Mitigation Measure CUL-4 was updated accordingly. Ms.

Earp also stated that aside from the requested changed to the mitigation measure, Pechanga has no further comments.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 77 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
Based on the City's AB 52 consultation efforts with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, no tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project area. Therefore, no tribal cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) would be impacted by Project implementation. No impact would occur.

Although no tribal cultural resources were identified as a result of the consultation, the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians considers the Project area to be sensitive for the presence of subsurface cultural items. As such, Mitigation Measures CUL-3, which includes archaeological and Native American monitoring would be implemented during Project construction per Pechanga's request.
a.ii) No Impact. As noted above in Response XVIII(a.i), no tribal cultural resources were identified as a result of the consultation with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. Therefore, no tribal cultural resources that have been determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, would be impacted by Project implementation. No impact would occur.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 78 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Utilities and Service Systems
Less Than
Potentially
Significant with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Impact
Incorporated
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of ❑
❑
❑X ❑
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ F1❑X provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. Water for construction along the affected segment of the Project Site would continue to be provided by RCWD and would be served by direct connection to existing water lines. Wastewater services for the Project area are currently provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Due to the nature of the Project, implementation would not increase wastewater production or require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Project would protect -in -place gas and water lines beneath the existing channel, and may require the relocation of utility lines (including a 20-inch waterline owned by RCWD that would be relocated a maximum of 23-feet to the east of the proposed anchor wall); however, these activities are considered minor and routine in scope. Ground disturbance associated with the relocation of utility lines (including the waterline relocation) is analyzed throughout this environmental document. With implementation of mitigation measures within this document, construction impacts associated with proposed utility relocation would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in the relocation of new or expanded utility or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response X, above, the Project would be served by RCWD, which encompasses approximately 99,000 acres. The City's water supply is drawn from the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and supplemented with Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 79 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
imported water from the MWD. This aquifer is recharged by underflow, surface flow from the creeks in the area, and by direct precipitation in the valley (RCWD 2016).

RCWD's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that approximately 25 to 40 percent of the RCWD's total water supply consists of groundwater, while imported water has supplied 60 to 70 percent of the RCWD's water. As documented in the UWMP, the RCWD supplied a total of 60,079 AFY. RCWD has anticipated that water supply is anticipated to increase to 106,986 AFY by 2040 (RCWD 2016). The available supplies and water demands for the RCWD's water service area were analyzed in the UWMP to assess the District's ability to satisfy demands during three hydrologic scenarios: a normal water year, single -dry water year, and multiple -dry water years. DWR has interpreted "multiple -dry years" to mean three dry years; however, the RCWD has elected to include a fourth dry year as well. It is expected that the RCWD will be able to meet 100% of its demand under every hydrologic scenario (RCWD 2016). Project activities that would require the use of water include use for dust control and irrigation.

Project construction would not be anticipated to use substantial amounts of water which would affect water supplies for normal, dry, or multiple dry years. After construction, the Project would operate with similar conditions to existing conditions. As such, impacts regarding water supply would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in the need for the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities because no wastewater would be generated. The Proposed Project is an alternative transportation project that would not generate sanitary sewer flows. As such, because the Project would not generate any wastewater, no impact would occur related to requiring additional wastewater treatment facilities.
d, e) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction may require some demolition/excavation of existing materials and soils, which would necessitate solid waste hauling. All excavation and construction debris would be required to demonstrate compliance with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the 50 percent diversion of solid waste requirement pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). Pursuant to AB 939, the City has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SSRE) and implements the Element to ensure that the City's solid waste reduction goals continue to be met. The Project would be required to comply with such goals stipulated under the City's SRRE for diverting solid waste, as applicable. Project construction would also be subject to the solid waste disposal goals and policies identified under the General Plan Growth Management/Public Facilities Element. Project conformance with AB 939, along with the City's SRRE and General Plan goals and policies, would reduce the Project's potential to generate solid waste and ensure proper solid waste disposal. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in regard to solid waste.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 80 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
References
City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan — Growth Management/Public Facilities Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. Available at
https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/282/Growth-Management-Public-Facilities- PDF, accessed February 3, 2021.

Rancho California Water District (RCWD). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2016. Available at https://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenterNiew/2023/2015- UWMP---June-2016?bidId=, accessed February 3, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 81 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact
XX. WILDFIRE — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:

Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
❑
❑
❑X
❑
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
❑
❑
0 ❑
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated ❑
❑
0 ❑
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
❑
❑
0 ❑
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response XVII(d) above, the Proposed Project would not include any alterations of existing roadway features (e.g., road realignment) that would create a permanent change to access for emergency vehicles.

During construction of the Project, heavy construction -related vehicles could interfere with emergency response (e.g., slowing vehicles traveling behind trucks) in the Project area. However, such delays would be infrequent and brief as truck drivers are required to pull over to allow an emergency vehicle on -call to pass, and contract specifications for the Proposed Project would ensure that emergency vehicle access on area roadways would be maintained at all times. No revisions to an adopted emergency plan would be required as a result of the Project. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. While the Project Site is located in an urbanized area, construction activities have the potential to increase the risk of fire ignition due to presences of typical construction fuels and solvents. However, the Project is unlikely to exacerbate wildfire risks because vegetation along the Project Site is minimal and is limited to trees and landscaping. Additionally, according to CAL FIRE, the Project Site is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2021). The Project is located in an area of slope, but is below the surrounding ground surface, which would limit Santa Ana wind conditions. The Project would be required to comply with federal, State and local development regulations that minimize the risk of fire hazards. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts are considered less than significant.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 82 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located within, and surrounded by, existing urban development. The Project would include installation and maintenance of a trail undercrossing, which would improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety near the intersection of Margarita Road. Construction activities have the potential to increase the risk of fire ignition, but the Project is unlikely to exacerbate wildfire risks because vegetation along the Project Site is minimal and is limited to trees and landscaping. During operation, the Project would receive scheduled inspections and maintenance. These activities would have minimal environmental impacts and are not expected to exacerbate fire risk in the area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project involves the construction of a shared -use pathway and undercrossing and would not involve the construction or operation of habitable structures. While workers would temporarily be present at the project site during construction, they would not be subject to undue risks associated with flooding or landslides. In addition, the long-term operation of project would not cause or exacerbate flooding or landslides hazards. Therefore, impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to significant risks from flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, and/or drainage changes would be less than significant.

References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer — Webpage. Available at
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515cO4f58f4l4 , accessed February 3, 2021.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 83 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ 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 eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ © ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ® ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the Proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment with the exception to biological resources and cultural resources. The Project Site contains limited habitat for wildlife species that would be affected by the Project and is located in an urbanized setting. Project implementation has the potential to significantly affect biological resources; however, incorporation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through Mitigation Measure BI0-7 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. No historic or cultural resources that may contribute to California's history were observed at the Project Site.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-5 would reduce impacts to less than significant in the event that a cultural or historical resource was found.

Therefore, impacts to biological and cultural resources would be less than significant with Project implementation.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis contained within this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts with implementation of the mitigation measures established in this document (Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BIO-7 and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5). Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the Proposed Project to less than significant levels when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 84 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the Proposed Project. Implementation of mitigation (Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5) would reduce potential human safety impacts to less than significant. The Project is consistent with the land uses in the Project area and the environmental evaluation has concluded that no adverse significant environmental impacts would result from the Project.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 85 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neqative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 86 ESA / D201901440 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2022

Appendix A
Air Quality and GHG
Calculations
ESA

ix A. Air Qualitv and GHG Calculations
Emissions Summary

AQ Construction Summary
Air Quality Construction Analysis
Unmitigated Construction Scenario
Regional
Ibs/day
ROG
NOX
CO
SO2
PM10 Total
Total PM2.5
Demolition

0.9 8.3

8.3 0.0

0.9 0.5
Grading

0.9 8.5

8.3 0.0

0.9 0.6
Building Construction - 2021

0.8 8.5

8.0 0.0

0.6 0.5
Building Construction - 2022

0.7 7.4

7.7 0.0

0.5 0.4
Architectural Coating

0.3 1.4

2.1 0.0

0.2 0.1
Daily Maximum Emissions

0.9 8.5

8.3 0.0

0.9 0.6
SC AQMD Regional Threshold
75 100
550
150
150
55 5Exceeds
Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Construction Daily Summary 1of2 2/22/20219:57 AM

AQ Construction Summary
Air Quality Construction Analysis
Unmitigated Construction Scenario
PM10
Tota
Localized Emissions Summary
NO
CO
Total
PM2.5
0 Ib/hr
Demolition

7.3 7.6

0.7 0.4
Grading

7.4 7.7

0.7 0.6
Building Construction - 2021

8.2 7.4

0.4 0.4
Building Construction - 2022

7.0 7.2

0.4 0.3
Architectural Coating

1.4 1.8

0.1 0.1
Daily Maximum Emissions

8.2 7.7

0.7 0.6
SCAQMDLocalized Threshold
162
750
4 3
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
Construction Daily Summary 2of2 2/22/20219:57 AM

AQ Construction Summary
Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I Fugitive Exhaust PM30 Fugitive Eahaust To[al ROG NO% c0 S02 PM10 Total PM2.5 10 PMPM2.5 T..IPM2.5 ROG NOX CO 502 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 1 d 1�11 1�41 1 1�1.1 %2.1 1 1�11 %II 1�411 1��11 1' 1' Bull �6
Bucldteclu al Co b g - 2022 I 0 31 1�41 1..1 0�00 0.00 0. 8 0. 8 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.03 ROG NO% CO S02 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total PM2.5
Demolition 0.86 8.26 8.34 0.04 0.4] 0.41 0.88 0.09 0.39 0.49 Grading 0.83 ].92 8.2] 0.01 0.44 0.41 0.85 020 0.39 0.59 Building Co nstniction-2021 0.81 8.53 ].9] 0.01 0.14 0.45 0.59 0.04 0.41 0.45 Building Construcbon-2022 0.]1 ].39 ].68 0.01 0.14 0.3] 0.51 0.04 0.34 0.38 Architectual Coating 0.31 143 2.13 0.00 0.. 0.08 0.. 0.03 0.08 0.11 Construction Daily Summary loft 2/22/20219:58 AM

Air 0oality Constrodion
Construction - 2021
Construction - 2022
lural Coating
Construction - 2021
Construction - 2022
tu.1 Coaling
R00 NO%
ROO NOg

0.86 8.26

0.83 ].92

0.81 8.53

0.]3 ].39

0.31 1.43
Fugitive
EBhaost PMIO Fugitive EBhaost
CO 502
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Ph
lb/day

7.59 0.04

0.28 0.41

0.69 0.1

1.11 0.43
].13 1.01

1.21 1.41

0.70 0.16

0.39 0.55
].44 0.01

0.00 0.45
OAS

0.00 0.41 0.41
].IS 0.01

0.00 0.3]

0.3]

0.00 0.34 0.34

1.81 0.00
0 00

0.06 0.08

0.00 0.08 0.08
CO 502 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total PN

8.34 0.04 0 4] 0.41 0.88 0.09 0.39 0 49

8.2] 0.01 0.44 0.41 0.85 0.20 0.39 0.59
].9] 0.01 0.14 0.45 0.59 0.04 0.41 0.41
].68 0.01 0.14 0.3] 0.51 0.04 0.34 0.38

2.13 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.08 0.11
Fugitive EBhaost PM10 Fogkive EBhaost Total
R00 NOg
CO
502
PM30 PM10
Total
PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5
lb/day

0.06 0.98

0.15 0.00

0.18 0.01

0.11 0.05 0.01 0.05

0.03 0.50

0..

0.00 0.11 1.10

0.15 0.1 0.00 1.14

0.02 0.36

0.53 0.00

0.14 0.00

0.14 0.06 0.00 0.04

0.02 0.36

0.53 0.11

0.14 0.00

0.14 0.04 0.00 0.04

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.11 0.00

0.11 0.03 0.00 0.03

ix A. Air Qualitv and GHG Calculations
On -road Emissions Calculations

Total On -Road Emissions
260 Max construction days Der vear
Total On -Road Emissions
Daily
Days
Work Hours
One -Way
Regional Emissions
Construction Phase One -Way
per Phase
per Day
Trip Distance
Idling
(pounds/day) (MT/yr)
Trips
per Day
per Day
PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Total
(days)
(hours/day)
(miles)
(minutes)
ROG NOX CO 502 Dust Exh PM10 Dust Exh PM2.5 CO2e
Demolition 2021
Total Haul Trips 50
Demolition Hauling 4 15 8 20 15 0.04 0.96 0.43 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.29 2021Vendo Vendor 0 15 8 6.9 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2021Worke Worker 10 15 8 14.7 0 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.67 Onroad Emissions - Demolition

0.04 0.98

0.75 0.00

0.18 0.01

0.19 0.05

0.01 0.05

2.96 Grading
2021
Total Haul Trips
18 2021Haulini Hauling
2 10
8 20 15

0.02 0.48

0.21 0.00

0.03 0.00

0.04 0.01

0.00 0.01

0.76 2021Vendo Vendor
0 10
8 6.9 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 2021Worke Worker
10 10
8 14.7 0

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.11 0.00

0.11 0.03

0.00 0.03

0.44 Onroad Emissions - Grading

0.03 0.50

0.53 0.00

0.15 0.00

0.15 0.04

0.00 0.04

1.21 Building Construction
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 2021Haulini Hauling
0 90
8 20 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 2021Vendo Vendor
4 90
8 6.9 15

0.02 0.34

0.21 0.00

0.03 0.00

0.03 0.01

0.00 0.01

4.70 2021Worke Worker
10 90
8 14.7 0

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.11 0.00

0.11 0.03

0.00 0.03

4.00 Onroad Emissions
- Building Construction

0.02 0.36

0.53 0.00

0.14 0.00

0.14 0.04

0.00 0.04

8.70 Architectural Coating
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 2021Haulini Hauling
0 20
8 20 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 2021Vendo Vendor
0 20
8 6.9 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 2021Worke Worker
10 20
8 14.7 0

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.11 0.00

0.11 0.03

0.00 0.03

0.89 Onroad Emissions - Architectural Coating

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.11 0.00

0.11 0.03

0.00 0.03

0.89 Running Emissions
Running Emissions Factor Running Emissions Factor
(grams/mile) (grams/mile)
ROG NOX CO sO2 I PM10 PM2.5 I CO2 CH4 NM
2020Hauling Hauling

0.12467436

4.127586075

0.70244559

0.01389473

0.04956172

0.04741766
1520.07529

0.08121693

0.2410944
2020Vendor Vendor

0.12175156

3.217634225

0.70325362

0.01222293

0.05527116

0.05287672
1311.85371

0.04440854

0.18764154
2020Worker Worker

0.02296702

0.083024116

1.09430473

0.00306823

0.00220351

0.002029
310.119284

0.00538825

0.00712331
2021Hauling Hauling

0.08103572

3.571515626

0.57499969

0.01347655

0.0279869

0.02677616
1477.43548

0.08019506

0.23446951
2021Vendor Vendor

0.0717977

2.602453214

0.52331731

0.01185125

0.02991351

0.02861613
1273.54109

0.04239589

0.18204996
2021Worker Worker

0.01983596

0.07223241

0.98341812

0.00297251

0.00205695

0.00189393
300.448479

0.00471177

0.00646256
2022Hauling Hauling

0.02463044

2.696920068

0.45130496

0.01267644

0.01843607

0.0176385
1394.21089

0.07850131

0.22145577
2022Vendor Vendor

0.01991806

1.889760516

0.36497107

0.01125961

0.01227567

0.01174136
1211.83967

0.04029686

0.17274956
2022Worker Worker

0.01716262

0.063167612

0.89794164

0.00287684

0.00193578

0.00178222
290.781675

0.00413135

0.00590029
2023Hauling Hauling

0.02438513

2.70726027

0.46544535

0.01247986

0.01859168

0.01778737
1374.48104

0.07922973

0.21840565
2023Vendor Vendor

0.01904515

1.897817151

0.35240371

0.01108069

0.01237071

0.01183229
1193.62946

0.0405116

0.17033183
2023Worker Worker

0.01513169

0.055897597

0.83140276

0.00279165

0.00185735

0.00170978
282.578076

0.00368669

0.00544537
GWP
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
1 25
290
Daily
Haul Days
Work Hours
One -Way
Regional Emissions Regional Emissions
Construction Phase One -Way
per Phase
per Day
Trip Distance
(pounds/day) (MT/year)
Trips
per Day

I I I I I I I I
(days)
(hours/day)
(miles)
ROG NOX CO 502 PMSO PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Demolition
2021
Total Haul Trips
50 Hauling
4 15
8 20

0.01 0.63

0.10 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.77 0.00

0.08 1.86
Vendor
0 15
8 6.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 15
8 14.7

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.66 0.00

0.00 0.67

0.02 0.65

0.42 0.00

0.01 0.01

2.44 0.00

0.09 2.52
Grading
2021
Total Haul Trips
18 Hauling
2 10
8 20

0.01 0.31

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.59 0.00

0.03 0.62
Vendor
0 10
8 6.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 10
8 14.7

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.44 0.00

0.00 0.44

0.01 0.34

0.37 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.03 0.00

0.03 1.06
Building Construction
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 90
8 20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
4 90
8 6.9

0.00 0.16

0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00

3.16 0.00

0.13 3.30
Worker
10 90
8 14.7

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

3.97 0.00

0.02 4.00

0.01 0.18

0.35 0.00

0.00 0.00

7.14 0.00

0.16 7.30
Architectural Coating
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 20
8 20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 20
8 6.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
30 20
8 14.7

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.88 0.00

0.01 0.89

0.01 0.02

0.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.88 0.00

0.01 0.89

Idling Emissions
Idling Emissions Factor Idling Emissions Factor
(grams/minute) (grams/minute)
ROG NOX I CO 502 I PM30 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 I N2O
2020Hauling Hauling

0.18203757

2.514257339

2.34424676

0.00425698

0.00364827

0.00349045
457.401286

0.01060122

0.07221486
2020Vendor Vendor

0.09655158

1.389498887

1.26412887

0.00228127

0.00225118

0.00215379
244.777779

0.00633167

0.03834928
2020Worker Worker
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2021Hauling Hauling

0.17992826

2.494221613

2.47137063

0.00431707

0.00153707

0.00147058
463.979458

0.01057258

0.07325903
2021Vendor Vendor

0.09512038

1.358206146

1.32735389

0.00230801

0.00101987

0.00097575
247.718477

0.00631023

0.03882087
2021Worker Worker
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2022Hauling Hauling

0.1794334

2.268893827

2.65540888

0.00413434

0.00124387

0.00119006
444.864297

0.01062746

0.07026495
2022Vendor Vendor

0.09453686

1.21688302

1.42143188

0.00221115

0.00069792

0.00066773
237.578447

0.00634204

0.03723243
2022Worker Worker
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2023Hauling Hauling

0.17974307

2.262044342

2.6647617

0.00409118

0.00119718

0.00114539
440.393976

0.01068902

0.06956683
2023Vendor Vendor

0.09456835

1.210583463

1.42500372

0.00218695

0.00066414

0.00063541
235.070306

0.00635061

0.03685329
2023Worker Worker
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 GWP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 25
290
Daily
Haul Days
Work Hours
Idling
Regional Emissions Regional Emissions
Construction Phase One -Way
per Phase
per Day
minutes
(pounds/day) (MT/year)
Trips
per Day

I I I I I I I
(days)
(hours/day)
(miles)
ROG NOX CO 502 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Demolition
2021
Total Haul Trips
50 Hauling
4 15
8 15

0.02 0.33

0.33 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.42 0.00

0.02 0.44
Vendor
0 15
8 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 15
8 0

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.33

0.33 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.42 0.00

0.02 0.44
Grading
2021
Total Haul Trips
18 Hauling
2 10
8 15

0.01 0.16

0.16 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.14 0.00

0.01 0.15
Vendor
0 10
8 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 10
8 0

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.16

0.16 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.14 0.00

0.01 0.15
Building Construction
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 90
8 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
4 90
8 15

0.01 0.18

0.18 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.34 0.00

0.06 1.40
Worker
10 90
8 0

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.18

0.18 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.34 0.00

0.06 1.40
Architectural Coating
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 20
8 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 20
8 15

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 20
8 0

0.00 0.00

Road Dust, Break Wear, and Tire wear Emissions
Emission Factors
(grams/mile)
PM10 PM2.5

RD BW TW RD I BW I TW
202011auling Hauling
2020Vendor Vendor
2020Worker Worker

3.00E-01

0.061048007

0.03558331

7.36E-02

0.02616343

0.00889583

3.00E-01

0.095694022

0.02379166

7.36E-02

0.04101172

0.00594791

3.00E-01

0.036750011

0.008

7.36E-02

0.01575

0.002
2021Hauling Hauling
2021Vendor Vendor
2021Worker Worker

3.00E-01

0.061055751

0.0355879

7.36E-02

0.02616675

0.00889698

3.00E-01

0.095697894

0.02379395

7.36E-02

0.04101338

0.00594849

3.00E-01

0.036750011

0.008

7.36E-02

0.01575

0.002
202211auling Hauling
2022Vendor Vendor
2022Worker Worker

3.00E-01

0.061063462

0.03559233

7.36E-02

0.02617005

0.00889808

3.00E-01

0.095701749

0.02379617

7.36E-02

0.04101504

0.00594904

3.00E-01

0.036750011

0.008

7.36E-02

0.01575

0.002
2023Hauling Hauling
2023Vendor Vendor
2023Worker Worker

3.00E-01

0.06107028

0.03559616

7.36E-02

0.02617298

0.00889904

3.00E-01

0.095705158

0.02379808

7.36E-02

0.0410165

0.00594952

3.00E-01

0.036750011

0.008

7.36E-02

0.01575

0.002
Daily
Haul Days
Work Hours
One -Way
Regional Emissions
Construction Phase One -Way
per Phase
per Day
Trip Distance
(pounds/day)
Trips
per Day
PM10 PM2.5
(days)
(hours/day)
(miles)

RD BW TW RD I BW TW
Demolition
2021
Total Haul Trips
50 Hauling
4 15
8 20

0.05 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 15
8 6.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 15
8 14.7

0.10 0.01

0.00 0.02

0.01 0.00
Grading
2021
Total Haul Trips
18 Hauling
2 10
8 20

0.03 0.01

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 10
8 6.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 10
8 14.7

0.10 0.01

0.00 0.02

0.01 0.00
Building Construction
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 90
8 20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
4 90
8 6.9

0.02 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 90
8 14.7

0.10 0.01

0.00 0.02

0.01 0.00
Architectural Coating
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 20
8 20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 20
8 6.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 20
8 14.7

0.10 0.01

0.00 0.02

0.01 0.00

Total On -Road Emissions
260 Max construction days per vear
Total On -Road Emissions
Daily
Haul Days
Work Hours
One -Way
Regional Emissions
Construction Phase One -Way
per Phase
per Day
Trip Distance
Idling
(Tons/year) (MT/yr)
Trips
per Day
per Day
PM30 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Total
(days)
(hours/day)
(miles)
(minutes)
ROG NOX CO S02 Dust Exh PM10 Dust Exh PM2.5 CO2e
Demolition
2021
Total Haul Trips
50 Hauling
4 15
8 20
15 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.29
Vendor
0 15
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 15
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.67

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

2.96 Grading
2021
Total Haul Trips
18 Hauling
2 10
8 20
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.76
Vendor
0 10
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 10
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.44

0.00 0.00

1.21 Building Construction
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 90
8 20
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
4 90
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.02 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.70
Worker
10 90
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.00

0.00 0.02

0.02 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

8.70 Architectural Coating
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 20
8 20
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 20
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 20
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.89

0.00 0.00

0.89 Total On -Road Emissions
260 Max construction days per vear
Total On -Road Emissions
Daily
Haul Days
Work Hours
One -Way
Regional Emissions
Construction Phase One -Way
per Phase
per Day
Trip Distance
Idling
(Tons/year) (MT/yr)
Trips
per Day
per Day
PM30 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Total
(days)
(hours/day)
(miles)
(minutes)
ROG NOX CO S02 Dust Exh PM10 Dust Exh PM2.5 CO2e
Demolition
2021
Total Haul Trips
50 Hauling
4 15
8 20
15 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.29
Vendor
0 15
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 15
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.67

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

2.96 Grading
2021
Total Haul Trips
18 Hauling
2 10
8 20
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.76
Vendor
0 10
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 10
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.44

0.00 0.00

1.21 Building Construction
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 90
8 20
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
4 90
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.02 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.70
Worker
10 90
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.00

0.00 0.02

0.02 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

8.70 Architectural Coating
2021
Total Haul Trips
0 Hauling
0 20
8 20
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Vendor
0 20
8 6.9
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker
10 20
8 14.7
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.89

0.00 0.00

0.89 ix A. Air Qualitv and GHG Calculations
GHG Summary

GHG Emissions Summary
Construction Phase
Off -Road
On -Road
Total MTCO2e
Demolition

7.84 2.96

10.80 Grading

5.23 1.21

6.44 Building Construction

45.42 8.70

54.12 Architectural Coating

2.56 0.89

3.45 Total Construction Emissions

74.81 ix A. Air Qualitv and GHG Calculations
CaEEMod Outputs

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban
Climate Zone 10
Utility Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

Page 1 of 1 ends

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail - South Coast Air Basin, Summer Wind Speed (m/s)
Southern California Edison
702.44 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Project Schedule
Trips and VMT - Calculated outside of CalEEMod
Demolition - 260 CY concrete = 510 Tons
Grading - Import 176 CY Soil
Architectural Coating -
Energy Use -
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail
South Coast Air Basin, Summer

2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31
Operational Year 2022

0.029 N20Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Date: 2/18/2021 4:05 PM

Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation -
Off -road Equipment -
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstruction Phase
NumDays

5.00 20.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays
100.00

90.00 tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

10.00 15.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

2.00 10.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

5.00 0.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

1.00 0.00
tblGrading
Material Imported

0.00 176.00
tblTripsAndVMT
HaulingTripNumber

50.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
HaulingTripNumber

17.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorTripNumber

1.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorVehicleClass
HDT_Mix
HHDT
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

5.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

3.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT IF
WorkerTripNumber

18.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

1.00 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
PM10 I PM10 I Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total 1 I CO2

Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.7528

0.4475

1.1601

0.4138

0.4117

0.8024

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3568

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 2022

0.6863

7.0258

7.1527 0.0114 0.0000

0.3719

0.0000

0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939 0.3570

0.0000
1,112.865
3 3
2 Maximum

0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.7528

0.4475

1.1601

0.4138

0.4117

0.8024

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3570

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Year lb/day
lb/day
2021 0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.2936

0.4475

0.7009

0.1614

0.4117

0.5500

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3568

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 2022 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527 0.0114 0.0000

0.3719

0.0000

0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939 0.3570

0.0000
1,112.865
3 3
2 Maximum i 0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.2936

0.4475

0.7009

0.1614

0.4117

0.5500

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3570

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 I I
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Percent

0.00 0.00

61.00 0.00

29.97 61.00

0.00 22.05

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Reduction

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
I NOx
I CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
I Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day

Area 3.2200e-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
Energy 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mobile 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 3.220Oe-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.500Oe-
004

0.0000

1.600Oe-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.71OOe-
003
Mitigated Operational
ROG
I NOx
I CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

3.2200e-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.5000e-
0041

0.0000

0.0000
7 1.6000e-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
Energy

0.0000
Fobdoo

0.0000

0.0000--]------j

0.0000

0.0000
Mobile

0.0000

0.0000
Total

3.220Oe-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.500Oe-
004

0.0000

1.600Oe-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.71OOe-
003
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total
CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 1 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase

3 Grading
Grading
11/22/2021
12/3/2021
5 10
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
12/6/2021
4/8/2022
5 90
5 Paving
Paving
4/7/2022
4/6/2022
5 0
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
4/11/2022
5/6/2022
5 20
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.17
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 439 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.7
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.4 Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.3
Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.3
Grading
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.7
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.4 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.3
Building Construction
Cranes
1 4.00
231

0.2 Building Construction
Forklifts
2=

6.00 89

0.2 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.3
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
4 6.00
9 0.5
Paving
Pavers
1 7.00
130

0.4 Paving
Rollers
1 7.00
80 0.3
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.3
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.4

Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Demolition
4 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.001

0.00 LD Mix
HDT Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
2 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix771
HHDT
Grading
4 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
5 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HHDT
HHDT
Paving
7 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
I NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO21
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.7276 0.0000

0.7276

0.1102

0.0000

0.1102

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073

0.3886

0.3886 1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Total 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.7276 0.4073

1.1349

0.1102

0.3886

0.4988 1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.2838

0.0000 0.2838 0.0430

0.0000 0.0430

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073 0.4073

0.3886 0.3886 0.0000
1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Total 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.2838

0.4073 0.6911 0.0430

0.3886 0.4316 0.0000
1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
_n

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO21
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
ffi

0.0000

Mitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitiaated Construction On -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
lb/day lb/day
E

0.7528

0.0000

0.7528

0.4138

0.0000

0.4138

0.0000

0.0000
.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073

0.3886

0.3886
1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 .7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.7528

0.4073

1.1601

0.4138

0.3886

0.8024
1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
I Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO21 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.2936 0.0000 0.2936 0.1614 0.0000 0.1614 0.0000 0.0000

Off -Road

0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073 0.4073

0.3886 0.3886

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433

0.2138
1,152.779
8 8
7 Total

0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.2936

0.4073 0.7009 0.1614

0.3886 0.5500

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433

0.2138
1,152.779
8 8
7 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
I PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I Total
CO2
I
Category lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road 0.7750

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475 0.4475

0.4117

0.4117
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Total 0.7750

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475 0.4475

0.4117

0.4117
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
I NOx
I CO
I S02
I Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
ffi

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category lb/day lb/day
Off -Road 0.7750

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475

0.4117

0.4117 0.0000
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Total 0.7750

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475

0.4117

0.4117 0.0000
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO21
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category lb/day lb/day
Off -Road 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.3570
1,112.865
3 3
2 Total 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.3570
1,112.865
3 3
2 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
-n

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO21
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.3570
1,112.865
3 3
2 Total 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.3570
1,112.865
3 3
2 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000 1

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
I NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000
Paving 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitiaated Construction On -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000
Paving 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.1017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off -Road

0.2045

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-

0.0817

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
003
Total

0.3063

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-

0.0817

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.1017

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.2045

1.4085 1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Total 0.3063

1.4085 1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062

Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
I NOx
I CO
I S02
I Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.00000.00000.000.0000
ffi

0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000

0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday
Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary
Diverted Pass -by
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 16.60

8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
I PM2.5 Bio- CO21
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGas

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitiqated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
I NOx
I CO
I S02
I Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
I PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
I NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
I CO
Land Use kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Other Non -Asphalt 0
Surfaces

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
I NOx
I CO
I S02
I Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
I PM10
Total
I Fugitive
PM2.5
I Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
I NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
I CO
Land Use kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Other Non -Asphalt 0
Surfaces

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.2200e-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003
Unmitigated 3.2200e-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural

5.6000e-

0.0000

0.0000
Coating
004
Consumer

2.5900e-

0.0000

0.0000
Products
003
Landscaping

7.00OOe-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
005
005
004
003
003
003
Total

3.2200e-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003
Mitigated

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
SubCategory
lb/day
JAI
lb/day
Architectural

5.60OOe-

0.0000

0.0000
Coating
004
Consumer

2.5900e-

0.0000

0.0000
Products
003
Landscaping

7.00OOe-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
005
005
004
003
003
003
Total

3.2200e-

1.000Oe-

7.50OOe-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban
Climate Zone 10
Utility Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

Page 1 of 1 ends

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail - South Coast Air Basin, Winter Wind Speed (m/s)
Southern California Edison
702.44 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31
Operational Year 2022

0.029 N20Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Date: 2/18/2021 4:04 PM

Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation -
Off -road Equipment -
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstruction Phase
NumDays

5.00 20.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays
100.00

90.00 tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

10.00 15.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

2.00 10.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

5.00 0.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

1.00 0.00
tblGrading
Material Imported

0.00 176.00
tblTripsAndVMT
HaulingTripNumber

50.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
HaulingTripNumber

17.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorTripNumber

1.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorVehicleClass
HDT_Mix
HHDT
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

5.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

3.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT IF
WorkerTripNumber

18.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

1.00 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
PM10 I PM10 I Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total 1 I CO2

Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.7528

0.4475

1.1601

0.4138

0.4117

0.8024

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3568

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 2022

0.6863

7.0258

7.1527 0.0114 0.0000

0.3719

0.0000

0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939 0.3570

0.0000
1,112.865
3 3
2 Maximum

0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.7528

0.4475

1.1601

0.4138

0.4117

0.8024

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3570

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.2936

0.4475

0.7009

0.1614

0.4117

0.5500

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3568

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 2022 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527 0.0114 0.0000

0.3719

0.0000

0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939 0.3570

0.0000
1,112.865
3 3
2 Maximum i 0.7965

7.9850

7.5691 0.0120 0.2936

0.4475

0.7009

0.1614

0.4117

0.5500

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433 0.3570

0.0000
1,152.779
8 8
7 I I
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Percent

0.00 0.00

61.00 0.00

29.97 61.00

0.00 22.05

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Reduction

Area 3.2200e-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
Energy 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mobile 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 3.220Oe-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.500Oe-
004

0.0000

1.600Oe-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

3.2200e-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.5000e-
0041

0.0000

0.0000
7 1.6000e-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
Energy

0.0000
Fobdoo

0.0000

0.0000--]------j

0.0000

0.0000
Mobile

0.0000

0.0000
Total

3.220Oe-
003

1.00OOe-
005

7.500Oe-
004

0.0000

1.600Oe-
003

1.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.71OOe-
003
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total
CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 1 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase

0.4 Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.3
Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.3
Grading
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.7
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.4 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.3
Building Construction
Cranes
1 4.00
231

0.2 Building Construction
Forklifts
2=

6.00 89

0.2 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.3
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
4 6.00
9 0.5
Paving
Pavers
1 7.00
130

0.4 Paving
Rollers
1 7.00
80 0.3
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.3
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.4

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.001

0.00 LD Mix
HDT Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
2 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix771
HHDT
Grading
4 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
5 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HHDT
HHDT
Paving
7 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area

0.7276 0.0000

0.7276

0.1102

0.0000

0.1102

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073

0.3886

0.3886 1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Total 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.7276 0.4073

1.1349

0.1102

0.3886

0.4988 1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.2838

0.0000 0.2838 0.0430

0.0000 0.0430

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073 0.4073

0.3886 0.3886 0.0000
1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 Total 0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.2838

0.4073 0.6911 0.0430

Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
_n

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
ffi

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitiaated Construction On -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
lb/day lb/day
E

0.7528

0.0000

0.7528

0.4138

0.0000

0.4138

0.0000

0.0000
.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073

0.3886

0.3886
1,147.433
8 1,147.433
8 0.2138
1,152.779
7 .7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.7528

0.4073

1.1601

0.4138

0.3886

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

Off -Road

0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.4073 0.4073

0.3886 0.3886

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433

0.2138
1,152.779
8 8
7 Total

0.7965

7.2530

7.5691

0.0120

0.2936

0.4073 0.7009 0.1614

0.3886 0.5500

0.0000
1,147.433
1,147.433

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475 0.4475

0.4117

0.4117
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Total 0.7750

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475 0.4475

0.4117

0.4117
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
ffi

0.0000

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475

0.4117

0.4117 0.0000
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Total 0.7750

7.9850

7.2637

0.0114

0.4475

0.4117

0.4117 0.0000
1,103.215
1,103.215

0.3568
1,112.135
8 8
8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.3570
1,112.865
3 3
2 Total 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422
1,103.939
1,103.939

Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
-n

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.3570
1,112.865
3 3
2 Total 0.6863

7.0258

7.1527

0.0114

0.3719

0.3422 0.3422

0.0000
1,103.939
1,103.939

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000 1

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000
Paving 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitiaated Construction On -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000

0.0000
��

0.0000
Paving 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

Off -Road

0.2045

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-

0.0817

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
003
Total

0.3063

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-

0.0817

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.2045

1.4085 1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Total 0.3063

1.4085 1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.00000.00000.000.0000
ffi

0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000

0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday
Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary
Diverted Pass -by
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 16.60

8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGas

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.2200e-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003
Unmitigated 3.2200e-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003

5.6000e-

0.0000

0.0000
Coating
004
Consumer

2.5900e-

0.0000

0.0000
Products
003
Landscaping

7.00OOe-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
005
005
004
003
003
003
Total

3.2200e-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003
Mitigated

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
SubCategory
lb/day
JAI
lb/day
Architectural

5.60OOe-

0.0000

0.0000
Coating
004
Consumer

2.5900e-

0.0000

0.0000
Products
003
Landscaping

7.00OOe-

1.00OOe-

7.5000e-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
005
005
004
003
003
003
Total

3.2200e-

1.000Oe-

7.50OOe-

0.0000

1.6000e-

0.0000

1.7100e-
003
005
004
003
003
003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

11.0 Vegetation

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

Page 1 of 1 ends

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail - South Coast Air Basin, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)
Climate Zone 10
Utility Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Southern California Edison
702.44 CH4 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)

2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31
Operational Year 2022

0.029 N20Intensity 0.006
(Ib/MWhr)
Date: 2/18/2021 4:07 PM

Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation -
Off -road Equipment -
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays

5.00 20.00
tblCon structionPhase
NumDays
100.00

90.00 tblConstruction Phase
NumDays

10.00 15.00
tblConstruction Phase
NumDays

2.00 10.00
tblConstruction Phase
NumDays

5.00 0.00
tblConstruction Phase
NumDays

1.00 0.00
tblGrading
Material Imported

0.00 176.00
tblTripsAndVMT
HaulingTripN umber

50.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
HaulingTripNumber

17.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorTripNumber

1.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorVehicleClass
HDT_Mix
HHDT
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

5.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT IL
WorkerTripNumber

3.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

18.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

1.00 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
PM10 I PM10 I Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Total I I CO2

Year tons/yr
MT/yr
2021 0.0177

0.1705

0.1673

2.6000e-

9.2200e-

9.5700e-

0.0188

2.9000e- 8.9700e- 0.0119

0.0000

23.0199

23.0199 5.6600e-

0.0000

23.1614
004
003
003
003 003
003
2022 0.0271

0.2600

0.2685

4.3000e-

0.0000

0.0138

0.0000 0.0128 0.0128

0.0000

37.6050

37.6050 0.0115

0.0000

37.8925
004
Maximum J 0.0271

0.2600

0.2685

4.3000e-

9.2200e-

0.0138

0.0188

2.9000e- 0.0128 0.0128

0.0000

37.6050

37.6050 0.0115

0.0000

37.8925
004
003
003
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
To
CO2
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0177

0.1705

0.1673

2.6000e- 3.6000e-

9.5700e-

0.0132

1.1300e- 8.9700e-

0.0101 0.0000

23.0199

5.6600e-

0.0000

23.1614
004 003
003
I
003 003
003
2022 0.0271

0.2600

0.2685

4.3000e- 0.0000

0.0138

0.0000 0.0128

0.0128 0.0000

37.6049

0.0115

0.0000

37.8925
004
Maximum 0.0271

0.2600

0.2685

4.3000e- 3.6000e-

0.0138

1.1300e- 0.0128

0.0128 0.0000

37.6049

0.0115

0.0000

37.8925
004 003
003
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Percent

0.00 0.00

60.95 0.00

17.26 61.03

0.00 7.18

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Reduction
Quarter
Start Date
End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 11-1-2021
1-31-2022 0.2558

0.2558
2 2-1-2022
4-30-2022 0.1968

0.1968
3 5-1-2022
7-31-2022 0.0037

0.0037
Highest 0.2558

0.2558

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
774
0 1 CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

5.8000e-
004

0.0000

9.00OOe-
005

0.0000

1.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
Energy

0.0000

0.0000
Mobile

0.0000

0.0000
Waste

0.0000

0.0000
=00

0.0000

0.0000
Water

0.0000

0.0000
Total

5.8000e-
004

0.0000

9.00OOe-
005

0.0000

1.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
I Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

5.8000e-
004

0.0000

9.00OOe-
005

0.0000

1.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
Energy

0.0000

0.0000
Mobile

0.0000

0.0000
Waste
�-]

0.0000

0.0000
Water

0.0000

0.0000
Total

5.8000e-
004

0.0000

9.00OOe-
005

0.0000

1.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBlo-0O2
Total
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10 Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Percent

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
11/1/2021
11/19/2021
5 15
2 1 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
11/22/2021
11/21/2021
5 0
3 Grading
Grading
11/22/2021
12/3/2021
5 10
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
12/6/2021
4/8/2022
5 90
5 Paving
Paving
4/7/2022
4/6/2022
5 0
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
4/11/2022
5/6/2022
5 20
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.17
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 439 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.7
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.4 Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.3
Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.3
Grading
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.7
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.4 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.3
Building Construction
Cranes
1 4.00
231

0.2 Building Construction
Forklifts
2 6.00
89 0.2
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
F
00 97

0.3 Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
4 6.00
9 0.5
Paving
Pavers
1 7.00
130

0.4 Paving
Rollers
1 7.00IF-
80 0.3
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.3
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.4
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Demolition
4 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD Mix
HDT Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
2 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
5 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HHDT
HHDT
Paving
7 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
1 HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I
Total
IBio-CO21
CO2
I

Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

5.4600e-

0.0000

5.4600e-

8.3000e-

0.0000

8.3000e-

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000
003
003
004
004
Off -Road 5.9700e-

0.0544 0.0568

9.000Oe-

3.0600e-

2.9100e-

0.0000

7.8070

1.4500e- 0.0000

7.8434
003
005
003
003
003
003
003
Total 5.9700e-

0.0544 0.0568

9.000Oe-

5.4600e-

3.0600e-

8.5200e-

8.3000e-

2.9100e-

3.7400e-
J

0.0000

7.8070

1.4500e- 0.0000

7.8434
003
005
003
003
003
004
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

2.1300e-

0.0000

2.1300e-

3.2000e-

0.0000

3.2000e- 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
003
003
004
004
Off -Road 5.9700e-

0.0544

0.0568

9.000Oe-

3.0600e-

2.9100e-

2.9100e- 0.0000

7.8070

1.4500e-

0.0000

7.8434
003
005
003
003
003
003
003

Total

5.9700e-

0.0544

0.0568

9.000Oe-

2.1300e-

3.0600e-

5.1900e-

3.2000e-

2.9100e-

3.2300e-

0.0000

7.8070

1.4500e-

0.0000

7.8434
003
005
003
003
003
004
003
003
1 1
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000 IM70.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 1 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
I Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitiaated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
PM2.5
I
Total
IBio-CO21
CO2
I

Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

3.7600e-

0.0000

3.7600e-

2.0700e-

0.0000

2.0700e- 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
003
003
003
003
Off -Road 3.9800e-

0.0363

0.0379

6.000Oe-

2.0400e-

1.9400e-

1.9400e- 0.0000

5.2047 5.2047

9.7000e-

0.0000

5.2289
003
005
003
003
003
003
004
Total 3.9800e-

0.0363

0.0379

6.000Oe-

3.7600e-

2.0400e-

5.8000e-

2.0700e-

1.9400e-

4.0100e- 0.0000

5.2047 5.2047

9.7000e-

0.0000

5.2289
003
005
003
003
003
003
003
003
004
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
ITotalCO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.000o

0.00o0

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

Worker

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO21
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

1.4700e-

0.0000

1.4700e-

8.1000e-

0.0000

8.1000e- 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
003
003
004
004
Off -Road 3.9800e-

0.0363

0.0379

6.000Oe-

2.0400e-

1.9400e-

1.9400e- 0.0000

5.2047 5.2047 9.7000e-

0.0000 5.2289
003
005
003
003
003
003
004
Total 3.9800e-

0.0363

0.0379

6.000Oe-

1.4700e-

2.0400e-

3.5100e-

8.1000e-

1.9400e-

2.7500e- 0.0000

5.2047 5.2047 9.7000e-

0.0000 5.2289
003
005
003
003
003
004
003
003
004
Mitiaated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.5 Building Construction - 2021

Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I
Total
CO2
I
Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 7.7500e-

0.0799

0.0726

1.1000e-

4.4800e-

4.1200e-

0.0000

10.0082 10.0082

3.2400e-

0.0000

10.0891
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
Total 7.7500e-

0.0799

0.0726

1.1000e-

4.4800e-

4.1200e-

0.0000

10.0082 10.0082

3.2400e-

0.0000

10.0891
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
I 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I
Total
IBio-CO21
CO2
I

Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 7.7500e-

0.0799

0.0726

1.1000e-

4.4800e-

4.1200e-

0.0000

10.0082

3.2400e-

0.0000

10.0891
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
Total 7.7500e-

0.0799

0.0726

1.1000e-

4.4800e-

4.1200e-

0.0000

10.0082

3.2400e-

0.0000

10.0891
003
004
003
003
003
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
I PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitiaated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I
Total
CO2
I
Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.0240

0.2459

0.2503

4.00OOe-

0.0130

0.0120

0.0000

35.0517

0.0113

0.0000

35.3351
004
Total 0.0240

0.2459

0.2503

4.00OOe-

0.0130

0.0120

0.0000

35.0517

0.0113

0.0000

35.3351
004

Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
I
Total
CO2
I
Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Off -Road 0.0240

0.2459

0.2503

4.00OOe-

0.0130

0.0120

0.0000

35.0517

0.0113

0.0000

35.3351
004
Total 0.0240

0.2459

0.2503

4.00OOe-

0.0130

0.0120

0.0000

35.0517

0.0113

0.0000

35.3351
004
Mitiaated Construction Off -Site

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
ITotaICO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
I NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
ITotaICO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Paving 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
I
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
I
PM2.5
PM2.5
I
Total
IBio-CO21
CO2
I

Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
I NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off -Road 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 1 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Paving 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
ITotaICO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

Worker

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.0200e-

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
003
Off -Road 2.0500e-

0.0141

0.0181

3.000Oe-

8.2000e-

8.2000e- 0.0000

2.5533

1.7000e-

0.0000 2.5574
003
005
004
004
004
004
004
Total 3.0700e-

0.0141

0.0181

3.000Oe-

8.2000e-

8.2000e- 0.0000

2.5533

1.7000e-

0.0000 2.5574
003
005
004
004
004
004
004
Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2 CH4
N20
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.0200e-

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
003
Off -Road 2.0500e-

0.0141

0.0181

3.00OOe-

8.2000e-

8.2000e- 0.0000

2.5533

1.7000e-

0.0000

2.5574
003
005
004
004
004
004
004
Total 3.0700e-

0.0141

0.0181

3.00OOe-

8.2000e-

8.2000e- 0.0000

2.5533

1.7000e-

0.0000

2.5574
003
005
004
004
004
004
004
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-
CO2
ITotalCO2
CH4
N20
I CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG
NOx
CO
S02
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total
NBio-
CO2
jTotalCO21
CH4
I N20
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00
Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW H-W or C- H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary
Diverted Pass -by
Other Non -Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40

6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
CO2
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated
L:
�E:

NaturalGas

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGas

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitiqated
NaturalGa ROG
s Use
NOx CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt 0 0.0000
Surfaces

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG
s Use
I NOx
I CO
SO2
I Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
I Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
I CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr
MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt 0 0.0000
Surfaces

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitiqated
Electricity Total CO2
Use
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity Total CO2
Use
CH4
I N2O
I CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total 0.0000

0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2 CH4
N2O
CO2e
I
I
PM10
I
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
Total
CO2
I
Category tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated 5.80OOe-

0.0000

9.00OOe-

0.0000

1.8000e-

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
005
004
004
004
Unmitigated 5.8000e-

0.0000

1.8000e-

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
�F9.00OOe-
005
[0.�0.0000
[1:8me-
004
004
004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated

Consumer 4.7000e-
Products 004

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping 1.00OOe-

0.0000

9.00OOe-

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.8000e-

0.0000

1.9000e-
005
005
004
004
004
Total 5.800Oe-

0.0000

9.00OOe-

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.80OOe-

1.8000e-

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
005
004
004
004
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Exhaust
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio-
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
I
PM10
PM10
Total
PM2.5
I
PM2.5
To
CO2
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural

1.00OOe-

0.0000

0.0000
Coating
004
Consumer

4.7000e-

0.0000

0.0000
Products
004
Landscaping

1.00OOe-

0.0000

9.00OOe-

0.0000

1.8000e-

0.0000

1.9000e-
005
005
004
004
004
Total

5.8000e-

0.0000

9.00OOe-

0.0000

1.8000e-

0.0000

1.9000e-
004
005
004
004
004

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4
N2O
I 7O2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
0/0

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4
N2O
7O2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
0/0

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2
CH4
I N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000

0.0000

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4
N2O
I CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated

Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4
I N20
I CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Other Non -Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Purl and Emeraencv Generators
Equipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

Appendix B
Biological Resources Technical
Report
ESA

Draft

SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK TRAIL PHASE II

UNDERCROSSING AT MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT
Biological Technical Report
Prepared for
EXP U.S. Services, Inc.

January 2022
F ESA
J

Draft

SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK TRAIL PHASE II

UNDERCROSSING AT MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT
Biological Technical Report
Prepared for
D<P U.S. Services, Inc.
2121 Alton Parkway
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92606
949.753.7001
esassoc.com
Bend
Orlando
San Jose
Camarillo
Pasadena
Santa Monica
Delray Beach
Petaluma
Sarasota
Destin
Portland
Seattle
Irvine
Sacramento
Tampa
Los Angeles
San Diego
Oakland
San Francisco
D201901440
January 2022
F ESA
J

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY I ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II
Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project
Paqe

1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description..................................................................................................1

1.2 Methods...................................................................................................................2

2.0 Characteristics of Survey Area.....................................................................................5

2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................5

2.2 Soils and Topography.............................................................................................5

2.3 Plant Communities and Land Use..........................................................................9

2.4 Sensitive Natural Communities.............................................................................11

2.5 Wildlife...................................................................................................................13

2.6 Protected Trees.....................................................................................................19

2.7 Critical Habitat.......................................................................................................19

2.8 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................19

2.9 Wildlife Movement Corridors.................................................................................20

3.0 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................20

3.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Acts.......................................................20

3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act......................................................................................20

3.3 Clean Water Act....................................................................................................20

3.4 Native Plant Protection Act...................................................................................21

3.5 Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ...............21

3.6 Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code.........................21

3.7 Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code...........................................22

3.8 City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance..........................................................22

3.9 Western Riverside County MSHCP......................................................................22

3.10 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan...........................................24

4.0 Potential Impacts to Biological Resources...............................................................24

4.1 Sensitive Natural Communities.............................................................................24

4.2 Special -Status Plants and Wildlife........................................................................25

4.3 Critical Habitat.......................................................................................................26

4.4 Wildlife Movement Corridors.................................................................................26

4.5 Western Riverside County MSHCP and Stephens' Kangaroo Rat HCP .............26

5.0 Minimization and Avoidance Measures.....................................................................29

5.1 Sensitive Natural Communities.............................................................................29

5.2 Nesting Birds.........................................................................................................30

5.3 Special -Status Wildlife..........................................................................................30

5.4 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures..................................................31

5.5 Western Riverside County MSHCP......................................................................31

6.0 References....................................................................................................................32 Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project I ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Table of Contents
Page
Appendices
A. Floral and Faunal Compendia
B. Photographic Log
C. CNDDB and CNPS Database Search Results
List of Figures
Figure 1
Regional Location......................................................................................................6 Figure 2
Project Location.........................................................................................................7 Figure3
Soils............................................................................................................................8 Figure 4
Plant Communities and Land Use
...........................................................................10 Figure 5
Sensitive Biological Resources................................................................................12 List of Tables
Table 1
Weather Details During Survey..................................................................................4 Table 2
Plant Communities and Land Use.............................................................................9 Table 3
Potentially Occurring Special -Status Wildlife Species within the Survey Area..........................................................................................................................15 Table 4
Potentially Occurring Special -Status Plant Species within the Survey Area ........... 18 Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project II ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK TRAIL PHASE II

UNDERCROSSING AT MARGARITA ROAD

PROJECT
Biological Technical Report

1.0 Introduction
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by EXP U.S. Services to conduct an assessment of sensitive biological resources for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project (project) located in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The assessment, conducted in accordance with the western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), was conducted within the 1.98-acre project site and a surrounding 500-foot buffer, collectively referred to as the "survey area". On - site and adjacent site conditions were evaluated for their potential to support sensitive biological resources, such as special -status species and associated habitats, wetlands and streams, and sensitive vegetation communities. This report provides an overview of the findings of biological database queries and field assessment. The report includes recommendations for avoiding or minimizing impacts to sensitive biological resources prior to the commencement of any ground - disturbing activities associated with the construction and operation of the project.

1.1 Project Description
The proposed project will reconstruct approximately 610 feet of shared bicycle/pedestrian trail undercrossing beneath the overpass of Margarita Road. The proposed off-street paved undercrossing would begin where the existing grade of the trail ramps begin to elevate to meet the grade of the overcrossing of Margarita Road at the east and west sides, which is slightly north of the existing overcrossing site. The project would include the removal of existing pavement and soils to bring the existing trail to 5 percent grade at a new location beneath Margarita Road, and would include various utility improvements. Other aspects of the project include landscaping and slope improvements along the proposed alignment.

Proposed Trail Connection
Implementation of the project would include the demolition of the existing trail along the east and western sides of Margarita Road, which includes the removal of a minimum of 1 foot of existing aggregated concrete pavement and the compaction of existing soils to bring to grade the proposed trail. The proposed juncture of the existing trail and proposed undercrossing would be brought to a median elevation of 1,064.3 feet above mean sea level (amsl), which results in a 5 percent grade change to the lowest extent of the proposed trail on each side. The trail would adjoin the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
grade of 1,069 feet amsl at the western extent and 1,071.98 feet amsl at the eastern extent. The project would include the reconstruction and/or replacement of the existing retaining wall and channel slope paving and cut-off wall. A ground anchor wall is also proposed below the Margarita Road undercrossing, which would be used to retain the abutment end slope. Existing water valves and fixtures impacted by trenching of the soil to grade would be restored, along with curb and gutter replacements. It is anticipated that all conflicting surface utility facilities would either be protected in place or be relocated within the confines of the project boundary (including a 20-inch waterline owned by Rancho California Water District that would be relocated a maximum of 23-feet to the east).

The proposed trail undercrossing will measure 610 feet long and 12 feet wide, and will be paved on compacted soil beneath Margarita Road, directly to the north of the existing overcrossing. A retaining wall would be constructed where the proposed shared -use path would encroach into the cut slopes of Santa Gertrudis Creek along the northern length of the existing trail. The proposed retaining wall would measure approximately 6 to 10 feet in height and would incorporate drainage V-ditches outside of the Margarita Road bridge. The existing pier wall near the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Flood Control facilities and posts beneath the Margarita Road overpass would be protected in place.

The existing channel wall slope paving would be removed and reconstructed. As part of this process, articulated concrete blocks that currently extend into the bed of the creek, from the toe of the existing retaining wall, will be replaced with a comparable material that will improve the stability of the new infrastructure; this replacement will result in the removal of a minimal quantity of vegetation present within the channel; however, the new material will allow for this vegetation to regrow and persist following project completion. In addition, a tieback wall would be constructed to prevent erosion of the existing slopes, along the southern length of the proposed shared -use path. Access during the reconstruction of the channel wall, and the replacement of the articulated concrete blocks will result in additional temporary impacts to vegetation within the bed of the channel.

The project would also include the installation of a 4-foot-high chain -link fence and a Type 5 retaining wall in accordance with Caltrans Standard Plans (133-1) along the north side of the proposed undercrossing. The retaining wall would serve as a barrier between the proposed shared - use path and the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek edge due to the proximity of the two facilities.

Other Improvements
Bike path signage would be installed throughout the project site to educate users of the trail on current laws and user responsibility. In addition, landscaping and slope improvements would be needed along the proposed shared -use path. The project does not include any installation of trail lighting.

1.2 Methods
Literature Review
Prior to conducting the field assessment, ESA conducted a query of available biological resource databases and literature, as well as available studies conducted within the immediate vicinity.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 2 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
This information was used to identify sensitive biological resources that have been previously detected in the vicinity of the project site and to analyze the potential impacts that could result from the implementation of the project.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021 a. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). Database was queried for special status species records in the Murrieta USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles including Bachelor Mtn., Fallbrook, Lake Elsinore, Pechanga, Romoland, Temecula, Wildomar and Winchester. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data . Accessed January 14, 2021. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. California Natural Community List. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, 2020. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Database was queried for special status species records in the Murrieta USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles including. Wildomar, Bachelor Mtn., Lake Elsinore, Romoland, Winchester, Fallbrook, Temecula, Pechanga. http://rareplants.cnps.org/ . Accessed January 14, 2021. • Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm . Accessed January 14, 2021. • Dudek & Associates, Inc. (Dudek). 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Prepared for County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency.
• Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) RCA MSHCP Information Map. 2021. https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/ . Accessed January 14, 2021. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Critical Habitat Portal. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.httnl?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4feO9893cf 75b8dbf677. Accessed January 4, 2021.

Western Riverside County Consistency Analysis
The proposed project is located within the western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the City of Temecula (permittee and lead agency) is a plan participant; therefore, ESA queried the Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Conservation Map to determine the requirements for habitat assessments, focused surveys, and other issues related to biological resources (RCIP 2021). A discussion/analysis of consistency with the MSHCP is provided below in Section 3, Regulatory Setting, and Section 4, Potential Impacts to Biological Resources.

Field Survey
Biological Resources Assessment
ESA biologists Robert Sweet and Karla Flores conducted a biological resources assessment on December 16, 2020. Weather data collected during the assessment is included below in Table 1, Weather Details During Survey. The survey consisted of walking transects and meandering throughout the study area to characterize and map vegetation and habitats, and to determine the potential for special -status plants and wildlife to occur. A focused rare plant survey was conducted concurrently, within and immediately surrounding proposed impact areas, as well, in Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 3 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). The results of the focused rare plant survey have been incorporated into this report.

TABLE 1

WEATHER DETAILS DURING SURVEY
Time
Temperature (OF)
Wind (mph)
Clouds (%)
Surveyors
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
7:30
14:15
47 73

0.6 1.2
0 0
Robert Sweet and Karla Flores
All incidental, visual observations of flora and fauna, including sign (e.g., presence of scat) and any audible detections of wildlife, were noted during the assessment and are described below, in Section 2.5, Wildlife. All native and non-native plant communities and land uses were characterized and delineated on aerial photographs during the field survey, and then digitized on aerial maps using a geographic information system software (ArcGIS). Most descriptions of community and land use types were characterized in the field in accordance with A Manual of California Vegetation -Second Edition (Keeler -Wolf et al. 2009); however, some were characterized based on species dominance or other visual characteristics if a suitable alliance was not appropriate. A detailed description of each plant community and land use is provided below, in Section 2.3, Plant Communities and Land Uses.

Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
A burrowing owl habitat assessment and focused survey was conducted within the survey area concurrently with the biological resources assessment. The habitat assessment and focused survey followed the guidelines outlined in the 2006 Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (RCA 2006). A qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl identification, habitat, behavior, vocalizations, and sign performed the surveys by walking parallel transects throughout the survey area. Pedestrian transects were spaced no more than 100 feet apart, and spacing was adjusted as needed in areas of dense vegetation. Special attention was given to areas that provided suitable habitat for burrowing owl. If burrows of suitable size and morphology were encountered, each was mapped using ArcGIS Collector, and examined for signs of activity/occupancy such as feathers, whitewash and regurgitated pellets.

Aquatic Resources Delineation
An aquatic resources delineation was conducted concurrent with the biological resources assessment and burrowing owl habitat assessment. The survey methods and results are documented in a separate Aquatic Resources Delineation report (ESA 2021).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 4 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical

2.0 Characteristics of Survey Area

2.1 Project Location
The project site is located at Margarita Road and the south side of Santa Gertrudis Creek in the city of Temecula, CA, as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Project Location. The existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail (SGCT) is a 3-mile paved trail, which traverses from northeast to southwest in the city of Temecula and serves as both a recreational amenity and an active transportation alternative.

The northeastern terminus of SGCT is located at Nakayama Park, near the intersection of Joseph Road and Nicolas Road. The trail is adjacent to the south side of Santa Gertrudis Creek, meanders to the north and passes under State Route 79 (SR-79), before reaching the southwestern terminus at Ynez Road near Winchester Road.

The existing crossing of the SGCT is located at Margarita Road, which is a 100-foot-wide, four - lane divided collector street in the City of Temecula, with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. At the crossing of the Santa Gertrudis Creek, Margarita Road narrows to 88 feet in width.

Margarita Road has two lanes of traffic in each direction, with a partially landscaped median varying in width from 13 feet to 22 feet, a 7-foot northbound and 5-foot southbound Class II bike lane, and 6-foot sidewalks on both sides. The roadway grade varies from approximately 2 percent to 3 percent. The project site ranges in elevation, with the westernmost extent at 1,070 feet amsl, with the easternmost extent at 1,072 amsl.

2.2 Soils and Topography
Based on review of the Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS) web soil survey, the survey area contains two soil types, Riverwash and Hanford coarse sandy loam. The Riverwash primarily occurs throughout the bed and banks Santa Gertrudis Creek, while the Hanford coarse sandy loam occurs within the upland areas that surround the creek (Figure 3, Soils) (MRCS 2020a). A brief description of the characteristics of each is provided below:

Riverwash
This soil association is considered excessively drained, and is typically comprised of sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed sources. The soil profile consists of gravelly coarse sand from 0-6 inches and stratified extremely gravelly coarse sand to gravelly sand from 6-60 inches.

This soil type is listed as hydric (MRCS 2021).

Hanford coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
This soil association is considered well drained, and is typically comprised of stratified loamy sand to coarse sandy loam. The soil profile consists of coarse sandy loam from 0-8 inches, fine sandy loam from 8-40 inches and stratified loamy sand to coarse sandy loam from 40-60 inches.

This soil is not listed as hydric (MRCS 2021).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project rJ ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

I
---r-r
60 Moreno Valley
r''
4Leke $..
■ Perrisv
.I
-Cyoe_
j 74
® Project Area
I.•_ Sun City s
\ Lake Lake Elsir. .-
Cleveland
National
^� Elsinore
ForesJ��!��
Wildomar
O�
Santa Ana
Mountains R
©
— — — \ Project Location
— — — ` V , Temecula 371
Ri FRS O
i' S41v o" pO� COIJ
cCUNT •�'

YI---------
I San Clemente
v Camp Pendleton
Marine Corps Base 76 Cleveland
® National
Forest
Bonsall Pauma Valley
e
9 Oceanside
Vista Valley Center
0 Carlsbad 78
San Marcos
Lake
n
0 8 Escondido Sutherland
OMiles"p�r,San Pasqual
SOURCE: ESRI Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 1
Regional Location
r ESA

f �

SPRINGFIELDPL
m ■ ,
z S i
CHAR4ESTON ST "`
Sa
OEM—
. �... '�-
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020.
r ESA
J
Qx
r r F t
AUGUSTARD v 1
A
•�' �� * '0RTLAND CS
�.
o
MARGARITAS. -
A �.
'' JR ?
:, • A7
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 2
Project Location

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020; Web Soil Survey, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project r ESA
J
Figure 3
Soils

Technical

2.3 Plant Communities and Land Use
Plant communities and land use were characterized to map their extent and quantify their abundance within the survey area using ArcGIS. Plant taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual:

Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), and plant community descriptions were characterized using A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition Manual) (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant communities and land use not identified within the Manual were characterized based on species dominance or other visual characteristics.

The plant communities and land use mapped within the survey area includes annual grasses and forbs, Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest, hardstem bulrush marsh, tamarisk thickets, unvegetated streambed and disturbed/developed land use. These are depicted in Figure 4, Plant Communities and Land Use. Acreages of each vegetation community in the survey area are summarized below in Table 2, Plant Communities and Land Use.

TABLE 2

PLANT COMMUNITIES AND LAND USE
Plant Communities and Land Use
Acres
Annual Grasses and Forbs

0.807
Goodding's Willow -Sandbar Willow Riparian Woodland/Forest

1.187
Hardstem Bulrush Marsh

1.850
Tamarisk Thickets

0.262
Unvegetated Streambed

0.395
Disturbed/Developed

29.453
Grand Total

33.954
Annual Grasses and Forbs
Annual grasses and forbs occur in drier portions of the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. This community supports a dense herbaceous layer primarily consisting of non-native grasses and forbs with a co -dominance of annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Other herbaceous species interspersed throughout include annual ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis) and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium).

Goodding's Willow -Sandbar Willow Riparian Woodland/Forest

61.211.09
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest occurs primarily as a narrow strip, along the northwestern edge of the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. One additional patch of this community type also occurs along the southeast boundary of the creek bed, immediately to the east of the Santa Margarita Bridge. This community is characterized by a prominence of Goodding's willow (Salix gooddingii) in the tree canopy, interspersed with various other shrub/small tree species, such as sandbar willow (Salix exigua). This community also supports a dense herbaceous layer of grass and forb species, such as annual beard grass, curly dock, tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). This community is considered sensitive under the 2020 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Community List Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 9 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project r ESA
J
Figure 4
Plant Communities and Land Use

Technical
Hardstem Bulrush Marsh 52.128.00
Hardstem bulrush marsh occurs throughout much of the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. This community is characterized by a dense herbaceous layer dominated by hardstem bulrush, interspersed with various other species that include annual beard grass, cocklebur, curly dock, Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus) and tall flatsedge. This community is considered sensitive under the 2020 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Community List.

Tamarisk Thickets 63.810.00
Tamarisk thickets occur along the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek, in the western portion of the survey area. This community is characterized by an overwhelming dominance of tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) in the tree layer, and is interspersed throughout with various other trees, grasses and forbs, which include sandbar willow, tall flatsedge, curly dock, annual beard grass and cocklebur.

Unvegetated Streambed
Unvegetated streambed occurs under the Santa Margarita Bridge, within the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. This community is characterized as having little to no vegetation other than weedy, herbaceous growth. Species observed include annual beard grass, curly dock and cocklebur.

Disturbed developed
Disturbed/developed land use includes the manufactured concrete banks observed along Santa Gertrudis Creek, the concrete bridge/paved roadway along Margarita Road, the paved bike trail, and the surrounding commercial/industrial developments and associated parking lots/landscaped areas. These areas are either entirely or largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of some weedy non-native growth, which includes such species as short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and ornamental, planted trees that include red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon).

2.4 Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as those natural communities that have a reduced range and/or are imperiled as a result of residential and commercial development, agriculture, energy production, and mining, or an influx of invasive and other problematic species. Vegetation communities are evaluated using NatureServe's Heritage Methodology (NatureServe 2018), which is based on the knowledge of range and distribution of a specific vegetation type and the proportion of occurrences that are of good ecological integrity. Evaluation is done at both a global (natural range within and outside of California [G]) and subnational (State level for California [S]) level, each ranked from 1 ("critically imperiled" or very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Natural communities and habitats with state ranks of S1 through S3 are considered sensitive natural communities and may require review when evaluating environmental impacts (CDFW 2020). Sensitive natural communities observed within the survey area are depicted within Figure 5, Sensitive Biological Resources.

Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest has a global and state evaluation of G4/S3 and Hardstem bulrush marsh an evaluation of GNR/S3; therefore, both are designated as sensitive natural communities.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Project Site
Survey Area
--- Santa Gertrudis Creek
°
CDFW Sensitive Communities00
- Goodding's Willow -Sandbar
Willow Riparian Woodland/Forest
Hardstem bulrush marsh
r
4104
40 An
'NJk Tv
Pit
'd!
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 5
r ESA Sensitive Biological Resources

Technical

2.5 Wildlife
Common Wildlife
Common avian species observed during the field assessment include Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), ruby -crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), house wren (Troglodytes aedon) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Additional wildlife species detected during the assessment include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana).

A number of other bird species and various reptile and mammal species are also likely to forage and/or breed throughout the survey area. A list of wildlife species observed, including those expected to occur within the survey area, is included in Appendix A, Floral and Faunal Compendia.

Special Status Wildlife
Special -status wildlife includes those animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various forms of habitat loss or population decline, are considered by federal, state, or other agencies to be imperiled. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation and others have been designated as special -status on the basis of adopted local policies (i.e., city and county) or the educated opinion of respected resource interest groups (e.g., Western Bat Working Group [WBWG]). Special - status wildlife is defined as follows:
• Wildlife listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). • Wildlife that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
• Wildlife designated by CDFW as species of special concern, included on the Watch List or are considered Special Animals.
• Wildlife "fully protected" in California (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, and 5050).
• Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). • Bat species considered priority by the WBWG.
• Covered Species under the MSHCP, Volume II, Section B, Species Accounts and/or Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP).

A review of the most recent California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021a) records for the survey area revealed that 63 special -status wildlife species have been previously recorded within the nine—USGS quadrangle search area. A complete list of the species generated Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 13 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
in the CNDDB query are provided in Appendix C, CNDDB and CNPS Search Results. Species that are not expected to occur within the survey area based on an absence of suitable habitat, known geographic distributions, and/or range restrictions were omitted and are not discussed further in this report. Twelve special -status species, however, have varying levels of potential to occur within the survey area, based on the criteria provided below (see Table 3, Potentially Occurring Special -Status Wildlife Species within the Survey Area). • Low Potential: The survey area supports limited habitat for a particular species. For example, the appropriate vegetation assemblage may be present while the substrate preferred by the species may not be.
• Moderate Potential: The survey area provides marginal habitat for a particular species. For example, the habitat may be heavily disturbed, affectively reducing its ability to support the species.
• High Potential: The survey area provides suitable habitat conditions for a particular species and/or known populations occur in the immediate area.
• Present: The species was observed while conducting a survey.

Of the twelve special -status wildlife species listed in Table 3, eight have a moderate to high potential to occur within the survey area; these species include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia ssp. brewsteri), yellow -breasted chat (Icteria vixens), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Yuma myotis, coastal western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris ssp. stejnegeri), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii).

Special -Status Plants
Special -status wildlife includes those animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various forms of habitat loss or population decline, are considered by federal, state, or other agencies to be imperiled. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation and others have been designated as special -status on the basis of adopted local policies (i.e., city and county) or the educated opinion of respected resource interest groups (e.g., CNPS) Special -status plants are defined as follows:
• Plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under FESA or CESA. • Plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
• Plants considered by the CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered (Rank IA, 1B, 2A and 2B plants) in California.
• Plants listed by the CNPS as plants in which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (List 3 and 4 plants). • Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.).
• Covered Species under the MSHCP, Volume II, Section B, Species Accounts.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 14 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
TABLE 3

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA Status
Western
(Federal/State/
Riverside
Common Name
Scientific Name
Other)
Habitat
MSHCP
Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus
FE./SSC/None
Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland,
Covered
Low. Riparian habitat is present within the survey
desert wash, south coast flowing
area; however, other habitat requirements, such as
waters
flowing water, shallow pooling, sandy/gravel bars,
etc., are not met.

Birds
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooperii
None/WL,
Cismontane woodland, riparian
Covered
High. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat is
SA/None
forest and woodland and upper
present throughout survey area.
montane coniferous forest.

This species may forage and nest within 500 feet of
the proposed project site.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicu/aria
BCC/SSC/None
Various open habitat types
Covered
Low. Marginal foraging habitat for this species occurs
including grasslands and low scrub
throughout the annual grasses and forbs; however,
communities, and is known to utilize
no burrows of the appropriate size and morphology
heavily disturbed areas for roosting
were observed during the burrowing owl habitat
and nesting purposes.
assessment. Therefore, this species is not expected
roost or nest within the survey area.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
None/SSC/None
Chaparral, coastal scrub.

Covered
Low. Suitable vegetation is present within the
Grasslands, forests and riparian
survey area; however, this species is generally
woodlands.
associated with large, open areas.

Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellli ssp. pusillus
FUSE, SA/None
Riparian vegetation generally
Covered
Moderate. Marginal foraging and nesting habitat is
ranging from coastal areas, up to
present within the thin strip/isolated patch of
2,000 feet elevation (Psomas
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian
2008).
woodland/forest.

This species may forage and nest within 500 feet of
the proposed project site.

Yellow -breasted chat
Icteria virens
None/SSC/None
Riparian forest, riparian scrub,
Covered
Moderate. Marginal foraging and nesting habitat is
riparian woodland
present within the thin strip/isolated patch of
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian
woodland/forest.

This species may forage and nest within 500 feet of
the proposed project site.

Yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
None/SSC,
Riparian woodland,
Covered
Moderate. Marginal foraging and nesting habitat is
SA/None
present within the thin strip/isolated patch of
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian
woodland/forest.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 15 Biological Technical Report
ESA /D201901440.00
January 2022

Technical
Status
Western
(Federal/State/
Riverside
Common Name
Scientific Name
Other)
Habitat
MSHCP
Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus
FE./SSC/None
Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland,
Covered
Low. Riparian habitat is present within the survey
desert wash, south coast flowing
area; however, other habitat requirements, such as
waters
flowing water, shallow pooling, sandy/gravel bars,
etc., are not met.

Birds
This species may forage and nest within 500 feet of
the proposed project site.

Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
None/SSC,
Grasslands, shrublands,
Not Covered
Moderate. Marginal foraging and roosting habitat is

SA/WBWG-H
woodlands, and coniferous forests;
present within the thin strip/isolated patch of
most common in open, dry habitat
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian
with rocky areas for roosting, as
woodland/forest and under the Margarita Road
well as abandon buildings and
bridge.
medal clad structures Species is
This species may roost and breed within 500 feet of
known to roost in cavities of oak
the project site.
trees (WBWG, 2021).

Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
None/None/
Riparian forest, riparian woodland,
Not Covered
Moderate. Marginal foraging and roosting habitat is
WBWG-M
low montane coniferous forest,
present within the thin strip/isolated patch of
upper montane coniferous forest
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian
woodland/forest and under the Margarita Road
bridge.

This species may roost and breed within 500 feet of
the project site.

Reptiles
Coastal western
whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris ssp.
stejnegeri
None/SSC,
SA/None
Deserts and semiarid areas with
sparse vegetation and open areas,
woodland and riparian areas.

Covered
Moderate. Suitable habitat for this species is
present throughout the bed of Santa Gertrudis
Creek.

Two -striped garter
Thamnophis hammondii
None/SSC/None
Riparian woodland, Riparian scrub,
Not covered
Low. This species is highly aquatic and typically
snake
marsh and swamp, wetland
found near permanent freshwater. Santa Gertrudis
creek supports flowing periodically; however, is not
likely sufficient to support populations of this
species.

Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
None/SSC,
Various habitats throughout
Covered
Moderate. Suitable habitat for this species is
SA/None
California, most commonly within
present throughout the creek channel. However, no
scrub and chaparral communities.

Harvester ants (a known prey species for the
horned lizard.) were detected during surveys
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 16 Biological Technical Report
ESA /D201901440.00
January 2022

Birds
This species may occur within the proposed project
impact area.

Federal/State/Other Status: FE - Federally Endangered, BCC - Federal Bird of Conservation Concern; SE - State Endangered - SE, SSC - State Species of Special Concern, SA - State Special Animal, WL - State Watch List; WBWG - Western Bat Working Group List (H - high priority) Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 17 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
A review of the CNDDB (CDFW 2021 a) and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021) revealed 95 special -status plant species recorded within the 9—USGS quadrangle search. The potential for special -status plant species to occur is based on on -site vegetation and habitat quality, topography, elevation, soils, surrounding land uses, habitat preferences, and geographic ranges. Based on the absence of suitable habitat, known geographic distributions, and/or range restrictions, it was determined that many of the plant species do not have the potential to occur within the survey area and are therefore omitted from further discussion in this report. The three special -status plants listed in Table 4, Potentially Occurring Special -Status Plant Species within the Survey Area were determined to have varying potentials to occur, based on the criteria described below.
• Not Expected: This species would have been observable in a vegetative state and was not detected during focused surveys.
• Low Potential: The survey area only provides limited habitat for a particular species, for example, may support incorrect substrate with marginal vegetation or proper vegetation and an incorrect elevation range.
• Moderate Potential: The survey area provides marginal habitat for a particular species, for example, may support suitable vegetation with incorrect substrate or elevation range. • High Potential: The survey area provides suitable habitat conditions for a particular species and/or known populations occur in the immediate vicinity.

Based the presence of marginal or suitable habitat conditions, it was determined that there is a moderate potential for one special -status plant species to occur within the survey area, the smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis).

TABLE 4

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA Common
Name
Scientific Name
Status
(Federal/State/
Other)
Habitat
Western
Riverside
MSHCP
Potential to Occur
Nevin's
Berberis nevinii
FE/SE/1 B.1
Riparian scrub,
Covered
Not Expected. Marginal
barberry
chaparral, coastal
habitat for this species occurs
scrub, cismontane
within the riparian scrub;
woodland
however, the closest known
occurrences are located in
the hills that surround Vail
Lake, more than 10 miles to
the southeast of the survey
area. Further, this perennial
shrub would have been
identifiable in a vegetative
state and was not observed
during focused surveys.

Smooth
Centromadia
None/None/1 B.1
Frequently
Covered
Moderate. While alkaline
tarplant
pungens ssp. laevis
associated with
conditions were not apparent
alkaline soils along
during the biological
the margins of
assessment, suitable habitat
marshes and
for the species is present
swamps, valley and
along the margins of the
foothill grassland
riparian and marsh vegetation
and vernal pools.
and throughout the
Commonly found in
grasses/forbs.
disturbed areas.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 18 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Common
Name
Scientific Name
Status
(Federal/State/
Other)
Habitat
Western
Riverside
MSHCP
Potential to Occur
White-
Pseudognaphalium
None/None/2B.2
Sandy or gravelly
Not
Not Expected. In general,
rabbit
leucocephalum
benches along dry
Covered
the vegetation and substrate
tobacco
drainages, within
within the survey area is too
coastal scrub,
dense and moist,
chaparral
respectively, to support this
communities.
species. Further, the focused
rare plant survey was
conducted just outside of the
blooming period for this
species, and it would have
been identifiable if present.

2.6 Protected Trees
The City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance, Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code, is intended to "protect and preserve Oak, California bay laurel, California black walnut, California Holly, California Sycamore trees and other trees of special significance to the community" (TMC 2021).

Oak trees (Quercus species) protected under this ordinance must measure more than 18 inches in diameter, and any other tree must measure greater than 12 inches, at a point four feet above the ground. No trees protected under the City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance occur within the survey area.

2.7 Critical Habitat
Under FESA, to the extent feasible, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service are required to designate critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is defined as areas of land, water, and air space containing the physical and biological features essential for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Designated critical habitat includes sites for breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Designated critical habitats require special management and protection of existing resources, including water quality and quantity, host animals and plants, food availability, pollinators, sunlight, and specific soil types. Critical habitat delineates all suitable habitat, occupied or not, essential to the survival and recovery of the species.

There is no critical habitat located within or adjacent to the survey area (USFWS 2021).

2.8 Aquatic Resources
Santa Gertrudis Creek is potentially jurisdictional with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW; and meets the criteria for a riparian/riverine area within the MSHCP. The aquatic resources mapped within the survey area are detailed in a separate Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ESA 2021).

The riparian/riverine areas, as discussed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, are discussed further in Section 3.9, Western Riverside County MSHCP.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 19 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical

2.9 Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors are pathways (i.e., habitat linkages) that connect discrete areas of natural open space otherwise separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, and other natural or human -induced factors, such as urbanization. Santa Gertrudis Creek provides suitable foraging and breeding habitat for wildlife within the survey area, as well as an opportunity for large-scale movement between contiguous habitat present both upstream and downstream of the survey area.

3.0 Regulatory Setting

3.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Acts
FESA provides guidance for conserving federally listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 9 of the FESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the "take" of any federally listed endangered or threatened plant or animal species, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. Take includes the destruction of a listed species' habitat. Section 9 also prohibits a number of specified activities with respect to endangered and threatened plants.

CESA mandates that state agencies not approve a project that would jeopardize the continued existence of species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid a jeopardy finding. CESA also prohibits the take of any fish, wildlife, or plant species listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as candidates for listing, under CESA. Similar to FESA, CESA contains a procedure for the CDFW to issue an incidental take permit authorizing the take of listed and candidate species incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, subject to specified conditions.

3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal MBTA prohibits the take of migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term "take" is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect" any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities.

3.3 Clean Water Act
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(a) and includes navigable waters of the U.S., interstate waters, all other waters where the use or degradation or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries. Waters of the U.S. are often categorized as "jurisdictional wetlands" (i.e., wetlands over which the USACE exercises jurisdiction under Section 404) and "other waters of the United States" when habitat values and characteristics are being described. "Fill" is defined as any material that replaces any portion of a water of the U.S. with dry land or that changes the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the U.S. Any activity resulting in the placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the United States Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 20 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
requires a permit from USACE. In accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Section 404 permit for discharge of dredged or fill material must obtain water quality certification from the appropriate RWQCB indicating that the proposed project would uphold State of California water quality standards.

3.4 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plants. The list of native plants afforded protection pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act includes those listed as rare and endangered under CESA. The Native Plant Protection Act provides limitations on take as follows: "No person will import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state" any rare or endangered native plant, except in compliance with provisions of the act. Individual landowners are required to notify the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of changing land uses to allow the CDFW to salvage any rare or endangered native plant material.

3.5 Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in CEQA primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on, for example, a candidate species that has not been listed by either USFWS or CDFW. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from the potential impacts of a project until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

CEQA also calls for the protection of other locally or regionally significant resources, including natural communities. Although natural communities do not, at present, have legal protection of any kind, CEQA calls for an assessment of whether any such resources would be affected, and requires findings of significance if there would be substantial losses. Natural communities listed in the CNDDB as sensitive are considered by CDFW to be significant resources and fall under the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing impacts. Local planning documents such as General Plans often identify these resources as well.

3.6 Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and
Game Code
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the killing of birds or the destruction of bird nests. Birds of prey are protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, which provides that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits any take or possession of Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 21 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
birds that are designated by the MBTA as migratory nongame birds except as allowed by federal rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the MBTA. Migratory birds include all native birds in the United States, except those non -migratory game species, such as quail and turkey, which are managed by individual states.

3.7 Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for any activity that may alter the bed and/or bank of a lake, stream, river, or channel. Typical activities that require a Streambed Alteration Agreement include, but are not limited to, excavation or fill placed within a channel, vegetation clearing, installation of culverts and bridge supports, and bank reinforcement. As part of the notification process, the CDFW requires documentation of any trees to be removed as part of the project. Trees that have a trunk diameter at breast height of greater than 2 inches are subject to regulation by the CDFW via the Streambed Alteration Agreement.

3.8 City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance
The City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code is intended to "protect and preserve Oak, California bay laurel, California black walnut, California Holly, California Sycamore trees and other trees of special significance to the community" (TMC 2021).

Oak trees (Quercus species) protected under this ordinance must measure more than 18 inches in diameter, and any other tree must measure greater than 12 inches, at a point four feet above the ground.

3.9 Western Riverside County MSHCP
The survey area lies within rough step 6 of the MSHCP, which is a multi jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan that involves the assembly and management of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement by the USFWS and CDFW allows for the issuance of take authorization for the 146 "covered" species (and associated habitats), assuming that consistency can be demonstrated by the plan participant (Dudek 2003). Sections deemed relevant to the proposed project are described in further detail, below.

Section 3.2.1 — Public Quasi -Public Land
Public/Quasi-Public Lands (PQP Land) comprise a subset of the MSHCP conservation area, totaling 347,000 acres of public/private lands that are expected to be managed for open space value and/or in a manner that contributes to the conservation of covered species. Section 3.2.1 of the MSHCP states that if a proposed project results in the alteration of Public/Quasi-Public Lands, sufficient to reduce the level in which they previously contributed to the conservation of covered species (and/or the acquisition/conservation of additional reserve lands), then the plan participant must replace, or permanently protect biologically equivalent or superior land at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (Dudek 2003).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 22 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Section 6.1.2 — Protection of Species Associated with
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires the assessment of potential impacts of a proposed project to riparian/riverine or vernal pool resources, and those species that depend on such resources, including vernal pool fairy shrimp, and certain riparian bird species (e.g., least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher [Empidonax trailld ssp. extimus] and western yellow -billed cuckoo [Coccyzus americanus]). Certain other species that also occur within these resource areas, such as yellow breasted chat (Icteria vixens) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), are identified in "Additional Species Benefits" of Section 6.1.2, and while they do not individually necessitate an assessment and potential mitigation of impacts resulting from a project (as is required for the least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow -billed cuckoo); they are expected to benefit from the protection of riparian/riverine and vernal pool areas.

If impacts to a riparian/riverine or vernal pool resource areas and/or an associated species, are proposed as a result of project implementation and mitigation is required, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) may be required to compensate for unavoidable impacts. The DBESP, if required, at a minimum must assess the value of the resource that will be impacted, as well as propose mitigation that can be demonstrated to adequately offset the impacts.

Section 6.1.3 — Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires the assessment of potential impacts of a proposed project to narrow endemic plants species, when located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area, as identified in the RCA MSHCP Information Map (RCIP 2021). If the project is located within a designated survey area, focused surveys must be completed during the appropriate blooming period for each narrow endemic plant species, with potential to occur. If impacts to narrow endemic plant species are proposed as a result of project implementation, a DBESP may be necessary to compensate for the proposed impacts.

Section 6.1.4 — Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP specifies that certain guidelines should be implemented for proposed projects located adjacent to or that are connected to existing conservation lands/lands that are described for conservation (e.g., PQP Land). The various guidelines include the management of site drainage/runoff and toxics/pollutants, grading, lighting, noise, invasive plant species and wildlife barriers, to ensure that pre -project conditions are maintained during and following the completion of construction, to the degree feasible.

Section 6.3.2 — Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP requires the assessment of potential impacts of a proposed project to various other covered species included in the MSHCP, such as criteria area plants species for projects located within a criteria cell, select amphibians and mammals, and burrowing owl. If Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 23 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
impacts to these additional species are proposed as a result of project implementation, a DBESP may be necessary to compensate for the proposed impacts.

Section 7.4.2 — Conditionally Compatible Uses
Section 7.4.2 identifies various public access and recreational uses within the conservation area that are compatible with the objectives outlined within the MSHCP. Facilities associated with covered uses include trails and their associated trailheads, interpretive centers and maintenance facilities. Restrictions outlined within this section include the number of each type of facility, and the size/extent of each disturbance footprint allowed.

Section 7.5.3 — Construction Guidelines and Appendix C
Section 7.5.3 and Appendix C both establish guidelines for construction that occurs within the Criteria Area and PQP Land. These include but are not limited to the development of water pollution and erosion control plans, timing of construction to limit impact to breeding birds, implementation of sediment and erosion control measures, etc.

3.10 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
The SKR HCP, managed by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), provides coverage for members of the plan, who seek take of the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) through otherwise lawful project implementation. Through implementation of the SKR HCP, more than $45 million has been dedicated to the establishment and management of this system of regional preserves, designed to ensure the persistence of SKR.

This effort has resulted in the permanent conservation of approximately 50 percent of the SKR occupied habitat remaining in the SKR HCP area. Through direct funding and in -kind contributions, SKR habitat in the regional reserve system is managed to ensure its continuing ability to support the species (WRCOG 2018). This project would not be subject to payment of SKR HCP fees because it is exempt.

4.0 Potential Impacts to Biological Resources

4.1 Sensitive Natural Communities
The proposed project will result in the temporary impact of approximately 0.024 acre of Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest and 0.038 (a total of 0.062 acre) acre of hardstem bulrush marsh during the replacement of articulated concrete blocks and achieving access along the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. These temporary impacts could be mitigated via reseeding/supplemental planting efforts; However, because the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District conducts routine maintenance within the channel, this will likely not be feasible. As such, the purchase of mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank may be necessary to mitigate for the temporary loss of these sensitive natural communities.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 24 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical

4.2 Special -Status Plants and Wildlife
Nesting Birds and Raptors
Numerous passerine and raptor species may utilize the habitats that occur within 500 feet of the proposed project site to forage and breed. Activities associated with the proposed project may negatively affect nesting birds that are protected in accordance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code.

Special -Status Wildlife
Based on the presence of suitable habitat, eight special -status wildlife species have a moderate to high potential to occur within 500 feet of the proposed project site. These eight species are discussed in further detail below.

Birds
The Cooper's hawk, least bell's vireo, yellow -breasted chat and yellow warbler may nest within 500 feet of the proposed project site and may be affected as a result of the proposed construction.

Least Bell's Vireo
The least Bell's vireo is a covered species and is addressed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. If deemed present within 500 feet of the project site, direct impacts to occupied habitat through the temporary removal of the 0.024 acre of Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest; and/or the indirect disturbance to nesting individuals may occur as a result of the proposed project activities.

Yellow -Breasted Chat and Yellow Warbler
The yellow -breasted chat and yellow warbler are covered species under the MSHCP; however, while these two species are expected to benefit from the protection/preservation of riparian/riverine, they are not considered triggers for the implementation of protection under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Cooper's Hawk
Cooper's hawk is a covered species under the MSHCP and, assuming project activities do not result in an impact to an active nest, no further actions would be necessary.

Mammals
The pallid bat and the Yuma myotis may forage and roost within 500 feet of the project site and may be affected as a result of the proposed construction.

Reptiles
The coast horned lizard and coastal western whiptail may occur within 500 feet of the project site and may be affected as a result of the proposed construction; however, these two covered species are considered "adequately covered" under the MSHCP. Therefore, no further action is necessary.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 25 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Special -Status Plants
One special -status plant species, smooth tarplant, has a moderate to high potential to occur immediately adjacent to the project site. Smooth tarplant is a criteria survey area plant species, as discussed in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. The survey area is not located within a criteria plant survey area; therefore, surveys for this species are not required.

4.3 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for federally listed endangered or threatened species is not present within or immediately adjacent to the project site.

4.4 Wildlife Movement Corridors
The installation of fencing between the proposed trail and the Santa Gertrudis Creek may prevent ingress/egress of wildlife within the project site; however, the large-scale movement of wildlife through the survey area (along Santa Gertrudis Creek), is not expected to be affected by the proposed project. Further, construction is expected to take place during the daytime hours, when movement throughout the survey area is less frequent and at a lesser scale. The proposed project is not expected to impact wildlife movement corridors.

4.5 Western Riverside County MSHCP and Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat HCP
Western Riverside County MSHCP
The survey area is located within the MSHCP and the City of Temecula is a plan participant; therefore, a demonstration of consistency is necessary.

MSHCP Section 3.2.1— Public/Quasi-Public Land
The project site is situated entirely within PQP Land, which includes Santa Gertrudis Creek and adjacent areas. This portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek has been heavily modified through flood control practices and currently consists of a partially earthen bed (articulated concrete blocks extend into the margins of the creek bed) that supports limited growth of riparian, marsh and miscellaneous herbaceous vegetation; and manufactured banks, on either side of the Margarita Road bridge. The proposed project will involve the grading and replacement of a portion of the east bank, with the proposed pedestrian/bicycle trail relocation and new retaining wall. In addition, a portion of this manufactured bank (i.e., articulated concrete blocks) that extends into the bed of the creek will be replaced with a similar, new material that will allow for vegetation to re -grow and persist, following completion of the project.

The trail itself will function in a similar manner to the existing manufactured banks, in that the ability to convey hydrologic flows within Santa Gertrudis Creek would remain unchanged prior to and following completion of the construction. Further, the vegetation that currently exists (i.e., riparian/marsh and grass/forb vegetation) along the bed, within the articulated concrete blocks, would be allowed to re -grow naturally and would provide the same, or similar biological function Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 26 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
that it currently does. Therefore, the proposed project activities are not expected to result in the loss/degradation of PQP Land or its function.

MSHCP Section 6.1.2 — Riparian/Riverine Areas, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Riparian/Riverine Areas
The bed and banks of Santa Gertrudis Creek meet the criteria for riparian/riverine, as defined in the MSHCP. The proposed project will result in a temporary direct impact to approximately 0.387 acre of riparian/riverine, 0.062 acre of which includes native riparian/riverine vegetation (Goodding's willow —sandbar willow riparian woodland forest and hardstem bulrush marsh). As mentioned above regarding impacts to PQP Land, the resulting pedestrian/bicycle trail will continue to function in a similar manner to the existing manufactured bank and would count as in - kind replacement for this portion of the riparian/riverine impacts.

The temporary impacts to approximately 0.062 acre of native riparian/riverine vegetation, resulting from the replacement of the articulated concrete blocks and access/staging, could be mitigated via reseeding/supplemental planting; however, because the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District conducts routine maintenance within the channel, this is likely not feasible. As such, the preparation of a DBESP and the purchase of mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank may be necessary to mitigate for these temporary impacts.

Least Bell's vireo
This species was not observed during the biological resources assessment; however, suitable habitat for the least Bell's vireo occurs within the approximate 1.187 acre of Goodding's willow - sandbar willow riparian woodland forest present throughout the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek.

Approximately 0.024 acre of this vegetation type will be removed (temporarily) as a result of project construction and access/staging. If pre -construction clearance surveys determine that the species does not occur within survey area, no further action, regarding least Bell's vireo, would be necessary.

If surveys result in the detection of vireo within the survey area, the proposed temporary removal of 0.024 acre of Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest may result in a temporary impact to occupied habitat. Because impacts would be temporary and the vegetation would be reestablished following project completion, construction activities outside of the nesting season (April 10—July 31) will likely eliminate the need for additional action/compensation, regarding vireo. However, if activities must occur during the nesting season, adjacent to occupied habitat, indirect disturbance to nesting least Bell's vireo could occur.

MSHCP Section 6.1.3 — Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species According to the RCA MSHCP Information Map, the survey area is not located within a narrow endemic plant survey area; therefore, the proposed project activities are not expected to result in an impact to species covered under Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. No narrow endemic plant species were observed during the project site survey.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 27 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
MSHCP Section 6.1.4 - Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP specifies that projects occurring within the urban/wildlands interface should implement appropriate storm water pollution prevention measures, prevent construction/operation noise and night lighting from entering the conservation area, prevent the spread of invasive plant species, install effective barriers to prevent trespass, and ensure that manufactured slopes do not extend into the conservation area, wherever feasible. Each of these items are discussed in detail below.

Drainage
The implementation of best management practices, as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed for the project, will ensure that drainage and water quality on -site remains in compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Further, once construction is complete, drainage within the project site is expected to return to pre - construction levels.

Toxics
The implementation of best management practices, as part of a SWPPP developed for the project, will ensure that release of toxic chemicals that may affect wildlife and/or habitat/water quality will be prevented to the extent feasible, and will remain in compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Further, once construction is complete, the project is not expected to result in the release of any toxics.

Lighting
The project will not include the installation of additional lighting; therefore, the project will not result in lighting impacts to wildlife during or following completion of construction.

Noise
Ambient noise may increase temporarily during construction; however, once complete, the project will not significantly alter current ambient noise levels within the survey area.

Invasives
The project proposes to install landscaping within the project site. Assuming that species listed in Table 6-2, Plants that Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, are considered when developing the landscape plan, the project is expected to remain in compliance with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

Barriers
The project will include the installation of a 4-foot-high chain -link fence between the proposed modified pedestrian/bicycle trail and Santa Gertrudis Creek. The proposed fence is intended to prevent trespass and potential disturbance to wildlife and other resources present within the creek.

The installation of the fence will serve as a barrier between public areas and the Santa Gertrudis Creek and will ensure compliance with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 28 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Grading/Land Development
The project will not result in an increase to the footprint of the existing manufactured slopes, within the project site, nor will it result in newly graded areas. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in a change in grading/land development as described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

MSHCP Section 6.3.2 — Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Burrowing Owl
The survey area is situated within a burrowing owl survey area, as indicated on the RCA MSHCP Information Map. As noted in Section 1.2, Methods, of this report, a burrowing owl habitat assessment was performed concurrent with the biological resources assessment survey. It was determined that while the survey area supports marginal foraging habitat for the species, no suitable burrows or other types of refuge (e.g., debris or rock piles) necessary to support burrowing owl nesting was observed.

Smooth Tarplant
Suitable habitat for smooth tarplant occurs within and immediately adjacent to the project site, within the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. As stated above in Section 4.2, Special -status Plants and Wildlife, this is a covered species under the MSHCP. The survey area is not located within a criteria cell nor within a criteria plant survey area; therefore, surveys to determine presence/absence of this species are not required. In addition, this species was not observed during the project site survey.

MSHCP Section 7.4.2 — Conditionally Compatible Uses
The proposed trail connection would likely qualify as a regional trail under section 7.4.2 of the MSHCP, which would require that it not exceed 20 feet in width. The proposed width of the trail is expected to measure approximately 12 feet, and is therefore in compliance with this section of the MSHCP.

MSHCP Section 7.5.3 — Construction Guidelines and Appendix C The implementation of the construction guidelines outlined in Section 7.5.3 and Appendix C will ensure that the proposed project remains compliant with the MSHCP.

Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
The survey area north of Margarita Road extends partially into the SKR HCP plan area. The biological resources assessment determined that suitable habitat for the Stephens' kangaroo rat does not occur. Further, the project would be exempt from payment into the SKR HCP because it involves the rehabilitation of an existing structure.

5.0 Minimization and Avoidance Measures

5.1 Sensitive Natural Communities
Following completion of construction activities, the 0.024 -acre area of temporary impact to Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest and 0.038 -acre area of temporary Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 29 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
impact to hardstem bulrush marsh (a total of 0.062 acre) should be re -contoured and mitigation credits should be purchased from the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank, to further compensate for the temporary impacts.

5.2 Nesting Birds
Project activities could negatively impact nesting birds that are protected in accordance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. Therefore, the following measure should be implemented in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds:
• To avoid impacts to nesting birds, work activities within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat shall be timed to avoid the season when nests may be active (January 15 to September 15). — If work activities occur within the nesting season (generally defined as January 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist should conduct a focused survey within 30 days of the anticipated start date, and no less than 3 days prior to ground disturbance, to identify any active nests within 500 feet of the development footprint. If an active nest is found, the nest should be avoided and a suitable buffer zone should be delineated in the field where no impacts should occur until the chicks have fledged the nest as determined by a qualified biologist. Construction buffers should be 300 feet for passerines or up to 500 feet for raptors; however, avoidance buffers may be reduced at the discretion of the biologist, depending on the location of the nest and species tolerance to human presence and construction -related noises and vibrations.

5.3 Special -Status Wildlife
The following measures should be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to special -status wildlife as a result of the project.

Birds
Least BeH's Vireo
Least Bell's vireo nesting season is from April 10 to July 31. If avoidance of work activities within this time period is not feasible, a pre -construction clearance survey for least Bell's vireo should be conducted (concurrent with the nesting bird survey described above, in Section 5.2) within suitable nesting habitat prior to initiation of work activities, to determine their presence or absence within 500 feet of proposed work limits. If the surveys do not result in the detection of the species within 500 feet of the proposed work limits, no further action is necessary. However, if:
• Least Bell's vireo are detected within the project site during the survey, and work activities must occur during the nesting season, the removal of the 0.024 acre of Goodding's willow - sandbar willow riparian woodland forest would result in temporary impacts to occupied habitat. Such impacts are not consistent with the MSHCP provisions and avoidance measures such as postponing work activities would likely be necessary.

Least Bell's vireo are detected within the survey area, outside of the project site, and the nesting season cannot be avoided, steps should be taken to reduce indirect effects to nesting activity by actively reducing construction noise (to no more than 3 decibels (dBA) above pre -construction ambient noise levels) within proximity to suitable habitat and/or installing temporary construction noise barriers. If the reduction of noise is not feasible, work activities should be postponed until the nest is deemed inactive and/or the breeding season has concluded.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 30 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Mammals
Pallid Bat and Yuma Myotis
Prior to commencement of construction activities, within or outside of the bat maternity roosting season, a qualified biologist should conduct a pre -construction clearance survey of suitable habitat for pallid bat and Yuma myotis, within 500 feet of the project site. If roosting bats are identified, the biologist will determine whether there is a day roost (non -breeding) or maternity roost (lactating females and dependent young).

If a day roost is determined to be present, the biologist should ensure that direct mortality to roosting individuals will not occur; this may include the installation of exclusionary flagging or some other similar protective measure, for example, to prevent ingress. In general, disturbances to day roosts as a result of noise or other indirect impact is not generally considered significant, as it would not cause direct mortality of individuals and would not be expected to reduce populations to below self-sustaining levels. If removal of any trees supporting a day roost would occur, the biologist will ensure that all roosting individuals disperse from the location prior to removal of the vegetation to prevent direct mortality.

If a maternity roost is observed, the biologist will determine whether construction activities are likely to disturb breeding activities. If it is determined that the vegetation or infrastructure supporting the roost must be removed/modified or the construction activities are expected to disturb breeding, a Bat Exclusion Plan should be prepared. At a minimum, the plan should include avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to breeding bats during construction activities and prescribed methods to safely and humanely evict bats from the roost in order to minimize any potential impacts. Typically, avoidance measures require construction to occur outside of maternity season.

5.4 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
• Prior to the commencement of construction activities, construction personnel should check under stationary equipment to ensure no wildlife species are present. • All trash should be collected daily and taken off -site for proper disposal.

Prior to project implementation, a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) should be prepared and presented to construction crews regarding all sensitive resources with the potential to occur on -site during construction activities. The WEAP training should concentrate on the proper identification of sensitive resources while in the field, suggested strategies in avoiding impact to sensitive resources, and proper reporting methods for field crews in the event that sensitive resources are observed during construction activities.

5.5 Western Riverside County MSHCP
MSHCP Section 6.1.2
Temporary Impacts to Occupied Least Bell's Vireo Habitat and Riparian/Riverine Areas
If pre -construction clearance surveys result in the detection of least Bell's vireo within the project site, and the nesting season can be avoided during construction, the following is recommended to compensate for the temporary impacts to occupied habitat as well as, riparian/riverine areas:

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 31 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Following completion of construction activities, the 0.024-acre area of temporary impact to Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest and 0.038-acre area of temporary impact to hardstem bulrush marsh (0.062 acres) should be re -contoured to pre -construction grade; and a DBESP that outlines the proposed mitigation, should be developed for approval by the applicable wildlife agencies (i.e., CDFW and USFWS). The DBESP should include an overview of how impacts to the Goodding's willow -sandbar willow and hardstem bulrush marsh would be temporary and mitigated through the purchase of credits from the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank.

Indirect Disturbance to Nesting Least Bell's Vireo
If the surveys establish presence of vireo within the survey area, outside of the project site, and work cannot be avoided during the nesting season, steps should be taken to reduce indirect effects to nesting by actively reducing construction noise (no greater than a 3-dBA increase above pre - construction ambient noise levels) within proximity of a known nest/territory (500 feet) and/or installing temporary construction noise barriers. If the reduction of noise to appropriate levels is not feasible, temporary work stoppage to avoid indirect impacts to the least Bell's vireo may be necessary.

MSHCP Section 6.1.4
Invasives
Table 6-2, Plants that Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, as detailed in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, should be reviewed during the development of the landscape plan for the project. Species identified in Table 6-2 shall be avoided and preference shall be given to locally indigenous species.

MSHCP Section 7.5.3
The guidelines described under Section 7.5.3 and Appendix C of the MSHCP should be implemented during project construction.

6.0 References
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press.

Berkeley, California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2021. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project — Preliminary Aquatic Resources Delineation Report.

Regional Conservation Authority. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 32 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Technical
Temecula Municipal Code (TMC). 2021.
http://www.gcode.us/codes/tmecula/?view=desktop&topic=8-8_48-i-8_48_130 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2021. Species Info. http://wbwg.org/westem-bat- species/.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 33 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Appendix A
Floral and Faunal Compendia

A. Floral and Faunal Compendia
Scientific Name
Common Name
Comment
Flora
Gymnosperms
Pinaceae
Pine Family
Pinus sp.* 1
unidentified pine
Angiosperms
Eudicots
Anacardiaceae
Cashew Family
Searsia lancea
African sumac
Asteraceae
Aster Family
Ambrosia psilostachya
annual ragweed
Artemisia douglasiana
California mugwort
Baccharis salicifolia
mulefat
Centaurea melitensis*
tocalote
Lactuca serriola*
prickly lettuce
Pseudognaphalium sp.*
rabbit tobacco
Available visual diagnostics suggest
that the species observed is Jersey
cudweed (Pseudognaphalium
luteoalbum)
Pulicaria paludosa*
Spanish false fleabane
Xanthium strumarium
cocklebur
Brassicaceae
Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana*
short podded mustard
Chenopodiaceae
Goosefoot Family
Salsola sp.*
Russian thistle
Fabaceae
Pea Family
Acacia stenophylla*
shoe -string acacia
Acmispon wrangelianus
Chilean trefoil
Melilotus sp.*
sweetclover
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus Family
Eucalyptus sideroxylon*
red ironbark
Platanaceae
Plane Tree Family
Platanus x hispanica*
London plane tree
Polygonaceae
Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum
California buckwheat
1 Non -Native Species
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project A-1 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

A. Floral and Faunal Compendia
Scientific Name Common Name Comment
Salicaceae
Willow Family
Populus fremontii
Fremont's cottonwood
Salix exigua
sandbar willow
Salix gooddingii
Goodding's willow
Salix lasiolepis
arroyo willow
Saururaceae
Lizards -Tail Family
Anemopsis californica
yerba manna
Tamaricaceae
Tamarisk Family
Tamarix ramosissima*
tamarisk
Monocots
Aracaceae
Palm Family
Washingtonia robusta*
mexican fan palm
Cyperaceae
Sedge Family
Cyperus eragrostis
tall flatsedge
Schoenoplectus acutus
hardstem bulrush
Schoenoplectus pungens
common threesquare
Juncaceae
Rush Family
Juncus mexicanus
Mexican rush
Poaceae
Grass Family
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens*
red brome
Cortaderia jubata*
pampas grass
Distichlis spicata
saltgrass
Festuca perennis*
Italian rye grass
Paspalum dilatatum*
dallis grass
Polypogon monspeliensis*
annual beard grass
Typhaceae
Cattail Family
Typha latifolia
cattail
Fauna
Reptiles
Anguidae
Alligator Lizards
E Elgaria multicarinatus ssp. webbii
San Diego alligator lizard
Phrynosomatidae
Zebra -tailed, Side -blotched and
Horned Lizards
Aspidoscelis tigris ssp. stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
E Sceloporus occidentalis ssp.

Great Basin fence lizard
longipes
E Uta stansburiana ssp. elegans
western side -blotched lizard
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project A-2 ESA /D201901440.00
Biological Technical Report
January 2022

A. Floral and Faunal Compendia
Scientific Name Common Name Comment
Birds
Accipitridae
Hawks
E Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
Cathartidae
Vultures
E Cathartes aura
turkey vulture
Columbidae
Pigeons and Doves
Zenaida macroura
mourning dove
Trochilidae
Hummingbirds
Calypte anna
Anna's hummingbird
Corvidae
Jays and Crows
E Aphelocoma californica
California scrub jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American crow
E Corvus corax
common raven
Picidae
Woodpeckers
Dryobates nuttallii
Nuttall's woodpecker
Aegithalidae
Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus
American bushtit
Troglodytidae
Wrens
E Thryomanes bewickii
Bewick's wren
E Troglodytes aedon
house wren
Cistothorus palustris
marsh wren
Mimidae
Mockingbirds and Thrashers
E Mimus polyglottos
northern mockingbird
Hirundinidae
E Hirundo rustica
barn swallow
E Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
cliff swallow
Passerellidae
Sparrows
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
Emberizidae
Emberizine Sparrows and Allies
Melozone crissalis
California towhee
Fringillidae
Finches
Haemorhous mexicanus
house finch
Spinus psaltria
lesser goldfinch
Tyrannidae
Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans
black phoebe
Regulidae
Regulus calendula
Ruby crowned kinglet
Apodidae
Swift Family
E Aeronautes saxatalis
white -throated swift
Inactive nest present
Inactive nest present
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project A-3 Biological Technical Report
ESA /D201901440.00
January 2022

Appendix A. Floral and Faunal Compendia
Scientific Name Common Name Comment
Mammals
Canidae
Canines
Canis latrans
coyote scat
Cricetidae
New World Mice and Voles
E Neotoma macrotis
Big -eared woodrat
E Peromyscus maniculatus
deer mouse
Didelphidae
Opossums
E Didelphis virginiana
Virginia opossum
Geomyidae
Pocket Gophers
E Thomomys bottae
Botta's pocket gopher
Leporidae
Hares and Rabbits
Sylvilagus audubonii
desert cottontail direct observation and scat
Procyonidae
Raccoons
E Procyon lotor
Raccoon tracks
Sciuridae
Squirrels and Chipmunks
Otospermophilus beecheyi
California ground squirrel
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project A-4 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Appendix B
Photographic Log

Appendix B. Photographic Log
Photo 1 (N): Southside of Margarita Road bridge.

Photo 2 (SW): Northside of Margarita Road bridge.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project B-1 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Appendix B. Photographic Log
Photo 3 (SW): View of Santa Gertrudis creek channel south of Margarita road.

Photo 4 (NE): View of Santa Gertrudis creek channel north of Margarita Road.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project B-2 ESA /D201901440.00 Biological Technical Report January 2022

Appendix B. Photographic Log
Photo 5 (NE): View of Santa Gertrudis Creek beneath the Margarita Road Bridge.

Photo 6 (SW): View of salt grass (Distichlis spicato) in Santa Gertrudis creek channel.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project B-3 Biological Technical Report
ESA/D201901440.00
January 2022

Appendix C
CNDDB and CLAPS Database
Search Results

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
y p
bRss�"� California Natural Diversity Database
Query Criteria: Quad IS (Murrieta (3311752) OR Wildomar (3311753) OR Bachelor Mtn. (3311751) OR Lake Elsinore (3311763) OR Romoland (3311762) OR Winchester (3311761) OR Fall brook (3311743) OR Temecula (3311742) OR Pechanga (3311741))
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP alkali marsh aster PDASTEL010 None None G4 S1S2 2B.2
Almutaster pauciflorus
arroyo chub AFCJB13120 None None G2 S2 SSC
Gila orcuttii
arroyo toad AAABB01230 Endangered None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Anaxyrus californicus
bald eagle ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bell's sage sparrow ABPBX97021 None None G5T2T3 S3 WL
Artemisiospiza belli belli
black -crowned night heron ABNGA11010 None None G5 S4
Nycticorax nycticorax
bottle liverwort NBHEP35030 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Sphaerocarpos drewiae
burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Athene cunicularia
California ayenia PDSTE01020 None None G4 S3 2B.3
Ayenia compacta
California glossy snake ARADBO1017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC Arizona elegans occidentalis
California horned lark ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL Eremophila alpestris actia
California linderiella ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California Orcutt grass PMPOA4G010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 Orcuttia californica
California red -legged frog AAABHO1022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC Rana draytonii
California screw moss NBMUS7L090 None None G2G3 S2? 1 B.2 Tortula californica
Campbell's liverwort NBHEPlCO10 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Geothallus tuberosus
chaparral nolina PMAGA080EO None None G3 S3 1 B.2
Nolina cismontana
chaparral ragwort PDAST811060 None None G3 S2 2B.2
Senecio aphanactis
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP chaparral sand -verbena PDNYCO1 OP1 None None G5T2? S2 1 B.1 Abronia villosa var. aurita
coast horned lizard ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast patch -nosed snake ARADB30033 None None G5T4 S2S3 SSC Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
Coast Range newt AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC
Taricha torosa
coastal cactus wren ABPBG02095 None None G5T3Q S3 SSC
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis
coastal California gnatcatcher ABPBJ08081 Threatened None G4G5T2Q S2 SSC Polioptila californica californica
coastal whiptail ARACJ02143 None None G5T5 S3 SSC
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
Cooper's hawk ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL
Accipiter cooperii
Coronado skink ARACH01114 None None G5T5 S2S3 WL
Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis
Coulter's goldfields PDAST5LOA1 None None G4T2 S2 1 B.1 Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Crotch bumble bee IIHYM24480 None Candidate G3G4 S1S2
Bombus crotchii Endangered
Davidson'ssaltscale PDCHE041T1 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii
delicate clarkia PDONA050DO None None G3 S3 1 B.2
Clarkia delicata
Dulzura pocket mouse AMAFD05021 None None G5T3 S3 SSC
Chaetodipus californicus femoralis
ferruginous hawk ABNKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL
Buteo regalis
Gander's ragwort PDAST8H1 FO None Rare G2 S2 1 B.2
Packera ganderi
golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP
Aquila chrysaetos
Hall's monardella PDLAM180E1 None None G5T3 S3 1B.3
Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii
Hammitt's clay -cress PDBRA32010 None None G2 S2 1 B.2
Sibaropsis hammittii
heart -leaved pitcher sage PDLAMOV020 None None G3 S2S3 1 B.2 Lepechinia cardiophylla
Icenogle's socalchemmis spider ILARAU7020 None None G1 S1 Socalchemmis icenoglei
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
bRsa="� California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP intermediate mariposa -lily PMLILOD1J1 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 Calochortus weedii var. intermedius
intermediate monardella PDLAM180A4 None None G4T2? S2? 1B.3 Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia
Jacumba pocket mouse AMAFDO1044 None None G5T2T3 S2 SSC Perognathus longimembris internationalis
Jaeger's milk -vetch PDFABOF6G1 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1
Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri
Latimer's woodland-gilia PDPLMOHO10 None None G3 S3 1 B.2 Saltugilia latimeri
least Bell's vireo ABPBWO1114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2 Vireo bellli pusillus
lemon lily PMLIL1AOJO None None G3 S3 1B.2
Lilium parryi
little mousetail PDRANOH031 None None G5T2Q S2 3.1
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus
loggerhead shrike ABPBRO1030 None None G4 S4 SSC
Lanius ludovicianus
long-spined spineflower PDPGN040K1 None None G5T3 S3 1 B.2 Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina
Los Angeles pocket mouse AMAFDO1041 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 SSC Perognathus longimembris brevinasus
many -stemmed dudleya PDCRA040HO None None G2 S2 1 B.2
Dudleya multicaulis
mesa horkelia PDROSOW045 None None G4T1 S1 1 B.1
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
Munz's onion PMLIL022ZO Endangered Threatened G1 S1 1 B.1 Allium munzii
Nevin's barberry PDBER060A0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 Berberis nevinii
northern harrier ABNKC11011 None None G5 S3 SSC
Circus hudsonius
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse AMAFDO5031 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC Chaetodipus fallax fallax
orange -throated whiptail ARACJ02060 None None G5 S2S3 WL Aspidoscelis hyperythra
Orcutt's brodiaea PMLILOCOBO None None G2 S2 1 B.1
Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt's pincushion PDAST20095 None None G5T1T2 S1 1B.1 Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana
pallid bat AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Antrozous pallidus
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
bRsa="� California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Palmer's grapplinghook PDBOROH010 None None G4 S3 4.2
Harpagonella palmeri
Parish's brittlescale PDCHE041DO None None G1G2 S1 1B.1 Atriplex parishii
Parish's meadowfoam PDLIM02052 None Endangered G4T2 S2 1 B.2 Limnanthes alba ssp. parishii
Parry's spineflower PDPGN04OJ2 None None G3T2 S2 1 B.1
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Parry's tetracoccus PDEUP1 C010 None None G2G3 S2 1 B.2 Tetracoccus dioicus
Payson's jewelflower PDBRAOMOHO None None G4 S4 4.2
Caulanthus simulans
Pendleton ceanothus PDRHA04450 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Ceanothus pendletonensis
Plummer's mariposa -lily PMLILOD150 None None G4 S4 4.2 Calochortus plummerae
pocketed free -tailed bat AMACD04010 None None G4 S3 SSC Nyctinomops femorosaccus
prostrate vernal pool navarretia PDPLMOCOQO None None G2 S2 1 B.2 Navarretia prostrata
quino checkerspot butterfly IILEPK405L Endangered None G5T1T2 S1S2 Euphydryas editha quino
Rainbow manzanita PDER1042TO None None G2 S2 1 B.1
Arctostaphylos rainbowensis
Ramona horkelia PDROSOWOGO None None G3 S3 1 B.3
Horkelia truncata
red -diamond rattlesnake ARADE02090 None None G4 S3 SSC Crotalus ruber
Riverside fairy shrimp ICBRA07010 Endangered None G1G2 S1S2 Streptocephalus woottoni
Robinson's pepper -grass PDBRA1M114 None None G5T3 S3 4.3 Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
salt spring checkerbloom PDMAL110JO None None G4 S2 213.2 Sidalcea neomexicana
San Bernardino aster PDASTE8000 None None G2 S2 1 B.2
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
San Bernardino kangaroo rat AMAFD03143 Endangered Candidate G5T1 S1 SSC Dipodomys merriami parvus Endangered
San Bernardino ringneck snake ARADBl OO15 None None G5T2T3 S2? Diadophis punctatus modestus
San Diego ambrosia PDASTOCOMO Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Ambrosia pumila
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
bRsa="� California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP San Diego banded gecko ARACD01031 None None G5T3T4 S1S2 SSC Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit AMAEB03051 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego button -celery PDAPIOZ042 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1 B.1 Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii
San Diego desert woodrat AMAFF08041 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego fairy shrimp ICBRA03060 Endangered None G2 S2 Branchinecta sandiegonensis
San Diego ringneck snake ARADB1001A None None G5T2T3 S2? Diadophis punctatus similis
San Jacinto Valley crownscale PDCHE040C2 Endangered None G4T1 S1 1 B.1 Atriplex coronata var. notatior
San Miguel savory PDLAM08030 None None G3 S2 1 B.2
Clinopodium chandleri
Santa Lucia dwarf rush PMJUN013JO None None G3 S3 1 B.2 Juncus luciensis
Santa Rosa Basalt brodiaea PMLILOCOGO None None G1 S1 1 B.2 Brodiaea santarosae
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp ICBRA06020 None None G1G2 S1 Linderiella santarosae
senile tiger beetle IICOL02121 None None G2G3T1T3 S1
Cicindela senilis frosti
Shevock's copper moss NBMUSA1010 None None G2 S2 1 B.2
Mielichhoferia shevockii
slender -horned spineflower PDPGNOV010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 Dodecahema leptoceras
smooth tarplant PDAST4ROR4 None None G3G4T2 S2 1 B.1
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis
Southern California legless lizard ARACC01060 None None G3 S3 SSC Anniella stebbinsi
southern California rufous -crowned sparrow ABPBX91091 None None G5T3 S3 WL Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest CTT61310CA None None G4 S4 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest CTT61330CA None None G3 S3.2 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
southern grasshopper mouse AMAFF06022 None None G5T3 S3 SSC Onychomys torridus ramona
Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool CTT44310CA None None G1 S1.2 Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
bRsa="� California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP southern mountains skullcap PDLAM1 UOA1 None None G4T3 S3 1 B.2 Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland CTT62400CA None None G4 S4 Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
Southern Willow Scrub CTT63320CA None None G3 S2.1
Southern Willow Scrub
spreading navarretia PDPLM00080 Threatened None G2 S2 113.1 Navarretia fossalis
Stephens' kangaroo rat AMAFD03100 Endangered Threatened G2 S2 Dipodomys stephensi
sticky dudleya PDCRA040TO None None G2 S2 1 B.2
Dudleya viscida
summer holly PDERIOB011 None None G3T2 S2 1 B.2
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia
Swainson's hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
Buteo swainsoni
Tecate cypress PGCUP04000 None None G2 S2 1 B.1
Hesperocyparis forbesii
thread -leaved brodiaea PMLIL00050 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1 B.1 Brodiaea filifolia
tricolored blackbird ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G2G3 S1S2 SSC Agelaius tricolor
two -striped gartersnake ARADB36160 None None G4 S3S4 SSC Thamnophis hammondii
Vail Lake ceanothus PDRHA041 MO Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 Ceanothus ophiochilus
Valley Needlegrass Grassland CTT4211OCA None None G3 S3.1 Valley Needlegrass Grassland
vernal pool fairy shrimp ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3 Branchinecta lynchi
Wawona riffle beetle IICOL58010 None None G3 S1S2
Atractelmis wawona
western mastiff bat AMACD02011 None None G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Eumops perotis californicus
western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Emys marmorata
western snowy plover ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S2S3 SSC Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
western spadefoot AAABF02020 None None G3 S3 SSC
Spea hammondii
western yellow bat AMACC05070 None None G5 S3 SSC
Lasiurus xanthinus
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

OF Q
a! Selected Elements by Common Name
z California Department of Fish and Wildlife
bRsa="� California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP western yellow -billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
white rabbit -tobacco
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum
white-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
white-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
Wiggins' cryptantha
Cryptantha wigginsil
woven -spored lichen
Texosporium sancti Jacobi
yellow -breasted chat
Icteria virens
Yucaipa onion
Allium marvinii
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
ABNRB02022
Threatened
PDAST44000
None
ABNGE02020
None
ABNKC06010
None
PDBOROA400
None
NLTEST7980
None
ABPBX24010
None
PMLIL02330
None
AMACCO1020
None
Endangered
G5T2T3
None
G4
None
G5
None
G5
None
G2
None
G3
None
G5
None
G1
None
G5
S1
S2
213.2
S3S4
WL
S3S4
FP
S1
1B.2
S2
3 S3
SSC
S1
1B.2
S4
Record Count: 132
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 7 of 7 Report Printed on Thursday, January 14, 2021 Information Expires 7/1/2021

1/14/2021 CNPS Inventory Results
*The database is under
construction. View updates and changes made since May 2019 here.

Plant List
85 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria
Found in Quads 3311763, 3311762, 3311761, 3311753, 3311752, 3311751, 3311743 3311742 and 3311741; Modify Search Criteria WlExport to Excel Modify Columns "Modify SOrtG Display Photos Blooming CA Rare State Global
Scientific Name
Common Name
Family
Lifeform
Period
Plant Rank Rank
Rank
Abronia villosa var. aurita
chaparral sand-
Nyctaginaceae
annual herb
(Jan)Mar-
1B.1
S2
G5T2?
verbena
Sep
perennial
Allium munzii
Munz'sonion
Alliaceae
bulbiferous
Mar -May
1B.1
S1
G1
herb
Almutaster pauciflorus
alkali marsh aster
Asteraceae
perennial herb
Jun -Oct
213.2
S1S2
G4
perennial
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego ambrosia
Asteraceae
rhizomatous
Apr -Oct
113.1
S1
G1
herb
Amsinckia douglasiana
Douglas' fiddleneck
Boraginaceae
annual herb
Mar -May

4.2 S4
G4
perennial
Arctostaphylos ralnbowensis
Rainbow manzanita
Ericaceae
evergreen
Dec -Mar
1 B.1
S2
G2
shrub
Astragalus pachypus var.

Jaeger's bush milk-
vetch
Fabaceae
perennial shrub
Dec -Jun
1 B.1
S1
G4T1
jaegeri
Atriplex coronata var.

San Jacinto Valley
notatior
crownscale
Chenopodiaceae
annual herb
Apr -Aug
1 B.1
S1
G4T1
Atriplex pacifica
South Coast
Chenopodiaceae
annual herb
Mar -Oct
1 B.2
S2
G4
saltscale
Atriplex parishii
Parish's brittlescale
Chenopodiaceae
annual herb
Jun -Oct
1B.1
S1
G1G2
Atriplex serenana var.

Davidson's saltscale
Chenopodiaceae
annual herb
Apr -Oct
1 B.2
S1
G5T1
davidsonii
Ayenia compacta
California ayenia
Malvaceae
perennial herb
Mar -Apr
213.3
S3
G4
perennial
(Feb)Mar-
Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry
Berberidaceae
evergreen
Jun
1B.1
S1
G1
shrub
thread -leaved
perennial
Brodiaea filifolia
Themidaceae
bulbiferous
Mar -Jun
1 B.1
S2
G2
brodiaea
herb
Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt's brodiaea
Themidaceae
perennial
May -Jul
1 B.1
S2
G2
bulbiferous
www. rareplants.cnps.org/result. html?adv=t&quad=3311763:3311762:3311761:3311753:3311752:3311751:3311743:3311742:3311741 1/5

1/14/2021
CNPS Inventory Results
herb
Santa Rosa Basalt
perennial
Brodiaea santarosae
brodiaea
Themidaceae
bulbiferous
May -Jun
1B.2
S1
G1
herb
Calochortus catallnae
Catalina mariposa
Liliaceae
perennial
bulbiferous
(Feb)Mar-

4.2 S3S4
G3G4
lily
herb
Jun
Plummer's mariposa
perennial
Calochortus plummerae
lily
Liliaceae
bulbiferous
May -Jul

4.2 S4
G4
herb
Calochortus weedii var.
intermediate
perennial
intermedius
mariposa lily
Liliaceae
bulbiferous
May -Jul
1 B.2
S2
G3G4T2
herb
Camissoniopsis lewisii
Lewis' evening-
Onagraceae
annual herb
Mar-
3 S4
G4
primrose
May(Jun)
perennial
Carex buxbaumll
Buxbaum's sedge
Cyperaceae
rhizomatous
Mar -Aug

4.2 S3
G5
herb
Caulanthus simulans
Payson's jewelflower
Brassicaceae
annual herb
(Feb)Mar-

4.2 S4
G4
May(Jun)
perennial
Ceanothus cyaneus
Lakeside ceanothus
Rhamnaceae
evergreen
Apr -Jun
1 B.2
S2
G2
shrub
perennial
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Vail Lake ceanothus
Rhamnaceae
evergreen
Feb -Mar
1B.1
S1
G1
shrub
Ceanothus pendletonensis
Pendleton ceanothus
Rhamnaceae
perennial shrub
Mar -Jun
1B.2
S1
G1
Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis
smooth tarplant
Asteraceae
annual herb
Apr -Sep
1 B.1
S2
G3G4T2
Chaenactis glabriuscula var.
orcuttiana
Orcutt's pincushion
Asteraceae
annual herb
Jan -Aug
1B.1
S1
G5T1T2
southern mountain
perennial
Chamaebatia australis
Rosaceae
evergreen
Nov -May

4.2 S4
G4
misery
shrub
Chorizanthe leptotheca
Peninsular
Polygonaceae
annual herb
May -Aug

4.2 S3
G3
spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var.

Parry's spineflower
Polygonaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jun
1 B.1
S2
G3T2
parryi
Chorizanthe p&gonoides
long-spined
var. longispina
spineflower
Polygonaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jul
1 B.2
S3
G5T3
Cl podium chandleri
San Miguel savory
Lamiaceae
perennial shrub
Mar -Jul
1 B.2
S2
G3
Comarostaphylis diversifolia
perennial
ssp. dlverslfolla
summer holly
Ericaceae
evergreen
Apr -Jun
1 B.2
S2
G3T2
shrub
COnvOlvulus simulans
small-flowered
Convolvulaceae
annual herb
Mar -Jul

4.2 S4
G4
morninto
9-9 rY
Cryptantha wigginsii
Wiggins' cryptantha
Boraginaceae
annual herb
Feb -Jun
1 B.2
S1
G2
Delnandra panlculata
paniculate tarplant
Asteraceae
annual herb
(Mar)Apr-
Nov(Dec)

4.2 S4
G4
Dodecahema leptoceras
slender -horned
Polygonaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jun
1B.1
S1
G1
spineflower
Dudleya multicaulls
many -stemmed
Crassulaceae
perennial herb
Apr -Jul
1 B.2
S2
G2
dudleya
Dudleya viscida
sticky dudleya
Crassulaceae
perennial herb
May -Jun
1 B.2
S2
G2
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311763:3311762:3311761:3311753:3311752:3311751:3311743:3311742:3311741 2/5

1/14/2021
CNPS Inventory Results
Erynglum aristulatum var.

San Diego button-
Apiaceae
annual /
Apr -Jun
1 B.1
S1
G5T1
parlshli
celery
perennial herb
Erythranthe diffusa
Palomar
monkeyflower
Phrymaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jun

4.3 S3
G4
Geothallus tuberosus
Campbell's liverwort
Sphaerocarpaceae
ephemeral
liverwort
1B.1
S1
G1
Harpagonella palmeri
Palmer's
Boraginaceae
annual herb
Mar -May

4.2 S3
G4
grapplinghook
Hesperocyparis forbesii
Tecate cypress
Cupressaceae
perennial
1 B.1
S2
G2
evergreen tree
Holocarpha virgata ssp.
elongata
graceful tarplant
Asteraceae
annual herb
May -Nov

4.2 S3
G5T3
Hordeum intercedens
vernal barley
Poaceae
annual herb
Mar -Jun

3.2 S3S4
G3G4
Horkpubeeullacuneata var.

Feb-(p)
mesa horkelia
Rosaceae
perennial herb
Jul Se
1B.1
S1
G4T1
Horkelia truncata
Ramona horkelia
Rosaceae
perennial herb
May -Jun
1 B.3
S3
G3
Juglans callfornlca
Southern California
Juglandaceae
perennial
Mar -Aug

4.2 S4
G4
black walnut
deciduous tree
Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii
southwestern spiny
Juncaceae
perennial
rhizomatous
(Mar)May-

4.2 S4
G5T5
rush
herb
Jun
Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf
Juncaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jul
1B.2
S3
G3
rush
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
Asteraceae
annual herb
Feb -Jun
1 B.1
S2
G4T2
Lepechinia cardiophylla
heart -leaved pitcher
Lamiaceae
perennial shrub
Apr -Jul
1 B.2
S2S3
G3
sage
Lepldlum vlrglnlcum var.

Robinson's pepper-
robinsonii
grass
Brassicaceae
annual herb
Jan -Jul

4.3 S3
G5T3
Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellated Humboldt
perennial
Mar-
ocellatum
lily
Liliaceae
bulbiferous
Jul(Aug)

4.2 S4?
G4T4?
herb
perennial
Llllum parry)
lemon lily
Liliaceae
bulbiferous
Jul -Aug
1 B.2
S3
G3
herb
Limnanthes alba ssp.

Parish's
parishii
meadowfoam
Limnanthaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jun
1 B.2
S2
G4T2
Microseris douglasii ssp.
small -flowered
Asteraceae
annual herb
Mar -May

4.2 S4
G4T4
platycarpLa-
microseris
Mielichhoferia shevockii
Shevock's copper
Mielichhoferiaceae
moss
1 B.2
S2
G2
moss
Monardella hypoleuca ssp.
intermediate
perennial
intermedia
monardella
Lamiaceae
rhizomatous
Apr -Sep
1 B.3
S2?
G4T2?
herb
Monardella hypoleuca ssp.
felt -leaved
perennial
lanata
monardella
Lamiaceae
rhizomatous
Jun -Aug
1 B.2
S3
G4T3
herb
Monardella macrantha ssp.
perennial
hallii
Hall's monardella
Lamiaceae
rhizomatous
Jun -Oct
1 B.3
S3
G5T3
herb
Myosurus minimus ssp.
little mousetail
Ranunculaceae
annual herb
Mar -Jun

3.1 S2
G5T2Q
apus
Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia
Polemoniaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jun
1 B.1
S2
G2
www. rareplants.cnps.org/result. html?adv=t&quad=3311763:3311762:3311761:3311753:3311752:3311751:3311743:3311742:3311741 3/5

1/14/2021
CNPS Inventory Results
Navarretia prostrata
prostrate vernal pool
Polemoniaceae
annual herb
Apr -Jul
1 B.1
S2
G2
navarretia
perennial
(Mar)May-
Nolina cismontana
chaparral nolina
Ruscaceae
evergreen
Jul
1 B.2
S3
G3
shrub
Orcuttia californica
California Orcutt
Poaceae
annual herb
Apr -Aug
1B.1
S1
G1
grass
Packera ganderi
Gander's ragwort
Asteraceae
perennial herb
Apr -Jun
1 B.2
S2
G2
Pickeringia montana var.
woolly chaparral -pea
Fabaceae
evergreen
May -Aug

4.3 S3S4
G5T3T4
tomentosa
shrub
Piperia cooperi
chaparral rein orchid
Orchidaceae
perennial herb
Mar -Jun

4.2 S3S4
G3G4
perennial
Polygala cornuta var. fishiae
Fish's milkwort
Polygalaceae
deciduous
May -Aug

4.3 S4
G5T4
shrub
Pseudognaphalium
(Jul)Aug-
leucocephalum
white rabbit -tobacco
Asteraceae
perennial herb
Nov(Dec)
26 2
S2
G4
Quercus engelmannii
Engelmann oak
Fagaceae
perennial
Mar -Jun

4.2 S3
G3
deciduous tree
Coulter's matilija
perennial
Mar-
Romneya coulter)
Papaveraceae
rhizomatous
Jul(Aug)

4.2 S4
G4
poppy
herb
Saltugllla latimeri
Latimer's woodland-
Polemoniaceae
annual herb
Mar -Jun
1 B.2
S3
G3
gilia
Scutellaria bolanderi ssp.
southern mountains
perennial
austromontana
skullcap
Lamiaceae
rhizomatous
Jun -Aug
1 B.2
S3
G4T3
herb
perennial
Selaginella cinerascens
ashy spike -moss
Selaginellaceae
rhizomatous

4.1 S3
G3G4
herb
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
Asteraceae
annual herb
Jan
Apr(May)
213.2
S2
G3
Slbaropsls hammlttll
Hammitt's clay -cress
Brassicaceae
annual herb
Mar -Apr
1 B.2
S2
G2
Sidalcea neomexicana
salt spring
Malvaceae
perennial herb
Mar -Jun
2B.2
S2
G4
checkerbloom
Sphaerocarpos drewei
bottle liverwort
Sphaerocarpaceae
ephemeral
1B.1
S1
G1
liverwort
San Bernardino
perennial
Jul-
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
aster
Asteraceae
rhizomatous
Nov(Dec)
1 B.2
S2
G2
herb
perennial
Tetracoccus dlolcus
Parry's tetracoccus
Picrodendraceae
deciduous
Apr -May
1 B.2
S2
G2G3
shrub
Texosporium sancti-jacobi
woven -spored lichen
Caliciaceae
crustose lichen
3 S1
G3
(terricolous)
Tortula californica
California screw-
Pottiaceae
moss
1 B.2
S2S3
G2G3
moss
Suggested Citation
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 14 January 2021].

Search the Inventory Information Contributors
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311763:3311762:3311761:3311753:3311752:3311751:3311743:3311742:3311741 4/5

1/14/2021
CNPS Inventory Results
Simple Search
Advanced Search
Glossary
Questions and Comments
rareplants@cnps_org
About the Inventory
About the Rare Plant Program
CNPS Home Page
About CNPS
Join CNPS
@ Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved.

The Calflora Database
The California Lichen Society
California Natural Diversity Database
The Jepson Flora Project
The Consortium of California Herbaria
CalPhotos
www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3311763:3311762:3311761:3311753:3311752:3311751:3311743:3311742:3311741 5/5

Appendix C
Aquatic Resources Delineation
Report
ESA

D raft

SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK TRAIL PHASE II

UNDERCROSSING AT MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Prepared for
EXP U.S. Services, Inc.

January 2022
F ESA

D raft

SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK TRAIL PHASE II

UNDERCROSSING AT MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Prepared for
EXP U.S. Services, Inc.
770 Paseo Camarillo
Suite 310
Camarillo, CA 93010
805.914.1500
www.esassoc.com
Bend
Oakland
San Francisco
Camarillo
Orlando
Santa Monica
Delray Beach
Pasadena
Sarasota
Destin
Petaluma
Seattle
Irvine
Portland
Sunrise
Los Angeles
Sacramento
Tampa
Miami
San Diego
D201901440.00
January 2022
ESA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II
Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project
Paqe
Chapter1, Introduction...........................................................................................................1

1.1 Survey Location......................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Directions to the Survey Area......................................................................4

1.2 Contact Information.................................................................................................4

1.2.1 Project Applicant..........................................................................................4

1.2.2 Field Delineators..........................................................................................4 Chapter 2, Existing Conditions..............................................................................................5

2.1 Plant Communities and Land Use..........................................................................5

2.1.1 Annual Grasses and Forbs..........................................................................7

2.1.2 Goodding's Willow -Sandbar Willow Riparian Woodland/Forest (Salix gooddingii-Salix exigua Woodland/Forest Alliance) ..........................7

2.1.3 Hardstem Bulrush Marsh (Schoenoplectus acutus Herbaceous Alliance)........................................................................................................ 7

2.1.4 Unvegetated Streambed..............................................................................7

2.1.5 Disturbed/Developed....................................................................................7

2.2 Soils..............................................................................................................

2.2.1 Riverwash..........................................................................................

2.3 Site Hydrology..............................................................................................

2.4 Climate.........................................................................................................

2.4.1 Agricultural Applied Climate Information System Wetlands Climate Table.................................................................................................

2.4.2 Antecedent Precipitation Tool...........................................................

Chapter 3, Regulatory Framework .............

3.1 Waters of the U.S........................

3.1.1 Clean Water Act ...............

3.2 Waters of the State .....................

3.3 Rivers, Streams, and Lakes........

3.4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
Chapter4, Methodology..............................................................................................

4.1 Pre -Field Review.........................................................................................

4.2 Aquatic Resources Delineation Methods ....................................................

4.2.1 Waters of the U.S.............................................................................

4.2.2 Waters of the State..........................................................................

4.2.3 Rivers, Streams, and Lakes and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas

4.3 Mapping and Acreage Calculations............................................................ 13 13
13 14
15 15
17 17
17 19
20 20
20 Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project I ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Table of Contents
Paqe
Chapter5, Results.................................................................................................................21

5.1 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................21

5.1.1 Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.........................................................24

5.1.2 Potential Other Waters of the U.S.............................................................24

5.2.3 Clean Water Act Analysis..........................................................................24

5.2 Waters of the State...............................................................................................25

5.3 Rivers, Streams and Lakes; and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas.....................25

5.4 Conclusions...........................................................................................................27 Chapter 6, References Cited.................................................................................................29 Appendices
A. APT Outputs
B. Data Sheets
C. Floral Compendium
D. Photographic Log
List of Figures
Figure1-1
Survey Location......................................................................................................2 Figure 1-2
USGS Topographic Map.........................................................................................3 Figure 2-1
Plant Communities and Land Use..........................................................................6 Figure2-2
Soils.........................................................................................................................9 Figure2-3
Site Hydrology.......................................................................................................10 Figure 4-1
National Wetlands Inventory.................................................................................18 Figure5-1
Waters of the U.S..................................................................................................22 Figure 5-2
Waters of the State...............................................................................................23 Figure 5-3
Rivers, Streams and Lakes; and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas.....................26 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Plant Communities and Land Use..........................................................................5 Table 2-2 Monthly Total Precipitation (Inches) For Elsinore.................................................11 Table 5-1 Aquatic Resources within the Survey area...........................................................21 Table 5-2 Rivers, Streams and Lakes; and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas within theSurvey area.....................................................................................................25 Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project II ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by EXP U.S. Services Inc. to conduct an aquatic resources delineation prior to the commencement of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project (project) located in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The purpose of the delineation was to determine the extent of areas that could be considered waters of the United States (U.S.), waters of the State, features subject to regulation under Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 1602 and/or features subject to Section

6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) (RCIP 2004. The delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a). The results from this report will be used to support any necessary permits from the regulatory agencies.

1.1 Survey Location
The delineation was completed within the project site and a surrounding 50-foot buffer, collectively referred to the "survey area." The survey area is situated along San Gertrudis Creek, at its intersection with the Margarita Road bridge, in the city of Temecula, CA. The city of Murrieta is located approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest; the cities of Perris and Hemet are generally located approximately 17 miles to the north and northeast, respectively; the city of Escondido is located approximately 30 miles to the south; and the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains are situated within 3 miles to the southwest (Figure 1-1 Survey Location). The survey area is located within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Murrieta 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 1-2 USGS Topographic Map) and the decimal degree coordinates are: 33°31' 56.80"N, 117009' 12.40"W for the northwest corner, 33°31' 56.64"N, 117°09' 12.12"W for the southwest corner, 33°32' 01.55"N, 117°09' 07.92"W for the southeast corner, and 33°32' 01.69"N, 117°09'

08.17"W for the northeast corner.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

L._ ► ? F Survey Area
1, inure .. , •. 9/f _
Riverside Santa Gertrudis Creek
Survey Location
hkirneta' �•-
v
— — — — — —
Fallbro„k
S a n D i e g o �sE� a,b, _k ` and.- Y ' AID
Gertru_ - a�-•-, . Y•• ,;-r_.. F; �n} `, fir• ^�..
'''h;
4-6
©2 0 200
Feet A. ir 46
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 1-1
ESA Survey Location

a .. W"" ,. 16__: Survey Area
i
I410
AV
040
tv
.�
9 ,
4 0 600 `r Z A•
rr .
_ Feet
OP W—I
SOURCE: USGS Topoquad Murrieta, 1980. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 1-2
ESA USGS Topographic Map

1.Introduction

1.1.1 Directions to the Survey Area
From the Los Angeles USACE office location, head southeast on Wilshire Blvd toward Figueroa St. for 410 feet. Turn left onto Figueroa St., continue 0.2 mile and turn left onto W. 5t' Street.

Continue for 174 feet and merge onto CA-110 (Harbor Freeway) North for 0.7 mile. Take the exit for US- 101 South and in 1.6 mile, keep right at the fork toward I-10/I-5 and merge onto US- 101 South. Keep left at the fork and continue for approximately 1.2 mile before merging onto I-10 E toward San Bernardino and continuing for approximately 23.3 miles. Merge onto CA-71 South toward Corona and continue for 15.6 miles before merging onto CA-91 East for 4.6 miles. Merge onto I-15 toward San Diego and continue for 35.5 miles.

Exit Winchester Road/CA-79 and turn left. Continue northwest on Winchester for approximately 1 mile before turning left onto Margarita Road and continuing for 0.2 mile before turning left into the parking lot for WinCo Foods. Park and walk approximately 100 feet to the northeast to reach the survey area.

1.2 Contact Information

1.2.1 Project Applicant
EXP U.S. Services Inc.

Attn. Gabriel Rodriguez
451 East Vanderbilt Way, Suite 375
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(949) 257-5340
[email protected]

1.2.2 Field Delineators
Robert Sweet, Delineator
Karla Flores, Delineator
Environmental Science Associates
770 Paseo Camarillo Suite 310
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805)914-1500
[email protected]
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 4 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

CHAPTER 2
Existing Conditions
The proposed project is situated along the eastern bank of Santa Gertrudis Creek as it extends under the Margarita Road bridge, and is bound in all directions by commercial and residential development. Elevation ranges between 1,060 to 1,090 feet above mean sea level. Much of the bed of the drainage appears to have been previously cleared/disturbed as a result of flood control maintenance, but still supports native wetland and riparian vegetation. The bank has been manufactured and either consists of poured concrete or an articulated concrete block system. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology documented within the survey area are discussed in detail below.

2.1 Plant Communities and Land Use
Plant communities and land use were characterized to map their extent and quantify their abundance within the survey area using ArcGIS. Plant taxonomy followed Hickman (1993), as updated in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), and plant community descriptions were characterized using A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant communities and land use not identified within the aforementioned publications were characterized based on the California Department of Fish and Game's List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities (CDFW 2019) and/or based on species dominance or other characteristics.

The plant communities and land use mapped within the survey area include annual grasses and forbs, Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest, hardstem bulrush marsh, unvegetated streambed and disturbed/developed land use. These are depicted in Figure 2-1— Plant Communities and Land Use. Acreages of each vegetation community in the survey area are summarized below in Table 2-1— Plant Communities and Land Use.

TABLE 2-1

PLANT COMMUNITIES AND LAND USE
Plant Communities and Land Use Acres
Annual Grasses and Forbs

0.16 Goodding's Willow -Sandbar Willow Riparian Woodland/Forest

0.10 Hardstem Bulrush Marsh

0.34 Unvegetated Streambed

0.14 Disturbed/Developed

1.23 Grand Total

1.98 Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project rJ ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 2-1
ESA Plant Communities and Land Use

2. Existing Conditions

2.1.1 Annual Grasses and Forbs
Annual grasses and forbs occur in drier portions of the survey area, along the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek. This community supports a dense herbaceous layer consisting of grasses and forbs with a co -dominance of annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) and curly dock (Rumex crispus), interspersed throughout with annual ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis) and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium).

2.1.2 Goodding's Willow -Sandbar Willow Riparian
Woodland/Forest (Salix gooddingii-Salix exigua
Woodland/Forest Alliance)
Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest is present along the creek bed, within the northern portion of the survey area, just northeast of the Margarita Road bridge. This community is characterized by a prominence of Goodding's willow (Salix gooddingii) in the tree canopy, interspersed with a dense shrub/small tree layer dominated by sandbar willow (Salix exigua). This community also supports a dense herbaceous layer, similar in character to the adjacent hardstem bulrush marsh, that includes annual beard grass, curly dock, tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus).

2.1.3 Hardstem Bulrush Marsh (Schoenoplectus acutus
Herbaceous Alliance)
Hardstem bulrush marsh is present in the western portion of the survey area, west of the Margarita Road bridge, although hardstem bulrush plants are found throughout much of the remainder of the survey area. This community is characterized by a dense herbaceous layer dominated by hardstem bulrush and interspersed with various other species that include annual beard grass, cocklebur, curly dock, Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus) and tall flatsedge.

2.1.4 Unvegetated Streambed
Unvegetated Streambed exists along the creek bed under the Margarita Road bridge. This community is characterized as having little to no vegetation (i.e., < 2% total cover), and appears to be the result of a lack of sunlight to promote vegetative growth. Additionally, this area did not appear to support hydric soil indicators, which were observed within the adjacent Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest and hardstem bulrush marsh.

2.1.5 Disturbed/Developed
Disturbed/developed land use includes the manufactured concrete banks observed along Santa Gertrudis Creek, the concrete bridge/paved roadway along Margarita Road, the paved bike trail, and the surrounding parking lots/landscaped areas. These areas are either entirely or largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of some "weedy" non-native growth, that include such species as short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and ornamental, planted trees that include red ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 7 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

2. Existing Conditions

2.2 Soils
Based on review of the Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS) web soil survey, the survey area contains one soil type, Riverwash (Figure 2-2 Soils) (MRCS 2020a). A brief description of its characteristics is provided below:

2.2.1 Riverwash
This soil association is considered excessively drained, and is typically comprised of sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed sources. The soil profile consists of gravelly coarse sand from 0-6 inches and stratified extremely gravelly coarse sand to gravelly sand from 6 to 60 inches. This soil type is listed as hydric within Riverside County (MRCS 2020a).

2.3 Site Hydrology
The survey area is located within the Santa Margarita River watershed and there is one aquatic feature, Santa Gertrudis Creek, in the survey area. This feature is depicted in Figure 2-3 Site Hydrology and described in detail below.

Santa Gertrudis Creek is an intermittent drainage that appears to convey seasonal stormwater and other nuisance runoff from nearby streets and surrounding residential developments across the survey area in a northeast -southwesterly direction. Surface water was not present during the delineation; however, moist soil and hydrophytic vegetation (facultative wetland and obligate indicator plant species) was observed throughout much of the creek bed. Observable site conditions suggest that creek flows are likely restricted to the wettest periods of the season; however, perennial mesic conditions appear to persist throughout the year.

The creek continues southwest of the survey area for approximately 1.6 river miles, before converging with Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek continues for approximately 3.5 river miles before converging with Santa Margarita Creek, which continues for approximately 29 river miles before reaching the Pacific Ocean at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego County.

2.4 Climate
The aquatic resources delineation was conducted on December 16, 2020. The regional vicinity is described as having a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool winters will relatively low rainfall. Average highs range between 67' Fahrenheit (F) in the winter (December and January) and 90' F in the summer, while average lows range between 47' F in in the winter and 61' in the summer (World Climate 2020).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 8 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

HanfordSurvey Area
Santa Gertrudis Creek
Solis
coarse sandy loam,
slopes2 percent
Riverwash
MPRGPR�•Pµ0
Santa Gertrudis Creek
............................. .�
• I
I �
1 I
� ♦ i
.......... .....................
...... .... .r rr. ♦♦ .r..
i
i
_ rr
I
SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020; Web Soil Survey, 2020.
r ESA
J
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 2-2
Soils

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project r ESA
J
Figure 2-3
Site Hydrology

2. Existing Conditions

2.4.1 Agricultural Applied Climate Information System
Wetlands Climate Table
The Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS) Wetlands (WETS) climate table for the Elsinore precipitation monitoring station, located in Riverside County, California is included below in Table 2-2 - WETS Table: Monthly Total Precipitation (Inches) for Elsinore, for January 2010 through December 2020. Historically (11-year sampling period), the month of December has supported the highest mean rainfall levels; however, during the approximately two weeks leading up to the aquatic resources delineation, only trace levels of precipitation were recorded at the Elsinore station (MRCS 2020b). Further, the total precipitation for the previous month of November was below the annual mean reported for the month of November. Based on site conditions and review of the AgACIS data provided in Table 2-2, below, it appears conditions at the time of the delineation were dry as compared to those typical for the winter months.

TABLE 2-2

MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) FOR ELSINORE
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2010

8.88 1.81

0.44 1.23

0.13 0
0 0
0 1.61

1.06 11.67

26.8 2011

0.7 3.07

2.96 0.46

0.78 0.07

0.1 0.09

0.03 0.44

1.37 0.74

10.8 2012

0.55 0.67

1.51 1.18
0 0

0.3 0.05

0.24 0.36

0.3 1.78

6.94 2013

0.91 0.46

0.46 0

0.14 0
0 0
0 0.16

0.53 0.7

3.36 2014

0.13 1.28

1.27 0.5
0 0
0 0.66

0.45 0

0.21 3.65

8.15 2015

0.55 0.37

0.44 0.11

0.96 0

1.29 0

1.08 0.11

0.12 0.58

5.61 2016

2.79 0.3

0.74 0.28

0.06 0
0 0

0.1 0.39

1.18 3.81

9.65 2017

8.23 3.27

0.08 0.02

0.29 0
0 0.26

0.04 0.01

0.05 0

12.3 2018

2.01 0.2

1.11 0.02

0.05 0
0 0
0 1.4

0.62 1.88

7.29 2019

2.95 6.28

1.97 0.04

1.13 0

0.1 0
0 0

2.27 4.26
19 2020

0.3 0.38

3.39 M2.52
M0.00

0.05 0
0 0
0 0.36
M0.00
7 Mean (2010-2020)

2.55 1.64

1.31 0.38

0.35 0.01

0.18 0.11

0.19 0.45

0.77 2.91

10.63 SOURCE: Agricultural Applied Climate
Information
System Wetlands (WETS), USDA 2020b.
"M" Indicates trace precipitation

2.4.2 Antecedent Precipitation Tool
The Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to compare recorded precipitation levels at a given location and date to the normal precipitation range at that location over the preceding 30 years. This tool analyzes similar data found in the AgACIS table above; however, averages precipitation from several precipitation monitoring stations and generates calculations that compare precipitation levels over time. Under the final Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), the determination of a waterbody is generally informed by understanding conditions in a "typical year" (i.e., the normal periodic Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 11 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

2. Existing Conditions
range of precipitation and other climate variables for that waterbody) and this tool provides assistance in achieving that determination.

Both the single -point and watershed analyses were completed for the date of the delineation (December 16, 2020). The APT outputs are provided in Appendix A — APT Outputs. The single point analysis concentrates on a centralized locational point within the survey area, while the watershed analysis is based on the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and includes an approximate 22.42 square mile area of the Santa Margarita River watershed including the survey area. The resulting outputs include the following information:

Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) — The PDSI is a monthly dataset published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and is intended to measure the duration and intensity of the long-term drought -inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative; therefore, the results of a current month are dependent on current weather patterns in relation to the cumulative patterns for previous months (NOAA 2020).

Average Antecedent Precipitation Score (AAPS) — The AAPS is used to determine how "wet" or "dry" a particular location (i.e. sampling point and/or date) is. The final condition is determined as follows:

Wetter than Normal — Condition value greater than 14
0 Normal —Condition ranging from 10 to 14
• Drier than Normal —Condition valueless than 10
The average of the dates and/or sampling points analyzed are presented as an AAPS and a Preliminary Determination is made for the sampling location.

The results of the PDSI indicated the region is experiencing a mild drought, whereas the AAPS of 10 resulted in a Preliminary Determination of normal conditions. While it appears that the region is enduring a mild drought, conditions within the survey area generally appear to fall within the low end of the normal range.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 12 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

CHAPTER 3
Regulatory Framework

3.1 Waters of the U.S.

3.1.1 Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the NWPR that refines the 2008 Rapanos Rule (EPA 2008) definition of a nexus to a navigable water, and the process for determining Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over waters of the United States (waters of the U.S.). The EPA and USACE published the NWPR on June 22, 2020 (EPA 2020).

The NWPR, summarized as key points below, were used to collect relevant data for evaluation by the EPA and the USACE to determine CWA jurisdiction within the survey area. The determination of an ordinary high water mark [OHWM]), as outlined in the 2008 Rapanos Rule, is still applicable to assess the presence/absence of a hydrologic connection to a Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW) (EPA 2008). However, only intermittent and perennial features with a connection to a TNW will be considered "tributaries" and remain jurisdictional. The USACE is no longer asserting jurisdiction over ephemeral features.

Wetlands (including swamps, bogs, seasonal wetlands, seeps, marshes, and similar areas) adjacent to "tributaries" or other jurisdictional waters remain jurisdictional, as waters of the U.S. (subject to the significant nexus test), and are defined by USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (33 CFR 328.3[b]; 40 CFR 230.3[t]). Indicators of three wetland parameters (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), as determined by field investigation, must be present for a site to be classified as a wetland by USACE (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Isolated wetlands, that meet the criteria described above; however, do not exhibit a clear connection to a TNW, are not considered jurisdictional.

3.1.1.1 Navigable Waters Protection Rule
The USACE and EPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Territorial seas and TNW's;
• tributaries (includes perennial and intermittent features); • lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 13 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

3. Requlatory Framework
• adjacent wetlands.
— Wetlands that abut jurisdictional waters.
— Wetlands that are inundated by flooding from a jurisdictional water in atypical year. — Wetlands that are physically separated by a jurisdictional water only by a natural berm, bank, dune, or similar natural feature; and
— Wetlands that are physically separated from a jurisdictional water only by an artificial dike, barrier, or similar artificial structure so long as that structure allows for a direct hydrologic surface connection between the wetlands and the jurisdictional water in a typical year.

The USACE and USEPA will not assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Ephemeral streams that exhibit a connection to a TNW, as these do not meet the definition of "tributary";
• swales or erosional features (gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow);
• ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
• groundwater;
• prior converted cropland;
• artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes and ponds, and water -filled depressions; • stormwater control features; and
• water treatment systems
Section 401 of the CWA gives the state authority to grant, deny, or waive certification of proposed federally licensed or permitted activities resulting in discharge to waters of the U.S. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) directly regulates multi -regional projects and supports the Section 401 certification and wetlands program statewide. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the federal CWA, which specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. The certification shall originate from the State or appropriate interstate water pollution control agency in/where the discharge originates or will originate. Any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA.

3.2 Waters of the State
Most projects involving water bodies or drainages are regulated by the RWQCB, the principal State agency overseeing water quality of the State at the local/regional level. The survey area is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego (R9) RWQCB. Where waters of the State overlap Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 14 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

3. Regulatory Framework
with waters of the U.S., pending verification from the USACE, those waters would be regulated under Section 401 of the CWA which is described in the Regulatory Framework in Section 3.1.

In the absence of waters of the U.S., waters may be regulated under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act if project activities, discharges, or proposed activities or discharges could affect California's surface, coastal, or ground waters. The permit submitted by the applicant and issued by RWQCB is either a Water Quality Certification in the presence of waters of the U.S. or a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) in the absence of waters of the U.S.

The State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures), as prepared by the State Water Resources Control Board, was implemented on May 28, 2020. The Procedures include a definition for wetland waters of the state that include 1) all wetland waters of the U.S.; and 2) aquatic resources that meet both the soils and hydrology criteria for wetland waters of the U.S. but lack vegetation.

3.3 Rivers, Streams, and Lakes
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the FGC, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (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. A notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement must be submitted to CDFW for "any activity that may substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake." In addition, CDFW has authority under FGC over wetland and riparian habitats associated with lakes and streams. The CDFW reviews proposed actions, and if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA).

3.4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
Pursuant to Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian Areas and Vernal Pools, the potential effect of proposed project activities occurring within the MSCHP must assess any and all impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Riparian/riverine areas include "those that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year"; and vernal pools include those seasonal wetlands that "occur in depression areas that have wetland indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season, but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season" (RCIP 2004).

The Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) reviews and oversees all resource determinations and proposed actions that occur within the MSHCP.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 15 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Framework
This page intentionally left blank
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 16 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

CHAPTER 4
Methodology

4.1 Pre -Field Review
Prior to conducting the aquatic resources delineation, ESA conducted a review of available background information pertaining to the survey area to gather baseline information on the existing conditions within the survey area. The following resources were reviewed prior to the delineation:
• Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0, 2010 (MRCS 2010); • Natural Resources Conservation Service's (MRCS) Web Soil Survey, queried to determine the soils mapped in the survey area (MRCS 2020a);
• Murrieta, CA USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map; • Color aerial photography for vegetative, topographic, and hydrologic features (Google Earth 2020); and
• The National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2020).

The results of the National Wetlands Inventory database query are provided in Figure 4-1 National Wetlands Inventory. As shown in Figure 4-1, Santa Gertrudis Creek is identified in the National Wetlands Inventory as a riverine feature.

4.2 Aquatic Resources Delineation Methods
ESA biologists Karla Flores and Robert Sweet conducted the aquatic resources delineation on December 16, 2020 to delineate aquatic features within the survey area. The limits of aquatic features were recorded in the field within accessible areas using aerial maps and a hand-held GPS with sub -foot accuracy. The extent of non -wetland aquatic features was closely assessed by establishing a total of two survey transects across Santa Gertrudis Creek and wetland/upland data points to determine potential wetland boundaries. Plant communities and land use were mapped concurrently during the aquatic resources delineation.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 17 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

err, .r _��' I •��" ��'�, I ��
wo
ip
104
•,� r� 1 `
43 H�R�VESTON'DR _ - E �i� '•;r� "ems �• .�. ` /�` : _, } A • y
loin
do 6�, •-

4. 4.2.1 Waters of the U.S.

The delineation used the "Routine Determination Method" as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), hereafter called the "1987 Manual." The 1987 Manual was used in conjunction with the Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008a). For areas where the 1987 Manual and the Arid West Supplement differ, the Arid West Supplement was followed. Wetlands and waters were classified using commonly accepted habitat types; however, the Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al. 1979) of each feature type is noted in the discussion in Chapter 5.

4.2.1.1 Wetlands
To determine the extent of potential jurisdictional wetlands on a project site, the 1987 Manual and Arid West Supplement were used as a guide for identifying wetland characteristics. Three positive wetland parameters must normally be present for an area to be considered a wetland: 1) a dominance of wetland vegetation, 2) presence of hydric soils, and 3) presence of wetland hydrology. Presence or absence of positive indicators for wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology was assessed per the 1987 Manual and Arid West Supplement guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Data points were taken within suspected wetlands and a paired point was taken (where applicable) in nearby upland areas. Data points were recorded on Arid West Region wetland determination data forms, which are provided in Appendix B — Field Data Forms.

At each data point, a visual assessment of the dominant plant species within the vegetation community was made. Dominant species were assessed using the recommended "50/20" rule per the Arid West Supplement. Plants were identified to species using the The Jepson Manual:

Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). The National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) 2018 (USACE 2020) was used to determine the wetland indicator status of all plants. A floral compendium, including the wetland indicator status of each plant is provided in Appendix C — Floral Compendium.

Hydric soils were identified using soil indicators presented in the Regional Supplement to the Arid West Supplement and the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0, 2010 (MRCS 2010). Soils at each data point were characterized by color, texture, organic matter accumulation, and the presence or absence of hydric soil indicators. The coloration of the soil samples, matrix, and concentrations were assessed using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000). Presence of wetland hydrology was determined at each data point by presence of one or more of the primary and/or secondary indicators, per guidance of the Arid West Supplement.

4.2.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S.

Federal jurisdiction over a non -wetland waters of the U.S. extends to the OHWM, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris. In the Arid West region of the United States, waters are variable and include ephemeral/intermittent and perennial channel forms. The most problematic ordinary high-water delineations are Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 19 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

4. associated with the commonly occurring ephemeral/intermittent channel forms that dominate the Arid West landscape. Delineation methods for "other waters of the U.S." were completed in accordance with A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b). OHWM data sheets are provided in Appendix B.

4.2.2 Waters of the State
Waters of the State were delineated using the same methodology as waters of the U.S. Notably, the procedures adopted on May 28, 2020 assert that in the case that a potential wetland lacks vegetation (i.e., less than 5 percent cover), the methods outlined in the 1987 Manual shall be modified as not to preclude the determination of an area that otherwise meets the definition of wetland. Due to the conditions observed in the field, this modification to the delineation methods was not applicable. Based on informal guidance from the San Diego RWQCB, waters of the State extend to the top of the bank JOB); therefore, the limits of non -wetland waters of the State were delineated to the TOB on the south bank, and the extent of streambed or riparian/wetland vegetation up to the northern survey area boundary.

4.2.3 Rivers, Streams, and Lakes and MSHCP
Riparian/Riverine Areas
Potential CDFW jurisdictional features and MSHCP riparian/riverine areas were delineated by establishing survey transects from the TOB along the south bank to the extent of streambed or riparian/wetland vegetation up to the northern survey area boundary.

4.3 Mapping and Acreage Calculations
Data collected during the aquatic resources delineation, including survey transects, were recorded using a hand-held GPS unit (Arrow 100) with sub -meter accuracy or were delineated on aerial photography using Geographic Information System (GIS) software (ArcGIS 10.2) and site - specific topographic data and aerial imagery. Data collected in the field was mapped using GIS software on an overlay of topographic contours and geo-referenced orthorectified aerial imagery.

GPS data points were visually confirmed and the acreage of potential wetland and other waters of the U.S. and State, and potential CDFW/MSHCP jurisdictional streams and associated vegetation were mapped using ArcGIS.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 20 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

CHAPTER 5
Results
The results of the aquatic resources delineation are discussed in this section. All aquatic features within the survey area were analyzed in the field to determine whether each may be considered wetland or non -wetland ("other") waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and/or CDFW/MSHCP- jurisdictional features. Representative photographs from the field aquatic resources delineation are provided in Appendix D — Photographic Exhibit.

5.1 Aquatic Resources
Table 5-1 Aquatic Resources within the Survey Area identifies the extent of aquatic resources within the survey area that are potentially waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State. Also included is the Cowardin aquatic habitat type used to describe each feature and the dominant plant communities observed. Delineated features, including the width of survey transects based on the OHWM JOB for waters of the State) and data points, are depicted in Figure 5-1 Waters of the U.S. and Figure 5-2 Waters of the State.

TABLE 5-1

AQUATIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA
GPS
Coordinates
OHWM
TOB
Potential Waters of
Cowardin
Dominant Plant
(decimal
Range*
Range*
Linear
Area
Aquatic Feature
the U.S. and State
Type
Communities
degrees)
(feet)
(feet)
Feet
(acre)
Santa Gertrudis
Potential wetland
Palustrine
Goodding's willow-
-117.153261,
50-58
--
559

0.48 Creek (wetland)
waters of the U.S.
sandbar willow riparian

33.53277
and State
woodland/forest,
hardstem bulrush
marsh
Santa Gertrudis
Potential other
Riverine
Annual grasses and
-117.152805,
45-54
--
146

0.33 Creek (intermittent)
waters of the U.S.
forbs, unvegetated

33.533284
streambed
Santa Gertrudis
Potential non-
Riverine
Annual grasses and
-117.152805,
--
66-67
146

0.57 Creek (intermittent)
wetland waters of
forbs, unvegetated

33.533284
the State
streambed,
Disturbed/Developed
Within survey area
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 21 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project r ESA
J
Figure 5-1
Waters of the U.S.

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project r ESA
J
Figure 5-2
Waters of the State

5. Results

5.1.1 Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.

The areas mapped as Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest and hardstem bulrush marsh met the three USACE wetland parameters: 1) a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, 2) presence of hydric soils, and 3) presence of wetland hydrology. Wetland data point (WDP) 1 met the criteria for wetland vegetation by passing the Dominance Test (i.e., 100% OBL, FACW or FAC species) and the Prevalence Index (i.e. 1.36); and wetland hydrology by possessing primary indicator C3 — oxidized rhizospheres and secondary indicator B 10 — drainage patterns.

Inspection of the soil profile revealed a coloration of 2.5 Y 3/2 in the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000), throughout the entire soil matrix. The presence of redox concentrations (>2 percent) in the matrix, in concert with a Chroma of 2 meets the criteria for hydric soil indicators (i.e., S5 — sandy redox).

Upland data point (UDP) 1 a was collected outside of the proposed wetland boundary, at the top of the manufactured bank. This sample point did not exhibit wetland hydrology, vegetation and/or soils. Vegetation at this location is dominated by upland species that include short podded mustard.

UDP lb was collected just outside of the proposed wetland boundary, along the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek, and met the criteria for wetland vegetation by passing the Dominance Test (i.e., 100% OBL, FACW or FAC species) and the Prevalence Index (i.e. 3.00); however, did not exhibit wetland soils or hydrology (i.e., exhibited a single secondary indicator (B 10)). Vegetation at this location is characterized by a dominance of annual beard grass. Upon inspection of the unvegetated streambed under the Margarita Road bridge revealed that this area does not appear to display signs of wetland vegetation, hydric soils or hydrology.

5.1.2 Potential Other Waters of the U.S.

Potential other waters of the U.S. include the limits of the OHWM established along Santa Gertrudis Creek within the survey area, excluding portions of the creek supporting wetland waters of the U.S. Survey transect DIT1 was 49 feet in length and taken within the bed of Santa Gertrudis Creek, entirely within potential wetland waters of the U.S. The information collected along this transect is discussed in detail above, in section 5.1.1. An additional survey transect 55 feet in length (D 1 T2), was established along Santa Gertrudis Creek in the eastern portion of the survey area. The data collected along this transect suggests that this creek supports a natural, soft -bottomed bed and a manufactured bank. The bank is comprised of poured concrete within approximately 175 feet of either side of the Margarita Road bridge, while the remainder of the bank in each direction is comprised of articulated concrete blocks. The OHWM indicators observed include a clear break in slope between the natural bed and the manufactured bank, and transects DIT1 and DIT2 were established based on the OHWM indicators. Flowing or standing water was not observed during the delineation. Plant communities and land use observed within the OHWM, outside of the proposed wetland waters of the U.S., include annual grasses and forbs and unvegetated streambed.

5.2.3 Clean Water Act Analysis
Santa Gertrudis Creek is an intermittent drainage that is a non -navigable tributary of a TNW, the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the creek is considered waters of the U.S. under the NWPR. Wetlands that abut jurisdictional waters are also considered waters of the U.S. under the NWPR. As such, Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 24 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

5. Results
the wetlands mapped within Santa Gertrudis Creek that met all three USACE wetland parameters are considered potential wetland waters of the U.S.

5.2 Waters of the State
The extent of non -wetland waters of the State was established with survey transects based on the TOB on the south bank and the extent of streambed or riparian/wetland vegetation up to the northern survey area boundary. Transect D 1 T 1 was 66 feet and Transect D 1 T2 was 67 feet, and included the manufactured southern bank. As described above in Chapter 2, the manufactured bank consists almost entirely of poured concrete, with the exception of limited weedy growth interspersed throughout the articulated concrete blocks. It was determined that the boundaries for wetland waters of the State are the same as those for wetland waters of the U.S.

5.3 Rivers, Streams and Lakes; and MSHCP
Riparian/Riverine Areas
Potential features subject to regulation under FGC Section 1600 et seq. and Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian Areas and Vernal Pools of the MSHCP (RCIP 2004) within the survey area is described in detail below. Table 5-2 Rivers, Streams and Lakes; and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas within the Survey Area provides the extent of potential jurisdiction within the survey area. Mapped features, including width of survey transects were based on the TOB on the south bank and the extent of streambed or riparian/wetland vegetation up to the northern survey area boundary, as shown in Figure 5-3 Rivers, Streams and Lakes; and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas. Each mapped feature is described in greater detail below.

TABLE 5-2
RIVERS, STREAMS AND LAKES; AND MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA Aquatic Cowardin
Feature Type'
Length
(feet)
TOB Range
(feet) Plant Communities
Coordinates
(lat/long)
Area
(acre)
Santa Riverine
705
62-72 Annual grasses and forbs, Gooding's
-117.152831,

1.06 Gertrudis
willow -sandbar willow riparian

33.533103
Creek
woodland/forest, hardstem bulrush
marsh, unvegetated streambed, and
disturbed/developed
Total: --
705
-- --
--

1.06 As described above in Section 5.1 and 5.2, San Gertrudis Creek supports a natural, soft -bottomed bed and a manufactured bank. Survey transects DIT1 and D2T2 were 66 and 67 feet in length, respectively and the TOB was determined by a clear break in slope between the manufactured bank and the edge of the adjacent upland habitat. As noted above in Section 5.2, the bank of the creek is mostly devoid of vegetation, with the exception of limited weedy cover throughout the articulated concrete blocks; however, the bed supports annual grasses and forbs, Gooding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest and hardstem bulrush marsh. The area beneath the Margarita Road bridge was characterized as unvegetated streambed.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 25 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project Figure 5-3
r ESA Rivers, Streams and Lakes and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas within the Survey Area

5. Results

5.4 Conclusions
The results presented in this report represents the best professional judgment of ESA investigators and all aquatic resources. The extent of jurisdictional boundaries identified are considered preliminary pending verification from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

Based on the results of the aquatic resources delineation and the jurisdictional analysis, it is presumed that 0.48 acre of potential wetland waters of the U.S. and State; 0.33 acre of potential other (non -wetland) waters of the U.S.; and 0.57 acre of potential non -wetland waters of the State occur within the survey area.

It is presumed that 1.06 acres of stream and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, potentially jurisdictional under Section 1600 et seq. of the FGC and Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, occur within the survey area.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 27 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

5. Results
This page intentionally left blank
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 28 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

CHAPTER 6
References Cited
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors, 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Communities List. Accessed on December 21, 2020 at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S.

Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. Unites States 2020. Economic Analysis for the Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States". January 22, 2020.

Google Earth. 2020. Desktop application Available at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html .

Hickman, James C. ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Munsell. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York, USA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0
2020a. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx . Accessed on 12/21/2020. 2020b. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS). Accessed at http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=06071 on June 02, 2020 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. Historical Palmer Drought Indices. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers/overview Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 29 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

6. Reference Cited
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). 2004. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Volume 1, Section 2: Plan Area Description and Setting.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a. Arid West Supplement to the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.
2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. August. 2020. NWPL — National Wetland Plant List, NWPL 2018. http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_Static/v34/home/home.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. National Wetland Inventory. Accessed on December 21, 2020. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2"d Edition. California Native Plant Society.

World Climate. 2020. http://www.worldclimate.com/climate/us/califomia/temecula .

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project 30 ESA/ D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Appendix A
APT Outputs
ESA

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network 5 N
1 C
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2.202 0 20 2021 2021 2021 2021 Coordinates

33.53,-117.15
Observation Date
2020-12-16
Elevation (ft)
1081.25
Drought Index (PDSI)
Mild drought (2020-11)
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Wet Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by Jason deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Days Ending
301n %ile (in)
70th %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2020-12-16

0.437402

2.279921

0.0 Dry
1 3
3 2020-11-16

0.086614

0.579134

0.649606
Wet
3 2
6 2020-10-17

0.023622

0.341339

0.0 Dry
1 1
1 Result
i
I Normal Conditions - 10
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days (Normal)
Days (Antecedent)

CARLSBAD PALOMAR AP

33.1281,-117.2794
328.084

28.756
753.166

34.598
8215
87 FALLBROOK 5 NE

33.4392,-117.1903
1140.092

6.69 58.842

3.404
2 3

ELSINORE

33.6861,-117.3458
1268.045

15.597
186.795

9.932
3108
0 SUN CITY

33.7156,-117.19
1419.948

13.029
338.698

10.276
26 0

SAN JACINTO

33.7964,-116.9753
1524.934

20.97 443.684

18.74 2
0 Antecedent Precipitation Tool v.1.0 -Watershed Sampling Summary Generated on 2020-12-2-3
Coordinates 33.53,-117.15 -
Date 2020-12-16
Geographic Scope HUC12
Hydrologic Unit Code 180703020407
Watershed Size 22.42 mil
# Random Sampling Points 4
Average Antecedent Precipitation Score 10.0
Preliminary Determination Normal Conditions
- 0 0• i 0 0
ioo.o�ia
Antecedent Precipitation Score
Antecedent Precipitation Condition
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Drought Index (PDSI)
# of Points
10 Normal Conditions
Wet Season
Mild drought (2020-11)
1 4
_•yam. ... _ , ,�� _,,�;��, ..�,�., ,,,,, -
- @: �• '��' ,, i .,a-., ^�� . � � � � :*tea

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network 5 N
1 1
-guy ,� j— , —t, --[1Jug. �N u , .N.
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 Coordinates

33.53,-117.15
Observation Date
2020-12-16
Elevation (ft)
1081.25
Drought Index (PDSI)
Mild drought (2020-11)
WebWIMP HZO Balance
Wet Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by Jason deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Days Ending
301n %ile (in)
70r" %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2020-12-16

0.437402

2.279921

0.0 Dry
1 3
3 2020-11-16

0.086614

0.579134

0.649606
Wet
3 2
6 2020-10-17

0.023622

0.341339

0.0 Dry
1 1
1 Result
1 Normal Conditions - 10
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days (Normal)
Days (Antecedent)

CARLSBAD PALOMAR AP

33.1281,-117.2794
328.084

28.756
753.166

34.598
8215
87 FALLBROOK 5 NE

33.4392,-117.1903
1140.092

6.69 58.842

3.404
2 3

ELSINORE

33.6861,-117.3458
1268.045

15.597
186.795

9.932
3108
0 SUN CITY

33.7156,-117.19
1419.948

13.029
338.698

10.276
26 0

SAN JACINTO

33.7964,-116.9753
1524.934

20.97 443.684

18.741
2 0

0.437402

2.279921

0.0 Dry
1 3
3 2020-11-16

0.086614

0.579134

0.649606
Wet
3 2
6 2020-10-17

0.023622

0.341339

0.0 Dry
1 1
1 Result
1 Normal Conditions - 10
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days (Normal)
Days (Antecedent)

CARLSBAD PALOMAR AP

33.1281,-117.2794
328.084

28.756
753.166

34.598
8215
87 FALLBROOK 5 NE

33.4392,-117.1903
1140.092

6.69 58.842

3.404
2 3

ELSINORE

33.6861,-117.3458
1268.045

15.597
186.795

9.932
3108
0 SUN CITY

33.7156,-117.19
1419.948

13.029
338.698

10.276
26 0

SAN JACINTO

33.7964,-116.9753
1524.934

20.97 443.684

18.741
2 0

33.506041,-117.177781
Observation Date
2020-12-16
Elevation (ft)
1091.84
Drought Index (PDSI)
Mild drought (2020-11)
WebWIMP HZO Balance
Wet Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by Jason deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Days Ending
301n %ile (in)
70r" %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2020-12-16

0.437402

2.279921

0.0 Dry
1 3
3 2020-11-16

0.086614

0.579134

0.649606
Wet
3 2
6 2020-10-17

0.023622

0.341339

0.0 Dry
1 1
1 Result
1 Normal Conditions - 10
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days (Normal)
Days (Antecedent)

CARLSBAD PALOMAR AP

33.1281,-117.2794
328.084

26.764
763.756

32.485
8215
87 FALLBROOK 5 NE

33.4392,-117.1903
1140.092

4.674

48.252

2.329
2 3

ELSINORE

33.6861,-117.3458
1268.045

15.757
176.205

9.867
3108
0 SUN CITY

33.7156,-117.19
1419.948

14.496
328.108

11.279
26 0

SAN JACINTO

33.7964,-116.9753
1524.934

23.197
433.094

20.485
2 0

9 (n
� 4
U
(6 3
A
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
L
May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
Coordinates

33.526886,-117.112584
Observation Date
2020-12-16
Elevation (ft)
1262.57
Drought Index (PDSI)
Mild drought (2020-11)
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Wet Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by Jason deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2020-1
2020-10�17
Oct Nov
2020 2020
lam, ,, A
U
2020-12-16
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
2020 2021 2021 2021 2021
30 Days Ending
301h %ile (in)
70t" °/pile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2020-12-16

0.437402

2.279921

0.0 Dry
1 3
3 2020-11-16

0.086614

0.579134

0.649606
Wet
3 2
6 2020-10-17

0.023622

0.341339

0.0 Dry
1 1
1 Result
Normal Conditions - 10
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days (Normal)
Days (Antecedent)

CARLSBAD PALOMAR AP

33.1281,-117.2794
328.084

29.188
934.486

40.41 8215
87 WINCHESTER 6.5 S

33.6153,-117.0911
1421.916

6.233
159.346

3.798
0 3
FALLBROOK 6.5 NE

33.4363,-117.1603
1376.969

6.836
114.399

3.858
2 0

ELSINORE

33.6861,-117.3458
1268.045

17.353

5.475

7.904
3108
0 SUN CITY

33.7156,-117.19
1419.948

13.779
157.378

8.369
26 0

SAN JACINTO

33.7964,-116.9753
1524.934

20.226
262.364

14.408
2 1 0

Appendix B
Data Sheets
ESA

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM D
Project: atasheet
Project Number; �YV d`S erteK
Stream: t
Iu1lesti (s)• Q
Y LZ / N ❑ Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Y S / N
❑ Is the site significantly disturbed?
Date: m J or, l -z o Time: o qq 8
Town: 1re,,cC, jam, State: coct
Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
�03#-�p 0�v�
Location Details:

Projection:

Co A. t
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:or ma es.

C0V%CVtk bA'^\c
Brief site description:
r�0-'fa (,ems -C f4
Datum:

Checklist of resources (if available):

Aerial photography
❑ Stream gage data
Dates:

Gage number:

Topographic maps
Period of record:
❑ Geologic maps
❑ History of recent effective discharges
® Vegetation maps
'results of flood frequency analysis
gSoils maps
F Most recent shift -adjusted rating
Rainfall/precipitation maps
GAge heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year events and the ❑ Existing delineation(s) for site
Z root 7*ecent event exceeding a 5-year event
® Global positioning system (GPS)
[- Other studies
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Active Floodplain Low Terrace
Low -Flow Channels OHWM Paleo Channel
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:

1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.

2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.

3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.

4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.

5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
❑ Mapping on aerial photograph ❑ GPS
❑ Digitized on computer ❑ Other:
fho-I-oS , 0303— 030':-

Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (in)
Millimeters (mmrBoulder
ize class

10.08 —
— - 256—_ro2.56
---
64 0.157 —
— _ 4

2.00 Granule

0.079
Very coarse sand

0.039 —
— - 1.00 —
— — — — -
Coarse sand

0.020 —
— - 050 —
— — — — -
Medium sand
1 /2

0.0098 —
— - 0.25 —
— — — — -
Fine sand
114

0.005 —
— - 0125 —
— — — — -
Very fine sand
118 —

0.0025

0.0625
Coarse silt
1/16

0.0012 —
— - 0.031 —
— — — — -
Medium silt
1/32

0.00061 —
— _ 0.0156 —
— -
..N
Fine silt
1/64

0.00031 —
— - 0.0078 —
— — — — -
Very fine silt
1/128 —

0.0001

0.0039
Clay
v
0CM 1 3 4 5 6 7 S
11111111111 I��I��11111Jill 11Jill Jill
��I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I
0 in I 2 3

ect ID: Cross section ID: Dj ,f Date: a 1 „,1 ZD Time: Q 91 � Cross section drawinz:
w��lVh_o�
I
O k.\ W
OHWM
GPS point: o '\� r a\p W
Indicators:
❑ Change in average sediment texture
❑ Change in vegetation species
❑ Change in vegetation cover
Comments:

Floodulain unit:

GPS point:

Low -Flow Channel
❑ Break in bank slope
® Other: 0nr_.%
❑ Other:

Active Floodplain El Low Terrace
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: S C. � S� cc- i D
Total veg cover: �o % Tree: ' % Shrub: Herb: 0
Community successional stage:
❑ NA ®Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings) ❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑
Soil development
❑ Ripples
❑
Surface relief
® Drift and/or debris
❑
Other:
® Presence of bed and bank
❑
Other:
❑ Benches
❑
Other:

Comments:
b es c�kS`y1 Arts-- 5- kcl-d % W 1�

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: S k. 6e�A,uotIS Cree k Tr'11i ( Pic f" Date: Iyl t (,i Zo Time: % 0 t Project Number: , Town: T2:,_e - 1,- State: cA
Stream: I �2 Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:

Investi ator s : ' C 1 c \ (��
Checklist of resources (if available):
14 Aerial photography ❑
Dates:
0 Topographic maps
❑ Geologic maps
® Vegetation maps
[� Soils maps
❑ Rainfall/precipitation maps
it Existing delineation(s) for site
gGlobal positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:

Period of record:
❑ History of recent effective discharges
❑ Results of flood frequency analysis
❑ Most recent shift -adjusted rating
❑ Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5-year event
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Active Floodplain Low Terrace
Low -Flow Channels OHWM Paleo Channel
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:

1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.

2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.

4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.

5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
❑ Mapping on aerial photograph ❑ GPS
0 Digitized on computer ❑ Other:

Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (in)
Millimeters (mm)
Wentworth size class
Boulder

10.08 —
— - 256 —
— —
-

2.56 64
Cobble
—
— - —
— — — —
- e

0.157 —
— _ 4 —
Pebble — —
-

2.00 Granule

0.079
Very coarse sand

0.039 —
— - 1.00 —
— — — —
-
Coarse sand

0.020 —
— - 050 —
—
— — -
$
1 /2
0 0098 —
— - 0 25 —
Medium sand — -
1/4
0,005 —
— _ 0125
Fine sand
1/8—

0.0025

0.0625
Very fine sand
1/16

0.0012 —
— _ 0.031 —
Coarse silt
— — — — _
1132

0.00061 —
— _ 0.0156—
Medium silt
— — — — -
1/64

0.00031 —
— _ 0.0078 —
Fine silt
— — — — -
1/128 —

0.00015
_ Qv�9
J
Very fine sift
Clay
Ocm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Illlllllllllllllllllllllllll�l�lll�l�l�lll�lll�llllllll 0 in I 2 3

j ect ID:

Cross section drawing:

OHWM
GPS point:

Cross section ID:

Indicators:
❑ Change in average sediment texture
❑ Change in vegetation species
❑ Change in vegetation cover
Comments:

Floodplain unit:

Low -Flow Chan .t�. ctive Floodplain ow efface
GPS point:

Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: 7
Total veg cover: % Tree: % Shrub: lam% Herb: c
Community successional stage:
❑ NA ®Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings) ❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
❑
Mudcracks
❑
Ripples
®
Drift and/or debris
Presence of bed and bank
❑
Benches
❑
Soil development
❑
Surface relief
❑
Other:
❑
Other:
❑
Other:
comments: 5c,�+ � W�e� I,�a,`c Ll� �► ("�

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Q,. ►.C-s . dC_
Applicant/Owner. Q4 Vv �I ( cr City/County: .1 �.1c,i ScgA vSampling Date: J L Investigator(s): r - I State: C' A Sampling Point: W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Section, Township, Range:

Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR): _
Soil Map Unit Name:

Lat:

Long:

Datum:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site NWI classification:
typical f� this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation ✓ ,Soil � V
or No
significantly disturbed? - tLJ Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? fJzp (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:

VEGETATION
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.)

1. 2.

3. 4.

Yes ✓ No
Yes No
Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetiand?
Yes No
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Cover: _
Sapling/Shrub Stratum

1. Qa V \v J S "\ t sc"C' 0,r- Q W� J 9 O

2. ,0#4t9— J�lwt to - TA >
t
N
F+tcw
a. ( P,, c U
�c :-
FAQ

5. Xctiv>>th .� .�. Ln Wr.vci
j �—
tl
'FAC

6. 7. , - \-.S
t= A Cw
s. po-k:�. o��,� ,-�:
t
N
1r+%cvv
Total Cover:
l�
Woody Vine Stratum

1. '2.

Total Number of Dominant .� .,
Species Across All Strata: J (B)
Percent of Dominant Species u c l uU �c
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: t (AJ.B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of-.

Multiply by:

OBL species a, O
x 1 = $ "J
FACW species i `
x 2 =
FAC species_
x 3
FACU species —1_
x 4 = `I
UPL species_
x 5 =
Column Totals: t0 c`3
(A) N � (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = t • -3 S+
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
✓ominance Test is >50%
✓Prevalence Index is 53.0'
— Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.

Total Cover: Hydrophytic
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust VgetatioPresent? n Yes No Remarks:
w4L�f'-�u1v�a"I 1jirrKS`F�
r. vekd\\ S aln�4 rA� 4
(Gwc�
G 'Lei L CVec1� )
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West - Vprainn it ,

SOIL
Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix
Redox Features
the absence of Indicators.)
inches Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Tvpe
L�
a. s �� i a
s
Texture Remarks
a_G
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
Sandy Redox (S5)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
_
Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix F2
( )
_
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) C,, vS )
_
(Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck A9 LRR D
_ ( ) ( )
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Other
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si)
_ Vernal Pools (F9)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
wetland hydrology must be present.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
-
Lo,1w, ii\1\ M1ncw2-z•—
iq k1\cM S c'mp ke
I it c csnt t �kv;,�� l wtS a.z v�ck V'-" u
t%
bt 3 .

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)
_ _ Water Marks (131) (Riverine)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Salt Crust (B11)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Biotic Crust (1312)
_ Drift Deposits (63) (Riverine)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62) (Nonriverine)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Drift Deposits (63) (Nonriverine)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Recent Iron Reduotion in Plowed Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Other (ExpiaiR in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No N, Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes
No __ Depth (inches):

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

Remarks:

Sort
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: :�, �_ , � `r _
t ' C ( !� � «�CitylCounty: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: l t (�� o �
Investigator(s): . 50%
Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West —Version 11-1-2006

Ua?
Sampling Point:

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Remarks
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Tee
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix 2Location: PL=Pore Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (All)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Vernal Pools (F9)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):
p•n0VO* (>tG1A,-03a% CNa�lSav pU-)
k O l,, vh S AH f -C
Root Channel, M=Matrix-
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR B)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present.

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Y_

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)
_ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Salt Crust (1311)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Biotic Crust (1312)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
_ Saturation (A3) _
Aquatic Invertebrates (613)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa fringe)
Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West- Version 11-1-2006

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: ,f 1 n%1I �, ��,l 50%
''Prevalence Index is s3.0'
Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes i.—' No
army Corps or tngmeers
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006

L_
SOIL
-
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needSampling Point: 0 P 1( needle to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % -Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc
Texture
3Remarks
D-t3 toys �ti Iuo
s�
T e. C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (All) _
Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Black Histic (A3) _
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _
Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _
Vemal Pools (F9)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
— - -
Type:

Depth (inches):

Remarks:
- -
i l k6_V-_Q1 sc v.tio t t
Ph0\-us'. 03 to

HYDROLOGY
Root Channel, M=Matrix.

Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present.

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)
_ Water Marks (131) (Riverine)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Salt Crust (B11)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Biotic Crust (B12)
_ Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
-)L Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
— Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes
No _) Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes
includes p ilia frin e
No _g Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:
03 L Z-
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006

Appendix C
Floral Compendium
ESA

Appendix C: Floral and Faunal Compendia
Scientific Name
Common Name
Wetland Indicator Status*
Flora
Angiosperms
Eudicots
Asteraceae
Aster Family
Ambrosia psilostachya
annual ragweed
FACU
Helianthus annuus
annual sunflower
FACU
Pulicaria paludosa**
Spanish false fleabane
FAC
Xanthium strumarium
cocklebur
FAC
Brassicaceae
Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana**
short podded mustard
No status found (likely FACU or UPL)
Polygonaceae
Buckwheat Family
Rumex crispus**
curly dock
FAC
Salicaceae
Willow Family
Salix exigua
sandbar willow
FACW
Salix gooddingii
Goodding's willow
FACW
Tamaricaceae
Tamarisk Family
Tamarix ramosissima**
tamarisk
FAC
Monocots
Cyperaceae
Sedge Family
Cyperus eragrostis
tall flatsedge
FACW
Schoenoplectus acutus
hardstem bulrush
OBL
Juncaceae
Rush Family
Juncus mexicanus
Mexican rush
FACW
Poaceae
Grass Family
Festuca perennis**
Italian ryegrass
No status found (likely FACU or UPL)
Polypogon monspeliensis**
annual beard grass
FACW
*United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) 2018. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html **Non-native Species
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project C-1 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
ESA/D201901440.00
January 2022

Appendix D
Photographic Exhibit
ESA

Photograph 1 (W). Photograph faces across Drainage 1 at transect D 1 T 1. Dense hardstem bulrush marsh is visible throughout much of the bed, while the left bank of the drainage consists of manufactured concrete.

Photograph 2 (R). Photograph depicts the hardstem bulrush marsh located along D IT I.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project D-1 ESA/D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

NO
Photograph 3 (SW). Photograph faces downstream from D1T1 and depicts the manufactured concrete bank and adjacent bed to the west.

Photograph 4 (NE). Photograph faces upstream from D 1 T2. Dense annual grasses and forbs along the bed of the drainage are visible in the foreground.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project D-2 ESA/D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Photograph 5. Photograph depicts wetland data point WDP 1, taken within the hardstem bulrush marsh, along Drainage 1. This point met the USACE criteria for wetland hydrology, soils and vegetation.

Photograph 6 (N). Photograph depicts the redox features observed along root channels, within the soil matrix at WDP 1. These redox features met the criteria for hydric soil indicator S5 (sandy redox) and hydrology indicator 0 (oxidized rhizospheres along living roots).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project D-3 ESA/D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Photograph 7. Photograph depicts depressed vegetation along the bed of Drainage 1, immediately adjacent to WDP 1. This sign met the criteria for secondary hydrology indicator B 10 (drainage patterns).

Photograph 8. Photograph depicts UDP la, taken immediately adjacent to the bank along Drainage 1. This point did not meet the USACE criteria for wetland hydrology, soils or vegetation.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project D-4 ESA/D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Photograph 9. Photograph depicts UDP lb, taken within the annual grasses and forbs located immediately adjacent to the hardstem bulrush marsh and within the bed of Drainage 1. This point met the USACE criteria for wetland vegetation; however, did not meet the criteria for soils or hydrology (however, it met secondary hydrology indicator B 10).

Photograph 10 (NE). Photograph depicts the depressed vegetation along the bed of drainage 1, at UDP lb. As stated above, secondary hydrology indicator B 10 was met at this location.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project D-rJ ESA/D201901440.00 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report January 2022

Appendix D
Cultural Resources Assessment
Report
ESA

Public Version
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at
Margarita Road Project
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Prepared for
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
January 2022
r ESA

Public Version
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at
Margarita Road Project
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Prepared for:

City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Prepared by:

ESA
550 West C Street, Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
Principal Investigator:

Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA
Report Author:

Michael Vader, B.A.

Project Location:

Murrieta (CA) USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quad
Township 7 South, Range 3 West, Unsectioned
Acreage; Approx. 1 ,10 acres
550 West C Street
Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
619.719.4200
esassoc.com
Irvine
Sacramento
Los Angeles
San Diego
Oakland
San Francisco
Orlando
Santa Monica
Pasadena
Seattle
Petaluma
Tampa
Portland
Camarillo
D201901440.00
January 2022
ESA

Table of Contents
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II
Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project -
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Paqe
ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................ES-1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 ProjectLocation................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................5 Areaof Potential Effects.........................................................................................................6 Setting....................................................................................................................................... 8 NaturalSetting..................................................................................................................8 PrehistoricSetting............................................................................................................8 EthnographicSetting......................................................................................................11 HistoricSetting................................................................................................................12 RegulatoryFramework..........................................................................................................14 Federal............................................................................................................................14 State...............................................................................................................................16 Local...............................................................................................................................20 ArchivalResearch.................................................................................................................23 EICRecords Search.......................................................................................................23 Native American Outreach.............................................................................................26 Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs...........................................................................27 Subsurface Archaeological Sensitivity...........................................................................28 Cultural Resources Survey...................................................................................................29 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................31 References.............................................................................................................................. 34 Appendices
A. Personnel
B. Native American Outreach
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location......................................................................................................2 Figure2 Project Location.........................................................................................................3 Figure3 Project Vicinity.............................................................................................................4 Figure 4 Area of Potential Effects
..............................................................................................7 Figure5 Survey Photos...........................................................................................................30 List of Tables
Table 1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations...............................................................23 Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources..................................................................25 Table 3 Summary of Native American Outreach.....................................................................26 Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project I I ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at
Margarita Road Project - Cultural Resources
Assessment Report
The City of Temecula Planning Department (City) has retained Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project (Project) in support of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project proposes the construction of a bicycle/multi-use trail undercrossing for the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail (SGCT) where it crosses Margarita Road, a heavily traveled four -lane divided collector roadway. The proposed undercrossing would improve safety at this location by removing the need for recreational users to use the existing roadway as a trail crossing. The City is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Project requires a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The USACE is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the proposed Project according to Section 106 of the NHPA. The APE encompasses the horizontal and vertical extent in which Project effects could occur as a result of Project ground disturbing activities. The approximately 1.10- acre horizontal APE includes the Project footprint plus a 25-foot buffer to account for movement of construction equipment. The Project's vertical APE includes the maximum height of above- ground Project components, which is 10 feet for the construction of retaining walls, as well as the maximum depth of Project ground disturbance, which is a depth of 8 feet for the installation of retaining wall footings.

A records search for the Project was conducted on May 4, 2021 by staff at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Eastern Information Center (EIC) housed at University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources and previous studies within the APE and a 1-mile radius of the APE. The records search results indicate that 49 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the APE. Of the 49 previous studies, eight (RI-01048,-01865,-02241,-02431,-02614, - 03611,-08390, and-09257) overlap the APE. The entirety of the APE has been included in previous cultural resources studies. The records search results indicate six cultural resources have been previously recorded within a 1-mile radius of the APE. Of these six cultural resources, one is a prehistoric archaeological site consisting of a lithic and groundstone scatter (P-33-001730), Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project ES-1 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Executive
and five are prehistoric isolates (P-33-012381,-012382,-012383,-012384, and-012385). None of these previously recorded resources are located within or immediately adjacent to the APE.

The results of a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 28, 2020 indicates that Native American cultural resources are present in the APE's vicinity; however, the NAHC provided no further details. The NAHC recommended contacting the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for more information.

ESA conducted outreach to the 20 Native American representatives indicated by the NAHC as having affiliation with the APE. ESA sent outreach letters via certified mail to the 20 Native American representatives on January 15, 2021 and conducted follow-up phone calls on January 28, 2021. Three tribal groups, including the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded to the outreach. The results of the outreach are summarized in the Archival Research section of this report.

A desktop review of geologic maps and soils data was conducted to assess the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits within the APE. The late Pleistocene to Holocene -age younger alluvial channel deposits mapped at surface in the APE encompass the entirety of human habitation of North America, and are, therefore, of appropriate age to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. However, given the degree of past disturbance associated with the construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel, the APE has moderate sensitivity for the presence of subsurface archaeological resources.

A cultural resources survey of the APE was conducted on May 14, 2021 by ESA cultural resources staff accompanied by a Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians tribal monitor. The survey was aimed at identifying cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the APE. All accessible areas of the APE containing visible ground surface were subject to inspection. No cultural resources identified as a result of the survey.

No cultural resources were identified within the APE as a result of this assessment. As such, the Project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA.

As a result of the archival research and cultural resources survey conducted for the Project, no cultural resources have been identified within APE. However, the likelihood for encountering subsurface archaeological deposits within the APE during Project construction is moderate. In the event that subsurface archaeological deposits are encountered during Project implementation, they may qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursant to CEQA and may subject to significant impacts. As such, recommendations for the retention of a qualified archaeologist, cultural resources sensitivity training, construction monitoring and inadvertent discovery protcols are provided in the Conclusions and Recommendations Section at the close of this report.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project ES-2 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Santa Gertrudis Trail Phase II Undercrossing at
Margarita Road
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Introduction
The City of Temecula Planning Department (City) has retained Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Project (Project) in support of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project proposes the construction of a bicycle/multi-use trail undercrossing for the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail (SGCT) where it crosses Margarita Road, a heavily traveled four -lane divided collector roadway. The proposed undercrossing would improve safety at this location by removing the need for recreational users to use the existing roadway as a trail crossing. The City is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Project requires a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The USACE is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this report are as follows: Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA., Principal Investigator; Michael Vader, B.A, report author and surveyor; and Jason Nielson, GIS specialist. Resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A.

Project Location
The Project is located in the City of Temecula in southwest Riverside County (Figure 1).

Specifically, the Project is located on the southeast side of Santa Gertrudis Creek where it crosses under Margarita Road (Figure 2). The Project is located in an unsectioned portion of Township 7 South, Range 3 West on the Murrieta, CA U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 3).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

60 Moreno Valley
Corona
Lake
Lake IV
Matthews
Perris
Sun City
Cleveland Lake
Lake Elsinore
N a t i o n a l / Elsinore
Forest
�J OJT Wildomar:;4^ �t'�'.7�,%
V
�AV : G
? ; /��
O /,�� Santa Ana
Mountains
I._""-""-_"-------"-, Project LocationTemecula
L R��FR
Co
--__-
San ClementeOM /ram
o. /J
Camp Pendleton5 r
Marine Corps Base
Iv
Bonsall 1 Pauma Valley
\J
371
Oceanside Vista Valley Center
Carlsbad 78 ll r,
San Marcos
Lake
O0 8 Escondido Sutherland
N Miles San Pasqual
SOURCE: ESRI
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road Figure 1
Regional Location
ESA

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Trail Phase II Undercrossing Figure 2
ESA Project Location

Hot Spri � � a` . i / `` +
.�
✓to O
I V
p o�
o
0 /
f M'I 7
M J
i s
i
" �� • Reservoir
,•s'.... F C i0s0.. Reservoir-
0 'C-J \ D O f
S\'
N moo 02,000 ,\, ?► . ` n �� Project Area
L e
TOPO QUAD: Murrieta, CA 7.5-minute Santa Gertrudis Trail Phase II Undercrossing Figure 3
r ESA Project Vicinity

Cultural Resources Assessment
Project Description
The Project would construct a bicycle/multi-use trail undercrossing for the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail (SGCT). The existing trail crosses Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, which is a heavily traveled four -lane divided collector roadway. The proposed undercrossing would improve safety at this location by removing the need for existing at -grade roadway crossing for the trail.

The Project proposes the construction of a total of approximately 610 feet of a shared bicycle/trail undercrossing beneath the overpass of Margarita Road. The proposed off-street paved undercrossing would begin where the existing grade of the SGCT ramps begin to elevate to meet the grade of the overcrossing of Margarita Road at the east and west sides, which is slightly north of the existing overcrossing site. The Project would include the removal of existing pavements and soils to bring the proposed SCGT to five percent grade, utility improvements, and the construction of the SGCT in a new location beneath Margarita Road. The Project components are described in detail in the following paragraphs.

Proposed Trail Connection
Implementation of the Project would include the demolition of the existing SGCT along the east and western sides of Margarita Road, which includes the removal of one -foot minimum of existing aggregated concrete pavement and the compaction of existing soils to bring to grade the proposed trail. The proposed juncture of the existing trail and proposed undercrossing would be brought to a median elevation of 1,088 feet AMSL, which results in a five percent grade change to the lowest extent of the proposed trail on each side. The Project would include the reconstruction and/or replacement of the existing trail and infrastructure, such as the existing retaining wall and channel slope paving and cut-off wall. A ground anchor wall (GAW) is also proposed below the Margarita Road undercrossing, which would be used to retain the abutment end slope. Existing water valves and fixtures impacted by trenching of the soil to grade would be restored, which include utilities such as water valves and curb and gutter replacements. It is anticipated that all conflicting surface utilities facilities would either be protected in place or be relocated within the confines of the Project boundary.

Once the existing SGCT along the eastern and western sides of Margarita Road is demolished, the proposed trail undercrossing would be constructed beneath Margarita Road directly north of the existing overcrossing. The proposed undercrossing would be 610 feet long and 12 feet wide and would be paved on compacted soil. In addition, a retaining wall would be constructed where the proposed shared -use path would encroach into the cut slopes of Santa Gertrudis Creek along the northern length of the existing SGCT. The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 6 to 10 feet in height and would incorporate drainage V-ditches outside of the Margarita Road bridge.

The existing pier wall near the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Flood Control facilities and posts beneath the Margarita Road overpass would be protected in place. The existing channel wall slope paving would be removed and reconstructed. Along the southern length of the proposed shared -use path, a tieback wall would be constructed to prevent erosion of the existing slopes.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
The Project would include the installation of a 4-foot high, chain -link fence and a Type 5 retaining wall in accordance with Caltrans Standard Plans (B3-1) along the north side of the proposed undercrossing. The retaining wall would serve as a barrier between the proposed shared -use path and the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek edge due to the close proximity of the two facilities.

Other Improvements
Bike path signage would be installed throughout the Project Site to educate users of the SGCT on current laws and user responsibility. The Project would not include any installation of trail lighting. In addition, landscaping and slope improvements would be needed along the proposed shared -use path
Area of Potential Effects
An Area of Potential Effects (APE) was established for the proposed Project according to Section 106 of the NHPA in coordination with USACE (Figure 4). An APE is defined as:
"the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking" (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]).

The APE encompasses the horizontal and vertical extents in which Project effects could occur as a result of Project ground disturbing activities. The approximately 1.10-acre horizontal APE includes the Project footprint plus a 25-foot buffer to account for movement of construction equipment. The Project's vertical APE includes the maximum height of above ground Project components, which is 10 feet for the construction of the retaining walls, as well as the maximum depth of Project ground disturbance, which is a depth of 8 feet for the installation of retaining wall footings.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

SOURCE: Nearmap, 2020. Santa Gertrudis Trail Phase II Undercrossing Figure 4
ESA Area of Potential Effects

Cultural Resources Assessment
Setting
Natural Setting
The APE is situated along the southeastern bank of a channelized segment of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Santa Gertrudis Creek is a northeast -southwest trending intermittent drainage that conveys seasonal stormwater and other runoff from nearby streets and surrounding residential subdivision.

The creek converges with Murrieta Creek approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the APE and Murrieta Creek continues for another 3.5 miles before converging with the Santa Margarita River, which continues for approximately 29 river miles before reaching the Pacific Ocean at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. Vegetation within the APE and its immediate vicinity include annual grasses and forbs, Goodding's willow -sandbar willow riparian woodland/forest, and hardstem bulrush marsh (ESA, 2021).

The APE's vicinity is dominated by commercial and residential development. Residential subdivisions are present northwest and across the creek from the APE, and commercial development including grocery and drug stores bound the APE's southeastern margin.

Prehistoric Setting
The chronology of coastal southern California is typically divided into three general time periods:
the Early Holocene (11,000 to 8,000 Before Present [B.P.]), the Middle Holocene (8,000 to 4,000 B.P.), and the Late Holocene (4,000 B.P. to A.D. 1769). Within this timeframe, the archaeology of southern California is generally described in terms of cultural "complexes." A complex is a specific archaeological manifestation of a general mode of life, characterized archaeologically by particular technologies, artifacts, economic systems, trade relationships, burial practices, and other aspects of culture.

Early Holocene (11,000 to 8,000 B.P.)
While it is not certain when humans first came to California, their presence in southern California by about 11,000 B.P. has been well documented. At Daisy Cave, on San Miguel Island, cultural materials have been radiocarbon dated to between 11,100 and 10,950 years B.P. (Byrd and Raab, 2007). On the mainland, radiocarbon evidence confirms occupation of the Orange County and San Diego County coast by about 9,000 B.P., primarily in lagoon and river valley locations (Gallegos, 2002). In western Riverside County, few Early Holocene sites are known to exist. One exception is site CA-RIV-2798, which contains deposits dating to as early as 8,580 cal. B.P. (Grenda, 1997). During the Early Holocene, the climate of southern California became warmer and more and and the human population, residing mainly in coastal or inland desert areas, began exploiting a wider range of plant and animal resources (Byrd and Raab, 2007).

The primary Early Holocene cultural complex in coastal southern California was the San Dieguito Complex, occurring between approximately 10,000 and 8,000 B.P. The people of the San Dieguito Complex inhabited the chaparral zones of southwestern California, exploiting the plant and animal resources of these ecological zones (Warren, 1967). Leaf -shaped and large - Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
stemmed projectile points, scraping tools, and crescentics are typical of San Dieguito Complex material culture.

Middle Holocene (8,000 to 4,000 B.P.)
During the Middle Holocene, there is evidence for the processing of acorns for food and a shift toward a more generalized economy in coastal and inland southern California. The processing of plant foods, particularly acorns, increased, a wider variety of animals were hunted, and trade with neighboring regions intensified (Byrd and Raab, 2007).

The Middle Holocene La Jolla Complex (8,000-4,000 B.P.) is essentially a continuation of the San Dieguito Complex. La Jolla groups lived in chaparral zones or along the coast, often migrating between the two. Coastal settlement focused around the bays and estuaries of coastal Orange and San Diego Counties. La Jolla peoples produced large, coarse stone tools, but also produced well -made projectile points and milling slabs. The La Jolla Complex represents a period of population growth and increasing social complexity, and it was also during this time period that the first evidence of the exploitation of marine resources and the grinding of seeds for flour, as indicated by the abundance of millingstones in the archaeological record, appears (Byrd and Raab, 2007).

Contemporary with the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex has been defined at inland sites in San Diego and Riverside Counties (True, 1958). The Pauma Complex is similar in technology to the La Jolla Complex; however, evidence of coastal subsistence is absent from the Pauma Complex sites (Moratto, 1984). The Pauma and La Jolla Complexes may either be indicative of separate inland and coastal groups with similar subsistence and technological adaptations, or, alternatively, may represent inland and coastal phases of one group's seasonal rounds. The latter hypothesis is supported by the lack of hidden and deeply buried artifacts at Pauma sites, indicating that these sites may have been temporary camps for resource gathering and processing.

Late Holocene (4,000 B.P. to A.D. 1769)
During the Late Holocene, native populations of southern California were becoming less mobile and populations began to gather in small sedentary villages with satellite resource -gathering camps (Byrd and Raab, 2007). Evidence indicates that the overexploitation of larger, high -ranked food resources may have led to a shift in subsistence towards a focus on acquiring greater amounts of smaller resources, such as shellfish and small -seeded plants (Byrd and Raab, 2007).

Around 1,000 B.P., an episode of sustained drought, known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA), occurred. While the effects of this environmental change on prehistoric populations are still being debated, it did likely lead to changes in subsistence strategies in order to deal with the substantial stress on resources (Jones and Schwitalla, 2008). In coastal southern California, beginning before the MCA but possibly accelerated by it, conditions became drier and many lagoons had been transformed into saltwater marshes. Because of this, populations abandoned coastal mesa and ridge tops to settle nearer to permanent freshwater resources (Gallegos, 2002).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
Although the intensity of trade had already been increasing, it reached its zenith in the Late Holocene, with asphaltum (tar), seashells and steatite being traded from southern California to the Great Basin. Major technological changes appeared as well, particularly with the advent of the bow and arrow, which largely replaced the use of the dart and atlatl (Byrd and Raab, 2007). Small projectile points, ceramics, including Tizon brownware pottery, and obsidian from Obsidian Butte (Imperial County), are all representative artifacts of the Late Holocene.

It has been postulated that as early as 3,500 B.P., a Takic-speaking people arrived in coastal Los Angeles and Orange counties, having migrated west from inland desert regions (Kroeber, 1925; Sutton, 2009; Warren, 1967). By around 1,500 to 1,000 B.P., Takic language and cultures had spread to the south and inland to the east. These new arrivals, linguistically and culturally different from earlier coastal populations, may have brought new settlement and subsistence systems with them, along with other new cultural elements. This migration has been postulated as being a factor in several of the significant changes in material culture seen in the Late Holocene (such as the use of smaller projectile points and pottery), as well as the introduction of cremation as a burial practice.

Alternatively, Shaul (2014) has postulated an origin of the Proto Uto Aztecan Language, an antecedent to Uto Aztecan language family of with the Takic language is a branch, in the southern portion of California's Central Valley as early as the Middle Holocene, with groups expanding into southern California and the Great Basin over time. Schaul's (2014) hypothesis is based on linguistic data, including loan words between Uto Aztecan and non-Uto Aztecan groups, as well as archaeological evidence in the form of Olivella grooved rectangular beads. Based on these lines of evidence, Shaul (2014) has hypothesized that peoples speaking Uto Aztecan languages have been present in California from at least 4,200 to 5,200 B.P.

The San Luis Rey culture (divided into San Luis Rey I [AD 1400 to 1750] and San Luis Rey II [AD 1750 to 1850]) represented the Late Period in southwestern Riverside County and northern San Diego County (Moratto, 1984). San Luis Rey I village sites contain manor (hand stones), metates (grinding slabs), bedrock mortars, shell artifacts, and triangular arrow points. In addition to these features, San Luis Rey II sites are characterized by the presence of pottery, pictographs, and the cremation of the dead (Moratto, 1984).

San Luis Rey settlement patterns in the upper San Luis Rey River drainage are typified by seasonally occupied lowland villages located in proximity to water sources, and highland villages occupied in the late summer and fall for acorn collection (True and Waugh, 1982). However, settlement patterns within southwestern Riverside County are less well known. The available information, stemming primarily from survey data, indicates that four primary site types existed within the region during the Late Period: field camps, resource procurement locations, residential bases, and villages (Mason, 1999). Resource procurement locations and field camps, the most common site types, contain a limited assemblage of artifacts and subsistence remains, primarily lithic debitage, some tools, fire affected rock, and small amounts of animal bones and charred seeds and nuts. This indicates that these types of sites were used primarily for focused activities and short-term occupancy.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 10 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
Villages and residential bases, on the other hand, show evidence for long-term occupation by large groups of people. Villages were occupied year-round, while residential bases were occupied seasonally. Artifacts and features found at both villages and residential bases, including large amounts of faunal and botanical remains, numerous high -quality tools, fire -affected rock, and anthrosols, indicate a wide range of activities (Mason, 1999). Bedrock mortars point to the processing of seeds and acorns, and ceremonial activities are evidenced by the presence of pictographs, petroglyphs, and cupules within village sites.

The pre -contact Luiseno village of Tem6ku has a long rich documented history, and is comprised of over 30 sites located along Temecula Creek representing thousands of years of continuous occupation in the Valley. Masiel-Zamora (2015) indicates that the oldest components of Tem6ku date to at least 6,000 B.P. as obtained through by obsidian hydration dating.

Ethnographic Setting
Native Americans living in the APE's vicinity at the time of Spanish contact are now known as the Luiseno, after the Mission San Luis Rey to which many of them were relocated. The language of the Luiseno people has been identified as belonging to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily, which is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek, 1978).

Luiseno territory was bordered by Agua Hedionda Creek on the south and Aliso Creek on the northwest, encompassed most of the drainage of the San Luis Rey River and the Santa Margarita River, and extended east as far as the San Jacinto Mountains (Kroeber, 1925). Today this area is located within northern San Diego, southern Orange, and Riverside Counties, and would have encompassed a diverse environment including lagoons and marshes, coastal areas, inland river valleys, foothills, and mountains. The neighbors of the Luiseno to the north and northwest were the Juaneno, Gabrielino, and Serrano; to the east were the Cahuilla and Cupeno; and to the south were the Kumeyaay.

The Luiseno subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods such as grass seeds and acorns. Luiseno houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. The Luiseno inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans, with each village headed by a chief, or not (Kroeber, 1925; Sparkman, 1908). Seasonal camps associated with villages were also used. Each village or clan had an associated territory and hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water source, or in defensive locations, often near valley bottoms, streams, sheltered coves or canyons, or coastal strands (Bean and Shipek, 1978). It is estimated that there may have been around 50 Luiseno villages with a population of about 200 each at the time of the first Spanish contact (Bean and Shipek, 1978).

Today, there are six federally recognized tribes in California who share Luiseno tribal affiliation, language, and culture, including the La Jolla, Rincon, Pauma, Pechanga, Pala, and Soboba. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga) is historically and currently affiliated with the APE.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 11 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
Luiseno Origin Narrative
Of great importance to the Pechanga Tribe, and relevant to the current Project, is the Luiseno creation story, which tells how the world came into being. The creation story is embodied in the Luiseno Ancestral Origin Landscape, a National Register of Historic Places (National Register) - listed Traditional Cultural Property located primarily in southwest Riverside County near the City of Temecula, with a small portion in San Diego County. The landscape covers 8.39 square miles, and its boundary has been identified based on oral tradition and ethnographic literature. As detailed in the National Register listing, the property represents the landscape where the Creation of the World occurred and where the Kaamalam, or Luiseno First People, lived. The landscape identifies the place of Luiseno origins, the beginning of the world, and the place where Wuyoot, one of the first born and a prophet to the Kaamalam, instructed the people on how to live and gave them their religious songs and ceremonies that are still practiced today. There are 28 mostly intact resources located within the boundary of the landscape, which include sacred rock formations, rock art, and village sites. As one of the most sacred areas for all Luiseno People, the landscape is associated in oral historical accounts with the founding of the tribe, with the cultural traditions of the Pechanga and larger Luiseno community, and with the tribal prophet Wuyoot and tribal leader Naxachish.

Historic Setting
The first European presence in what is now southern California came in 1542, when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led an expedition along the coast. Europeans did not return until 1769, when the expedition of Gaspar de Portola traveled overland from San Diego to San Francisco. The Riverside County area received its first European visitors during the early and mid- 1770s, shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California in 1769. The first known European to set foot in this area was a Franciscan padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, who traveled into the Temecula Valley in October 1797. Santiago was on an expedition out of Mission San Juan Capistrano seeking a site for a new mission. With his party of seven soldiers, he came upon what is now Lake Elsinore, and then traveled southward through the Temecula Valley and on to the Pacific Ocean (City of Temecula, 2012).

In the late 18th century, the Spanish began establishing missions in California and forcibly relocating and converting native peoples. Mission San Juan Capistrano was founded approximately 30 miles west of the APE in 1776. In 1798, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago founded the Mission of San Luis Rey de Francia, approximately 23 miles to the southwest of the APE. Throughout California, disease and hard labor took a toll on the native populations; by 1900, the Native Californian population had declined by over 90 percent (Cook, 1978). In addition, native economies were disrupted, trade routes were interrupted, and native ways of life were significantly altered.

Mexican and European ranchers began settling in the Temecula Valley in the late 18th century.

Nearer to the APE, the smaller asistencia San Antonio de Pala, about 10 miles southeast of Temecula, was founded in 1816 (Van Horn, 1974). In 1821, Mexico, which included much of present-day California, became independent from Spain, and during the 1820s and 1830s, the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 12 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
California missions were secularized. Mission property, although it was supposed to have been held in trust for the Native Californians, was handed over to civil administrators and then into private ownership. After secularization, many former Mission Indians were forced to leave the Missions and seek employment as laborers, ranch hands, or domestic servants (Horne and McDougall, 2003).

Locally, three land grants were awarded during the Mexican period. The 26,608-acre Temecula Rancho, which included the APE along with much of the Temecula and Murrieta valleys, was deeded to Felix Valdez in 1844. The 26,597-acre Pauba Rancho was awarded to Vicente Moraga the same year. In 1845, the 2,283-acre Little Temecula Rancho was granted to Pablo Apis, a Luiseno Indian. The Little Temecula Rancho encompassed some of the most fertile land in the Temecula Valley, and was strategically situated on a trail between San Diego and northern regions (Van Horn, 1974).

In 1848, gold was discovered in California, leading to a huge influx of people from other parts of North America, and in 1850, California became part of the United States of America. The opening of the Butterfield Overland Mail route in 1858, and later the California Southern Railroad line in 1882 greatly increased the number of people coming to southern California (Helmich, 2008; Lowell, 1985).

The major travel corridor through Temecula in the 19th century was known as the Southern Emigrant Trail, and was the primary route by which prospectors and other immigrants travelled to and through California (Brigandi, 2012). In addition, the trail became the route for the Butterfield Overland Mail from 1858 to 1861. The stage company established a stop in Temecula at Louis Wolf s store, which was then the center of the village of Temecula. Temecula's first post office was established in 1859 at the stage stop (Brigandi, 2012).

In 1875, the Tem6ku people were evicted from their traditional lands. The Pechanga Reservation was established on June 27, 1882 under Executive Order by President Chester A. Arthur. The name is derived from a spring at the foot of the mountain named Pechaq (PEH-chaq), which means "water is dripping" (Woodward, n.d.) Due to lack of water, farming on the reservation was difficult and making a living was a challenge. In the early 1900s several families moved away from Pechanga to find work. In 1906, U.S. Indian Commissioner C.E. Kelsey proposed acquisition of additional farmland for the Pechanga Reservation. In 1907, the U.S. government purchased 235 acres of adjacent land that came to be known as the Kelsey Tract. The Pechanga people dug a well and installed a windmill -powered pump to facilitate irrigation of agricultural lands (Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, 2017).

In 1880, construction began on the California Southern Railroad, which would eventually connect San Diego with the Santa Fe railroad line through the Cajon Pass, by way of Temecula. The railroad established a new Temecula town site across the creek from the railroad tracks, about

3.5 miles to the northwest of the old town. Drawn by the prospect of direct access to the railroad, most residents relocated to the new town site. The railroad also helped to create a granite quarrying industry, which flourished in the late 19th century (Brigandi, 2012). However, the tracks through Temecula Canyon were washed out in a flood in 1891, and never rebuilt.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 13 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
In 1893, following a period of conflict and discontent between the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino, portions of the Temecula and San Jacinto Valleys, which were then in San Diego County, joined with the City of Riverside in the formation of the new Riverside County (Horne and McDougall, 2003).

Until the 1960s, the Temecula Valley was part of the Vail Ranch and was used primarily for cattle ranching and agriculture. However, the last years of the 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the beginnings of dramatic change in the Temecula Valley as the area began to experience its growth as an urban area. This urban growth continued through the area's incorporation as a City in December 1989 into the present time. Wine production in Temecula began in the late 20th century as well. The first vineyards were planted in the late 1960s and today several dozen wineries can be found throughout the area (Brigandi, 2012).

Regulatory Framework
Numerous laws and regulations require federal, state, and local agencies to consider the effects a project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies.

Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The principal federal law addressing historic properties is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (54 United States Code of Laws [USC] 300101 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 requires a federal agency with jurisdiction over a proposed federal action (referred to as an "undertaking" under the NHPA) to take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

The term "historic properties" refers to "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register" (36 CFR Part 800.16(0(1)). The implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) describe the process for identifying and evaluating historic properties, for assessing the potential adverse effects of federal undertakings on historic properties, and seeking to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. The Section 106 process does not require the preservation of historic properties; instead, it is a procedural requirement mandating that federal agencies take into account effects to historic properties from an undertaking prior to approval.

The steps of the Section 106 process are accomplished through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), federally -recognized Indian tribes, local governments, and other interested parties. The goal of consultation is to identify potentially affected historic properties, assess effects to such properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on such properties. The agency also must provide an opportunity for public involvement (36 CFR 800.1(a)). Consultation with Indian tribes regarding issues related to Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 14 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
Section 106 and other authorities (such as NEPA and Executive Order No. 13007) must recognize the government -to -government relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as set forth in Executive Order 13175, 65 FR 87249 (Nov. 9, 2000), and Presidential Memorandum of Nov. 5, 2009.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) was established by the NHPA of 1966, as "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation's historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment" (36 CFR 60.2) (U.S.

Department of the Interior, 2002). The National Register recognizes a broad range of cultural resources that are significant at the national, state, and local levels and can include districts, buildings, structures, objects, prehistoric archaeological sites, historic -period archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and cultural landscapes. As noted above, a resource that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register is considered "historic property" under Section 106 of the NHPA.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Properties of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity.

Integrity is defined as "the ability of a property to convey its significance" (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.

Ordinarily religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces or graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National Register unless they meet one of the Criteria Considerations (A-G), in addition to meeting at least one of the four significance criteria and possessing integrity (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002).

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 15 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified at Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA (Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5) recognize that historical resources include: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.10) or 5024.1.

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA Guidelines, then the site may be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083, which is as a unique archaeological resource. As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA a "unique" archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or,
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological site meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2, which state that if the lead agency determines that a project would have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 16 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place (Section 21083.1(a)). If preservation in place is not feasible, mitigation measures shall be required. The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

A significant effect under CEQA would occur if a project results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).

Substantial adverse change is defined as "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2), the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that:

A. Convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
B. Account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C. Convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA.

In general, a project that complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards) (Grimmer, 2017) is considered to have mitigated its impacts to historical resources to a less -than -significant level (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)).

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is "an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change" (PRC Section 5024.1 [a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1 [b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.

To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic -period property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 17 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment

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

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

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:

California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined eligible for the National Register;
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and, • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:
• Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or a local jurisdiction register);
• Individual historical resources;
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts; and, • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event human remains are discovered, the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of the remains. In the event the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
California PRC Section 5097.98, as amended, provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 18 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the NAHC, upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. The MLD has 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site by the landowner to inspect the discovery and provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods.

In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance.

California Government Code Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 These sections of the California Public Records Act were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to "Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission." Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for "records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a state or local agency."
Assembly Bill 52 and Related Public Resources Code Sections Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was approved by California State Governor Edmund Gerry "Jerry" Brown, Jr. on September 25, 2014. The act amended California PRC Section 5097.94, and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3.

AB 52 applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be filed on or after July 1, 2015. The primary intent of AB 52 was to include California Native American Tribes early in the environmental review process and to establish a new category of resources related to Native Americans that require consideration under CEQA, known as tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074(a)(1) and (2) defines tribal cultural resources as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe" that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource that is determined to be a tribal cultural resource by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence. On July 30, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted the final text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on September 27, 2016.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 19 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
PRC Section 21080.3.1 requires that within 14 days of a lead agency determining that an application for a project is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency provide formal notification to the designated contact, or a tribal representative, of California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project (as defined in PRC Section 21073) and who have requested in writing to be informed by the lead agency (PRC Section 21080.3.1(b)). Tribes interested in consultation must respond in writing within 30 days from receipt of the lead agency's formal notification and the lead agency must begin consultation within 30 days of receiving the tribe's request for consultation (PRC Sections 21080.3.1(d) and 21080.3.1(e)).

PRC Section 21080.3.2(a) identifies the following as potential consultation discussion topics: the type of environmental review necessary; the significance of tribal cultural resources; the significance of the project's impacts on the tribal cultural resources; project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation; and mitigation measures. Consultation is considered concluded when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (PRC Section 21080.3.2(b)).

If a California Native American tribe has requested consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 and has failed to provide comments to the lead agency, or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process, or if the lead agency has complied with Section 21080.3.1(d) and the California Native American tribe has failed to request consultation within 30 days, the lead agency may certify an EIR or adopt an MND (PRC Section 21082.3(d)(2) and (3)).

PRC Section 21082.3(c)(1) states that any information, including, but not limited to, the location, description, and use of the tribal cultural resources, that is submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public without the prior consent of the tribe that provided the information. If the lead agency publishes any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process, that information shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.

Local
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula's General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element (2005), contains the following cultural resources goals, policies, and implementation programs relevant to this Project:

Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources.

Policy 6.1: Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 20 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
Policy 6.3: Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the OTSP.

Policy 6.2: Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes.

Policy 6.4: Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets.

Policy 6.5: Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when appropriate.

Policy 6.6: Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to Old Town.

Policy 6.7: Encourage use of California's Historic Building Code when preserving/rehabilitating historic structures.

Policy 6.8: Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways.

Policy 6.9: Encourage the preservation and re -use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails.

Policy 6.10: Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.

Policy 6.11: Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements.

Implementation Procedures
The following implementation procedures from the Open Space Element of the City of Temecula General Plan are also relevant to the protection of historic resources:

OS-27: Historic Preservation Program
Continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings, sites, road/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their reuse, where appropriate. Consider adopting an ordinance to address preservation of other historic resources. Encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 21 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources
Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property which involve earth - disturbing activities or which are located in areas with previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources:
• All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by conducting a site records search, and if feasible, a Phase I walkover survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources. • If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be consulted in the identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements, including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries. • During on -site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be on -site to monitor grading operations.
• In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone, grading in the immediate area shall be immediately halted, the site protected, and the County Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians notified.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 22 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
Archival Research
EIC Records Search
A records search for the Project was conducted on May 4, 2021 at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Eastern Information Center (EIC) housed at University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources and previous studies within the APE and a 1-mile radius of the APE. It is important to note, too, that, due to restrictions imposed by the EIC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an in -person records search was not possible and the EIC provided baseline results only. This included maps of cultural resources studies and DPR site record forms within the 1-mile search area.

Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
The records search results indicate that 49 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the APE (Table 1). Approximately 75 percent of the 1-mile records search radius has been included in previous cultural resources surveys. Of the 49 previous studies, eight (RI-01048,-01865,-02241,-02431,-02614,-03611,-08390, and-09257) overlap the APE. The entirety of the APE has been included in previous cultural resources studies.

TABLE 1

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
EIC No.

Author
(RI-)
Title
Date
Anonymous
08796
Telecommunications Facility Project
2012
Bissell, Ronald M.
02613
Letter Report: Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring of Phase I Grading, Temecula 1997
Mall, Temecula, California
Boner, Wayne and
Letter Report: Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Sara Williams
08304
Candidate IE25826A, (Day Street Plaza) 26674 Margarita Road, Murrieta, Riverside County, 2009
California
Bonner, Wayne
Letter Report: Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile and Marnie Aislin- 08116
Communications Candidate IE25826A (Date Street Plaza), Date Street and Margarita Road 2008 Kay
(26672 Margarita Road), Murrieta, Riverside County, California.

Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate Bonner, Wayne H. 08956
RS0393 (Chaparral Self Storage), 27380 Nicholas Road, Temecula, Riverside County 2012 California
Bruce Love, Bai
"Tom" Tang, 01049
Historical/Archaeological Resources Report: Eli Lilly Property, APNs 921-090-054 and 921- 2000 Michael Hogan,
680-010, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California and Mariam Dandul
Bruce, Bonnie,
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC, Candidate Sarah A. Williams,
10858
CSL06279(RS0393) (Chaparral High School], 27215 Nicholas Road, Temecula, Riverside 2019
and Carrie D. Wills
County, California, CSAPR 355145992
Letter Report: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Distributed Antennae Communications Brunzell, David
08387
System Project in the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Riverside County, California (BCR 2009
Consulting Project No. SYN0903).

Brunzell, David
09257"
Cultural Resources Assessment of the New Path Networks, LLC DAS Project in the Cities of 2011
Murrieta and Temecula, Riverside County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. SYN0901) Brunzell, David
09520
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crown Castle Verizon Temecula DAS Extension 2012
Project, Temecula, Riverside County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. SYN 1217) Brunzell, David
10137
Cultural Resources Assessment of Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project, Temecula, Riverside 2016
County, California
Carbone,
02361
Cultural and Paleontological Investigations of the Warm Springs Project Riverside County, 1987
Lawrence, William
California
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 23 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
EIC No.

Author
(RI-)
Title
Date
Gilmore, and Kevin
Peter
Christopher W.
01048*
Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment for the KACOR/Rancho California 1980
White
Property
Drover, C.E.
02081
Cultural Resources Evaluation -Parcel Map # 19581, Near Temecula, Riverside County, 1986
California
Drover, C.E.
02240
An Archaeological Assessment of PM 23430, Riverside County, California 1988
Drover, C.E.
02241 *
An Archaeological Assessment of PM 23335, Riverside County, California 1988
Drover, C.E.
02242
An Archaeological Assessment of TP 21819
1988
Drover, C.E.
02280
An Archaeological Assessment of Parcel Map 2336 and Zone Change - Riverside County, 1988
California
Drover, C.E.
02431 *
An Archaeological Assessment of the Rancho California Commerce Center, Riverside 1988
County, California
Drover, C.E.
02611
An Archaeological Assessment of the Campos Verdes Zone Change Riverside County, 1989
California
Drover, C.E.
02612
An Archaeological Assessment of the Regional Center Specific Plan Riverside County, 1989
California
Drover, C.E.
02614*
An Archaeological Assessment of the Westchester Meadows Zone Change, Riverside 1989
County, California
Drover, C.E.
02615
An Archaeological Assessment of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan Riverside County, 1989
California
Drover, C.E.
03121
The Santa Gertrudis Site: RIV-1730 - A Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan and 1986
Implementation - Conditions of Approval, TTM 19677, Temecula, California Drover, C.E.
03611 *
A Cultural Resources Assessment, Winchester Properties Assessment District 1987
Drover, C.E.
03665
Impact Assessment RIV-1012 Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1993
Drover, C.E.
10232
Cultural Resources Cultural Resource Mitigation Plan: Conditions of Approval; Tentative 1985
Parcel Map 19677, Temecula, California
Duke, Curt
04532
Letter Report: Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless facility No. SD 458-01, 2001
Riverside County, California
Garrison, Andrew
A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle J. and Brian F.
10782
Trail Extension and Interconnect Project
2019
Smith
Gust, Sherri and
08016
Paleontological And Archaeological Assessment Of The Jackson Avenue Street 2008
Amy Glover
Improvements And Bridge Project, City of Murrieta, California Jacquemain, Terri,
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Chaparral Village Project, Assessor's Daniel Ballester,
and Laura H.
06829
Parcel Nos. 920-100-025, -026, -030, and -032, in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, 2007
Shaker
California
Jones and Stokes
04404
Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Williams Communications, Inc., Fiber Optic 2000
Associates, Inc.

Cable System Installation Project, Riverside to San Diego, California Vol. I -IV Keller, Jean A.
04064
A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Solana Apartments Project Located in 1996
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Keller, Jean A.
04447
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Tentative Tract 28553 1998
Kyle, Carolyn E.
07042
Cultural Resources Assessment/Evaluation for Cingular Wireless Site SD462-01, Riverside 2001
County, California.

Mason, Roger D.
and Brant A.
06068
Cultural Resources Records Search and Literature Review for the Watt Homes Property Near 1998
Brechibiel
The City of Murrieta, Riverside County, CA
McKenna, Jeanette
04321
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Medowview Golf Course Property in the 2000
A.

Community of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Peak and
Associates and
03189
Cultural Resources Assessment of AT&T's Proposed San Bernardino to San Diego Fiber 1990
Brian F. Mooney
Optic Cable, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego County, California Associates
Perez, Don
09636
Cultural Resources Survey Chaparral Self Storage/RS0393, 27380 Nicholas Road Temecula, 2014
Riverside County, California 92591
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 24 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
EIC No.

Author
(RI-)
Title
Date
Robbins -Wade,
04161
Archaeological Survey for the RCWD EM-20 Pipeline and Turnouts, Ranch California, 1999
Mary
Riverside County, California
Roger J. Desautels
01222
Archaeological Assessment Form (Roripaugh Estates)
1981
Salpas, Jean A.
01744
An Archeological and Historical Assessment of the Winchester Mesa Specific Plan Study 1983
Area, Riverside County, California
Sikes, Nancy E.
04687
Cultural Resources Monitoring During Grading of the Harveston Project (Tract 29639-1), 2003
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Smith, Brian F.
10785
Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Sanborn Avenue Parking Lot Project, Parcel 2018
Map [PM] No. 23561
Tang, Bai, Michael
Hogan, Casey
05973
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Rancho Temecula Town Center, in the 2003
Tibbet, and Daniel
City of Temecula, Riverside County, CA
Ballester
Victorino, Ken and
08390*
Archaeological Survey Report Santa Gertrudis Creek Overcrossing LA 080902 Temecula, 2010
David Stone
Riverside County, California.

Watson, Luke
09659
County of Riverside Department of Public Social Services Administrative Facility Project 2016
Whitney-Desautels,
02320
Archaeological Assessment Form: Property near Tucalota Creek 1987
Nancy
Wilmoth, Stan
01865*
An Archaeological Assessment of Several Alternative Sites for the New Rancho California 1984
Airport, Riverside County, California
*Indicates study overlaps APE
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The records search results indicate six cultural resources have been previously recorded within a 1-mile radius of the APE (Table 2). Of these six cultural resources, one is a prehistoric archaeological site consisting of a lithic and groundstone scatter (P-33-001730), and five are prehistoric isolates (P-33-012381,-012382,-012383,-012384, and-012385). None of these previously recorded resources are located within or immediately adjacent to the APE.

TABLE 2

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES
Permanent
Primary
Trinomial
Dates

NRHP/CRHR
Distance
No. (P-33-)
(CA-RIV-)
Descriptions
Recorded
Eligibility
from APE
001730
1730
Prehistoric archaeological site: lithic and groundstone scatter 1979; 1981
Unknown
4,010 feet
012381
-
Prehistoric isolate: two basalt flakes
2003
Unknown
2,450 feet
012382
Prehistoric isolate: one metasedimentary core
2003
Unknown
2,615 feet
012383
Prehistoric isolate: one piece of obsidian debitage
2003
Unknown
1,830 feet
012384
Prehistoric isolate: two bifacial sandstone manos
2003
Unknown
685 feet
012385 - Prehistoric isolate: one sandstone bifacial mano 2003 Unknown 455 feet Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 25 Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
Native American Outreach
Native American outreach was conducted for the Project by ESA in support of USACE's Section 106 consultation process. The outreach conducted by ESA is separate from the AB 52 consultation process being undertaken by the City in support of the IS/MND.

An SLF search for the Project was requested from the NAHC on December 8, 2020. The results letter provided by the NAHC on December 28, 2020 indicates that Native American cultural resources are located in the APE's vicinity, but additional details were not provided. The NAHC recommended contacting the Pechanga Band of Luiseho Indians for more information. The NAHC also provided a list of Native American contacts. ESA conducted outreach with the 20 Native American representatives identified on the list provided by the NAHC.

ESA sent outreach letters via certified mail on January 15, 2021. The letters described the Project and included a map depicting the location of the APE. Recipients were requested to reply with any information concerning Native American cultural resources that might be affected by the proposed Project. Follow-up phone calls were conducted on January 28, 2021. Table 3 provides a summary of ESA's outreach efforts. Documentation pertaining to Native American outreach is attached as Appendix B.

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
Date Date of
Letter Follow-up
Contact
Tribe/Organization
Mailed Phone Call
Response
Angela Elliott Santos,
Manzanita Band of
Chairperson
Kumeyaay Nation
1/15/2021 1/28/21
Left voicemail. No response to date.

Bo Mazzetti,
Rincon Band of
Chairperson
Luiseno Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
See Ms. Madrigal's response below
Ms. Madrigal responded in a letter on 1/20/21 stating
Rincon is not aware of resources within the APE, but
Cheryl Madrigal,
recommended a records search for the Project be
Tribal Historic
Rincon Band of
conducted and requested the records search results
Preservation Officer
Luiseno Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
be shared with Rincon
Spoke with receptionist who recommended, Kristie
Orosco, Cultural Resources Manager for Sycuan be
called. Called Ms. Orosco at the phone number
Cody J. Martinez,
Sycuan Band of the
provided by the receptionist, but was unable to leave
Chairperson
Kumeyaay Nation
1/15/2021 1128/21
a voicemail.

Mr. Nelson is no longer a chairperson at La Jolla;
Fred Nelson,
La Jolla Band of
transferred to Ms. Norma Contreras, but was unable
Chairperson
Luiseno Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
to leave a voicemail.

La Posta Band of
Gwendolyn Parada,
Diegueno Mission
Chairperson
Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
Left voicemail. No response to date.

La Posta Band of
Javaughn Miller,
Diegueno Mission
Tribal Administrator
Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
Left voicemail. No response to date
Jeff Grubbe,
Agua Caliente Band of
Chairperson
Cahuilla Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
Left voicemail. No response to date
Jill McCormick,
Quechan Tribe of the
Ms. McCormick responded in an email on 1/27/21
Historic Preservation
Fort Yuma
deferring to tribal groups in closer proximity to the
Officer
Reservation
1/15/2021 1/28/21
APE
Lovina Redner, Tribal Santa Rosa Band of
Chair Cahuilla Indians 1/15/2021 1/28/21 Left message with receptionist. No response to date.

Mark Macarro, Pechanga Band of
Chairperson Luiseno Indians 1/15/2021 1/28/21 Left voicemail. No response to date.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 26 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
Date Date of
Letter Follow-up
Contact
Tribe/Organization
Mailed Phone Call
Response
Michael Garcia, Vice
Ewiiaapaayp Band of
Called phone number, but was unable to leave
Chairperson
Kumeyaay Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
voicemail.

Mesa Grande Band of
Michael Linton,
Diegueno Mission
Mr. Linton stated he has no concerns or information
Chairperson
Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
regarding the Project.

Arysa Gonzalez -Romero, Historic Preservation
Technician, responded in an email stating Agua
Patricia Garcia-
Agua Caliente Band of
Caliente defers to tribal groups in closer proximity to Plotkin, Director
Cahuilla Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
the APE.

Campo Band of
Mr. Goff is no longer a chairperson at Campo;
Ralph Goff,
Diegueno Mission
transferred to new Chairperson„ Mr. Marcus Cuero,
Chairperson
Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
but was unable to leave a voicemail.

Robert Pinto,
Ewiiaapaayp Band of
Called phone number, but was unable to leave
Chairperson
Kumeyaay Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
voicemail.

Spoke with Cami Mojado, Cultural Resources
San Luis Rey, Tribal
San Luis Rey Band of
Manager for San Luis Rey, who stated San Luis Rey
Council
Mission Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
defers to the Pechanga regarding the Project.

Mr. Cozart is no longer a chairperson at Soboba;
Scott Cozart,
Soboba Band of
transferred to Mr. Joe Ontiveros, but was unable to
Chairperson
Luiseno Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
leave a voicemail.

Shasta Gaughen,
Tribal Historic
Pala Band of Mission
Preservation Officer
Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
Left voicemail. No response to date
Temet Aguilar,
Pauma Band of
Chairperson
Luiseno Indians
1/15/2021 1/28/21
Left voicemail. No response to date
As a result of the Native American Outreach, three formal responses were received from the Rincon Band of Luisefio Indians (Rincon), the Quechan Indian Tribe (Quechan), and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Agua Caliente). These responses are detailed in the following paragraphs.

In a letter dated January 20, 2021, Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Cultural Resources Manager for Rincon, stated the APE is located within the tribe's specific area of historic interest. Ms. Madrigal stated Rincon does not know of any resources within the APE, but requested a records search for the Project be conducted and requested the results be provided to Rincon.

In an email dated January 27, 2021, Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for Quechan, stated Quechan defers to tribal groups in closer proximity to the APE regarding the Project.

In an email dated February 3, 2021, Arysa Gonzalez -Romero, Historic Preservation Technician for the Agua Caliente, stated the APE is not located within the tribes Traditional Use Area and that Agua Caliente defers to tribal groups in closer proximity to the APE regarding the Project.

Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined to provide historical information about land uses of the APE and to contribute to an assessment of the APE's archaeological sensitivity.

Available topographic maps include the 1901 Elsinore, CA 30-minute quadrangles, the 1942 Murrieta, CA 15-minute topographic map, and the 1953 Murrieta, CA 7.5-minute topographic Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 27 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
map. Historic aerial photographs were available for the years 1938, 1967, 1978, 1996, 2005, and 2012 (historicaerials.com, 2020).

The topographic maps indicate very little development within the APE during the first half of the 20th century. The 1901 and 1942 topographic maps show the APE on the south side of Santa Gertrudis Creek approximately 650 feet west of a generally northeast -southwest trending road analogous to present-day Highway 79. The 1953 map shows a curved dirt road just north of the APE, but no additional development is indicated.

The 1938 aerial photograph shows the APE within the braided channel of Santa Gertrudis Creek with no development in the immediate vicinity aside from the generally northeast -southwest trending road depicted in the topographic maps, and a northwest -southeast trending road crossing the creek just northeast of the APE. The 1967 and 1978 photographs show Santa Gertrudis Creek has been realigned and bounded in a concrete channel with agricultural fields on both sides of the creek. The 1996 photograph shows Margarita Road crossing the creek, as well as a shopping center immediately southeast of the APE. The 2005 and 2012 photographs show an additional shopping center northeast of the APE, and residential subdivision northwest and across the creek from the APE.

In sum, the historic map and aerial photograph review indicates the portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek that the APE overlaps has been subject to a significant degree of disturbance associated with the construction of a concrete channel sometime prior to 1967 that realigned the creek from a braided channel to a linear channel. As a result, much of the APE is comprised of engineered slopes and surfaces associated with the channeling of the creek.

Subsurface Archaeological Sensitivity
A desktop review of geologic maps and soils data was conducted to assess the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits within the APE. A review of geologic maps indicates late Pleistocene to Holocene -age (126,000 years ago to present) younger alluvial channel deposits (map unit Qya) are mapped at the surface of the APE. These are fluvial deposits comprised of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay occurring on canyon floors (Kennedy et al., 2003).

Soils mapping indicates soils present within the APE consist of riverwash (map unit RsC) (MRCS, 2020). These soils occur within waterway channels subject to frequent flooding and are comprised of sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from mixed sources. This soils type's typical profile consists of 0 to 6 inches of gravelly coarse sand followed by 6 to 60 inches of stratified extremely gravelly coarse sand to gravelly sand. Soils and sediments within active channel environments are typically re -worked, meaning they are deposited as flood waters or stream flows subside and present for relatively short periods of time following deposition before being eroded away as floodwaters or stream flows increase (Waters, 1992).

As noted in the historic map and aerial review, the APE overlaps a portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek that was channelized sometime prior to 1967, and, therefore, comprised largely of engineered slopes and paved surfaces associated with the channeling of the creek. Channel Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 28 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
construction would have likely displaced any native soils within the APE, reducing the likelihood for encountering undisturbed soils containing subsurface archaeological deposits.

The late Pleistocene to Holocene -age younger alluvial channel deposits mapped at surface in the APE encompass the entirety of human habitation of North America, and are, therefore, of appropriate age to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. However, given the degree of past disturbance associated with the construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel, the APE has moderate sensitivity for the presence of subsurface archaeological resources.

Cultural Resources Survey
A cultural resources survey of the APE was conducted on May 14, 2021 by ESA cultural resources specialist, Michael Vader, B.A., accompanied by Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians tribal monitor, Robert Cordova Ringlero. The survey was aimed at identifying cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the APE. Given the developed nature of the APE, an opportunistic survey strategy was employed to identify undeveloped and open areas of the APE where ground surface was visible. All accessible areas containing visible ground surface were subject to inspection.

Much of the APE is comprised of the existing paved SGCT, paved engineered slopes, vegetated engineered slopes, and the southern margin of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel (Figure 5). The only portions of the APE containing visible, unpaved ground surface included the vegetated, engineered slopes extending from the SGCT into the channel, as well as relatively flat areas adjacent to the segments of SGCT connecting to the Margarita Road Overcrossing (Figure 5).

The vegetated engineered slopes were too steep for survey; however, the unpaved flat areas adjacent to the Margarita Road Overcrossing were subject to intensive inspection. No cultural resources were identified as a result of the survey.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 29 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

P f
Overview of paved engineered slopes on the southwest side of Margarita Road (view to NE) SOURCE: ESA, 2021
Overview of relatively flat area with exposed ground surface (view to SW) Gertrudis Bicycle/Trail Undercrossing at Margarita Road Figure 5
Survey Photos

Cultural Resources Assessment
Conclusions and Recommendations
No cultural resources were identified within the APE as a result of this assessment. As such, the Project would result in No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA.

As a result of the archival research and cultural resources survey conducted for the Project, no cultural resources have been identified within APE. However, the likelihood for encountering subsurface archaeological deposits within the APE during Project construction is moderate. In the event that subsurface archaeological deposits are encountered during Project implementation, they may qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursant to CEQA and may subject to significant impacts. As such, the following recommended mitigation measures for the retention of a qualified archaeologist, cultural resources sensitivity training, construction monitoring, and inadvertent discovery protocols are provided below.

1. Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to the start of ground -disturbing activities, the City shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2012) to carry out the following measures.

2. Construction Worker Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: Prior to the start of ground -disturbing activities, construction personnel shall be trained in the identification of cultural resources. Prior to earth moving activities, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures be to enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The City shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.

3. Construction Monitoring: An archaeological monitor (working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist) shall observe all subsurface ground -disturbing activities. A Native American monitor from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall also be present to observe subsurface ground -disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the City and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors.

Construction monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the project site. The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor, in coordination with the construction manager or resident engineer, shall be empowered to request the halting or redirecting of ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment.

The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 31 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
report shall be submitted to the City, as well as the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians upon request. A copy of the final report shall be filed at the Eastern Information Center

4. Inadvertent Archeological Finds: If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). i. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find.
ii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
iii. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.
iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non -Disclosure of Reburial Condition.

V. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. vi. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 32 ESA I D201901440.00 Cultural Resources Assessment January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

Cultural Resources Assessment
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council."

5. Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains: If human remains are encountered, the contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the find and contact the Riverside County Coroner in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and SafetyCode Section 7050.5. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by Assembly Bill 2641). The NAHC will designate a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, the contractor shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 33 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
References
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseiio. In California, edited by Robert F.

Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Brigandi, Phil. 2012. "A Short History of Temecula". Electronic document, http://www.temeculahistoricalsociety.org/temeculahistory.html , accessed June 18, 2012.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab. 2007. "Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium", in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 215-227.

City of Temecula. 2012. "The History of Temecula". Electronic document, www.cityoftemecula.org/temecula/visitors/about/history . Accessed on February 8, 2012.

Cook, Sherburne F. 1978. "Historical Demography", In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 91-98, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2021. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing at Margarita Road — Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. Prepared for EXP U.S. Services, Inc. by Environmental Science Associates.

Gallegos, Dennis. 2002. "Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County", in Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies on the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp 27-40. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Grenda, Donn. 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years ofLacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Inc. (SRI) Technical Series 59, SRI, Tucson, Arizona.

Helmich, Mary A. 2008. "The Butterfield Overland Mail Company". Electronic document, http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491 /files/the—butterfield_overland_mail—stagecoach—day s.pdf, accessed June 9, 2011.

Historicaerials.com. 2020. Historic Aerial Photographs from 1938, 1967, 1978, 1996, 2005, and 2012. Electronic resource, http://www.historicaerials.com/ , accessed January 27, 2021.

Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall. 2003. Cultural Resources study for the City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Update Program EIR. Prepared for Cotton Bridges and Associates Urban and Environmental Consultants, on behalf of the City of Riverside Planning Department. Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc.

Jones, T. L., and Schwitalla, A. 2008. Archaeological perspectives on the effects of medieval drought in prehistoric California. Quaternary International 188:41-58.

Kennedy, M.P., D.M. Morton, R.M. Alvarez, and Greg Morton. 2003. Preliminary geologic map of the Murrieta 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California. USGS Digital Database.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 34 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

Cultural Resources Assessment
Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletins, No. 78. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C.

Lowell, Douglas L. 1985. The California Southern Railroad and the Growth of San Diego, Part 1.

Journal of San Diego History 31(4). Electronic Document, http://www.sandiegohistory.org/ , accessed June 9, 2011.

Masiel-Zamora, Myra R. 2013. Analysis of `Exva Tem6eku, A Luiseno Indian Village Site Named Temeku, Located in Temecula, California. Document on file at San Diego State University.

Mason, Roger D. 1999. Results of Archaeological Test Programs at CA-RIV-1022, CA-RIV- 3331, and CA-RIV-3 3 3 2H, Cottonwood Hills Project Area, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, CA. Prepared by Chambers Group.

Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Smithsonian Press: San Diego, CA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2020. Web Soil Service. Electronic resource, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx , accessed May 18, 2021.

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, History, http://www.pechanga-nsn.gov/index.php/history , accessed February 10, 2017.

Schaul, David L. 2014. A Prehistory of Western North America: The Impact of Uto-Aztecan Languages. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sparkman, Philip Stedman. 1908. The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4).

Sutton, Mark. 2009. People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2/3):32-92, 2006, Printed September 2009.

True, Delbert L. 1958. An Early Complex in San Diego County, California, American Antiquity, 23(3):225-263.

True, Delbert L., and Georgie Waugh. 1982. Proposed Settlements Shifts during San Luis Rey Times: Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):34-54.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2012. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (As Amended and Annotated), www.nps.gov/history/local- law/arch_stnds_O.htm, accessed November 4, 2014, 2008.

Van Horn, Kurt. 1974. Tempting Temecula: The Making and Unmaking of a Southern California Community, Journal of San Diego History 20(1), 1974. Electronic Document, http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/74winter/temecula.htm , accessed June 18, 2012.

Warren, C.N. 1967. "The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis", American Antiquity, 32 (2): 168-18.

Waters, Michael. 1992. Principles of Geoarchaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project 35 Cultural Resources Assessment

PUBLIC VERSION
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

APPENDIX A
Personnel
Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Phase II Undercrossing Project Cultural Resources Assessment
ESA I D201901440.00
January 2022

PUBLIC VERSION

r ESA

EDUCATION
MA, Archaeology,
California State
University, Northridge
BA, Anthropology,
California State
University, Northridge
AA, Humanities, Los
Angeles Pierce College
24 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

SPECIALIZED

EXPERIENCE
Treatment of Historic
and Prehistoric Human
Remains
Archaeological
Monitoring
Complex Shell Midden
Sites
Groundstone Analysis

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Register of Professional
Archaeologists (RPA),
#12805
Society for California
Archaeology (SCA)
Society forAmerican
Archaeology (SAA)

QUALIFICATIONS
Exceeds Secretary of
Interior's Qualifications
Standards for
Archaeology
Meets Caltrans PQS for
Principal Investigator
CA State BLM Permitted
NV State BLM Permitted
(specific geographies)
Monica Strauss, RPA
Director, Southern California
lk Cultural Resources Group
Monica provides senior oversight to a multi -disciplinary team of cultural resources specialists throughout Southern California, including archaeologists, architectural historians, historians, and paleontologists. During her 24 years of practice, she has successfully directed hundreds of cultural resources projects meeting local, state, and/or federal regulatory requirements. Monica's strength lies in assisting clients in navigating complex cultural resources issues in the contexts of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Monica's experience ranges from large infrastructure projects that are controversial and multi -jurisdictional to smaller development projects that are important to local agencies and stakeholders. She has excellent experience working with agencies to develop creative mitigation to address challenging cultural resources impacts. She directs a staff who conduct Phase I archaeological/paleontological and historic architectural surveys, construction monitoring, Native American outreach, archaeological testing and treatment, historic resource significance evaluations, and large-scale data recovery programs. She is expert in the area of Assembly Bill 52 and routinely provides training to her clients as well as being a workshop content author and session presenter for the Association of Environmental Professionals on the topic.

Relevant Experience
Helix Water District (HWD), El Monte Valley, San Diego County, CA. Cultural Resources Principal Investigator. ESA provided professional Environmental Consulting services in support of the HWD's El Monte Mining, Reclamation, and Groundwater Recharge Project. The project includes mining of approximately 10 million tons of aggregate from the El Monte Valley in San Diego County. Monica directed the cultural resources component of this project to ensure it complies with CEQA, Section 106 and the County of San Diego, Guidelines for Determining Significance. Duties involved providing oversight to the management team and coordination with the client on key issues including Section 106 requirements and Native American issues.

Metro Airpark LLC, Metropolitan Air Park, San Diego, CA. Cultural Resources Principal Investigator. ESA is preparing a master development plan, EIR, and EA for Metropolitan Air Park at Brown Field Airport in the City of San Diego. The project involves a 50-year land lease from the City of San Diego for a 400-acre portion of the airport property to be developed into airport and non -airport related land uses. The project requires the approval of the City of San Diego and the Federal Aviation Administration, and is being processed as Master Planned Development Permit Project. Monica is currently directing the cultural resources component of this project. Her duties involve coordination with the City of San

Monica Strauss, RPA

Page 2 ends

Temecula City CouncilApril 12, 2022

Temecula City Council
April 12, 2022