Temecula City Council
March 12, 2024

Response: Yes, the Project Area is subject to conformity.

Response: No, the project is not exempt from conformity.

Response: No, the project is not exempt from regional analysis.

the project located in a CO, PM10, or PM2.5 area?
Response: Based on Interagency Consultation, the project is Regionally Significant and located in a PM10 and PM2.5 area. While not mentioned in the Interagency Consultation, it is a CO maintenance area.

Analysis needed (in CO, PM10, PM2.5 areas)?
Response: CO is not discussed in the Interagency Consultation; therefore, proceed to CO Protocol (Page 2) .

Response: The project is located in a CO maintenance area. Therefore, perform CO Hot Spot Analysis (see below).

Procedures and guidelines for use in evaluating the potential local level CO impacts of a project are contained in Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) (UCD ITS 1997).

The CO Protocol provides a methodology for determining the level of analysis, if any, required on a project. The guidelines comply with the CAA, federal and state conformity rules, NEPA, and CEQA.

The CO Protocol states that the determination of project -level CO impacts should be carried out in accordance with the Local CO Analysis flow charts shown as Figures 1 and 3 of the Protocol. Figure 1 of the Protocol applies to the evaluation of new projects.

The procedures of Figure 1 of the Protocol is provided for the proposed project to determine the level of analysis (if any):

Question 3.1.1: Is the project exempt from all emissions analyses? Answer: No. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for "Projects Exempt from All Emissions Analyses," as listed in the Protocol. Go to Question 3.1.2.

Question 3.1.2: Is the project exempt from regional emissions analyses? 53 4. Environmental Consequences
Answer: No. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for "Projects Exempt from Regional Emissions Analyses," as listed in the Protocol. Go to Question 3.1.3.

Question 3.1.3: Is the project locally defined as "Regionally Significant"? Answer: Yes. The project meets the Protocol's definition of a regionally significant transportation project as defined in 40 CFR 93.101. Go to Question 3.1.4.

Question 3.1.4: Is the project in a federal attainment area? Answer: No. The project is located in a federal nonattainment area for 03. Go to Question

3.1.5. Question 3.1.5: Is there a currently conforming RTP and RTIP? Answer: Yes. The project is included in SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023); the FHWA and the FTA approved their air quality conformity analysis. Go to Question 3.1.6.

Question 3.1.6: Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming RTP and RTIP?
Answer: Yes. The project is consistent with the assumptions in the SCAG's regional emissions analysis. Go to Question 3.1.7
Question 3.1.7: Has the project design concept and/or scope changed significantly from that of the regional analysis?
Answer: No. The design concept and scope of the proposed project are consistent with the project description in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023), the 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023), and the assumptions in the SCAG's regional emissions analysis. Proceed to Step 3.1.9, Examine Local Impacts; Go to Section 4 — Figure 3 of the Protocol.

The determination of project -level CO impacts should be carried out according to the Local Analysis flow chart — Figure 3 of the CO Protocol. The procedures of Section 4 in Figure 3 of the Protocol are provided for the proposed project to identify the level of effort required.

Section 4, Local CO Analysis, Level 1
Question: Is the project in a CO nonattainment area?
Answer: No. The project is in a CO attainment -maintenance area, following a redesignation from a CO nonattainment area. Go to next question.

Question: Was the area redesignated as "attainment" after the 1990 Clean Air Act? Answer: Yes. The area was redesignated as attainment after 1990. Go to next question.

Question: Has "continued attainment" been verified with the local air district (if appropriate)? Answer: Yes. Continued attainment has been verified with the SCAQMD. Proceed to Level 7.

Level 7
Question: Does the project worsen air quality?
54 4. Environmental Consequences
The Protocol guidance for this question states: "Only those projects that are likely to worsen air quality necessitate further analysis." To determine whether a project is likely to worsen air quality for the area substantially affected by the project, the guidance provides the following questions:

Question: Would "the project significantly increase the percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode"? An increase of as little as 2% could be significant.

Answer: No. The project would not increase the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode. The project is to complete the local transportation network and would redistribute existing traffic in the area; the project would not create new situations where vehicles are stopping for over 720 minutes and restarting the engine (a "cold start" in EMFAC2021).

Question: Would "the project significantly increase traffic volumes"? Traffic volume increases of 5% or more could be significant. Additionally, an increase of less than 5% may still be significant, if there is also a reduction in average speeds.

Answer: No. The project does not involve development of housing, employment centers, or other attractions, and thus, would not itself generate traffic volumes. The widening would accommodate increased traffic volumes on this segment of Avenida Alvarado by providing increased efficiency via expanded connectivity.

Question: Would "the project worsen traffic flow"? A reduction in average speeds of 3 to 50 mph or an increase in average delay (LOS) at an intersection could be regarded as worsening traffic flow.

Answer: No. Based on the project traffic report, with previously identified mitigation incorporated, all affected intersection would operate at LOS D or better (STC 2019).

Therefore, the project would not worsen traffic flow, defined for intersections as increasing average delay at signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F.

Project Satisfied — no further analysis needed.

According to the CO Protocol, the proposed project is considered satisfactory and no further CO analysis is required. Therefore, no localized CO impacts would occur.

4.3.2 PM Analysis
Emissions Analysis
On March 10, 2006, the U.S. EPA published a final rule that establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local air quality impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 non -attainment and maintenance areas. Based on that rule, the U.S. EPA and FHWA published Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM7o Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (PM Guidance; FHWA 2015). As discussed, Riverside County is designated as a non -attainment area for the PM2.5 standards and a maintenance area for the PM10 standard.

While the project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day under the Opening Year (2025) scenario and 2,922 VMT 55 4. Environmental Consequences
per day in the Horizon Year (2045), project study area VMT is only shown to be increasing because the project study area VMT analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area (e.g., Rancho California). The project study area was determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT for journeys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 miles. The distance between the two intersections across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. With a reduction in overall trip distance for the area, the project would result in PM emissions reductions compared to the No Build Alternative.

Hot -Spot Analysis
A hot spot analysis is defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as an estimation of likely future localized PM2.5 or PM,o pollutant concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the relevant air quality standards. A hot spot analysis assesses the air quality impacts on a scale smaller than an entire non - attainment or maintenance area, including, for example, congested roadway intersections and highways or transit terminals. Such an analysis is a means of demonstrating that a transportation project meets CAA conformity requirements to support state and local air quality goals with respect to potential localized air quality impacts. When a hot spot analysis is required, it is included within the project -level conformity determination that is made by the FHWA or Federal Transportation Administration.

The PM Guidance describes how to complete a quantitative hot spot analyses for certain highway and transit projects, and provides technical guidance on estimating project emissions. The PM2.s and PM10 hot spot analysis method in the November 2015 Guidance involves two steps: determining whether or not a project is a "project of air quality concern" and, if it is a "project of air quality concern", preparation of a more detailed quantitative analysis of the project. The November 2015 PM Guidance defines the following types of projects as projects of air quality concern (FHWA, 2015):
• New highway project that have a significant number of diesel vehicles, and expanded highway projects that have a significant increase in the number of diesel vehicles; • Projects affecting intersections that are Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to LOS D, E, or F, because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project; • New bus and rail terminals, and transfer points, that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location;
• Expanded bus and rail terminals, and transfer points, that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and, • Projects in, or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the PM2.5 or PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation.
56 4. Environmental Consequences
A significant volume for a new highway or expressway is defined as an annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume of 125,000 or more, and a significant number of diesel vehicles is defined as 8 percent or more of that total AADT or more than 10,000 truck AADT. A significant increase in diesel truck traffic is normally considered to be approximately 10 percent.

The proposed extension of Overland Drive would improve traffic operations on the roadway network in the vicinity of the project.

The project is the extension of a roadway that does not increase the capacity of 1-15 or other regional arterials. This type of project improves existing traffic network deficiencies within the city.

The extension would be a 4-lane arterial with a capacity of 29,000 ADT (SCT 2019), and long-term (year 2045) projected traffic volumes ranging from 2,521 to 3,751 ADT along Avenida Alvarado between Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle (STC 2019). While the project would create a new roadway segment, the traffic volumes along Avenida Alvarado would not approach or exceed the 125,000 AADT criterion for a project of air quality concern. In addition, the total truck volume would remain below the 10,000 AADT criterion (8 percent of 125,000 AADT) for project of air quality concern.

According to the traffic engineer for the project, Avenida Alvarado would carry approximately 7 percent trucks .7 This is the current truck volume for 1-15 at SR 79, and is appropriate for evaluation of the project as it is a cross -street of 1-15 and runs parallel to the future extension of Avenida Alvarado.

Based on 7 percent truck trips on Avenida Alvarado, the horizon year 2040 truck volume on Avenida Alvarado would range from 176 to 263 AADT. Additionally, the project is not a trip generator.

Implementation of the project would redress the existing traffic network deficiencies within the city of Temecula and provide improved access to businesses and other properties south of northeast and southwest of Murrieta Creek. Travelers would no longer need to travel the additional distance required under the existing condition and would have improved direct access to 1-15. Additionally, the proposed roadway improvements would not reduce levels of service below what would occur under the Near -Term No Build scenario.

The project would not be a project of air quality concern for PM10 or PM2.s emissions because the project would not result in increases in the number of diesel vehicles utilizing the project area; does not involve intersections that are operating at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles; does not involve a new or expanded bus or rail terminal; and would not affect a location or category of site which are identified in the PM10 implementation plan as sites of violation or possible violation. The project was discussed among stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The members of the TCWG confirmed that the project would not be considered a project of air quality concern. The TCWG determination in included as Appendix D. A follow-up letter from SCAG on September 26, 2022 confirmed to the City of Temecula that this July 28, 2020 TCWG finding also applied to FTIP Project ID 991203A (included in Appendix D).

4.3.3 NO2 Analysis
The U.S. EPA modified the NOZ NAAQS to include a 1-hour standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb) in 2010. Currently there is no federal project -level nitrogen dioxide (NOZ) analysis requirement.

STC Traffic, Inc., 2020.
57 4. Environmental Consequences
However, NOz is among the near -road pollutants of concern. Within the project area, it is unlikely that NOz standards will be approached or exceeded based on the relatively low ambient concentrations of NOz in the South Coast Basin and on the long-term trend toward reduction of NOx emissions. Because of these factors, a specific analysis of NOz was not conducted for the proposed project.

4.3.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
The following discussion is based on the FHWA Memorandum "Information: Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis (MSAT) in NEPA Documents," dated October 18, 2016 (FHWA, 2016c). The purpose of the guidance is to advise when and how to analyze MSAT in the NEPA process for highways. This guidance is provisional because MSAT science is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will update the guidance.

Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSA Ts
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of U.S. EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the National Air Toxics Assessment database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.

The U.S. EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants.

The U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.g oq v/iris.

The following toxicity information for the nine prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from U.S. EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
■ 13-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. ■ Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.

The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.
58 4. Environmental Consequences
■ Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.

Diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary non -cancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.

Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.
■ Naphthalene is a possible human carcinogen, based on the inadequate data of carcinogenicity in humans exposed to naphthalene via the oral and inhalation routes, and the limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals via the inhalation route.
■ Polycyclic organic matter is a probable human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence in animals.

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by U.S. EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near -roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics.

The following recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes, particularly respiratory problems: Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-ll, SCAQMD (2000); Highway Health Hazards, Sierra Club (2004), which summarizes 24 studies on the relationship between health and air quality; and NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs and instead surveys the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants.

It is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. A qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, but it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, between the project and no project conditions. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives.

Evaluation of Project MSAT Potential
The FHWA has developed a tiered approach for analyzing MSATs in NEPA documents. Depending on the specific project circumstances, the FHWA has identified three levels of analysis:
■ No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects, Category (1); ■ Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects, Category (2); or Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects, Category (3).
59 4. Environmental Consequences
Category (1) is limited to projects that qualify as a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c); are exempt under the CAA conformity rule under 40 CFR 93.126; or have no meaningful impacts on traffic volumes or vehicle mix.

The project does not meet any of the Category (1) requirements.

For a project to be of the magnitude to have a higher potential for MSAT effects, Category (3), a project must create or significantly alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential to concentrate high levels of diesel particulate matter in a single location; or create new or add significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban arterials, or urban collector - distributor routes with traffic volumes where the AADT is projected to be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000, or greater, by the design year; and be proposed to be located in proximity to populated areas or in rural areas, in proximity to concentrations of vulnerable populations (i.e., schools, nursing homes, hospitals). For these projects, the November 2015 PM Guidance describes how to complete a quantitative hot spot analyses using the U.S. EPA's MOVES2014a model or, for projects in California, the ARB's Emission Factors (EMFAC) model.

The project would extend Overland Drive from Diaz Road to Enterprise Circle as a new four -lane facility with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. The extension would be a 4-lane arterial with a General Plan capacity of 36,000 ADT. While the project would create a new roadway segment, the estimated maximum ADT would be substantially less than the threshold value of 140,000 AADT, the minimum volume for higher potential MSAT effects (FHWA, 2016c). Therefore, the project would not be included in Category (3).

Therefore, by default, the project would be included in Category (2) and would have a low potential for MSAT effects. This assessment is based on FHWA guidance that projects that do not meet the criteria for Category (1) or Category (3) should be included in Category (2).

The primary objective of the project is to resolve existing traffic network deficiencies within the City.

Currently, motorists heading east from the west side of Murrieta Creek must travel along Diaz Road and cross the creek at the Via Montezuma low water crossing, which is not always accessible during wet weather. The project would provide a variety of transportation benefits. The extension of Avenida Alvarado from Diaz Road to Enterprise Circle would reduce travel distances and ensure adequate access to local businesses. This extension would also provide a direct transportation link to new developments occurring in the immediate area.

The amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same with or without the project. Because the project would construct a new portion of Avenida Alvarado, the project would result in MSAT emissions along the Avenida Alvarado extension that currently don't exist. However, there would be a corresponding reduction in MSAT emissions along the roadway network in the vicinity of the project because vehicle trips would be rerouted to the Avenida Alvarado extension.

With or without the project, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of U.S. EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions.

According to an FHWA analysis using U.S. EPA's MOVES2014a model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 45 percent from 2010 to 2050 as forecast, a combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSATs is projected for the same time period (FHWA, 2016).

Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the U.S. EPA -projected .E

4. Environmental Consequences
reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

Therefore, there would be no local or regional air quality impacts to sensitive receptors from the project

4.3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Construction
Project construction would primarily generate GHG emissions from construction equipment operation on -site, construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site, and from export of materials off -site.

Construction emissions were estimated using the latest SMAQMD's Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) ( http://www.airquality.or_/ ecq qa/, Version 9.0.0). While the model was developed for Sacramento conditions in terms of fleet emission factors, silt loading, and other model assumptions, it is considered adequate for estimating road construction emissions by the SCAQMD (in its CEQA guidance) and is used for that purpose in this project analysis. The model inputs are the same as described under Section 4.2.1 for air quality emissions. Construction -related GHG emissions for the project are presented in Table 17. The results of the construction emission calculations are included in Appendix E. As shown in the table, the temporary GHG emissions would total 2,631.53 tons of COz over the construction period.

Table 17. Project Construction GHG Emissions.

Construction Phase
COz
(Ibs/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing
4,584.59
Grading/Excavation
7,830.08
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
16,372.99
Paving
11,939.52
Maximum Daily or Average Daily
16,372.99
Project Total (Tons)
2,631.53
Operation
While the project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day under the Opening Year (2025) scenario and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045), project study area VMT is only shown to be increasing because the project study area VMT analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area (e.g., Rancho California). The project study area was N

4. Environmental Consequences
determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT forjourneys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 miles. The distance between the two intersections across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. With a reduction in overall trip distance for the area, the project would result in GHG emissions reductions compared to the No Build Alternative.

4.4 Cumulative/Regional/Indirect Effects
The analysis of project impacts to regional air quality, as performed by SCAG and the SCAQMD in conjunction with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023) process, is a cumulative analysis. The project would conform to the assumptions in the conformity analyses for the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023), which are long- range planning documents that include roadway projects throughout the region. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulative impact to air quality. 62 5. Minimization Measures

5. Minimization Measures
CEQA requires that feasible measures that can eliminate or substantially reduce project impacts be addressed. FHWA requires a project to incorporate measures to mitigate adverse impacts caused by the action and requires the project applicant to be responsible for the implementation of the mitigation measures (23 CFR 771).

5.1 Short -Term (Construction)
While the project does not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, it would implement the following measures, some of which may also be required for other purposes such as storm water pollution control, will reduce air quality impacts resulting from construction activities. Please note that although these measures are anticipated to reduce construction -related emissions, these reductions cannot be quantified at this time.
• The construction contractor must comply with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications in Section 14-9 (2015).
- Section 14-9-02 specifically requires compliance by the contractor with all applicable laws and regulations related to air quality, including air pollution control district and air quality management district regulations and local ordinances. • Water or a dust palliative will be applied to the site and equipment as often as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.
• Soil binder will be spread on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes, and on all project construction parking areas.
• Trucks will be washed as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.
• Construction equipment and vehicles will be properly tuned and maintained. All construction equipment will use low sulfur fuel as required by CA Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114.
• A dust control plan will be developed documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and timely re -vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to existing communities.
• Equipment and materials storage sites will be located as far away from residential and park uses as practicable. Construction areas will be kept clean and orderly. • Environmentally sensitive areas will be established near sensitive air receptors. Within these areas, construction activities involving the extended idling of diesel equipment or vehicles will be prohibited, to the extent feasible.
63 5. Minimization Measures
• Track -out reduction measures, such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic, will be used. • All transported loads of soils and wet materials will be covered before transport, or adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) will be provided to minimize emission of dust during transportation.
• Dust and mud that are deposited on paved, public roads due to construction activity and traffic will be promptly and regularly removed to reduce PM emissions. • To the extent feasible, construction traffic will be scheduled and routed to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads during peak travel times.
• Mulch will be installed or vegetation planted as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown PM in the area.

5.2 Long -Term (Operational)
No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required, as the project would not produce substantial operational air quality or GHG impacts since it would result in an overall reduction of distance traveled for vehicles in the area. 64 6. Conclusions

6. Conclusions
As described above, the purpose of the proposed project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula. This would provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek, provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park. The project is assumed to conform to the SIP and no adverse regional or local air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. In addition, as shown in Chapter 4, neither the short-term construction impacts nor the long-term operational impacts would result in substantial air quality or GHG impacts. 65 7. References

7. References
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. California Air Resources Board. May 4.
2021. Annual Toxics Summaries. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/toxics/toxics.html . Accessed February 17, 2021. 2023. California Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html . Top 4 Summary and Hourly Listing. Accessed August 11, 2023.

California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, California Department of Conservation, Geological Surveys. Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/ofr-2000-019.pdf . 2018. Standard Specifications. Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation. Website:
http://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standards/std_specs/2018_StdSpec s/2018_StdSpecs. pdf (accessed February 2021).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. EPA420-B-15-084.

November 2015.
.2016. Memorandum: Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. From Emily Biondi, Acting Director, Office of Natural Environment, to Division Administrators, Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers. October 18, 2016. 2020. Letter from Ray Tellis, Regional Administrator, FTA Region 9, FHWA to Kome Ajise, Executive Director, SCAG. Subject: Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 19- 12 and associated conformity determination. June 5, 2020.
2021. Letter from Ray Tellis, Regional Administrator, FTA Region 9, FHWA to Kome Ajise, Executive Director, SCAG, and Bruce de Terra, Division Chief, Caltrans. Subject: Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 19- 12 and associated conformity determination.

Garza V., Graney P., Sperling D., Niemeier D., Eisinger D., Kear T., and Chang D. 1997. Transportation project -level carbon monoxide protocol revised. Prepared for Environmental Program California Department of Transportation by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, UCD-ITS-RR-97-21, December.

Niemeier, Debbie A., Douglas Eisinger, Tom P. Kear, Daniel P. Chang, Yu Meng (1997) Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-21.

7. References
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2016. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.

Sierra Club. 2004. Highway Health Hazards. Available at:
https://vault.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report04_highwayhealth/report.pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2000. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-ll). Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic- studies/mates-ii/mates-ii-contents-and-executive-summary.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Community Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments:

Connect SoCal. Adopted September 3, 2020.

STC Traffic, Inc. 2019. Traffic Study Report for the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive. October. 2020. Communication between Bill Maddux, Senior Environmental Scientist for Rincon Consultants, and Philip Wrag, STC Traffic, Inc.
.2021. VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum. February 12.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Accessed May 20. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchiel/ap42/ .2015. Transportation conformity guidance for quantitative hotspot analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. Prepared by the U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, EPA-420-13- 15-084, November. Website:
www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-IeveIconformity-and-hot-spot-analyses (accessed November 2019)
Western Region Climatic Center (WRCC). 2020. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Accessed at:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2713 . May 5, 2020.

Western Riverside Council of Governments. 2014. Subregional Climate Action Plan, Final Report.

September 2014. Available at: https://wrcog.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional- Climate-Action-Plan-CAP-PDF?bidld=
67 8. Appendices

8. Appendices

8. Appendices
Appendix A
RTP and TIP Listings for the Project

8. Appendices
Appendix B
FHWA Conformity Determination

8. Appendices
Appendix C
Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist

8. Appendices
Appendix D
Interagency Consultation Documentation

8. Appendices
Appendix E
Construction Emissions Calculations

Appendix B
VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., February 2021)

T
�7,#
VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum
Project: Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Date: February 12, 2021
To: James Lu, PE, SE, CNS Engineers, Inc.

From: David DiPierro, TE, Senior Principal Manager
STC is pleased to present this technical memorandum to provide additional information on behalf of CNS Engineers, to support the Murrieta Creek Bridge project in Temecula, CA. Caltrans request to provide additional air quality analysis requires additional work to be performed to determine the change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the project study area. This technical memorandum addresses Caltrans request and provides additional information for the air quality consultants.

The technical memorandum is structured as follows:
• Methodology
o Project Study Area.
o Analysis Scenarios/Conditions.
o Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis.
o Project Study Area VMT Analysis.
o Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis.
o Construction Employee VMT Analysis.
• Results
o Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis.
o Project Area VMT Analysis.
o Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis.
o Construction Employee VMT Analysis.

Methodology
Protect Study Area
The following project study area segments listed below and shown in Figure 1, were used to determine the VMT and the Peak and Off -Peak Speeds for the project. The project study area is consistent the Murrieta Creek Bridge Traffic Study Report (October 2019, STC Traffic):

1. Diaz Road from Winchester Road to Avenida Alvarado.

2. Diaz Road between Avenida Alvarado and Via Montezuma.

3. Avenida Alvarado west of Diaz Road.

4. Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle and Commerce Center Drive.

5. Overland Drive between Commerce Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue.

6. Overland Drive between Jefferson Ave and Ynez Road (VMT Analysis only).

7. Winchester Road between Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle.

8. Via Montezuma low-water crossing between Diaz Road and Del Rio Road (Existing Condition only, Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis only).

9. Overland Drive between Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle (with project condition only).

STC Traffic, Inc.
5865 Avenida Encinas, Suite 142 B I Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.stctraffic.com

Murrieta Creek Bridge - VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 4Z
Vrk,-
0 AMLAL
7 Roadway Segments
S Bridge
B g Location
i
idge Location
Cv
N
W+E
S
Figure 1
O�D�G Project Study Area
��

l�G
Analysis Scenarios/ Conditions
The following analysis scenarios/conditions were assessed in the Project Study Area VMT Analysis and the Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis:
• Existing year (2019).
• Existing Via Montezuma closed (2019).
• Opening year Without Project (2025).
• Opening year With Project (2025)
• Horizon year Without Project (2045).
• Horizon year With Project (2045).

Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis
The average speeds were derived from traffic modelling software Synchro (v11). Speed is derived by dividing the link distance by the travel time including delay. The synchro network used for the preparation of the Murrieta Creek Bridge Traffic Study Report was used to derive the speed. Average speeds are automatically generated in Synchro for the AM and PM peak hours and were derived using the peak hour intersection counts. Since counts were not collected for the mid -day off peak, ADT were used to calculate an adjustment factor that was applied to the PM peak hour intersection volume. The adjustment factor was calculated by dividing the mid -day peak volume by the PM peak volume. An average of the adjustment factor for all the study area locations was calculated which was applied to the PM peak hour intersection volumes to derive the mid -day off-peak hour intersection volumes. The average adjustment factor was calculated to be 0.93.

The Overland Drive study roadway segment between Jefferson Ave and Ynez Road was excluded from the Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis because Synchro requires data for intersections at both ends of the roadway segment. The Overland Drive/ Ynez Road intersection was outside of the study area and was not assessed.

Project Study Area VMT Analysis
VMT for the project study area roadway segments was calculated using the following equation:

Segment VMT = Segment Length x Average Daily Traf f tic The segment length was calculated using Google Earth. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was obtained from the project Traffic Study Report roadway segment volumes for each scenario/condition.

To determine the project VMT for each segment, the without project VMT was subtracted from the with project VMT. This was carried out for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2045) conditions. The Via Montezuma roadway segment between Diaz Road and Del Rio road was excluded from the analysis as the Traffic Study Report assumed that the low-water crossing would be permanently closed following the completion of the project.

Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis
The source/origin of the construction materials and equipment was derived using information provided by the client. Table 1 shows contractors that are expected to be appointed for the following uses:

Table 1 Anticipated Contractor Information
Origin
Reference
Equipment/Distance
I
Project
Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Ewles Materials
Site (miles)
26160 Adams Avenue,
Site 1
Concrete and Concrete — Murrieta

2.5 Murrieta, CA 92562
Recycling Plant
Hauling Trucks
10910 Dawson
El Sobrate
Site 2
Construction Debris,
Canyon Road, Corona,

29.3 Landfill
Waste Management
CA 92883
Hauling Truck —
SFT Main
Site 3
Corona, CA 92881

33.5 Materials Borrow Site
Quarry Plant
Ready Mix Concrete
Robertson's
26190 Adams Avenue,
Site 4

2.5 Trucks
Ready Mix
Murrieta, CA
Total

67.8 Average Distance from Site

16.95 Average Round -Trip Distance

33.9 Table 1 shows that the average round-trip distance will be 33.9 miles. For a conservative analysis, this was applied as the round-trip distance for other construction equipment where origin is unknown.

The number of round trips required for each type of equipment was provided by the client. This was multiplied by either the round-trip distance provided for the known contractors or the average round trip distance for the unknown contractors, to provide the total VMT for each type of equipment. Equipment will remain on site if it is scheduled to be used in consecutive construction phases.

The construction VMT value will only apply for the duration of the construction phases. The site preparation phase of construction is expected to commence in 2024 with an anticipated construction period of 380 working days. Further information, provided by the client is shown in Attachment A.

Construction Employees VMT Analysis
The number of site workers for each construction phase was provided by the client. The average round- trip distance for construction equipment was also applied to construction employees. It was assumed that 50% of the workforce would stay in Temecula within a 3-mile radius of the project site, and the other 50% would commute the average round-trip distance of 33.9 miles each day. These are considered conservative assumptions for the purpose of this assessment. The construction employee VMT value will only apply for the duration of the construction phases.

Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 4

Results
This section provides tabulated results of the Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis, Project Study Area VMT Analysis, Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis, and the Construction Employees VMT Analysis.

Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis
Table 2 shows the results of the Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis for each study area roadway segment and for each scenario/ condition. The Synchro worksheets are provided in Attachment B. The table shows that speeds vary for each segment and by time of day and direction of travel. Speeds shown in the table during the With Project conditions (2025 and 2045) will be lower on the Diaz Road and Overland Drive segments.

Project Study Area VMT Analysis
Table 3 shows the results of the Project Study Area VMT Analysis for each study roadway segment and for each scenario/ condition. The results show that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day in the Opening Year (2025) and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045).

These values are for the project study area only per the Traffic Study Report and do not consider redistribution of the traffic and potential VMT reductions outside of the study area.

Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis
Table 4 shows the projected construction traffic VMT results based on the assumptions outlined in the methodology section of this technical memorandum. The total construction material and equipment VMT will be 16,926 VMT. This is a rate of 44.5 VMT per day based on the 380 working -day construction period.

Construction Employee VMT Analysis.

Table 5 shows the projected construction employee VMT based on the assumptions outlined in the methodology section of this technical memorandum. The total construction employee VMT will be 2,148 VMT. This is a rate of 5.7 VMT per day based on the 380 working -day construction period.

Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

= 0 T
Table 2 Peak and Off -Peak Travel Speeds
Existing Year
Existing Via
Opening Year
Opening
Via
Montezuma
Without
With Project
Without
With Project
RoadwayTravel
Open (2019)
Diaz Road between
NB

MMMMMMMMWMWWMWWMWM
19 18 14
19 18 14
19 13 12
18 13 13
16 14 13
17 13 12
1 Winchester Road and
Avenida Alvarado
SB
45 45 45
45 45 45
45 45 45
24 25 25
45 45 45
22 23
22 Diaz Road between
NB
44 45 45
44 45 45
44 45
45 34
31 31
44 45
45 32
28 27
2 Avenida Alvarado and Via
Montezuma
SB
45 43 43
45 45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45
3 Avenida Alvarado west of
Diaz Road
EB
21 17 15
21 17 15
21 17
14 21
20 19
12 5
3 17
16 16
WB
35 35 35
35 35 35
35 35
35 35
35 35
35 35
35 35
35 35
Overland Drive between
EB
35 35 35
35 35 35
35 35
35 14
9 9
35 35
35 13
10 9
4 Enterprise Circle and
Commerce Center Drive
WB
18 18 18
18 18 18
18 18 18
24 16 16
18 18 18
15 14
14 Overland Drive between
EB
13 7 5
13 7 5
13 8 7
12 8 7
12 9 8
11 8
7 5
Commerce Center Drive
and Jefferson Avenue
WB
35 35 35
35 35 35
35 35
35 22
19 18
35 35
35 24
20 20
Winchester Road between
EB
19 12 10
19 12 10
18 9
7 19
10 7
17 11
8 18
11 9
7 Diaz Road and Enterprise
Circle
WB
16 13 13
16 13 13
15 13
13 15
13 13
15 10
10 15
T9
9 8
Via Montezuma between
Diaz Road and Del Rio Road
EB
28 27 27
Road Closed
WB
12 10 8
Overland Drive between
EB
20 16
16 21
19 18
9 Diaz Road and Enterprise
Does not exist
Does not exist
Circle
WB
11 14
13 13
12 12
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

Table 3 Project Study Area VMT
Roadway Segment
Length
Existing (2019)
Existing w/o Via
Montezuma
Opening Year
(2025)
OpeningSegment
Project (2025) Project
0,(2045)
Diaz Road from
1 Winchester Road to
1,230 0.233
14,335 3,340
14,335 3,340
16,055 3,741
18,863 4,395 654
18,062 4,208
21,221 4,944
736
Avenida Alvarado
Diaz Road between
2 Avenida Alvarado
1,873

0.355
12,655
4,493
12,655
4,493
14,174
5,032
14,174
5,032
0 15,945
5,660
15,945
5,660
0 and Via Montezuma
Avenida Alvarado
3 west of Diaz Road
3,058

0.579
2,001
1,159
2,001
1,159
2,241
1,298
2,241
1,298
0 2,521
1,460
2,521
1,460
0 Overland Drive
between Enterprise
4 Circle and Commerce
376

0.071
2,977
211
2,977
211
3,334
237
8,868
630
393
3,751
266
9,636
684
418
Center Drive
Overland Drive
between Commerce
5 Center Drive and
947

0.179
6,959
1,246
6,959
1,246
7,794
1,395
13,328
2,386
991
8,768
1,569
14,653
2,623
1,053
Jefferson Avenue
Overland Drive
between Jefferson
6 Avenue and Ynez
1,904

0.361
20,215
7,298
20,215
7,298
22,641
8,173
22,641
8,173
0 25,471
9,195
25,471
9,195
0 Road
Winchester Road
7 between Diaz Road
789

0.149
25,068
3,735
25,068
3,735
28,076
4,183
25,269
3,765
-418
31,586
4,706
28,427
4,236
-471
and Enterprise Circle
Overland Drive
9 between Diaz Road
825

0.156
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
6,400
998
998
Not applicable
7,600
1,186
1,186
and Enterprise Circle*
* With Project condition only
OY 2025 (With Project) VMT Total
2,618
OY 2045 (With Project) VMT Total
2,922
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

Table 4 Construction Material and Equipment VMT
8-Hour Days ' Distance Round No. of
Activity and or Total # of Sit Equipment from Trip Round Working Days Round Trips Worker, Origin Origin Distance Trips N I (miles)
Site Preparation
Traffic Control and
Demolition —15
Days
Excavators
2 15 Days
8 Average

33.9 2

67.8 Loaders
2 15 Days
Average

33.9 2

67.8 Robber Tired Dozers
1 15 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Traffic Control Trucks
1 5 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Hauling Trucks -
N/A
32 Round
Trips
Site 1

2.5 5
32 160
Asphalt Concrete and
Concrete Recycling (Site
1)
Hauling Trucks
N/A
10 Round
Trips
Site 2

29.3 58.6
10 586
Construction Debris
(Site 2)
Clearing and
Grubbing-20 Days
Excavators
2 20 Days
10 Already on site
Dozers
2 20 Days
Average

33.9 2

67.8 Loaders
2 20 Days
Already on site
Hauling Trucks -
N/A
20 Round
Trips
Site 2

29.3 58.6
20 1172
Construction Debris
(Site 2)
Channel Grading
Grading Channel
Slopes — 25 Days
Scrapers
2 25 Days
12 Average

33.9 2

67.8 Excavators
3 25 Days
Already on site
Dozers
2 25 Days
Already on site
Backhoe Loader/Loader
2 25 Days
Average

33.9 2

67.8 Hauling Trucks
N/A
10 Round
Trips
Site 2

29.3 58.6
10 586
Construction Debris
(Site 2)
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

Activity and 8-Hour Days Distance Round No. of
l # of Site Equipment from origin Trip Round Total
Round Trips � Origin
Working,.ys
Stage I Construction
Pile Drilling Rigs
1 55 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Cranes
2 55 Days
Average

33.9 2

67.8 Excavators
2 55 Days
Already on site
Bridge Construction —
Foundation —55 Days
Loaders
2 55 Days
16 Already on site
Ready Mix Concrete
Trucks (Site 4)
N/A
120 Round
Trips
Site 4

2.5 5
120
600
Concrete/Slurry Pump
Truck
2 15 Days
Site 4

2.5 5
1 5
Generator Sets
1 55 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Cranes
2 65 Days
Already on site
Excavators
1 65 Days
Already on site
Bridge Construction —
Loaders
1 65 Days
Already on site
Substructure — 65
Days
16 Ready Mix Concrete
Trucks
N/A
92 Round
Trips
Site 4

2.5 5
92 460
Concrete Pump Truck
1 10 Days
Already on site
Generator Sets
1 65 days
Already on site
Cranes
1 80 Days
Already on site
Ready Mix Concrete
Trucks
N/A
110 Round
Trips
Site 4

2.5 5
110
550
Bridge Construction —
Superstructure — 80
16 Concrete Pump Truck
1 10 Days
Already on site
Bid Well
1 5 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Days
Generator Sets
2 80 Days
Already on site
Forklifts
2 80 Days
Average

33.9 2

67.8 Scrapers
1 40 Days
Already on site
Excavators
2 40 Days
Already on site
Dozers
2 40 Days
Already on site
Rollers
1 40 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Backhoe Loader/Loader
2 40 Days
Average

33.9 2

67.8 Grading/Embankment
Backfill/Pavement—
12 Asphalt Paving Machine
1 5 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Asphalt Paver Finisher
1 5 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 45 Days
Generator Sets
2 45 Days
Already on site
Hauling Truck— Borrow
N/A
64 Round
Trips
Site 3

33.5 67
64 4288
(Site 3)
Hauling Truck —Asphalt
Concrete (Site 1)
N/A
52 Round
Trips
Site 1

2.5 5
32 160
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

7/� .
� TT/1G
Days or Distance Round No. of
OriginEquipment Amount Total Round # of Site Equipment fro m Working Days Trips Workers Origin
Stage II Construction
Traffic Control and
Demolition — 20 Days
Excavators
2 20 Days
10 Already on site
Loaders
2 20 Days
Already on site
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 20 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Traffic Control Trucks
1 5 Days
Average

33.9 1

33.9 Hauling Trucks -
N/A
44 Round Trips
Site 1

2.5 5
44 220
Asphalt Concrete and
Concrete Recycling (Site 1)
Hauling Trucks -
N/A
10 Round Trips
Site 2

29.3 58.6
10 586
Construction Debris (Site 2)
Grading/Embankment
Backfill/Pavement—
55 Days
Scrapers
1 45 Days
14 Already on site
Excavators
2 45 Days
Already on site
Dozers
2 45 Days
Already on site
Rollers
1 45 Days
Already on Site
Backhoe Loader/Loader
2 45 Days
Already on Site
Asphalt Paving Machine
1 10 Days
Already on Site
Asphalt Paver Finisher
1 10 Days
Already on Site
Generator Sets
2 55 Days
Already on site
Hauling Truck — Borrow
N/A
96 Round Trips
Site 3

33.5 67
96 6432
(Site 3)
HaulingTruck— Asphalt
Concrete (Site 1)
N/A
48Round Trips
Site

2.5 5
48 240
Total Construction VMT
16,926
Construction period (working days)
380
VMT per day

44.5 Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 10

7 �T a
Table 5 Construction Employee VMT
8-Hour Loca
Days or Stay # All
Activity and Total Round Loca I Commute commuter Worker Working Days Round Trip VIVIT Daily VIVIT VIVIT
Trips MI Dist.

Site Preparation
Traffic Control
and Demolition
—15 Days
Excavators
2 15 Days
8 4
6 24
4 33.9
135.6
159.6
Loaders
2 15 Days
Robber Tired Dozers
1 15 Days
Traffic Control Trucks
1 5 Days
Hauling Trucks -
N/A
32 Round
Trips
Asphalt Concrete and
Concrete Recycling
(Site 1)
Hauling Trucks -
N/A
10 Round
Trips
Construction Debris
(Site 2)
Clearing and
Grubbing-20
Days
Excavators
2 20 Days
10 5
6 24
5 33.9
169.5
193.5
Dozers
2 20 Days
Loaders
2 20 Days
Hauling Trucks -
N/A
20 Round
Trips
Construction Debris
(Site 2)
Channel Grading
Grading
Channel Slopes
— 25 Days
Scrapers
2 25 Days
12 6
6 24
6 33.9
203.4
227.4
Excavators
3 25 Days
Dozers
2 25 Days
Backhoe
Loader/Loader
2 25 Days
Hauling Trucks -
N/A
10 Round
Trips
Construction Debris
(Site 2)
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

=w,
Days or Loca Stay Average
Activity and # of Site Round Round Commuter
Total Local
Working Days Round Workers Trip VMT Trip VMT
I N
Dist. Distance*
Trips
Stage I Construction
Pile Drilling
1 55 Days
Rigs
Cranes
2 55 Days
Excavators
2 55 Days
Loaders
2 55 Days
Bridge
Ready Mix
Construction—
16 8
6 24
8 33.9
271.2
295.2
Foundation — 55
Concrete
N/A
120 Round
Da y s
Trucks (Site 4)
Trips
p s
Concrete/Slur
ry Pump Truck
2 15 Days
Generator
1 55 Days
Sets
Cranes
2 65 Days
Excavators
1 65 Days
Loaders
1 65 Days
Bridge
Ready Mix
92 Round
Construction —
Substructure — 65
Concrete
N/A
Trips
16 8
6 24
8 33.9
271.2
295.2
Trucks
Days
Concrete
Pump Truck
1 10 Days
Generator
1 65 days
Sets
Cranes
1 80 Days
Ready Mix
Concrete
N/A
110 Round
Trucks
Trips
Bridge
Construction —
Concrete
Pump Truck
1 10 Days
16 8
6 24
8 33.9
271.2
295.2
Superstructure—
Bid Well
1 5 Days
80 Days
Generator
Sets
2 80 Days
Forklifts
2 80 Days
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 12

M",
8-Hour Local
Activity and Working Days or # of Site # Stay Round Stay # Average Equipment Local Commute Round Trip
Commuter All Worker
Amount
Days Total Round Workers Local Trip VMT VMT
Trips Dist. VMT Daily Distance'
Scrapers
1 40 Days
Excavators
2 40 Days
Dozers
2 40 Days
Rollers
1 40 Days
Backhoe
Loader/Loader
2 40 Days
Asphalt Paving
Machine
1 5 Days
Grading/Embankment
Backfill/Pavement—
45 Days
Asphalt Paver
Finisher
1 5 Days
12 6
6 24
6 33.9
203.4
227.4
Generator Sets
2 45 Days
Hauling Truck —
Borrow
N/A
64 Round
Trips
(Site 3)
Hauling Truck —
Asphalt
Concrete (Site
N/A
52 Round
Trips
1)
Stage II Construction
Excavators
2 20 Days
Loaders
2 20 Days
Rubber Tired
Dozers
1 20 Days
Traffic Control
Trucks
1 5 Days
Traffic Control and
Demolition — 20 Days
10 5
6 24
5 33.9
169.5
193.5
Hauling Trucks -
Asphalt
Concrete and
Concrete
N/A
44 Round
Trips
Recycling (Site
1)
HaulingTrucks-
N/A
10 Round
Trips
Construction
Debris (Site 2)
Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

Scrapers
1 45 Days
Excavators
2 45 Days
Dozers
2 45 Days
Rollers
1 45 Days
Backhoe
Loader/Loader
2 45 Days
Asphalt Paving
Machine
1 10 Days
Grading/Embankment
Asphalt Paver
Finisher
1 10 Days
Backfill/Pavement—
55 Days
14 Generator
Sets
2 55 Days
Hauling Truck
— Borrow
N/A
96 Round
Trips
(Site 3)
Hauling Truck
—Asphalt
Concrete (Site
N/A
48 Round
Trips
1)
Based on average round trip distance for construction equipment = 33.9 miles 7 1 6 1 24 1 7 1 33.9 1 237.3 1 261.3
Total Worker VMT 2,148
Construction period (working days) 380
VMT per day 5.7
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis shows that during the With Project conditions (2025 and 2045), speeds will be lower on the Diaz Road and Overland Drive segments.

The Project Study Area VMT Analysis showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day in the Opening Year (2025) and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045). The analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area.

The Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis shows that the Construction Material and Equipment VMT will be 44.5 VMT per day.

The Construction Employee VMT Analysis shows that the Construction Employee VMT will be 5.7 VMT per day.

The construction VMT rates will only apply during the 380 working -day construction period which is expected to commence in 2024. The project is expected to be complete in September 2025.

Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment

Sincerely,
STC Traffic
j7j
David DiPierro, TE
Senior Principal Manager
Attachment A: Construction Contractor Information from Client Attachment B: Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis Synchro Worksheets Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 15

Attachment A - Client Information
TABLE 1-1: CONSTRUCTION PHASES AND DURATION
Activity
Work Description
Start Date
End Date
Working
Days
Advertisement and Award
Advertisement and Award
N/A
10/2/2023
1/31/2024
N/A
Site Preparation
Traffic Control and
Shift traffic on Diaz Road and
2/1/2024
2/22/2024
15 Demolition
remove asphalt pavement
Prepare the site to access the
Clearing and Grubbing
channel bottom from east and
2/23/2024
3/25/2024
20 west approaches
Channel Grading
Grade channel slopes at bridge
Grading Channel Slopes
and tie in to upstream and
3/26/2024
4/29/2024
25 downstream transition
Stage I Construction
Bridge Construction -
Install pile foundations
5/1/2024
7/17/2024
55 Foundation
Bridge Construction —
Construct pier columns,
7/18/2024
10/17/2025
65 Substructure
abutment walls, and slope linings
Bridge Construction —
Construct girders and railings
10/18/2025
2/7/2025
80 Superstructure
Grading/Embankment
Construct east and west
Backfill/Pavement
approaches, and east side of Diaz
2/10/2025
4/11/2025
45 Road
Stage 11 Construction
Traffic Control and
Shift traffic on Diaz Road and
4/14/2025
5/12/2025
20 Demolition
remove pavement
Grading/Embankment
Construct west side of Diaz Road
5/13/2025
7/29/2025
55 Backfill/Pavement
and extend Avenida Alvarado
Project Closure
Demobilization/Project
N/A
7/30/2025
9/30/2025
N/A
Closure

TABLE 1-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Activity and
Working Days
Equipment
Amount
8-Hour Days or
Total Round Trips
# of Site
Workers
Site Preparation
Traffic Control and
Demolition —15 Days
Excavators
2 15 Days
8 Loaders
2 15 Days
Robber Tired Dozers
1 15 Days
Traffic Control Trucks
1 5 Days
Hauling Trucks -
Asphalt Concrete and
Concrete Recycling (Site 1)
N/A
32 Round Trips
Hauling Trucks -
Construction Debris (Site 2)
N/A
10 Round Trips
Clearing and Grubbing
— 20 Days
Excavators
2 20 Days
10 Dozers
2 20 Days
Loaders
2 20 Days
Hauling Trucks -
Construction Debris (Site 2)
N/A
20 Round Trips
Channel Grading
Grading Channel
Slopes — 25 Days
Scrapers
2 25 Days
12 Excavators
3 25 Days
Dozers
2 25 Days
Backhoe Loader/Loader
2 25 Days
Hauling Trucks -
Construction Debris (Site 2)
N/A
10 Round Trips
Stage I Construction
Bridge Construction —
Foundation — 55 Days
Pile Drilling Rigs
1 55 Days
16 Cranes
2 55 Days
Excavators
2 55 Days
Loaders
2 55 Days
Ready Mix Concrete Trucks
(Site 4)
N/A
120 Round Trips
Concrete/Slurry Pump Truck
2 15 Days
Generator Sets
1 55 Days
Bridge Construction —
Substructure — 65
Days
Cranes
2 65 Days
16 Excavators
1 65 Days
Loaders
1 65 Days
Ready Mix Concrete Trucks
N/A
92 Round Trips
Concrete Pump Truck
1 10 Days
Generator Sets
1 65 days
Cranes
1 80 Days
16 Activity and
Working Days
Equipment
Amount
8-Hour Days or
Total Round Trips
# of Site
Workers
Bridge Construction —
Superstructure — 80
Days
Ready Mix Concrete Trucks
N/A
110 Round Trips
Concrete Pump Truck
1 10 Days
Bid Well
1 5 Days
Generator Sets
2 80 Days
Forklifts
2 80 Days
Grading/Embankment
Backfill/Pavement—
45 Days
Scrapers
1 40 Days
12 Excavators
2 40 Days
Dozers
2 40 Days
Rollers
1 40 Days
Backhoe Loader/Loader
2 40 Days
Asphalt Paving Machine
1 5 Days
Asphalt Paver Finisher
1 5 Days
Generator Sets
2 45 Days
Hauling Truck — Borrow
(Site 3)
N/A
64 Round Trips
Hauling Truck — Asphalt
Concrete (Site 1)
N/A
52 Round Trips
Stage II Construction
Traffic Control and
Demolition — 20 Days
Excavators
2 20 Days
10 Loaders
2 20 Days
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 20 Days
Traffic Control Trucks
1 5 Days
Hauling Trucks -
Asphalt Concrete and
Concrete Recycling (Site 1)
N/A
44 Round Trips
Hauling Trucks -
Construction Debris (Site 2)
N/A
10 Round Trips
Grading/Embankment
Backfill/Pavement —
55 Days
Scrapers
1 45 Days
14 Excavators
2 45 Days
Dozers
2 45 Days
Rollers
1 45 Days
Backhoe Loader/Loader
2 45 Days
Asphalt Paving Machine
1 10 Days
Asphalt Paver Finisher
1 10 Days
Generator Sets
2 55 Days
Hauling Truck — Borrow
(Site 3)
N/A
96 Round Trips
Hauling Truck — Asphalt
Concrete (Site 1)
N/A
48 Round Trips

Site 1 - Asphalt Concrete Recycling and Supply Site: Ewles Materials - Murrieta Plant at 26160 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562
Site 2 - Construction Debris Dump Site: Waste Management - El Sobrante Landfill at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road, Corona, CA 92883
Site 3 — Materials Borrow Site: FST Main Quarry Plant, Corona, CA 92881 Site 4— Ready Mix Concrete Plant: Robertson's Ready Mix at 26190 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562

Attachment B - Peak & Off -Peak Speeds Analysis Synchro Worksheets Measures of Effectiveness EX —AM —Via Montezuma Open
Ave Alvarado
Direction EB WB All
Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28
Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1
Distance Traveled (mi) 13 24 37
Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4
Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
44 45
44 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 4
9 Distance Traveled (mi)
208
188
396
Performance Index

0.3 0.1

0.4 111110M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 45
30 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 3
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
76 129
205
Performance Index

2.6 0.0

2.6 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 35
23 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 2
4 Distance Traveled (mi)
30 66
96 Performance Index

1.8 1.0

2.9 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB WB All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18 20
Total Travel Time (hr)
0 1 1
Distance Traveled (mi)
3 12 15
Performance Index

0.1 0.8 0.9
Via Montezuma
Direction
EB WB All
Average Speed (mph)
28 12 14
Total Travel Time (hr)
0 1 2
Distance Traveled (mi)
8 15 23
Performance Index

0.0 1.1 1.1
Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
EX —AM —Via Montezuma Open
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 16
16 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 24
28 Distance Traveled (mi)
70 371
441
Performance Index

2.8 18.6

21.4 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness EX —MD —Via Montezuma Open
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
17 35
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
39 10
49 Performance Index

1.6 0.0

1.6 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
45 43
44 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 7
12 Distance Traveled (mi)
209
325
534
Performance Index

0.1 0.8

1.0 BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
18 45
26 Total Travel Time (hr)
7 3
11 Distance Traveled (mi)
136
143
279
Performance Index

5.6 0.0

5.6 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 35
8 Total Travel Time (hr)
15 1
17 Distance Traveled (mi)
101
40 140
Performance Index

13.8 0.6

14.4 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
0 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
17 5
22 Performance Index

0.7 0.3

1.0 Via Montezuma
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
27 10
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 1
2 Distance Traveled (mi)
41 9
50 Performance Index

0.0 0.8

0.8 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
EX —MD —Via Montezuma Open
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
12 13
12 Total Travel Time (hr)
23 9
32 Distance Traveled (mi)
270
119
389
Performance Index

20.2 7.4

27.7 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness EX —PM —Via Montezuma Open
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
15 35
17 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
42 11
53 Performance Index

2.1 0.0

2.1 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB All
Average Speed (mph)
45 43 44
Total Travel Time (hr)
5 8 13
Distance Traveled (mi)
224
349 573
Performance Index

0.2 0.9 1.1
BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
14 45
22 Total Travel Time (hr)
10 3
14 Distance Traveled (mi)
146
153
300
Performance Index

8.5 0.0

8.5 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
5 35
6 Total Travel Time (hr)
22 1
23 Distance Traveled (mi)
108
43 151
Performance Index

20.5 0.7

21.1 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
18 6
24 Performance Index

0.7 0.4

1.1 Via Montezuma
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
27 8
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 1
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
44 9
53 Performance Index

0.0 1.0

1.0 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
EX —PM —Via Montezuma Open
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
10 13
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
28 10
38 Distance Traveled (mi)
291
127
418
Performance Index

25.7 8.2

33.9 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness EX —AM —Via Montezuma Closed
Ave Alvarado
Direction EB WB All
Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28
Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1
Distance Traveled (mi) 13 24 37
Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4
Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
44 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 4
9 Distance Traveled (mi)
208
192
401
Performance Index

0.3 0.0

0.3 DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 45
30 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 3
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
76 129
205
Performance Index

2.6 0.0

2.6 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 35
23 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 2
4 Distance Traveled (mi)
30 66
96 Performance Index

1.8 1.0

2.9 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
0 1
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
3 12
15 Performance Index

0.1 0.8

0.9 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 16
16 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 24
28 Distance Traveled (mi)
70 371
441
Performance Index

2.8 18.6

21.4 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness EX —MD —Via Montezuma Closed
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
17 35
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
40 10
50 Performance Index

1.6 0.0

1.6 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB All
Average Speed (mph)
45 45 45
Total Travel Time (hr)
5 7 11
Distance Traveled (mi)
209
307 516
Performance Index

0.1 0.0 0.1
DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
18 45
26 Total Travel Time (hr)
7 3
11 Distance Traveled (mi)
136
143
279
Performance Index

5.6 0.0

5.6 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 35
8 Total Travel Time (hr)
15 1
17 Distance Traveled (mi)
101
40 140
Performance Index

13.8 0.6

14.4 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
0 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
17 5
22 Performance Index

0.7 0.3

1.0 Via Montezuma
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
15 30
17 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
41 13
54 Performance Index

1.7 0.0

1.7 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
EX —MD —Via Montezuma Closed
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
12 13
12 Total Travel Time (hr)
22 9
31 Distance Traveled (mi)
270
118
389
Performance Index

19.8 7.4

27.2 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness EX —PM —Via Montezuma Closed
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
15 35
17 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
43 11
53 Performance Index

2.1 0.0

2.1 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
45 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 7
12 Distance Traveled (mi)
224
330
554
Performance Index

0.2 0.0

0.2 DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
14 45
22 Total Travel Time (hr)
10 3
14 Distance Traveled (mi)
146
153
300
Performance Index

8.5 0.0

8.5 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
5 35
6 Total Travel Time (hr)
22 1
23 Distance Traveled (mi)
108
43 151
Performance Index

20.5 0.7

21.1 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
18 6
24 Performance Index

0.7 0.4

1.1 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
10 13
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
28 10
38 Distance Traveled (mi)
291
127
418
Performance Index

25.2 8.2

33.4 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2025_AM_Without Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction EB WB All
Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28
Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1
Distance Traveled (mi) 14 26 41
Performance Index 0.5 0.0 0.5
Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
44 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 5
10 Distance Traveled (mi)
233
215
448
Performance Index

0.3 0.0

0.3 DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 45
30 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 3
8 Distance Traveled (mi)
85 144
230
Performance Index

3.0 0.0

3.0 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 35
23 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 2
5 Distance Traveled (mi)
34 74
107
Performance Index

2.0 1.1

3.1 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
0 1
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
3 14
17 Performance Index

0.1 0.9

1.0 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
18 15
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 28
33 Distance Traveled (mi)
79 416
495
Performance Index

3.4 23.0

26.4 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2025_MD_Without Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
17 35
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
48 11
59 Performance Index

2.0 0.0

2.0 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
45 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 8
13 Distance Traveled (mi)
233
343
577
Performance Index

0.2 0.0

0.2 DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 45
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
12 4
15 Distance Traveled (mi)
152
160
312
Performance Index

10.0 0.0

10.0 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
8 35
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
14 1
15 Distance Traveled (mi)
113
44 157
Performance Index

12.0 0.7

12.6 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
19 6
25 Performance Index

0.7 0.4

1.1 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
9 13
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
32 10
42 Distance Traveled (mi)
303
132
435
Performance Index

29.3 8.6

38.0 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2025_PM_Without Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
14 35
16 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 0
4 Distance Traveled (mi)
52 12
64 Performance Index

2.7 0.0

2.7 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
45 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
6 8
14 Distance Traveled (mi)
251
370
621
Performance Index

0.2 0.0

0.2 DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
12 45
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
14 4
18 Distance Traveled (mi)
164
172
336
Performance Index

11.8 0.0

11.8 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 35
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
16 1
18 Distance Traveled (mi)
121
48 169
Performance Index

14.6 0.7

15.3 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
21 6
27 Performance Index

0.8 0.4

1.2 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 13
8 Total Travel Time (hr)
46 11
57 Distance Traveled (mi)
326
142
468
Performance Index

43.1 9.5

52.6 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2025_AM_with Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction EB WB All
Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28
Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1
Distance Traveled (mi) 15 27 42
Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4
Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
34 45
38 Total Travel Time (hr)
7 5
12 Distance Traveled (mi)
231
215
446
Performance Index

2.5 0.0

2.5 BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB All
Average Speed (mph)
18 24 22
Total Travel Time (hr)
5 6 11
Distance Traveled (mi)
85 147 232
Performance Index

3.2 4.1 7.3
Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
12 22
18 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 6
10 Distance Traveled (mi)
52 124
176
Performance Index

3.5 3.2

6.7 Overland Dr D-E
Direction
EB WB All
Average Speed (mph)
20 11 13
Total Travel Time (hr)
1 5 5
Distance Traveled (mi)
20 51 70
Performance Index

0.7 3.5 4.2
Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
14 24
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 2
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
13 38
51 Performance Index

0.9 0.9

1.8 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
2025_AM_with Project
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 15
16 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 25
29 Distance Traveled (mi)
79 380
459
Performance Index

3.0 20.2

23.2 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2025_MD_with Project
01/20/2021
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
20 35
21 Total Travel Time (hr)
2 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
46 11
57 Performance Index

1.4 0.0

1.4 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
31 45
38 Total Travel Time (hr)
8 8
15 Distance Traveled (mi)
232
343
576
Performance Index

3.2 0.0

3.2 BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 25
18 Total Travel Time (hr)
11 7
19 Distance Traveled (mi)
152
180
332
Performance Index

9.6 4.5

14.1 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
8 19
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
19 4
23 Distance Traveled (mi)
151
79 230
Performance Index

16.6 2.6

19.3 Overland Dr D-E
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
16 14
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 3
6 Distance Traveled (mi)
52 35
88 Performance Index

2.5 1.9

4.4 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
9 16
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 1
6 Distance Traveled (mi)
44 23
67 Performance Index

4.7 1.2

5.9 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
10 13
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
32 10
41 Distance Traveled (mi)
303
123
426
Performance Index

29.0 7.9

36.9 2025_MD_with Project
01/20/2021
Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2025_PM_with Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 35
21 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
50 12
61 Performance Index

1.5 0.0

1.5 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
31 45
38 Total Travel Time (hr)
8 8
16 Distance Traveled (mi)
249
370
619
Performance Index

3.5 0.0

3.5 BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 25
17 Total Travel Time (hr)
13 8
21 Distance Traveled (mi)
163
194
358
Performance Index

10.9 4.9

15.8 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 18
9 Total Travel Time (hr)
23 5
28 Distance Traveled (mi)
163
85 248
Performance Index

20.4 3.1

23.5 Overland Dr D-E
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
16 13
14 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 3
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
56 38
94 Performance Index

2.8 2.2

5.0 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
9 16
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
6 2
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
48 25
72 Performance Index

5.4 1.3

6.7 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
2025_PM_with Project
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 13
8 Total Travel Time (hr)
46 10
56 Distance Traveled (mi)
326
132
458
Performance Index

42.6 8.7

51.4 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2045 AM Without Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction EB WB All
Average Speed (mph) 12 35 21
Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 2
Distance Traveled (mi) 15 29 44
Performance Index 1.1 0.0 1.1
Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
44 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
8 12
20 Distance Traveled (mi)
355
555
909
Performance Index

0.4 0.0

0.4 DOM '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
16 45
28 Total Travel Time (hr)
11 7
18 Distance Traveled (mi)
179
324
504
Performance Index

8.1 0.0

8.1 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
12 35
21 Total Travel Time (hr)
4 2
6 Distance Traveled (mi)
48 84
133
Performance Index

3.2 1.3

4.5 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
0 1
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
4 15
20 Performance Index

0.2 1.0

1.2 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
17 15
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 29
34 Distance Traveled (mi)
90 424
515
Performance Index

4.3 23.8

28.1 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2045 MD Without Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
5 35
7 Total Travel Time (hr)
9 0
9 Distance Traveled (mi)
47 13
60 Performance Index

7.9 0.0

7.9 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
45 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
12 11
22 Distance Traveled (mi)
524
480
1004
Performance Index

0.2 0.0

0.2 Diaz Rd W-AA
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
14 45
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
23 6
29 Distance Traveled (mi)
325
251
576
Performance Index

19.4 0.0

19.4 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
9 35
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
14 1
16 Distance Traveled (mi)
126
51 177
Performance Index

12.2 0.8

13.0 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
22 6
29 Performance Index

0.8 0.4

1.3 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
11 10
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
31 14
46 Distance Traveled (mi)
336
150
486
Performance Index

28.6 12.6

41.2 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2045 PM Without Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
3 35
4 Total Travel Time (hr)
16 0
17 Distance Traveled (mi)
51 14
64 Performance Index

15.3 0.0

15.3 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
45 45
45 Total Travel Time (hr)
13 11
24 Distance Traveled (mi)
564
516
1080
Performance Index

0.2 0.0

0.2 Diaz Rd W-AA
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 45
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
27 6
33 Distance Traveled (mi)
349
270
619
Performance Index

22.6 0.0

22.6 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
8 35
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
16 2
18 Distance Traveled (mi)
135
55 190
Performance Index

14.4 0.8

15.2 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
35 18
29 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 0
1 Distance Traveled (mi)
24 7
31 Performance Index

0.9 0.5

1.4 Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
8 10
9 Total Travel Time (hr)
44 16
60 Distance Traveled (mi)
362
161
522
Performance Index

41.4 14.1

55.5 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2045 AM With Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB WB All
Average Speed (mph)
17 35 26
Total Travel Time (hr)
1 1 2
Distance Traveled (mi)
17 35 52
Performance Index

0.7 0.0 0.7
Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
32 45
39 Total Travel Time (hr)
11 12
23 Distance Traveled (mi)
356 553
909
Performance Index

4.4 0.0

4.4 BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
17 22
20 Total Travel Time (hr)
11 15
26 Distance Traveled (mi)
179
334
513
Performance Index

8.0 10.7

18.7 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
11 24
17 Total Travel Time (hr)
6 6
13 Distance Traveled (mi)
72 143
215
Performance Index

5.3 3.1

8.5 Overland Dr D-E
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
21 13
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 4
6 Distance Traveled (mi)
27 59
86 Performance Index

0.9 3.3

4.2 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 15
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
1 3
4 Distance Traveled (mi)
16 43
59 Performance Index

1.2 2.5

3.6 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
2045 AM With Project
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
18 15
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 26
31 Distance Traveled (mi)
90 389
479
Performance Index

3.6 21.4

25.0 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2045 MD With Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
16 35
19 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 0
3 Distance Traveled (mi)
47 16
64 Performance Index

1.9 0.0

1.9 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
28 45
34 Total Travel Time (hr)
19 11
30 Distance Traveled (mi)
524
480
1004
Performance Index

9.5 0.0

9.5 BF-M '•11 1q
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
13 23
16 Total Travel Time (hr)
25 12
37 Distance Traveled (mi)
325
274
599
Performance Index

20.9 8.0

28.9 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
8 20
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
20 4
24 Distance Traveled (mi)
159
84 244
Performance Index

17.7 2.4

20.0 Overland Dr D-E
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
19 12
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 3
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
57 43
100
Performance Index

2.2 2.7

4.9 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
10 14
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
5 2
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
49 25
74 Performance Index

4.9 1.7

6.6 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
2045 MD With Project
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
11 9
11 Total Travel Time (hr)
30 15
45 Distance Traveled (mi)
336
139
475
Performance Index

26.9 13.1

40.0 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness 2045 PM With Project
Ave Alvarado
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
16 35
18 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 1
4 Distance Traveled (mi)
51 18
69 Performance Index

2.2 0.0

2.2 Diaz Rd AA-VM
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
27 45
33 Total Travel Time (hr)
21 11
32 Distance Traveled (mi)
564
516
1080
Performance Index

10.6 0.0

10.6 Diaz Rd W-AA
Direction
NB
SIB
All
Average Speed (mph)
12 22
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
28 13
42 Distance Traveled (mi)
349
294
644
Performance Index

24.2 9.0

33.2 Overland Dr CC-J
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
7 20
9 Total Travel Time (hr)
25 5
29 Distance Traveled (mi)
171
91 262
Performance Index

22.3 2.7

25.0 Overland Dr D-E
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
18 12
15 Total Travel Time (hr)
3 4
7 Distance Traveled (mi)
61 46
107
Performance Index

2.4 3.1

5.5 Overland Dr E-CC
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
9 14
10 Total Travel Time (hr)
6 2
8 Distance Traveled (mi)
53 27
80 Performance Index

5.7 1.8

7.5 Synchro 11 Report

Measures of Effectiveness
2045 PM With Project
Winchester Rd
Direction
EB
WB
All
Average Speed (mph)
9 9
9 Total Travel Time (hr)
43 17
59 Distance Traveled (mi)
362
149
511
Performance Index

38.8 15.0

53.8 Synchro 11 Report

Appendix C
Road Construction Emissions Model Methodology (Rincon Consultants Inc., February 2022)

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Murietta Creek Bridge
Total Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (Ibs/day) CO (Ibs/day)
NOx (Ibslday)
PM10 (Ibs/day) PM10 (Ibs/day)
PM10 (Ibs/day)
PM2.5 (Ibs/day)
PM2.5 (Ibs/day)
PM2.5 (Ibs/day)
SOx (Ibslday)
CO2 (Ibslday)
CH4 (Ibslday)
N20 (Ibs/day)
CO2e (Ibslday)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.68 27.35

15.97 15.75 0.75

15.00 3.78

0.66 3.12

0.05 4,588.26

1.24 0.13
4,658.29
Grading/Excavation 3.90 34.95

37.76 16.73 1.73

15.00 4.64

1.52 3.12

0.08 7,832.38

2.18 0.14
7,927.75
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.09 87.23

66.09 17.96 2.96

15.00 5.85

2.73 3.12

0.17 16,376.92

3.66 0.24
16,541.30
Paving 4.97 56.87

47.38 2.01 2.01

0.00 1.82

1.82 0.00

0.12 11,944.51

3.14 0.24
12,094.99
Maximum (pounds/day) 7.09 87.23

66.09 17.96 2.96

15.00 5.85

2.73 3.12

0.17 16,376.92

3.66 0.24
16,541.30
Total (tons/construction project) 1.13 13.73

10.62 2.76 0.47

2.29 0.91

0.43 0.48

0.03 2,632.29

0.61 0.04
2,660.49
Notes: Project Start Year -> 2024
Project Length (months) -> 17
Total Project Area (acres) -> 2
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 2
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)
Daily VMT (miles/day)
Phase Soil Asphalt
Soil Hauling
Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute
Water Truck
Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 837
117
0 200
40 Grading/Excavation 0 0
59 0 1,120
40 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 0
134
0 720
40 Paving 0 837
201
0 320
40 PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions
shown in columns J and K.

CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N20, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Murietta Creek Bridge Total Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Total
Exhaust
Fugitive Dust
Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase)
PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase)
PM10 (tons/phase)
PM2.5 (tons/phase)
PM2.5 (tons/phase)
PM2.5 (tonslphase)
SOx (tons/phase)
CO2 (tons/phase)
CH4 (tons/phase)
N20 (tons/phase)
CO2e (MT/phase)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.48

0.28 0.28 0.01

0.26 0.07

0.01 0.05

0.00 80.29

0.02 0.00

73.95 Grading/Excavation 0.05 0.44

0.47 0.21 0.02

0.19 0.06

0.02 0.04

0.00 97.90

0.03 0.00

89.90 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.87 10.69

8.10 2.20 0.36

1.84 0.72

0.33 0.38

0.02 2,006.17

0.45 0.03
1,838.26
Paving 0.19 2.13

1.78 0.08 0.08

0.00 0.07

0.07 0.00

0.00 447.92

0.12 0.01
411.47
Maximum (tons/phase) 0.87 10.69

8.10 2.20 0.36

1.84 0.72

0.33 0.38

0.02 2006.17

0.45 0.03
1,838.26
Total (tons/construction project) 1.13 13.73

10.62 2.76 0.47

2.29 0.91

0.43 0.48

0.03 2632.29

0.61 0.04
2,413.58
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N20, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated
by summing CO2e estimates over
all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.

Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background.

The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.

Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.

Input Type
Project Name
Construction Start Year
Project Type
Project Construction Time
Working Days per Month
Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3
(for project within "Sacramento County', follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
Project Length
Total Project Area
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day
ater Trucks Used?
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Murietta Creek Bridge
2024
3 17.00

22.00 1

0.14 1.50

1.50 1
Enter a Year between 2014 and
2040 (inclusive)
To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.

SACRARENTO METRCPO! !AV
%ICE QUALITY

MANAGEMENI DISTRICT
1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non -roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction months
days (assume 22 if unknown)
1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock -Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the lone formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) miles
acres
acres

1. Yes

2. No
Material Type
Phase
Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if
unknown
Import Volume (yd3/day)
Export Volume (yd3/day)
Soil
Grubbing/Land Clearing

20.00 Grading/Excavation

20.00 IDrainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade

20.00 Paving20.00
Asphalt
Grubbing/Land Clearing

0.00 837.00
Grading/Excavation

0.00 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade

0.00 Paving

0.00 837.00
Mitigation Options
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.

On -road Fleet Emissions Mitigation No Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On -road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on -road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer Off -road Equipment Emissions Mitigation Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off -road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can No Mitigation be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure ( http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation) .

Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off -road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional.

Data Entry Worksheet

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53 Construction Periods
User Override of
Construction Months
Program
Calculated
Months
User Override of
Phase Starting Date
Program
Default
Phase Starting Date
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Grading/Excavation
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Paving
Totals (Months)

1.59 1.70
2/1/2024
1/1/2024

1.14 6.80
3/26/2024
2/19/2024

11.14 5.95
5/1 /2024
3/25/2024

3.41 2.55
4/14/2025
2/27/2025
17 Please note: You have entered a different number of months than the project length shown in cell D16.

Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64 Soil Hauling Emissions
User Override of
Program Estimate of
User Override of Truck
Default Values
Calculated
User Input
Miles/Round Trip
Miles/Round Trip
Round Trips/Day
Round Trips/Day
Daily VMT
Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing

58.60 30.00
2 0
117.20
Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Miles/round trip: Paving
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.48 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,698.02 0.00 0.27 1,777.60 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30.00 0

0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 2

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.

Worker Commute Emissions
User Override of Worker
User Input
Commute Default Values
Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip
20 Calculated
Calculated
Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, 1153 through 1156, and F153 through F156.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust
Grading/Excavation - Exhaust
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade
Paving
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.48 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,698.02 0.00 0.27 1,777.60 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 150.28 0.00 0.02 157.32 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 2.75 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 150.28 0.00 0.02 157.32 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.00 0.00 1.97 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 149.74 0.00 0.02 156.76 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.34 0.00 0.00 19.20 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 148.35 0.00 0.02 155.30 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 5.82 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.41 0.00 0.00 29.75 1 5
5 8.00

40.00 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.

Fugitive Dust User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.50 15.00 0.26 3.12 0.05 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 1.50 15.00 0.19 3.12 0.04 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1.50 15.00 1.84 3.12 0.38 Data Entry Worksheet 3
Data Entry Worksheet 3

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Off -Road Equipment Emissions
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Override of Default Number of Vehicles
Default
Number of Vehicles
Program -estimate
Mitigation Option
Override of
Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)
Current
Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day
Model Default Tier
Aerial Lifts
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Cranes
Crawler Tractors
Crushing/Proc. Equipment
Excavators
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Graders
Off -Highway Tractors
Off -Highway Trucks
Other Construction Equipment
Other General Industrial Equipn
Other Material Handling Equiprr
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Loaders
Scrapers
Signal Boards
Skid Steer Loaders
Surfacing Equipment
Sweepers/Scrubbers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Trenchers
Welders

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.72 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.86

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

13.06 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.30

0.00 0.00

0.00 13.41

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

5.61 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.36

0.00 0.00

0.00 8.69

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.28 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.40

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.25 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.37

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,001.06

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

49.31 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,810.60

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.65 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.59

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,022.64

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

49.56 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,830.08

0.00 0.00
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

4.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
1 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

6.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
User -Defined Off -road Equipment
Number of Vehicles
If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day

0.00 N/A
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 1 N/A

0.00 N/A
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Grubbing/Land Clearing
pounds per day
tons per phase

1.64 0.03

26.77 0.47

14.66 0.26

0.69 0.01

0.63 0.01

0.04 0.00
3,860.98

67.57 1.24

0.02 0.03

0.00 3,902.28

68.29 Data Entry Worksheet

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Grading/Excavation
Override of Default Number of Vehicles
Default
Number of Vehicles
Program -estimate
Mitigation Option
Override of
Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)
Current
Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day
Model Default Tier
Aerial Lifts
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Cranes
Crawler Tractors
Crushing/Proc. Equipment
Excavators
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Graders
Off -Highway Tractors
Off -Highway Trucks
Other Construction Equipment
Other General Industrial Equipn
Other Material Handling Equiprr
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Loaders
Scrapers
Signal Boards
Skid Steer Loaders
Surfacing Equipment
Sweepers/Scrubbers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Trenchers
Welders

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.54 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.39 0.00

1.52 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.29

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

9.80 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

6.26 0.00

11.93 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.47

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.21 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

14.26 0.00

15.39 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.90

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.21 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.64 0.00

0.61 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.13

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.19 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.59 0.00

0.56 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.12

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,500.80

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 1,653.96

0.00 2,938.20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
603.53

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.49 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.53 0.00

0.95 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,516.98

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 1,671.78

0.00 2,969.87

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
610.03

0.00 0.00
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier

0.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

3.00 4
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

0.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

0.00 3
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

2.00 Model Default Tier

0.00 3
Model Default Tier

2.00 4
Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

2.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
User -Defined Off -road Equipment
Number of Vehicles
If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day

0.00 N/A
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 1 N/A

0.00 N/A
Grading/Excavation
Grading/Excavation
pounds per day
tons per phase

3.74 0.05

32.46 0.41

36.75 0.46

1.59 0.02

1.46 0.02

0.07 0.00
6,696.49

83.71 2.17

0.03 0.06

0.00 6,768.65

84.61 Data Entry Worksheet

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade
Override of Default Number of Vehicles
Default
Number of Vehicles
Program -estimate
Mitigation Option
Override of
Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)
Current
Equipment Tier
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day
Model Default Tier
Aerial Lifts
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Cranes
Crawler Tractors
Crushing/Proc. Equipment
Excavators
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Graders
Off -Highway Tractors
Off -Highway Trucks
Other Construction Equipment
Other General Industrial Equipn
Other Material Handling Equiprr
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Loaders
Scrapers
Signal Boards
Skid Steer Loaders
Surfacing Equipment
Sweepers/Scrubbers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Trenchers
Welders

0.00 0.00

0.21 0.24

0.00 0.98

0.00 0.00

0.88 0.18

1.96 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.32 0.00

0.00 0.18

0.16 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.14 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.74 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.98

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

2.04 1.23

0.00 5.29

0.00 0.00

16.32 2.28

25.64 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.01 0.00

0.00 2.89

2.56 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.85 0.00

0.00 0.00

5.80 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 15.64

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.89 1.47

0.00 10.23

0.00 0.00

6.76 1.73

17.52 0.00

0.00 0.00

3.09 0.00

0.00 1.70

1.43 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.50 0.00

0.00 0.00

7.33 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 9.92

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.06 0.06

0.00 0.43

0.00 0.00

0.33 0.10

0.75 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.16 0.00

0.00 0.08

0.07 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.08 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.29 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.44

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.06 0.06

0.00 0.39

0.00 0.00

0.31 0.09

0.75 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.15 0.00

0.00 0.07

0.06 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.27 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.41

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.03 0.00

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
917.33
202.07

0.00 1,676.44

0.00 0.00
2,501.43
296.06
4,361.25

0.00 0.00

0.00 598.35

0.00 0.00
455.12
394.42

0.00 0.00

0.00 254.12

0.00 0.00

0.00 1,468.83

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,112.93

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.30 0.02

0.00 0.54

0.00 0.00

0.81 0.10

0.17 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.19 0.00

0.00 0.15

0.13 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.08 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.47 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.68

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
927.23
203.09

0.00 1,694.51

0.00 0.00
2,528.40
299.26
4,375.32

0.00 0.00

0.00 604.81

0.00 0.00
460.02
398.68

0.00 0.00

0.00 256.86

0.00 0.00

0.00 1,484.66

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,135.66

0.00 0.00

0.00 1
Model Default Tier

1.00 Model Default Tier

4.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

3.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

5.00 Model Default Tier

2.00 Model Default Tier

7.00 1
Model Default Tier

0.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

1.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

1.00 Model Default Tier

1.00 Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier

1.00 Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

1.00 4
Model Default Tier

0.00 1
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

7.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
User -Defined Off -road Equipment
Number of Vehicles
If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day

0.00 N/A
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 1 N/A

0.00 N/A
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
pounds per day
tons per phase

6.98 0.85

85.55 10.48

64.56 7.91

2.84 0.35

2.68 0.33

0.16 0.02
15,238.36
1,866.70

3.65 0.45

0.13 0.02
15,368.52
1,882.64
Data Entry Worksheet

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Paving
Override of Default Number of Vehicles
Default
Number of Vehicles
Program -estimate
Mitigation Option
Override of
Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)
Current
Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day
Model Default Tier
Aerial Lifts
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Cranes
Crawler Tractors
Crushing/Proc. Equipment
Excavators
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Graders
Off -Highway Tractors
Off -Highway Trucks
Other Construction Equipment
Other General Industrial Equipn
Other Material Handling Equiprr
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Loaders
Scrapers
Signal Boards
Skid Steer Loaders
Surfacing Equipment
Sweepers/Scrubbers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Trenchers
Welders

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.00

0.53 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.17

0.15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.14 0.00

0.65 0.00

2.02 0.06

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.53

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

13.04 0.00

7.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 2.90

2.55 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.85 0.00

3.00 0.00

16.14 0.30

0.00 0.00

0.00 8.92

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.89 0.00

4.79 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 1.58

1.26 0.00

0.00 0.00

1.44 0.00

6.63 0.00

19.11 0.36

0.00 0.00

0.00 5.34

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.24 0.00

0.19 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.07

0.06 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.00

0.29 0.00

0.75 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.22

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.22 0.00

0.19 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.07

0.06 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.00

0.27 0.00

0.69 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.20

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,001.35

0.00 1,246.07

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
454.99
394.32

0.00 0.00

0.00 254.06

0.00 826.96

0.00 4,404.44

49.31 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,208.22

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.65 0.00

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.15

0.13 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.08 0.00

0.27 0.00

1.42 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.39

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.04 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
2,022.93

0.00 1,250.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
459.90
398.57

0.00 0.00

0.00 256.80

0.00 835.87

0.00 4,451.92

49.56 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,221.22

0.00 0.00
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

4.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

2.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
1 Model Default Tier
1 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
1 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

1.00 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

3.00 Model Default Tier
1 Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier

4.00 2
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
Model Default Tier
User -Defined Off -road Equipment
Number of Vehicles
If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier
Type
ROG
pounds/day
CO
pounds/day
NOx
pounds/day
PM10
pounds/day
PM2.5
pounds/day
Sox
pounds/day
CO2
pounds/day
CH4
pounds/day
N2O
pounds/day
CO2e
pounds/day

0.00 N/A
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 N/A
Paving
Paving
pounds per day
tons per phase

4.91 0.18

56.00 2.10

45.41 1.70

1.91 0.07

1.78 0.07

0.11 0.00
10,839.74
406.49

3.14 0.12

0.10 0.00
10,946.78
410.50
Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) _>

1.11 13.45

10.33 0.45

0.42 0.03
2,424.46

0.61 0.02
2,446.05
Data Entry Worksheet

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0
2/28/2022
Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

Equipment
User Override of
Horsepower
Default Values
Horsepower
User Override of
Hours/day
Default Values
Hours/day
Aerial Lifts
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Cranes
Crawler Tractors
Crushing/Proc. Equipment
Excavators
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Graders
Off -Highway Tractors
Off -Highway Trucks
Other Construction Equipment
Other General Industrial Equipment
Other Material Handling Equipment
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Loaders
Scrapers
Signal Boards
Skid Steer Loaders
Surfacing Equipment
Sweepers/Scrubbers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Trenchers
Welders
63 8
78 8
221
8 9
8 81
8 231
8 212
8 85
8 158
8 89
8 84
8 187
8 124
8 402
8 172
8 88
8 168
8 130
8 132
8 8
8 13
8 84
8 80
8 100
8 247
8 203
8 367
8 6
8 65
8 263
8 64
8 97
8 78
8 46
8 END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 8

Appendix D
Amended Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (Rincon Consultants, March 2022)

Amended Determination of Biologically
Equivalent or Superior Preservation
prepared for
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, California 92590
prepared by
Bonterra Consulting
2 Executive Circle, Suite 175
Irvine, California 92614
& Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
February 21, 2013
Amended March 2022
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location..................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description..............................................................................................................2 2 Methods........................................................................................................................................10

2.1 Literature Review..............................................................................................................10

2.2 Biological Surveys Conducted for Phase II........................................................................10 3 Existing Biological Resources........................................................................................................12

3.1 Vegetation.........................................................................................................................12

3.2 Wildlife..............................................................................................................................14

3.3 Summary of MSHCP Findings............................................................................................15 4 Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Resources and Associated Species..........................................................................................................................................20

4.1 Approach to Analysis.........................................................................................................20

4.2 Direct Impacts...................................................................................................................20

4.3 Indirect Impacts on Riparian/Riverine Functions and Values...........................................24

4.4 Infeasibility of Avoidance and/or Alternative...................................................................26 5 Mitigation and Minimization Measures.......................................................................................28

5.1 Riparian/Riverine Resources.............................................................................................28

5.2 Least Bell's Vireo...............................................................................................................29

5.3 Burrowing Owl..................................................................................................................30

5.4 Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................................30

5.5 Construction Minimization Measures...............................................................................31 6 Biologically Equivalent or Superior Alternative Conclusion and Determination ..........................33 7 References....................................................................................................................................34 Tables
Table 1 Vegetation Types in the Survey Area................................................................................12 Table 2 Amended Vegetation Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase II) ..............22 Table 3 Amended Jurisdictional Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase 11)...........22 Figures
Figure1 Project Location..................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Survey Area with USGS Topographic Map..........................................................................6 Figure 3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ............................7 Figure 4 Project Changes 2013-2020................................................................................................8 Amended Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation i

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure5 Project Impacts...................................................................................................................9 Figure6 Vegetation Type................................................................................................................13 Figure 7 Least Bell's Vireo Territories.............................................................................................18 Figure 8 Jurisdictional Features......................................................................................................21 Appendices
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Least Bell's Vireo Focused Survey Report
Appendix C Proposed Mitigation Plan

I Introduction
A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report, prepared by Bonterra Consulting dated February 21, 2013, was written to satisfy requirements of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources, and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) as a result of the Murrieta Creek and Overland Drive Extension Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Project"). The Proposed Project comprises two phases; Phase I has been completed as was approved under the Bonterra Consulting 2013 DBESP, Phase 11 will be constructed under this amended DBESP to address changes from the 2013 DBESP. Phase I extended Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Enterprise Circle West. Phase 11 involves the further extension of Overland Drive, including construction of a bridge over Murrieta Creek connecting Overland Drive to the Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersection, and is the focus of this Amended DBESP.

This amended DBESP is required for Phase II of the Proposed Project because it would result in impacts on the aforementioned biological resources in the survey area. Most of Phase II limits are within the same footprint as described in the previously approved DBESP. This Amended DBESP addresses the reduced scope of work and modifications to the project footprint for Phase II. The Phase II changes eliminate the need for dredging the channel and the placement of Amorflex and riprap within Murrieta Creek. The permanent impacts, subject to regulations, are derived from the foundations of pier columns, which will support the bridge above Murrieta Creek, the abutment concrete slope lining and cutoff wall for scour protection, and the bridge approach pavements and abutment foundations that will be constructed on both sides of the creek. Phase II has resulted in a reduction of impacts to vegetation and jurisdictional resources compared to the way Phase II was previously proposed. Due to the nature of Phase II, there is no feasible alternative that would allow for avoidance of impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources and least Bell's vireo; however, impacts on these resources have been minimized to the extent practicable. The objective of this report is to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation would provide an equivalent or superior preservation of habitat function and value of Riparian/Riverine resources and species associated with Riparian/Riverine resources (i.e., least Bell's vireo).

This report was provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC RCA) for comment, which includes representatives from the County of Riverside, the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)', the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

One comment was received from USFWS on June 17, 2022, to which Rincon responded on July 11, 2022. No additional agency comments were received within the 60-day response period between July 11, 2022 and September 05, 2022.

1.1 Project Location
The Proposed Project is located southwest of the intersection of Interstate Freeway 15 (1-15) and Winchester Road in the City of Temecula in Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The survey area for the Proposed Project consists of the Project impact area plus a 500-foot buffer around the As of January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is known as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Project impact area (in order to evaluate potential indirect effects). It is located on the U.S.

Geological Survey's (USGS') Murrieta 7.5-minute quadrangle map and within Township 8 South, Range 3 West, Section 2 (San Bernardino baseline and Meridian; Figure 2). Commercial development is located along both sides of Murrieta Creek. Topography in the survey area is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 1,020 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The survey area is located within Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Western Riverside MSHCP's Southwest Area Plan. The survey area is located within Criteria Area Cells 6783 and 6890, which would contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Figure 3). The land along Murrieta Creek is owned by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), however none of the land within Phase II has been designated as Public/Quasi-Public Lands per the MSHCP (Dudek 2003).

1.2 Project Description
Phase II would extend a four -lane bridge from the existing terminus of Avenida Alvarado at Diaz Road (west of Murrieta Creek) to connect with Overland Drive at Enterprise Circle West (east of Murrieta Creek). Amendment to Phase II construction reduces the total project footprint permanent impacts by 4.5 acres and temporary impacts by 3.3 acres (Figure 4, Figure 5). Construction of the bridge would include earthen approach embankments with asphalt concrete pavement and concrete slabs, abutment walls and foundations, and concrete slope linings and cutoff walls for scour protection, piers and foundations, bridge cell openings for future utilities; and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signals.

It should be noted that construction would occur in two phases: (1) Phase I would include the demolition of existing structures and construction of Overland Drive up to Enterprise Circle West (City Project No. PW 16-06); (2) Phase II would construct the bridge across Murrieta Creek (City Project No. PW 16-05). Phase I was completed and has extended Overland Drive to Enterprise Circle West. After Phase II is constructed, the USACE will implement a Murrieta Creek Flood Control/Environmental Restoration Project.2 The USACE channel improvement project will lower the channel bottom by approximately 10 feet at the Phase II Bridge.

Phase II is considered a covered roadway, as described in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP and is therefore subject to design considerations to ensure that it remains characterized as a secondary road. As such, the completed road including all landscaping, safety requirements, and curbs/gutters will be within the maximum allowable width (100 feet).

Phase II implementation does not require any off -site impacts or staging areas (Figure 5).

As part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within Murrieta Creek. Earthen embankments with concrete slope protection The USACE's 13,000-linear-foot project is located from approximately 200 feet upstream of Winchester Road to approximately 1,000 feet downstream of 15t Street. The project will include (1) variable channel widths of 140 to 364 feet; (2) placement of buried riprap for slope toe protection along areas with a slope between 2:1 and 3:1; (3) soil cement protection in areas with slopes steeper than 2:1; (4) an unmaintained vegetated corridor (averaging 70 feet in width); (5) 4 grade -control structures; (6) removal of Via Montezuma, an existing low-water crossing that crosses Murrieta Creek; (7) future operation and maintenance and emergency repairs; and (8) an equestrian trail (a degraded granite surface extending along the creek's west side) and a bicycle trail (a paved maintenance road extending along the creek's east side). The southern portion (Phase 2A) of the creek widening project's construction has been completed, while the northern portion (Phase 2B) that covers the Phase II Bridge is scheduled to begin in approximately 5 to 10 years due to delay in funding.

and cutoff walls buried underground would also be installed on the east and west side of Murrieta Creek. Each pier will consist of three 4-foot-diameter concrete columns. The columns will be supported by a 6-foot-diameter cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) concrete piles, deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for streetlights and traffic signal communication.

Construction Traffic Controls
Upon completion the bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb - to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross. The existing bike trail on the west side of Murrieta Creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing.

In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. To match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, Phase II would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge.

Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, streetlights, and utilities. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping.

Phase II will also include the following additional improvements:
■ Railing Architectural Treatment. The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments. ■ Landscaping. Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive.

Throughout construction, Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to always maintain vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist access. Temporary and short-term access impacts may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders.

Right -of -Way Requirements
The right of way on the east side of Murrieta Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Phase I Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). Phase II right of way on the west side of Murrieta Creek involves acquiring a part of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado.

Portions of four driveways and parkways in three private properties are to be reconstructed.

Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in Murrieta Creek, which is to be acquired from RCFC&WCD. The TCE for grading in the channel is to be acquired through an encroachment permit from RCFC&WCD. Permanent and temporary construction easements in four private properties at the easterly side of the Creek may be required to construct storm drains, a retaining wall, and the bridge approach embankment.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project

Figure 1 Project Location
Lake
Elsinore Canyon Lake Menifee
tb"+•'"`
a
H wpan
�ynn�
gai7ra b
Lakeland
village
4l
,Ipn Rd
S ae RO
J�rc
b
Wildomar $
o
'
y'ua p�ncon pain Rd
French Valley s�
x
s`
3 Lake Skinner
Cleveland
a° Recreation Area
urrieta wac++r�,
National
P`
7S3
Fore st
t�
b
�
k All
Glen b
se
N°rtr nA
S
n
R
U Y
Iiinittiia 4
�¢r
° It"
79 1f ��
Vy
: J
AA
4 Marine Corps
Base Camp
a Alvar
a
Pendletan
z
Fallhrook
Ra
76 0 2.5 5 Miles
` $3
y
7mogery provided by firs and its licems t 0 2019.

Project Location - N
Federal Project No. A
BR-NBILj543j N
t+
Lancaster
_
Palmdale
lhcterrirre
Tanta Clarita
iQ
Sami
A SHls
Valley
Nat ienal
Foresl
lweni
Palms
.os Angeles
i pnt.rid
,
..
7 QS71ua TrM-
W
Rivonide '.

Cathedral Nauvnai
Anaheim C°rona _
pty Park
Sant. Ana
Indio ip
oceansid e
San Diego
V

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 2 Survey Area with USGS Topographic Map
WCA
0 Califorri14,
Airport 1.
fWnCho Cali wma
Source; USGS 7.5 Minute
P

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 4 Project Changes 2013-2020
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2022.

Figure 5 Project Impacts
Y
Y �
r�
Phase 1 (Completed) Project Area Changes. 2013-2020
Phase 2 Boundary (2020) No change in project area 4. •� Phase 2 Boundary (2013 JPR) Areas of project reduction
Permanent Impact Area* Areas of project expansion
Temporary Impact Area ALI,
lei
Existing pedestrian trail to remain o iso Soo N
f;
*Includes bridge Pier column foundations Feet I i
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2022.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 2 Methods

2.1 Literature Review
A literature review was conducted prior to the field surveys to identify special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the survey area vicinity. The Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Summary Report Generator (RCIP 2009), the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS's) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2012), and the CDFG's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG 2012) were reviewed for special status plant and wildlife species reported from the project vicinity. This review includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252-025, 921-030-042, 921-480080, 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-032, 921-480-042, 921-480-055, and 921-740- 004.

In addition, the Report and General Soil Maps for the Western Riverside Area (USDA NRCS 2007) was reviewed to determine whether suitable soils are present to support special status plant and wildlife species.

2.2 Biological Surveys Conducted for Phase II
The data provided in this report is derived from general and focused surveys of the survey area conducted in 2012 and in 2019. All 2012 surveys referenced below are included as attachments to the Habitat Assessment Report for the Proposed Project (BonTerra Consulting 2012a). The 2019 Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report (Rincon Consultants, Inc. [Rincon] 2019) is attached to this amended DBESP as Appendix B. Rincon conducted update surveys for Phase II in preparation of this DBESP amendment.

2.2.1 Habitat Assessment
A habitat assessment was conducted in the survey area on April 17, 2012, by BonTerra Consulting Biologists Kristin Smith and Allison Rudalevige (BonTerra Consulting 2012a). The weather was clear with temperatures between 70- and 85-degrees Fahrenheit (7) and winds less than 5 miles per hour. Subsequently, a second habitat assessment was conducted in the survey area on May 10, 2019, by Rincon Biologist Megan Minter. The weather was clear with temperatures between 58 and 647 and winds less than 5 miles per hour.

For both surveys the general assessment was conducted by walking the survey area and recording plant and wildlife data. Vegetation was mapped in the field on an aerial photograph at a scale of 1- inch equals 300 feet (1"=300'). Vegetation types were mapped and were generally described using categories outlined in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003).

2.2.2 Jurisdictional Delineation
A formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted in the survey area concurrent with the habitat assessment by Bon Terra Consulting in 2012 (BonTerra Consulting 2012b). The delineation was conducted in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland IN

Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008) and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

2.2.3 Least Bell's Vireo
Focused surveys for least Bell's vireo were conducted by BonTerra Consulting Biologist Jonathan Aguayo (BonTerra Consulting 2012c). The least Bell's vireo surveys were conducted within all suitable riparian vegetation. In accordance with the USFWS protocol for this species (USFWS 2001), a total of 8 surveys were conducted at least 10 days apart on May 2, 18, and 30; June 14 and 25; and July 5, 15, and 30, 2012. Mr. Aguayo systematically surveyed the riparian habitat either by walking slowly and methodically along the margins of riparian habitat or by using meandering transects through riparian habitat. All surveys were conducted under optimal weather conditions (i.e., between 55°F and 95°F with wind speeds between 0 and 15 miles per hour) and during early morning hours when bird activity is at a peak.

Update focused surveys for least Bell's vireo were conducted in 2019 by Rincon Biologist Megan Minter within a 500-foot buffer around the Phase II site (Study Area). The surveys were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines, issued January 19, 2001. Eight (8) surveys were conducted at least nine (9) days apart between May 10 and July 19. The surveys occurred between dawn and 11:00 a.m. each day within all portions of the Study Area containing potentially suitable riparian habitat. Surveys were not conducted during inclement weather conditions (e.g., excessive or abnormal heat, cold, wind, rain, or fog).

As the least Bell's vireo survey protocol does not require the playback of least Bell's vireo vocalizations, these recordings were not used during the surveys. The previous DBESP, completed by Bonterra Consulting, used "Pishing" sounds opportunistically to elicit responses from any potential least Bell's vireo present. Detections of least Bell's vireo were marked on an aerial photograph and recorded using a Global Positioning (GPS) System unit. A point was marked at each location where individuals were observed or detected singing within the survey area.

2.2.4 Burrowing Owl
Focused surveys for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) were conducted within several portions of the project site where owls had a potential to occur based on the results of the habitat assessment and the burrow survey. These surveys were conducted from either one hour before sunrise to two hours after, or from two hours before sunset to one hour after. These surveys are conducted only with sufficient light to follow burrowing owl flights.

Step I Habitat Assessment and Step II focused surveys were completed in 2012 and in 2019. The first survey completed in 2012 was conducted by BonTerra consulting by Mr. Aguayo in 2012. 2012 survey results indicate no burrowing owls, occupied owl feathers, or other evidence of owl's presence. Mr. Aguayo conducted the crepuscular surveys on June 14; July 6 and 30; and August 31, 2012. All potential habitat on the project site was surveyed to achieve 100 percent visual coverage of the area. Binoculars were also used to inspect holes; crevices; and potential perches such as rocks, fence posts, and other elevated structures for the presence of owls while listening for owl calls. A second set of burrowing owl surveys was completed by Rincon biologist Megan Minter on May 10, 2019, and May 20, 2019 in accordance with methods outlined in Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (County of Riverside 2006).

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 3 Existing Biological Resources

3.1 Vegetation
The following vegetation types and other areas occur in the survey area: freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, non-native grassland/ruderal, and developed/ornamental (Figure 6; Table 1). Site photographs were taken and are included in Attachment A.

Table 1 Vegetation Types in the Survey Area
Freshwater Marsh

7.63 Riparian Scrub

0.85 Southern Willow Scrub

2.24 Non -Native Grassland/Ruderal

5.96 Developed/Ornamental

48.51 Total

65.19 3.1.1 Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh is the vegetation type that occurs across most of Murrieta Creek in the survey area. Freshwater marsh is a subassociation of freshwater wetlands described in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). This vegetation type is dominated by a mix of broad-leaved cattail (Typha sp.), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), and sedge (Carex spp.).

3.1.2 Riparian Scrub
Riparian scrub occurs along the northeastern edge of Murrieta Creek. This vegetation type is a subassociation of riparian forest/woodland/scrub described in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). This vegetation type is comprised of a mix of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Salixlaevigata), Goodding's black willow (Salix gooddingii), narrow -leaved willow (Salix exigua), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). Tamarix (Tamarix sp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax), both exotic invasive species, also occur within this vegetation type.

3.1.3 Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub occurs along the southwestern and northwestern bank of Murrieta Creek.

This scrubland is a subassociation of riparian forest/woodland/scrub described in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). This vegetation type is dominated by narrow -leaved willow.

3.1.4 Non -Native Grassland/Ruderal
Non-native grassland/ruderal occurs along the banks of Murrieta Creek. This vegetation type is dominated by wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum sp.), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Mediterranean schismus (Schismus barbatus), cheeseweed IN,

Figure 6 Vegetation Type
b3
mo
t
Qi
to°a
nJs
IAA . '4RL,7A1& ff/ _d{ij , - :-_*%L
• i o 'y1r. ` Qj .

Phase 1 (Completed) Vegetation/Land Cover Type
Phase 2 Boundary (2020) (Acres Impacted)
Permanent Impact Area Developed/ Ornamental (Perm: 0.05 ac. Temp: 0.93 ac.) Freshwater Marsh {Perm: 0.09 ac. Temp: 0.78 ac.)
Temporary Impact Area
Existing pedestrian trail 0 Non-native Grassland/Ruderal (Perm: 0.41 ac. Temp: 2.12 ac.) to remain 0 Riparian Scrub {Perm: 0.06 ac. Temp: 0.08 ac.) 0 150 300 N 0 Southern Willow Scrub (Perm: 0.01 ac. Temp: 0.36 ac.) Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2022.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project (Malva parviflora), red -stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus).

3.1.5 Developed/Ornamental
The developed/ornamental areas consist of commercial development and associated landscaping.

A bike trail is also included in this mapping unit. Ornamental plantings include, but are not limited to, pine (Pinus sp.), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), London plane (Platanus x hispanica), India hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis indica), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima), gazania (Gazania linearis), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and turf grass. This mapping unit also includes some barren, graded areas above the northeastern bank of Murrieta Creek and areas containing riprap along the channel northeast of Murrieta Creek.

3.2 Wildlife
Although the survey area is located in an urban setting and habitat along the banks is generally considered to have relatively low quality for wildlife, the riparian habitat within Murrieta Creek is generally considered of high biological value.

Murrieta Creek contained flowing water at the time of the survey. A small fish species was observed during the survey; however, it was not identified to species. Tadpoles were also observed but were not identified to species. Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus [Rana catesbeiana]) was observed in the survey area. Other amphibian species expected to occur in the survey area include Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas).

The only reptile species observed during the survey was the side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana).

Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) are also expected to occur.

Some of the bird species observed in the survey area include mallard (Ana platyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), ash -throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), northern rough -winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Wilson's warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), red - winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), brown -headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus).

Mammal species observed during the surveys include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).

Black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and coyote (Canis latrans) are also expected to occur.

Several bat species would be expected to occur in the survey area, including Brazilian free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and California myotis (Myotis californicus). 14 3.2.1 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Soule 1987; Harris and Gallagher 1989; Bennett 1990). Once open space areas become constrained and/or fragmented as a result of urban development or construction of physical obstacles (such as roads and highways), the remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas become corridors as long as they provide adequate space, cover, food and water, and do not contain obstacles or distractions (e.g., man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement.

The survey area is located in an urban setting; Murrieta Creek provides a wildlife movement corridor through the developed areas. The MSHCP has designated Murrieta Creek as Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Murrieta Creek connects "Core"4 habitat at the Santa Rosa Plateau and Proposed Linkage 10 (Tenaja Corridor) to conserved habitats in San Diego County. The MSHCP states that Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek) contains riparian habitat for key populations of yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia [Dendroica petechia]), yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo. It also states that existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek must be maintained to support Pacific [western] pond turtle (Actinemys [Emys] marmorata) and arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) in this area. Murrieta Creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development; therefore, wildlife is constrained to moving along the creek.

The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Road bridge located immediately upstream of the survey area. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek under the new proposed bridge. Therefore, following construction of the proposed bridge, wildlife would be expected to continue to move along the creek as they currently do. However, night lighting along the proposed bridge and/or vehicle headlights could substantially increase light levels within the creek, which could discourage nocturnal wildlife movement. Additionally, if vehicle noise and/or the noise of vehicles driving over the bridge substantially increases above ambient conditions in the creek, this could also discourage wildlife movement. It is important that the bridge design follow guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP related to Urban/Wildlands interface in order to minimize indirect impacts on the creek that could affect wildlife movement and use.

Construction of the proposed bridge is expected to occur primarily during daylight hours; therefore, it would not be expected to deter nocturnal wildlife movement for coyotes and bobcats (Lynx rufus).

Most wildlife moving along the creek during the day would be expected to be fairly acclimated to noise given the urban setting, and birds could move through the construction area quickly to reach quieter areas in the creek. Therefore, construction activities are not expected to substantially affect wildlife movement.

3.3 Summary of MSHCP Findings
The MSHCP requires that survey areas be evaluated for a number of factors in order to assess how they meet the criteria identified for conservation in the Western Riverside MSHCP. According to the

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project RCIP Conservation Summary Report Generator, Phase II is located within designated MSHCP "Criteria Area" cells 6783 and 6890 (Proposed Linkage 13 along Murrieta Creek). The RCIP Report Generator also indicates that the survey area must be assessed for other issues, which are addressed below (RCIP 2009).

3.3.1 Criteria Area/Cores and Linkages
The survey area is located within designated MSHCP "Criteria Area" cells 6783 and 6890, which contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 along Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek connects "Core" habitat at the Santa Rosa Plateau and Proposed Linkage 10 (Tenaja Corridor) to conserved habitats in San Diego County. The MSHCP states that Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek) contains riparian habitat for key populations of yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo. It also states that existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek must be maintained to support Pacific pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area. Murrieta Creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development; therefore, wildlife is constrained to moving along the creek. Potential impacts on wildlife movement were discussed above in Section 3.2.1.

3.3.2 Riparian/Riverine Resources and Vernal Pools
Riparian/Riverine areas, as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, are "dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year" (Dudek 2003). The survey area contains 10.72 acres of freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, and southern willow scrub that would meet the definition of Riparian/Riverine resources.

Vernal pools, also defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, are "seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season" (Dudek 2003). No areas that would be considered vernal pools were observed during the surveys; no soils typical of vernal pools occur in the survey area.

3.3.3 Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
Suitable habitat for the least Bell's vireo is present in the survey area; however, habitat is not considered extensive enough to support the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) or western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Focused surveys for the least Bell's vireo were conducted in spring/summer of 2012 and 2019. Two least Bell's vireo territories were observed in the survey area in 2012. One territory consisted of a pair of vireos; the other territory consisted of an unpaired male (Figure 7).

Territory 1: This territory was observed on seven of the eight survey visits. This territory is located on the northern side of Murrieta Creek. Habitat in this territory is dominated by a mix of arroyo willow, Goodding's black willow, and mule fat. This vireo sang continuously during the early visits and intermittently on the later visits. This suggests that he was unpaired at the beginning of the survey and became paired over the course of the surveys.

Territory 2: This territory was detected on five of the eight survey visits. This vireo was observed directly across Murrieta Creek from Territory 1 and was counter singing with the male from Territory 1. This vireo's territory consists of a small patch of willows on the southern side of Murrieta Creek. The habitat in this territory consists of narrow -leaved willow with a minimal

understory of sedge. This vireo sang continuously and moved around frequently, indicating that he was likely unpaired.

Focused surveys in 2019 were conducted by Rincon Biologist Megan Minter. Survey results indicate the number of observed least Bell's vireo territories in the region has increased from two to four.

In 2019 no banded least Bell's vireo were observed, and no brown -headed cowbirds were observed.

One territory was observed on the east side of Murrieta Creek, south of the proposed bridge, within a patch of pepper tree groves interspersed with arroyo willow (Territory 1, Figure 7).

This territory consisted of a lone male that was observed for the first four survey visits. He was observed singing from a small arroyo willow during the first three survey visits but was never observed exhibiting nesting behavior. This male was not observed after the fourth survey visit. A second territory (Territory 2, Figure 7) was observed on the west side of Murrieta Creek, within the proposed bridge footprint. A lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow in a patch of southern willow scrub. No nest -building behavior was observed. This male was observed consistently for the first five survey visits but was not observed after the fifth survey visit. A third territory (Territory 3, Figure 7) was observed on the west bank of Murrieta Creek northwest of the proposed bridge footprint area. A male least Bell's vireo was observed singing within this territory for the first three survey visits; no female was observed to be present. On the fourth survey visit, this male was observed to be paired with a female. The pair was observed constructing a nest in an arroyo willow near the edge of the streambank. This pair was observed with an active nest for survey visits five through seven. Due to the location of the nest deep within the dense arroyo willow foliage, the biologist was unable to observe the nest directly. However, no fledglings were observed, and it is assumed that the nest failed. The pair were not observed on the eighth and final survey visit. A fourth territory (Territory 4, Figure 7) was observed on the east bank of Murrieta Creek, north of the proposed bridge location. This territory was observed to contain a lone male for survey visits two through six. The lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow near the south bank of the creek. This male was never observed to be paired and was not observed after the sixth survey visit.

The existence of least Bell's vireo within the survey area along with dense areas of riparian vegetation make Murrieta Creek in this location a current and future possible nesting area for least Bell's vireo. Based on the project's design plans, direct impacts to 2019-occupied least Bell's vireo breeding habitat would include the loss of riparian vegetation along the Murrieta Creek. The MSHCP states that key populations of yellow warbler and yellow -breasted chat occur along Murrieta Creek; one pair of yellow -breasted chats was observed consistently during the least Bell's vireo surveys.

The MSHCP also states that Pacific pond turtle and arroyo chub occur in Murrieta Creek. These special status species have potential to occur in the survey area. The MSHCP does not require surveys for these species. However, guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP should be followed to ensure that these species are not indirectly impacted by changes in water quality, increased noise, or increased night lighting.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 7 Least Bell's Vireo Territories
w0�
oa
,era
O
Territory 2
Territory 1
f
Ter.ritory:=1�
Te"rritory 2
00, ON
f•
irt0 -�
Phase 1 (Completed) Vegetation/Land Cover Type
Phase 2 Boundary (2020) Developed/ Ornamental
A Least Bell's Vireo Territory (2013) ® Freshwater Marsh ® Least Bell's Vireo Territory (2020) 77 Non-native Grassland/Ruderal Riparian Scrub
Permanent Impact Area Southern Willow Scrub
Temporary Impact Area
0 Smooth Tarplant
Existing pedestrian trail to remain
0 150 300 N
I 1 AFeet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2022. 1[.

3.3.4 Narrow Endemic Species
According to the RCIP Summary Report Generator, focused plant surveys are not required for Criteria Area or Narrow Endemic plant species (RCIP 2009). Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 16.1 species, was incidentally observed during the habitat assessment. A total of 2,023 individuals of smooth tarplant were observed in non-native grassland/ruderal vegetation in the survey area (Exhibit 4; BonTerra Consulting 2012a). Phase II would impact approximately 1,243 smooth tarplant individuals (all locations except Locations 1 and 9). Smooth tarplant is a Criteria Area species covered by the MSHCP. Because the survey area is located outside an "Additional Survey Needs Area" for smooth tarplant, all impacts are considered mitigated with the City's participation in the MSHCP (Correa 2012). However, if possible, it is recommended that seed be collected for use in restoration efforts.

Potentially suitable habitat for other species not covered by the MSHCP occurs in the survey area.

These species include Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi; CRPR 113.1 ), long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina; CRPR 113.2), Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis; CRPR 113.2), Robinson's peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii; CRPR 113.2), and white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum; CRPR 2.2). None of these species were observed during focused surveys; therefore, these species are considered absent and there would be no impact on these species.

3.3.5 Additional Survey Needs Species
The survey area is located within the additional survey needs area for the burrowing owl. Potentially suitable habitat (i.e., suitable burrows) is present in the survey area. Focused surveys were conducted in spring/summer 2012 and an updated habitat assessment and focused burrow survey was conducted in 2019. Surveys did not detect burrowing owls or owl sign (e.g., prey remains, cast pellets, white -wash, or feathers) were observed in the survey area (BonTerra Consulting 2012d, Rincon 2019). Therefore, burrowing owl is not expected to occur in the survey area. Pursuant to MSHCP requirements, a pre -construction survey would be required 30 days prior to construction to confirm the absence of this species.

3.3.6 Urban/Wildlife Interface
The survey area is located in MSHCP Criteria Area Cells 6783 and 6890. Potential indirect impacts are discussed in Section 4.3 below. The City should follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues (Attachment B). These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage); use of toxics; night lighting; indirect noise; invasive plant and wildlife species; protection of habitat areas (barriers); and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas. It should be noted that Phase II should follow the guidelines discussed in Section 7.5.3 of the Western Riverside MSHCP in order to minimize indirect impacts on adjacent habitat areas during construction.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 4 Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to
Riparian/Riverine Resources and
Associated Species

4.1 Approach to Analysis
The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on a comparison of maps depicting Phase II grading limits and maps of biological resources in the survey area. All construction activities, including staging and equipment areas, are assumed to be within the limits of grading identified on Figure 4 and Figure 5. Should any of the impact areas extend beyond the limits shown, additional analysis would be required. Both direct and indirect impacts on biological resources have been evaluated. Direct impacts are those that involve the initial loss of habitats due to grading, construction, and construction -related activities. Indirect impacts are those that would be related to impacts on the adjacent remaining habitat due to construction activities (e.g., noise, dust) or operation of the Project (e.g., human activity, indirect lighting).

Phase II impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources and associated species were evaluated with respect to the requirements of Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Phase II impacts on Additional Survey Needs species were evaluated with respect to the requirements of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Phase 11's impact on USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW jurisdictional resources were also evaluated. Phase I impacts were discussed in 2013 DBESP.

This amended DBESP covers Phase 11 changes.

4.2 Direct Impacts

4.2.1 Vegetation Impacts
Phase 11 would impact a total of 4.89 acres, which includes 1.38 acres of impacts on Riparian/Riverine areas, 3.51 acres of impacts on upland areas (Figure 6, Amended Table 2). Of this, Phase II has reduced temporary impacts to Riparian/Riverine areas by a total of 0.23 acre and has reduced its permanent impact to Riparian/Riverine areas by a total of 0.68 acre (Figure 4). The updated project footprint for Phase II has reduced its impact areas to Riparian/Riverine through project design. No additional Riparian/Riverine areas will be permanently impacted from the expanded portions of Phase 11.

Phase II would impact a total of 3.44 acres under the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFW, respectively (Figure 8, and amended Table 3). Of this, 0.96 acre, under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and 2.48 acre, under the jurisdiction of CDFW, will be temporarily impacted from the expanded portions of Phase II (Figure 4). No additional areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFW will be permanently impacted from the expanded portions of Phase II. The amended Tables 2 and 3 supersede the original Tables 2 and 3 included in the original DBESP. Only Riparian/Riverine areas, their associated species (i.e., least Bell's vireo) are discussed in this report. A complete discussion of impacts on other biological resources is included in the Habitat Assessment Report (BonTerra Consulting 2012a). Impacts within the 2013 footprint will be analyzed in accordance with regulations in place at that time and that the temporary impacts outside of the 2013 footprint will be analyzed under current regulations.
20 Figure 8 Jurisdictional Features
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California Vl
, C Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
-117.1688 . i ,� 11 rich = 300 feet
1 --
Imagery Provided by Microsoft Bing, 2022.

Created on January 06, 2022.
r-
Map Created by: Rincon Consultants, Inc.
i `r
• r re
•
` ! 1 A
/ f
r f
-f
iF1 f ~ IlkJ1 a
tip
Phase 1 (Completed) Potentially Jurisdictional Feature t Phase 2 Boundary (2020) (Acres Impacted) «
RWQCB/USACE Wetland
Permanent Impact Area Waters of the U.S.

Temporary Impact Area (Perm: 0.08 ac., Temp: 0.88 ac.}
o 150 300 N CDFW Waters of the State mow, 33.s102,
n 0 (Perm: 0.33 ac., Temp: 2.15 ac.) ^-1v.leza
Feet /V ��. _

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Table 2 Amended Vegetation Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase II) Riparian/Riverine
Freshwater Marsh

7.63 0.09

0.78*

0.87 Riparian Scrub

0.85 0.06

0.08**

0.14 Southern Willow Scrub

2.24 0.01

0.36 0.37
Total Riparian/Riverine

10.72 0.16

1.22 1.38
Upland Areas
Non -Native Grassland/Ruderal 5.96 0.41 2.12***

2.53 Developed/Ornamental 48.51 0.05 0.93

0.98 Total Upland Areas 54.47 0.46 3.05

3.51 Total 65.19 0.62 4.27

4.89 *0.01 acres will be temporarily impacted by the expanded portions of Phase II. **0.03 acres will be temporarily impacted by the expanded portions of Phase II. ***0.04 acres will be temporarily impacted by the expanded portions of Phase II.

Table 3 Amended Jurisdictional Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase II) Wetland "Waters of the U.S." 9.16 0.08 0.88 0.96
"Waters of the State" 14.01 0.33 2.15 2.48
*Impact acres may not add up due to rounding. Once the scour protection component is installed, storm flows will deposit sediment over this structure and herbaceous vegetation will re-establish except in the location of the piers and concrete structural approaches which total 472.56 square feet of impacts to wetland waters resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE and 927.06 square feet impacts to resources under the jurisdiction of CDFW.

4.2.2 Riparian/Riverine Functions and Values
Murrieta Creek occurs in the Santa Margarita River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 18070302) and has a drainage area of 222 square miles (USGS 2011). It traverses the cities of Temecula and Murrieta in the densely populated southwest region of Riverside County. Murrieta Creek flows into Temecula Creek which, in turn, flows into the Santa Margarita River and then empties into the Pacific Ocean.

Stream gauge data from 1931 to 1973 indicate that the majority of flow in Murrieta Creek occurs in the late winter/early spring with a maximum of 604 cubic feet per second (averaged over the time period) in February (USGS 2011). In contrast, a minimum flow of 0.55 cubic foot per second (averaged over the time period) occurs in November (USGS 2011). Therefore, Murrieta Creek provides for significant seasonal flows and would be considered a relatively permanent water as defined in the Rapanos Guidance Memorandum (USACE and USEPA 2008). In periods of high flow (e.g., during large storm events), the creek may overflow and expand into the wider floodplain within the survey area.

The survey area is occupied by the following special status species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP: smooth tarplant, yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo (discussed in more detail below); arroyo chub and Pacific pond turtle may also occur. 22 Phase II would impact 1.38 acres (0.16 acre permanent, 1.22 acres temporary) of Riparian/Riverine areas and 2.53 acres (0.41 acre permanent, 2.12 acres temporary) of non-native grassland/ruderal habitat areas. Of this, 0.96 acre (0.08 acre permanent, 0.88 acre temporary) would be under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and 2.48 acres (0.33 acre permanent, 2.15 acres temporary) would be within the jurisdiction of CDFW.

Phase II would permanently impact three percent of Riparian/Riverine habitat in the survey area; however, there is additional suitable habitat upstream and downstream of the survey area. Phase II would be similar to the existing Winchester Road Bridge across the creek approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the Phase II. Wildlife that currently exist in the survey area are assumed to be somewhat urban -tolerant with commercial development, traffic, and human activity along the City's Murrieta Creek Trail adjacent to the creek; therefore, an additional creek crossing would not be expected to substantially change the nature of Murrieta Creek in this area. Mitigation measures are included below to compensate for the loss of Riparian/Riverine/jurisdictional areas.

The existing riparian vegetation currently provides nutrient, sediment, and toxic trapping that improves water quality. Following implementation of Phase II, temporary impact areas (those impacted for construction access areas) are expected to be covered over in natural soils and to re- establish with riparian vegetation similar to the vegetation currently present. The permanent removal of 0.07 acre of Riparian/Riverine areas would not be expected to alter the nutrient, sediment, and toxic trapping function of vegetation in Murrieta Creek. In the survey area, the creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and functions as a wildlife movement corridor. Implementation of the proposed compensatory mitigation will meet the DBESP standard, project impacts with implementation of the proposed compensatory mitigation is biologically superior to an avoidance alternative. In the vicinity of Phase II, Murrieta Creek is approximately 450 feet wide. The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Road Bridge located immediately upstream of the survey area. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek under the new proposed bridge, assuming indirect effects of noise and lighting are minimized.

Therefore, following construction of the proposed bridge, wildlife would be expected to continue to move along the creek as they currently do. Mitigation measures are included below to ensure that the Phase II would not alter wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek.

4.2.3 Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
Of the additional survey needs species associated with Riparian/Riverine areas listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, the survey area is occupied by least Bell's vireo; two territories were observed in spring/summer 2012 and four territories were observed in spring/summer 2019 (Figure 7). Phase II would directly impact 0.51 acre (0.07 acre permanent, 0.44 acre temporary) of habitat for this species (i.e., riparian scrub and southern willow scrub; Figure 6 and amended Error! Reference source not found.). If vegetation were removed during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15), it could also result in the direct mortality of individuals and/or the loss of an active nest. The loss of any least Bell's vireo or their habitat would be considered significant. Mitigation measures are included below to avoid and minimize direct impacts on the least Bell's vireo and to compensate for the loss of habitat for this species. All direct impacts on the vireo and its habitat would be related to Phase II. Indirect effects are discussed below.

If construction activities occur during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15), noise and human activity from construction could indirectly impact any vireos nesting within 500 feet of the construction area. Additionally, once the bridge is operational, traffic noise and night lighting could

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project potentially impact any least Bell's vireo within 500 feet of the bridge. These impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.4 below.

4.2.4 Additional Survey Needs Species
Burrowing Owl
Although potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat is present in the survey area, no burrowing owls or suitable burrows (e.g., burrows of suitable size and/or sign of owls [whitewash or pellets] within riprap) were observed in the survey area during the focused surveys (BonTerra Consulting 2012d) or during the 2019 surveys. Therefore, burrowing owl is not expected to occur in the survey area at this time and no impact on this species is expected. Pursuant to MSHCP requirements, a pre - construction survey would be required 30 days prior to construction to confirm the absence of this species.

4.3 Indirect Impacts on Riparian/Riverine Functions and Values
Phase II would result in potential indirect impacts to Riparian/Riverine resources within the survey area and within downstream, off -site Riparian/Riverine areas of Murrieta Creek. Potential indirect impacts would occur during and after construction of the proposed bridge. These include increased human activity; dust; noise; possible toxin -laden runoff from construction equipment; and increased operational noise and night lighting during operation of the Project.

Indirect impacts are addressed by guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside MSHCP that pertain to the Urban/Wildlands Interface. Development in close proximity to a Western Riverside MSHCP Criteria Area (Murrieta Creek) may result in edge effects that could adversely affect biological resources acquired to assemble the MSHCP Reserve (Proposed Constrained Linkage 13). To minimize these edge effects, the Western Riverside MSHCP provides guidelines for these indirect impacts. Areas within and adjacent to the impact area along Murrieta Creek provide open space that contributes to the conservation of Covered Species. Indirect impacts on biological resources are discussed below.

4.3.1 Urban and Storm Water Runoff
Phase II could impact water quality. During construction, runoff carrying petroleum residues from construction equipment or concrete washing used to construct Phase II could potentially impact water quality and, in turn, affect plant and wildlife species using Riparian/Riverine habitats within and adjacent to the impact area.

Murrieta Creek is a 303(d) impaired drainage; pollutants of concern include phosphorus (a nutrient) and metals. Runoff from the operational road/bridge over the creek would drain into Murrieta Creek via the municipal storm drain system. Water quality treatment will include inlet inserts to remove sediment, and nutrients and metals to minimize impacts to water quality. With implementation of mitigation measures to protect water quality, impacts are expected to be less than significant. A Water Quality Management Plan will be prepared upon preparation of final Project design in conformance with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements.
24 4.3.2 Toxic Materials
Phase II would not use chemicals or generate toxic bioproducts (e.g., manure) that are potentially toxic. Therefore, there would be no toxic materials impacts as a result of Phase II.

4.3.3 Lighting
Night lighting used during construction could inadvertently affect the behavior patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) wildlife adjacent to these areas. Of greatest concern are the effects on small ground -dwelling animals that use the darkness to hide from predators and on owls that are specialized night foragers. In addition, night lighting could deter wildlife movement adjacent to Phase II and could inhibit wildlife from using the habitat adjacent to lighted areas. No construction activities would occur at night; therefore, there would be no impact due to night lighting during construction.

The operational road/bridge would have directed/shielded night lighting to minimize spillover of light into areas adjacent to the creek. Additionally, approved wildlife -friendly night lighting will be used. With the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize night lighting effects, impacts are expected to be less than significant.

4.3.4 Noise
Noise levels would increase over present levels during construction of the proposed bridge. During construction, temporary noise impacts have the potential to disrupt foraging, nesting, roosting, and denning activities for a variety of wildlife species, including the least Bell's vireo. Wildlife species stressed by noise may temporarily disperse from the habitat in the vicinity of Phase II; habitat near the construction site may be uninhabitable due to the noise and human activity present. If construction occurred during the beginning of the bird breeding season when territories are being selected, birds (such as the vireo) may establish territories away from the construction area, increasing competition in other areas where birds are already present. If construction is initiated during the breeding season near an existing nest, it could cause a pair to abandon their nest, causing the nest to fail. This could reduce productivity of the birds during the season. If construction occurs at the end of the breeding season when nesting is complete, family groups would likely be able to disperse away from the construction site and forage in other areas. Therefore, the severity of this indirect effect would depend on the timing of construction in relation to the breeding season and how close any active nests are located in proximity to the construction site.

The bridge concrete deck would receive grinding and grooving treatment per California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) bridge design standards to reduce vehicular tire noise. The operational road/bridge would incrementally increase the traffic noise along this portion of Murrieta Creek.

Because traffic noise is similar to existing noise from adjacent developed areas, wildlife (including vireo) currently using the creek are expected to be relatively acclimated to traffic noise. While adverse, the additional traffic noise is expected to be less than significant.

4.3.5 Trash/Debris
Construction activities could introduce trash or other construction material debris into the survey area. Construction Minimization Measures (Section 7.5.3 of the Western Riverside MSHCP) prohibit depositing trash on native habitat.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project The operational road/bridge also has potential to increase the amount of trash running off into the creek. As mentioned above, best engineering practices are being used in the design of the bridge and devices would be included to capture trash before it enters the creek. These measures would include actions such as street sweeping. With the implementation of mitigation measures to protect the creek's water quality, impacts are expected to be less than significant.

4.3.6 Exotic Plant and Animal Infestations
Seeds of invasive exotic plant species can be carried into a construction site within the mud on the tires of construction equipment. Construction Minimization Measures from Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP will be followed; these guidelines require the use of vehicle washing stations to minimize the spread of invasive species.

For areas where construction impacts will remove landscape and vegetation, those areas will be replanted to mitigate the landscape impact and improve the visual views of the area; however, Phase II does not include landscaping. Therefore, Phase II would not introduce invasive non-native plant species that could degrade adjacent open space areas.

Murrieta Creek already provides a source of water for invasive wildlife species, and is already occupied by the invasive bullfrog, which is known to prey upon native aquatic wildlife species. Phase II would not create any conditions that would expand the distribution of the bullfrog or any other invasive wildlife species.

4.3.7 Dust
Construction activities may generate dust that could settle on the leaves of trees, shrubs, and herbs in the vicinity of the construction site. The respiratory function of the plants in the adjacent areas could be impaired if dust accumulation is excessive. Construction Minimization Measures (Section

7.5.3 of the Western Riverside MSHCP) would minimize these impacts.

4.3.8 Trampling and Unauthorized Recreational Use (Barriers) Although there is currently no barrier to unauthorized access to Murrieta Creek, there is a developed city trail along the west bank of the creek; presumably, recreational use is concentrated along the existing trail. Phase II would not change the public's access along Murrieta Creek.

4.3.9 Grading/Land Development
Although construction activity would occur within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek, limited grading would be required for the construction of the bridge. Construction of the bridge would include the placement of concrete embankments/abutments, piers and concrete structural approaches. Once completed, the herbaceous vegetation removed during construction of the bridge is expected to re- establish over temporary impact areas except in the location of the six 6-foot-diameter pier foundations, abutment scour -protection concrete slopes, and concrete structural approaches.

4.4 Infeasibility of Avoidance and/or Alternative
If complete avoidance is not considered feasible, the Western Riverside MSHCP requires avoidance of 90 percent of the Riparian/Riverine resources in the survey area. The purpose of Phase II is to construct a four -lane bridge that extends from the existing terminus of Avenida Alvarado at Diaz Road northeast over Murrieta Creek to the existing terminus of Overland Drive at Enterprise Circle 26 West. In order to allow for the construction of the bridge over Murrieta Creek, Riparian/Riverine habitat must be impacted. The City has determined that additional traffic capacity is needed in this locality and the location of the bridge is limited to the connection of these existing roadways.

Resources are similar upstream and downstream of the survey area along Murrieta Creek; thus, a small shift upstream or downstream would affect similar resources. Therefore, there is no feasible alternative to accomplish Phase II.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 5 Mitigation and Minimization Measures
The City of Temecula is a participant in the MSHCP. As such, impacts on special status species covered by the MSHCP are considered fully mitigated by the City's participation in the MSHCP. This section addresses mitigation that is not covered by the MSHCP and measures that are required by the MSHCP.

5.1 Riparian/Riverine Resources
Phase II has been designed to minimize impacts on Riparian/Riverine Resources. Riparian/Riverine resources mapped in the survey area generally overlap with resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the CDFW, and the RWQCB. Therefore, the following mitigation would satisfy the MSHCP's requirements for the loss of Riparian/Riverine resources, and jurisdictional resources.

Prior to the initiation of any construction -related activities that result in any ground disturbances and subsequent direct and/or indirect impacts on areas within these agencies' jurisdictions, the City of Temecula shall obtain all required permits/agreements/certifications from the USACE, the CDFW, the RWQCB, and the RCFC&WCD.

The Project Applicant shall obtain all appropriate permits for impacts on USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdictional areas. Mitigation for the loss of jurisdictional areas and Riparian/Riverine resources may include (1) preservation of existing riparian habitat (preferably within or adjacent to an area identified as a Criteria Area, Core, or Linkage by the MSHCP) or (2) restoration of riparian habitat (preferably within or adjacent to an area identified as a Criteria Area, Core, or Linkage by the MSHCP). If the Project Applicant chooses to mitigate Riparian/Riverine habitat through purchase or restoration, acreage shall be of equivalent or superior quality habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio.

Currently, the proposed mitigation strategy would: (1) restore areas temporarily impacted by the project onsite at a 1:1 ratio; and (2) provide offsite restoration for areas permanently impacted by Phase II. The resource agencies, including the WRC RCA and the USFWS, will review the proposed acquisition during the permitting process to ensure that the lands to be acquired by the City of Temecula are of equivalent or superior quality to the resources impacted by Phase II. During site meetings, the resource agencies gave preliminary approval to restoring Riparian/Riverine habitat along Temecula Creek as mitigation for Phase II (Appendix C).

If Phase II would mitigate for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources through restoration of riparian habitat (as currently planned), a detailed restoration program shall be prepared for approval by the USACE and the CDFW prior to construction and shall contain the following items:
■ Responsibilities and qualifications. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the Project Applicant, specialists, and maintenance personnel that will supervise and implement the plan shall be specified. ■ Site Selection. Site selection for restoration and enhancement mitigation shall be determined in coordination with the City and the resource agencies. The mitigation site(s) shall be located in a dedicated open space area. The restoration site selected is located along Temecula Creek, ■ Site Preparation and Planting Implementation. Site preparation shall include (1) protection of existing native species; (2) trash and weed removal; (3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting); (5) temporary irrigation installation; 28 (6) erosion -control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (7) seed mix application; and (8) container species, if appropriate.

Schedule. A schedule shall be developed which includes planting to occur in late fall and early winter, between October 1 and January 30.

Maintenance Plan/Guidelines. The maintenance plan shall include (1) weed control; (2) herbivory control; (3) trash removal; (4) irrigation system maintenance; (5) maintenance training; (6) replacement planting; and (7) biological monitoring during maintenance activities that occur during the breeding season.

Monitoring Plan. The monitoring plan shall include (1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); (2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects); (3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies; (4) monthly reports for the first year, and every other month for following years; and (5) annual reports for three to five years, which will be submitted to the resource agencies. The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas; however, if there is successful coverage prior to five years, the Project Applicant may be released from monitoring requirements with the approval of the resource agencies.

Long-term Preservation. Long-term preservation of the site shall also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future projects.

5.2 Least Bell's Vireo
The limits of Phase II construction shall be clearly delineated with the use of fencing (lathe and rope, orange snow fencing, or stakes and flagging) prior to the initiation of construction. All removal of riparian vegetation shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for this species (i.e., September 16 to March 14). Vegetation removal within the creek shall be monitored by a qualified Biological Monitor.

To the extent practicable, construction of Phase II shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for the least Bell's vireo (i.e., September 16 to March 14) in order to avoid indirect noise impacts on this species. If Phase II construction begins during the vireo nesting season, a qualified Biologist shall survey all riparian habitat within 500 feet of the construction limits for the presence of least Bell's vireo nests/territories prior to the start of construction. Three surveys shall be conducted within one week prior to the initiation of construction within or adjacent to riparian habitat. Any active nests/territories shall be mapped on an aerial photograph by the Biologist, and the location information shall be given to the USFWS and CDFW. The location of any least Bell's vireo nests/territories shall be marked on applicable construction plans. If no active nests/territories are found, construction may proceed. Surveys shall be updated once per week as long as construction is within 500 feet of riparian habitat. Surveys may be discontinued after if no vireos have been detected after eight weekly visits; if a vireo territory is observed, monitoring surveys shall be continued until vireo leave for the wintering grounds (August/September). A pre -construction least Bell's vireo survey report (including mapping of any active territories) shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist and shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFW.

Any active territories shall be protected as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) until no longer occupied to ensure compliance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect any active territory sites, the following restrictions on construction are required between March 15 and September 15 (or until territories are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist): (1) no clearing of habitat shall be allowed within Murrieta

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Creek and (2) access and surveying shall not be allowed within approximately 100 feet of nests/territories (or as otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist). Any construction activities that would occur within Murrieta Creek during the breeding season shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist.

If construction would result in noise readings greater than 60 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at the edge of least Bell's vireo habitat (Murrieta Creek), construction shall not be allowed during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15) unless appropriate noise measures are implemented, as approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. Noise measures may include, but would not be limited to, soundwalls to reduce noise between the construction site and the vireo territory; use of construction equipment with noise -reducing alterations; or delay of noise -intensive construction (e.g., pile driving, demolition) until after the breeding season. Soundwalls shall be installed, as - needed, to maintain a noise level of less than 60 dBA at the edge of riparian habitat. Installation of the noise barriers shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist to ensure that riparian habitat is not inadvertently affected.

A noise monitoring methodology shall be used during the breeding season for construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat along Murrieta Creek. Noise monitoring stations shall be monitored weekly between March 15 and September 15 to ensure that noise levels remain less than 60 dBA. If noise monitoring determines that the noise level exceeds 60 dBA, noise barriers shall be modified, as recommended by a qualified Acoustical Technician, to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA.

5.3 Burrowing Owl
A pre -construction survey for burrowing owl will be conducted 30 days prior to construction in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. If burrowing owl is present in the impact area during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31), the burrow will be protected until nesting activity has ended. To protect the active burrow, a 500-foot buffer will be established around the active burrow.

Any encroachment into the buffer area around the active burrow will only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If burrowing owl is present in the impact area during the non -breeding season (September 1 to February 28), the burrowing owl will be flushed from the burrow and the burrow will be closed using CDFW-approved burrow -closing procedures. If no burrowing owls are observed, construction may proceed.

5.4 Wildlife Movement
One potential effect has been identified as related to wildlife movement: night lighting from the bridge could affect the habitat areas along the creek.

Night Lighting
Permanent night lighting used to light the bridge shall use best engineering practices to direct lighting to the roadway and shall minimize spillage of light into adjacent habitat areas to the extent practicable. Additionally, approved wildlife -friendly night lighting will be used. Lighting designs shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase II of the Project. 30 Noise
The bridge concrete deck would receive grinding and grooving treatment per Caltrans bridge design standards to reduce vehicular tire noise.

5.5 Construction Minimization Measures
In order to minimize Urban/Wildlands interface issues, the following Construction Minimization Measures (from Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP) will be implemented during Phase II construction to minimize impacts on biological resources during construction:
■ Plans for water pollution and erosion control will be prepared for all discretionary projects involving the movement of earth in excess of 50 cubic yards. The plans will describe sediment and hazardous materials control; dewatering or diversion structures; fueling and equipment management practices; and use of plant material for erosion control. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula, prior to the initiation of construction. ■ Timing of construction activities will consider seasonal requirements for breeding birds and migratory non-resident species. Habitat clearing will be avoided during species' active breeding season (defined as March 1 to June 30).
■ Sediment- and erosion -control measures will be implemented until such time as soils are determined to be successfully stabilized.
■ Short-term stream diversions will be accomplished by the use of sand bags or other methods that will result in minimal in -stream impacts. Short-term diversions will consider effects on wildlife.
■ Silt fencing or other sediment -trapping materials will be installed at the downstream end of construction activities to minimize the transport of sediments off site. ■ Settling ponds where sediment is collected will be cleaned in a manner that prevents sediment from re-entering the stream or damaging/disturbing adjacent areas. Sediment from settling ponds will be removed to a location where sediment cannot re-enter the stream or surrounding drainage area. Care will be exercised during removal of silt fencing to minimize release of debris or sediment into streams.
■ No erodible materials will be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. ■ The footprint of disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites will occur on pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. ■ Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on non -sensitive upland habitat types with minimal risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive habitat types. ■ The limits of disturbance (including the upstream, downstream, and lateral extents) will be clearly defined and marked in the field. Monitoring personnel will review the limits of disturbance prior to initiation of construction activities. ■ During construction, the placement of equipment within the stream or on adjacent banks or adjacent upland habitats occupied by Covered Species that are outside of the Phase II footprint will be avoided.
■ Exotic species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth.
■ Training of construction personnel will be provided.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project ■ Ongoing monitoring and reporting will occur for the duration of the construction activity to ensure implementation of best management practices.
■ When work is conducted during the fire season (as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department) adjacent to coastal sage scrub or chaparral vegetation, appropriate fire -fighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) shall be available on the site during Phase II construction to help minimize the chance of human -caused wildfires. Shields, protective mats, and/or other fire -prevention methods shall be used during grinding, welding, and other spark -inducing activities. Personnel trained in fire hazards, preventative actions, and responses to fires shall advise contractors regarding fire risk from all construction -related activities. ■ Active construction areas shall be watered regularly to control dust and to minimize impacts to adjacent vegetation.

All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances shall occur only in designated areas within the proposed grading limits of Phase II.

These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain run- off.

Waste, dirt, rubble, or trash shall not be deposited in the Conservation Area or on native habitat.
32 6 Biologically Equivalent or Superior
Alternative Conclusion and
Determination
Phase II would result in a limited loss of Riparian/Riverine habitat that provides foraging and nesting habitat for the least Bell's vireo. Following construction of the bridge over Murrieta Creek, riparian habitat within the creek would be similar in character to its current condition; wildlife that use this portion of Murrieta Creek are assumed to be relatively urban -tolerant given that the Project is surrounded by existing development. The Project's primary impacts are related to indirect impacts, including indirect noise impacts on least Bell's vireo and night lighting on wildlife movement.

Avoidance and minimization measures have been included to mitigate these inadvertent effects of Phase II (Section 5.0). In addition, compensatory mitigation for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources have been provided in Section 5.0. Although the loss of Riparian/Riverine resources would be considered adverse, the compensatory mitigation provided for Riparian/Resources (e.g., temporary impact areas restored onsite at a 1:1 ratio; permanent impact areas restored at a 3:1 ratio) would be considered biologically equivalent or superior to the habitat lost as a result of the Project. Areas temporarily impacted by the Project are expected to re-establish with riparian vegetation. Off -site preservation/restoration of at least 0.24 acre (0.08 acre permanent impact at a 3:1 ratio) of USACE jurisdictional resources and 0.99 acre (0.33 acre permanent impact at a 3:1 ratio) of CDFW jurisdictional resources would ensure that there is no net loss of Riparian/Riverine habitat in the watershed. The off -site restoration is planned to occur along Temecula Creek and would supplement two existing City mitigation sites by expanding the amount of riparian habitat in this area (Appendix C). Least Bell's vireo are also known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Temecula Creek mitigation site, thus increasing the amount of habitat available for the vireo near Temecula Creek. The preservation/restoration of this habitat is expected to be biologically equivalent to allowing the habitat to remain in place, and may be considered superior because it would be in addition to the habitat function that would remain in the Murrieta Creek following Phase II implementation until construction of the USACE Phase 2B project since the downstream Phase 2A has been built. It may also be considered superior if the habitat that is preserved/restored is connected to other regionally significant high quality habitat areas occupied by the least Bell's vireo (as currently proposed for mitigation). With implementation of Construction Minimization Measures, the functions and values of Murrieta Creek would not be substantially altered by Phase II.

The preserved/restored mitigation site would provide similar functions and values in an area that will be protected by a conservation easement or other similar agreement, and is outlined in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix Q. Therefore, the mitigation strategy is considered biologically equivalent or superior preservation.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 7 References
Bennett, A.F. 1990. Habitat Corridors and the Conservation of Small Mammals in the Fragmented Forest Environment. Landscape Ecology 4(2-3):109-122. New York, NY. International Association for Landscape Ecology.

BonTerra Consulting. 2012a. Habitat Assessment for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252-025, 921-030-042, 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-032, 921-480- 042, 921-480-055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres) Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting. 2012b. Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project, Riverside County, California. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting. 2012c. Least Bell's Vireo Surveys for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252- 025, 921-030-04Z 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-03Z 921-480-04Z 921-480- 055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres), Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula, USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map, Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting.
2012d. Western Burrowing Owl Surveys for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252-025, 921-030-04Z 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-03Z 921-480- 042, 921-480-055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres), Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG'). 2012. California Natural Diversity Database.

Records of Occurrence for the USGS Murrieta, Temecula, Pechanga, and Bachelor Mountain

7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Records of occurrence for the USGS Murrieta, Temecula, Pechanga, and Bachelor Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www . cnps. org/inventory.

Correa, L. 2012 (September 24). Personal communication. Telephone conversation between L. Correa (Regional Conservation Authority) and A.D. Rudalevige (BonTerra Consulting) regarding take of smooth tarplant outside an "Additional Survey Needs" area.

Dudek and Associates, Inc. (Dudek). 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Prepared for the Riverside County Integrated Project). Encinitas, CA:

Dudek. http://www.wrc-rca.org/Permits Docs.html.
34 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Harris, L.D. and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New Initiatives for Wildlife Conservation: The Need for Movement Corridors (pp. 11-34). Preserving Communities and Corridors (G. Mackintosh, Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife.

MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021. Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report. Prepared for the City of Temecula and United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). 2009 (July 16, last updated). RCIP Conservation Summary Report Generator. Riverside, CA: RCIP. http://www.rctlma.org/onlin%ontent/ rcip_report generator.aspx.

Soule, M.E. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press.

Standerfer, S. 2013 (February 19). Personal communication. Phone conversation between S.

Standerfer (Riverside Conservation Authority) and D. West (City of Temecula) regarding RCA's interpretation of bridge impacts on Public/Quasi-Public lands.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V.

Noble, Eds.). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008).

Rapanos Guidance Memorandum, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2007 (January 5). Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Western Riverside Area, California. Fort Worth, TX: USDA, NRCS.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001 (January 19). Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines.

Carlsbad, CA: USFWS.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. National Water Information System: Web Interface. USGS 11043000 Murrieta Creek at Temecula, CA. Reston, VA: USGS. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site no=11043000.

City of Temecula
Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project This page intentionally left blank.
36 Appendix A
Site Photographs

Photograph 1. Murrieta Creek from the north bank, looking south across the proposed bridge location.

Photograph 2. View of southern willow scrub habitat on the south bank of Murrieta Creek. Photo facing northwest.

Photograph 3. View across Murrieta Creek from the north bank. Photo facing south.

Photograph 4. View of least Bell's vireo habitat on the south bank of Murrieta Creek; photo facing north.

r -
Y� f
fly4s�f._
�_ ��,,'`.••>.s,,, 'ter >- •�
''�- '- ..rEw• °./ .r. �•. JA

1. Appendix B
Least Bell's Vireo Survey Report

Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
301 9th Street, Suite 109
Redlands, California 9237
September 2019
lbRINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsul Cants. corrr

Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
301 9th Street, Suite 109
Redlands, California 9237
September 2019
RINCUN CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
ri n con con s u i to n ts. com

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2 Methodology..................................................................................................................................4 3 Environmental Setting
....................................................................................................................5 4 Results and Discussion
....................................................................................................................7 5 Certification....................................................................................................................................9 6 References....................................................................................................................................10 Tables
Table 1 Least Bell's Vireo Survey Conditions...................................................................................4 Figures
Figure1 Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Location Map..........................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Within Survey Area....................................................................6 Figure 4 Least Bell's Vireo Territories Within the Survey Area.........................................................8 Appendices
Appendix A Avian Compendium
Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of protocol surveys for the federally and state endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI) for the Murrieta Creek Bridge (bridge) and Overland Drive Extension project (project). The project is located southwest of the intersection of Interstate (1) 15 and Winchester Road in the City of Temecula in Riverside County, California (project site). The bridge is proposed to span Murrieta Creek from the terminus of Avenida Alvarado at Diaz Road to Commerce Center Drive. The site is located on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS') Murrieta 7.5- minute quadrangle map (Figure 1). The project site is surrounded by developed land used as an industrial park (Figure 2).

The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 5-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing.

The riparian area along Murrieta Creek contains potential habitat for LBVI. In 2012, BonTerra Consulting, conducted surveys to determine the presence/absence of LBVI in all suitable willow (Salix spp.) and riparian habitat within 500 feet of the project site (BonTerra 2012). During these surveys two LBVI territories were observed. One territory consisted of a pair of vireos; the other territory consisted of an unpaired male. In 2019, Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted new surveys to determine the current presence/absence of LBVI.

Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Lake
Jsinare Canyan Lake Menifee pemenrgodi P
Newp^rt i
�yen`� JI
\1
Lakeland�
74 Village
Scott Rd
0 Wildomar
French Valley
3 Lake Skinner t
Cleveland \dYlurrieta Recreation Area enron
�� ed
National
Forest Ei4lU
a AF so' '�Norte. �`Pa,
7P a F"dt'�tia1.
� Tec k1 �Na1S.c..

Ra
Ca1an�° 1l�- Temecula c
"ry A a ad 79
p -
11 dhµ
`°V -
a
P
3 a
Marine Corps rt s ^RI A
Base Camp t
Pendleton L AMOdo Se a
Fallbrook \
76 Re�QFd c�
0 2.5 5 Miles
I I
Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors 0 2019.
14 Lancaster
Project Location - N
A Palmdale Vrtarville
Federal Project No.

Santa Clarity qu
BR-N BI L(543) Angeles
Simi Nativoal
Valley Forest Twen"n ne
osAngeles 9 Ontario Joshua Tree
Riverside En cathedral National
Anaheim Carona City Park
Santa Ana S�A7 Indio
I"4
Oceanside
iv
San Diego
Tr�a.a
M e x i c o
2 Introduction
Figure 2 Project Location Map
0 /
i.
:wt�
��
>b
r ;
J
Project Boundary- '
Federal Project No. BR-NBIL(543)
0 135 270 N
I i I A
Feet
lmogery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2020.

Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report 3

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
2 Methodology
Surveys for LBVI were conducted in 2019 by Rincon biologist Megan Minter within a 500 ft buffer around the project site (Study Area). The surveys were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines, issued January 19, 2001. Eight (8) surveys were conducted at least nine (9) days apart between May 10 and July 19 (Table 1). The surveys occurred between dawn and 11:00 am each day within all portions of the Study Area containing potentially suitable riparian habitat. The habitat types are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Surveys were not conducted during inclement weather conditions (e.g. excessive or abnormal heat, cold, wind, rain, or fog).

During each survey visit, the surveyor slowly walked the Study Area, stopping at approximate 25- foot intervals to listen for LBVI songs and calls, and observe habitat with the aid of binoculars (10x40) for adults and fledglings. Nest searching was not conducted. Age, sex, breeding status, and behavioral characteristics were recorded, if vireo were observed. Play back vocalizations were not used and observations were made from locations where birds would not be disturbed.

Table 1 Least Bell's Vireo Survey Conditions
5/10/19
1 0700
1100
58 64
0 0
0 0
5/20/19
2 0700
1030
58 62
1-3
1-3
50 60
5/30/19
3 0645
1030
58 64
1-3
1-3
0 0
6/10/19
4 0645
1045
60 64
1 1
10 0
6/20/19
5 0700
1030
69 71
0 0
20 0
7/1/19
6 0700
1030
69 71
1-3
1-3
70 60
7/10/19
7 0700
1045
65 75
0 0
50 50
7/19/19
8 0700
1030
68 74
1-5
1-5
0 0
4 Environmental Setting
3 Environmental Setting
The Murrieta Creek Bridge project site is located in Riverside County, California southwest of the intersection of 1-15 and Winchester Road (Figure 1). Topography at the project site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 1,020 feet above mean sea level. The project site is primarily composed of developed land bisected by Murrieta Creek, a large intermittent tributary to the Santa Margarita River. Adjacent land use is developed and consists of an industrial park.

The Study Area for the project site includes all suitable LBVI riparian habitat (i.e., riparian scrub, southern willow scrub) of appropriate size and stature within 500 feet of the project site. The online edition of A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) was utilized in classifying observed vegetation alliances. Five vegetation alliances / land cover types were identified in the Study Area:
arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance), cattail marshes (Typha angustifolia Herbaceous Alliance), and pepper tree groves (Schinus molle) woodland Semi -natural Alliance) (Figure 3). Of these, arroyo willow thickets and pepper tree groves were considered to be suitable habitat for nesting LBVI.

Arroyo Willow Thickets
This vegetation type is dominated by dense stands of arroyo willow interspersed with red willow (Salix laevigata), black willow (Salix gooddingii), mulefat (eaccharis salicifolia), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Salt cedar (Tamarix sp.), pepper trees (Schinus mole) and giant reed (Arundo donax), both exotic invasive species, also occur within this vegetation type.

Cattail Marshes
This vegetation type is located within the banks of Murrieta Creek and is dominated by cattails (Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia). This vegetation type occurs where soils are periodically flooded.

Understory species present include rush (Juncus sp.), umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and curly dock (Rumex crispus).

Non -Native Grassland / Ruderal
This vegetation type is located along the edges of Murrieta Creek, outside of the streambanks.

Dominant species within the community include: brome grasses, shortpod mustard, London rocket, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). Large areas of this community contain smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a sensitive species covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

Developed / Ornamental
This land cover type consists of developed lands, paved areas, and areas containing ornamental vegetation supported by irrigation.

Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Within Survey Area

Results and Discussion
4 Results and Discussion
Overall avian activity and diversity was moderate to high during the surveys and common avian species expected to occur within riparian habitats were observed. A list of avian species observed/detected during the surveys is provided in Appendix A. Other than LBVI, no sensitive avian species were observed during the surveys.

Four least Bell's vireo territories were observed (Figure 4). No banded LBVI were observed and no brown -headed cowbirds were observed. One territory was observed on the east side of Murrieta Creek, south of the proposed bridge, within a patch of pepper tree groves interspersed with arroyo willow (Territory 1, Figure 4). This territory consisted of a lone male that was observed for the first four survey visits. He was observed singing from a small arroyo willow during the first three survey visits, but was never observed exhibiting nesting behavior. This male was not observed after the fourth survey visit. A second territory (Territory 2, Figure 4) was observed on the west side of Murrieta Creek, within the proposed bridge footprint. A lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow in a patch of southern willow scrub. No nest -building behavior was observed. This male was observed consistently for the first five survey visits but was not observed after the fifth survey visit. A third territory (Territory 3, Figure 4) was observed on the west bank of Murrieta Creek northwest of the proposed bridge footprint area. A male LBVI was observed singing within this territory for the first three survey visits; no female was observed to be present. On the fourth survey visit, this male was observed to be paired with a female. The pair was observed constructing a nest in an arroyo willow near the edge of the streambank. This pair was observed with an active nest for survey visits five through seven. Due to the location of the nest deep within the dense arroyo willow foliage, the biologist was unable to observe the nest directly. However, no fledglings were observed and it is assumed that the nest failed. The pair were not observed on the eighth and final survey visit. A fourth territory (Territory 4, Figure 4) was observed on the east bank of Murrieta Creek, north of the proposed bridge location. This territory was observed to contain a lone male for survey visits two through six. The lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow near the south bank of the creek. This male was never observed to be paired and was not observed after the sixth survey visit.

The existence of LBVI within the survey area along with dense areas of riparian vegetation make Murrieta Creek in this location a current and future possible nesting area for LBVI. Based on the project's design plans, direct impacts to 2019-occupied LBVI breeding habitat would include the loss of riparian vegetation along the Murrieta Creek.

Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
Figure 4 Least Bell's Vireo Territories Within the Survey Area i.x
444
_ S-
Territary 3 Te`rritc
I
' �f0
t
Project Boundary �s
I
L500-foot Buffer
__
LBVI Territories
Vegetation Communities
and Land Cover Types
- Arroyo Willow Thickets
Cattail Marshes
Developed/0 rna mental
Non-native Grassland
® Smooth Tarplant
0 175 350 N
Feet A

06. 0

Certification
5 Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished in this report and in the attached figures present data and information required for these LBVI protocol surveys. The facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed: Date: September 5, 2019
Megan Min
Senior Biologist
Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
6 References
BonTerra. 2012. Least Bell's Vireo Surveys for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252- 025, 921-030-042, 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-032, 921-480-042, 921-480- 055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres) Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2.

State of California Resources Agency. 2019. Department of Fish and Game. Natural Heritage Division. Endangered and Threatened Animals List. Sacramento, CA.

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). September 2006. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Carlsbad Office, 26 pgs.

January 19, 2001. Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. . 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Portland, OR.

August 4, 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Least Bell's Vireo. 51 Federal Register: 16474—16482.

H

Appendix A
Avian Compendium

Avian Compendium
Avian Compendium
Accipitridae
Kites, Hawks, Eagles
Buteo lineatus
red -shouldered hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
Aegit a i ae 9
Bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
bushtit
Anatidae
Anas platyrhynchos
mallard
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
Ardeidae
Herons
Ardea alba
great egret
Nycticoraxnycticorax
black -crowned night -heron
Charadriidae
Plover
Charadrius vociferus
killdeer
Columbidae
Pigeons, Doves
Columba livia
rock pigeon
Patagioenas fasciata
band -tailed pigeon
Streptopelia decaocto
Eurasian collared -dove
Zenaida macroura
mourning dove
Corvidae
Crows, Jays
Aphelocoma californica
California scrub -jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American crow
Cuculidae
Roadrunners
Geococcyx californianus
greater roadrunner
Emberizidae
Emberizids
Melozone crissalis
California towhee
Pipilo maculatus
spotted towhee
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
Falconidae 2Caracaras,
Falcons
Falco sparverius
American kestrel
Fringillidae
Finches
Spinus tristis
American goldfinch
Haemorhous mexicanus
house finch
Spinus psaltria
lesser goldfinch
Spinus tristis
American goldfinch
Hirundinidae
Swallows
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
cliff swallow
_0009-
Icteridae
Blackbirds
Euphogus cyanocepholus
Brewer's blackbird
Icterus bullockii
Bullock's oriole
Icterus cucullatus
hooded oriole
Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report A-1

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
Mimidae
Thrashers jd
Mimus polyglottos
northern mockingbird
Toxostoma redivivum
California thrasher
PtilogonatidaeMMV_
Silky- flycatcher
Phainopepla nitens
phainopepla
ParulidaeMMV_
Wood -warblers
Geothlypis trichas
common yellowthroat
Passerellidae
New World Sparro
Spizella passerina
chipping sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
white -crowned sparrow
Passerida
Old World Sparrows
Passer domesticus
house sparrow
Sturnidae
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
European starling
Trochilida
Hummingbirds
Calypte anna
Anna's hummingbird
Tyrannida
Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans
black phoebe
Sayornis saya
Say's phoebe
Myiarchus cinerascens
ash -throated flycatcher
Tyrannus verticalis
western kingbird
Tyrannus vociferans
Cassin's kingbird
TroglodytidaeMor-
Wrens
Troglodytes aedon
house wren
Thryomanes bewickii
Bewick's wren
Turdidae
Thrushes
Turdus migratorius
American robin
Vireonidae
Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo huttoni
Hutton's vireo
A-2

Appendix C
Proposed Mitigation Plan

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
8825 Aero Drive
Suite 120
San Diego, California 92123
760 918 9444
info@rincon consultants.com
www.rinconcons uItan ts.corn
Prepared by: Bonterra Consulting
Amended: January 7, 2013
Revised by: Rincon Consultants, Inc.

March 30, 2022
Rincon Project No: 18-06574
Peggy Bartels, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Darren Bradford, Regional Water Quality Control Board
Heather Pert, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Subject: Summary of Proposed Riparian Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project (Phase II)
This memorandum provides a brief summary of the proposed mitigation strategy for Phase II of the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project. The proposed Phase II consists of the construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek at Overland Drive from its current terminus near Enterprise Circle West.

The bridge will be 340 feet long and 77 feet wide. The bridge deck will consist of four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), a left -turn lane in the median, two 6-foot-wide shoulders that serve as Class II bike lanes, and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk. Construction of the bridge will include earthen approach embankments with asphalt concrete pavement and concrete slabs, abutment walls and foundations, and concrete slope lining and cutoff walls for scour protection, piers and foundations.

Within Murrieta Creek each pier will consist of three 4-foot-diameter concrete columns. The column will be supported by a 6-foot-diameter cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) concrete piles, deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The project also includes roadway improvements to Overland Drive, Diaz Road, Avenida Alverado, and Enterprise Circle West.

Vegetation types found within the project site consist of freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, non-native grassland/ruderal, and developed/ornamental. Open water, while not mapped separately, was also present in Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek is an intermittent stream located in the Santa Margarita Watershed. Note that the Riverside County Flood Control District mows the vegetation within Murrieta Creek on an annual basis which has resulted in low species and structural diversity and prohibits the development of a mature successional riparian community. Project construction will result in temporary and permanent impacts to 0.96 acre of wetland 'Waters of the U.S.' (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) and 2.48 acres of 'Waters of the State' (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]), as summarized in Table 1. Detailed information regarding jurisdictional resources within the project site and project impacts to these resources is provided in the Jurisdictional Delineation Report, Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Extension (BonTerra Consulting, 2012).

The proposed mitigation strategy to offset impacts to areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW consists of both passive and active restoration of 4.27 acres of temporary project impact areas and the active restoration and enhancement of 0.99 acre at an offsite location along Temecula Creek, a tributary to Murrieta Creek. Table 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a I S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s

I
City of Temecula
Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project summarizes the proposed mitigation acreages and associated activities for both onsite restoration areas and offsite enhancement areas along Temecula Creek.

Table 1 Proposed Mitigation, Murrieta Creek Bridge
Onsite- Mitigation for Temporary Impacts
Temporary Impacts Within Low Flow
Area
Temporary Impacts Outside of Low
Flow Area
Total
Offsite- Mitigation for Permanent Impacts
Permanent Impacts

1.22 1:1 1.22 Self -mitigate; vegetation in the temporary impact areas in the low flow portion of the
creek will re-establish based on wet
conditions in the creek and proximity to
extensive native plant seed sources

3.05 1:1 3.05 Apply a native seed mix to temporary
impact areas to re-establish native plant
species.

4.27 4.27

0.33 3:1 0.99 Establish riparian plant species on City - owned parcel along Temecula Creek
(adjacent to French Valley and Pechanga
Parkway mitigation sites)
Project impacts to State and federal jurisdictional resources are as follows:

USACE
Temporary Impacts to Wetland 'Waters of the U.S.': 0.88 acre Permanent Impacts to Wetland 'Waters of the U.S.': 0.08 acre Total USACE Impacts: 0.96 acre
CDFW
Temporary Impacts to 'Waters of the State': 2.15 acres
Permanent Impacts to 'Waters of the State': 0.33 acre
Total CDFW Impacts: 2.48 acres
Mitigation requirements are based on the greater CDFW impact areas (which include USACE jurisdictional areas) andproposed mitigation provides concurrent compensation for both CDFW and USACE jurisdictional impacts.

USACE Mitigation Requirements (based on completed Ratio Setting Checklist for temporary and permanent impacts) are as follows:

Temporary Impacts (1:1 Mitigation Ratio): 1.22 ac. X 1= 1.22 acres to be accomplished on onsite temporary impact restoration areas (2.3 acres) Permanent Impacts (3:1 Mitigation Ratio): 0.33 ac. X 3= 0.99 acres to be accomplished as part of mitigation effort at the offsite City -owned parcel along Temecula Creek.

It is anticipated that the low -flow channel portions of the temporary impact areas (1.22 acres) will rapidly re-establish with native riparian species due to the hydrology of the channel and proximity to abundant native riparian seed sources throughout the channel. A native riparian seed mix and suitable erosion control measures will be applied to temporary impact areas along the channel side slopes (3.05 acres) to facilitate the establishment of native plant species in these areas. The proposed seed mix for these side slope areas is summarized in Table 2.

I
City of Temecula
Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project Table 2 Temporary Impact Site Seed Mix Project Site (3.05 Acres) deerweed
Acmispon glaber
California sagebrush
Artemisia californica
mugwort
Artemisia douglasiana
bush sunflower
Encelia californica
brittlebush
Encelia farinosa
California buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum
golden -yarrow
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
coast goldenbush
Isocoma menziesii
blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium bellum
Total
3 9
4 12
1 3
3 9
3 9
5 15
3 9
3 9
1 3
26 78
a Actual seed mix species/quantities will depend on species availability for collection in the project vicinity. Seed materials will be collected within Murrieta Creek and generally within the Upper Santa Margarita RiverWatershed and should be obtained from areas that have similar habitat conditions to the project site.
b Total quantities are rounded up/down.

The proposed 0.99 acre offsite mitigation area is located in the Temecula Creek floodplain, within a parcel owned by the City of Temecula (Figure 1). The proposed site is located immediately adjacent (west) to the approved 3.4-acre Pechanga Parkway and 2.73-acre French Valley Parkway mitigation sites. Installation at the French Valley site was completed in November 2012; installation at the Pechanga Parkway site was completed in fall 2013. The proposed 0.99-acre site is located on a low - elevation terrace north of and includes the active creek channel, and currently supports 90-95% non- native vegetation coverage. Soil types (per USDA) include Riverwash and Gorgonio loamy sand (2-8 percent slopes). There are small patches of existing willow riparian habitat within the polygon; however, the understory in these areas is also weedy/non-native and would benefit from restoration with native species. A commercial site is located along the north boundary of the proposed site providing excellent access for installation/maintenance, and the site would be properly fenced and signage installed as needed to deter public entry. The City has installed five piezometers with a maximum depth of 12 feet in this reach of Temecula Creek to assess groundwater resources on an ongoing basis. Groundwater was encountered at 11.5 feet at only one piezometer location in the southwest corner of the proposed mitigation site near the active creek channel during groundwater assessments performed in February 2012. BonTerra Consulting incidentally detected a least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)(vireo) within the proposed mitigation site in 2011 and 2012 during monitoring tasks associated with preliminary weed abatement within the adjacent 2.73-acre French Valley mitigation site. Additional vireos were detected within and adjacent to the proposed mitigation site during protocol surveys conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in spring and summer 2021. Proposed activities within the 0.99-acre site consist of the eradication of non-native plant species and the subsequent establishment of a mix of riparian tree, shrub, and herbaceous species such as willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (eaccharis salicifolia), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California wild rose (Rosa californica), etc., to benefit a range of wildlife species and in particular the vireo (a plant palette that is similar to the approved Pechanga Parkway and French Valley mitigation programs). A list of proposed plant species is provided in Table 3 and Table 4. All

I
City of Temecula
Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project maintenance and monitoring procedures would comply with resource agency conditions and would consist of a five-year program. In particular, mitigation site preparation, installation, and long-term maintenance activities would be performed in a manner that avoids adverse impacts to the vireo and other sensitive biological resources. A conservation easement would be placed over the 0.99-acre mitigation site.

Table 3 Seed Mix Species Offsite Mitigation At Temecula Creek Parcel Pounds of Seeda
Common Name Botanical Name Per 1.0 Acre Per 0.99 Acresb Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya 3 3
Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana 5 5
Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 3 3
Western goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis 3 3
Creeping wild rye Leymus triticoides 5 5
Deergrass Muhlenbergia rigens 3 3
Branching phacelia Phacelia ramosissima 3 3
Giant nettle Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea 3 3
Total 28 28
a Actual seed mix species/quantities will depend on species availability for collection in the project vicinity. Seed materials will be collected within Temecula Creek and generally within the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed and should be obtained from areas that have similar habitat conditions to the mitigation site. b Total quantities are rounded up/down.

Table 4 Containers And Cuttings Offsite Mitigation At Temecula Creek Parcel •uantitya
Per r
Common Name Botanical Name Size Per 1.0 Acre
Desert indigobush Amorphafruticosa 1-gallon 50 50
Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana 1-gallon 50 50
Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 1-gallon 50 50
Emory's baccharis Baccharis emoryi 1-gallon 100 99
Mule fat Baccharissalicifolia 1-gallon 100 99
Mule fat Baccharissalicifolia Cuttings 100 99
Western goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis 1-gallon 50 50
Velvet ash Fraxinus velutina 1-gallon 5 5
Creeping wild rye Leymus triticoides 1-gallon 50 50
Deergrass Muhlenbergia rigens 1-gallon 50 50
Western sycamore Platanus racemosa 1-gallon 10 10
Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 1-gallon 5 5
Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 1-gallon 5 5
California wild rose Rosa californica 1-gallon 50 50
California blackberry Rubus ursinus 1-gallon 50 50
Sandbar willow Salix exigua Cuttings 20 20

I
City of Temecula
Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project Quantitya
Common Name Botanical Name Size Per 1.0 Acre Per 0.99 Acresb Black willow Salixgooddingii Cuttings 20 20
Red willow Salixlaevigata Cuttings 20 20
Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis Cuttings 20 20
California figwort Scrophularia californica 1-gallon 50 50 Hedge nettle Stachysajugoides 1-gallon 50 50
Giant nettle Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea 1-gallon 50 50 Total 955 952
a Actual container plant species/quantities will depend on species availability for collection within the project Seed materials will be collected within Temecula Creek and generally within the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed and should be obtained from areas that have similar habitat conditions to the mitigation site. b Total quantities are rounded up/down.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Christopher Hughes Jared Reed
Biologist IV/Marine Scientist Senior Biologist/Project Manager Attachments
Figure 1 Temecula Creek Proposed Mitigation Site

I
City of Temecula
Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project Figure 1 Temecula Creek Proposed Mitigation Site
1-11 Pie
RI
8 ~
;4F qO
go
M
Temecula Creek Mitigation Parcel (22.4 ac.)
® French Valley Mitigation Site (2.73 ac.)
® Pechanga Parkway Mitigation Site (3.4 ac.)
® Proposed Mitigation Site (0.99 ac.)
CDFW Jurisdiction
Streambed (9.66 ac./3,265 linear ft.)
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
- Wetland Waters of the U.S. (4.23 ac./3,265 ft.)
0 150 300 N I'
ICI AFeet
imageryp.,i a yESAi,Micr ,s Bi,gan its ice-11 2022.
�Ik
it
a
;v
3 a�
. r1e.

Appendix E
Energy Calculation Methodology (Rincon Consultants Inc., February 2022)

Murrietta Creek Bridge Project
Last Updated: 2/21/2022
Compression -Ignition Engine Brake -Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:

HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 1 1 HP: Greater than 100 0.0529
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Hours per
Load
Fuel Used
Construction Equipment
#
Day
Horsepower
Factor
Construction Phase
(gallons)
Excavators
4 8
158

0.38 Grubbing/Land Clearing
3,554
Signal Boards
1 8
6 0.82
Grubbing/Land Clearing
81 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
6 8
97 0.37
Grubbing/Land Clearing
3,543
Crushing/Proc. Equipment
3 8
85 0.78
Grading/Excavation
2,338
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8
247

0.4 Grading/Excavation
2,089
Scrapers
2 8
367

0.48 Grading/Excavation
3,725
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8
97 0.37
Grading/Excavation
844
Bore/Drill Rigs
3 8
221

0.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
34,345
Cement and Mortar Mixers
4 8
9 0.56
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
2,322
Cranes
3 8
231

0.29 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
20,821
Excavators
5 8
158

0.38 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
31,102
Forklifts
2 8
89 0.2
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
4,100
Generator Sets
7 8
84 0.74
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
50,116
Other Construction Equipment
1 8
172

0.42 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
7,484
Pavers
1 8
130

0.42 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
5,657
Paving Equipment
1 8
132

0.36 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
4,923
Rollers
1 8
80 0.38
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
3,501
Scrapers
1 8
367

0.48 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
18,251
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
7 8
97 0.37
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
28,936
Excavators
4 8
158

0.38 Paving
7,617
Generator Sets
2 8
84 0.74
Paving
4,383
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8
247

0.4 Paving
3,133
Scrapers
3 8
367

0.48 Paving
16,761
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8
97 0.37
Paving
5,062
Total Fuel Used 264,689
(Gallons)
Construction Phase Days of Operation
Grubbing/Land Clearing 35
Grading/Excavation 25
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 245
Paving 75
Total Days 380

WORKER TRIPS
Fuel Used
Constuction Phase
MPG [2]
Trips
Trip Length (miles)
(gallons)
Grubbing/Land Clearing

24.1 10

20.0 290.46
Grading/Excavation

24.1 56

20.0 1161.83
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade

24.1 36

20.0 7319.50
Paving

24.1 16

20.0 995.85
Total
9,767.63
1 2/28/2022 2:25 PM

HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Fuel Used
Trip Class
MPG [2]
Trips
Trip Length (miles)
(gallons)

HAULING TRIPS
Grubbing/Land Clearing

7.5 2

58.6 15.63
Grading/Excavation

7.5 1

58.6 7.81
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade

7.5 2

67.0 17.87
Paving

7.5 3

67.0 26.80
Total

68.11 VENDOR TRIPS
Grubbing/Land Clearing

7.5 5

8.0 186.67
Grading/Excavation

7.5 5

8.0 133.33
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade

7.5 5

8.0 1306.67
Paving

7.5 5

8.0 400.00
Total
2,026.67
Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons) 9,768
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons) 266,783
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonrood Compression -Ignition Engines in MOVES3.0.2. September. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/42Or21021.pdf . [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2021. National Transportation Statistics. Available at:
https://www.bts.gov/topics/national-transportation-statistics . 2 2/28/2022 2:25 PM

Appendix F
Water Quality Assessment Report (Engineering Resources of Southern California Inc., October 2019)

Water Quality Assessment Report
For the
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
(Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek)
Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL(543)
City Project No. PW-16-05
Submitted to:

Caltrans District 8
Planning and Local Assistance
464 West 4' Street, 6' Floor (MS-760)
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
Prepared For:

City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
CNS Engineers, Inc.
11870 Pierce Street, Suite 265
Riverside, CA 92505
Prepared By:

Public Works I Municipal 5e"Ices I Water Resources
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
1861 W Redlands Blvd. Bldg. 7B
Redlands, CA 92373
Project File No. 19009001
October 2019
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy of these alternate formats, please call or write to Caltrans, Attn:

Lawrence Wooster, Caltrans ADA Coordinator, ADAdoeskdot.ca.gov; (833) 713-2922

Prepared By: Date: ` t tq
Craig Brudin, QSP, CESSWI
(909) 890-1255 x102
Engineering Resources of Southern California
1861 W Redlands Blvd.

Redlands, CA 92373
Approved By: Date: 7Z -?0/
Steven Latino, PE, TE/Director of Engineering
(909) 890-1255 x108
Engineering Resources of Southern California
1861 W Redlands Blvd,
Redlands, CA 92373
Approved By: G� Date:

Nino Abad, PE, QSD/P, Associate Civil Engineer/Project Manager 951-308-6385
Public Works Department
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92589

Executive Summary
.............................

Executive Summary
The Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) identifies potential water quality impacts associated with the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project. The purpose of this document is to describe the existing water resources, determine potential project impacts and whether they would be adverse based on the preliminary project data. This WQAR is intended to assist with compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Murrieta Creek Project is within the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board located in Riverside County. The City of Temecula (City) proposes the construction of a bridge spanning approximately 348 linear feet over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with the extension of Overland Drive within the City of Temecula, Riverside County. This project will include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Additional street improvements will also include underground utilities, construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and the relocation of sewer and water facilities.

The project consists of one no build alternative, the no build alternative would have this segment of the Murrieta Creek between Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado remain in its current state which would require traffic to continue to cross the creek using the Winchester Road Bridge approximately 0.3 miles north and the Montezuma low-water crossing approximately 0.5 miles south.

The construction, use, operation and maintenance of the proposed bridge and roadway improvements have the potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff from the Project.

Stormwater runoff from the Project may enter Murrieta Creek by direct discharge or by indirect discharge through the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), measures to control, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the Project's stormwater runoff are required.

These pollutant control measures, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented during construction and post -construction.

The federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program in California. The NPDES program controls water pollutants by regulating sources of the pollutants and thus protecting water quality. The state wide program is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The SWRCB and RWQCB programs require the control of pollutants both during the construction of the project and the duration of the project.

The Santa Margarita Watershed drains the southwest portion of Riverside County including all of the City of Temecula. Stormwater runoff collects into Murrieta and Temecula creeks and combines to form the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River flows through the "Gorge" and into San Diego County where it flows past Camp Pendleton into the Santa Margarita Lagoon at the Pacific Ocean.

Executive Summary
.............................

The City of Temecula holds an NPDES permit for discharges from its MS4 system. The City of Temecula is a named permittee on Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (Regional Board) on November 18th, 2015. Some of the requirements of this order became effective January 7th, 2016, and many new requirements will not be in effect until after the Regional Board approves the Co-Permittees compliance documents.

All pertinent environmental and water quality permitting such as the USACE 404, RWQCB Section 401, California Fish and Game Code FGC Section 1602, RWQCB 404 Water Quality Certification, and Jurisdiction Determination are currently in process. However, the Project has not been reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the US Army Corps of Engineers, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A delineation of potential wetlands and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was prepared in 2013 as part of the evaluation for potential permit requirements for the first phase of the project under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), for Streambed Alteration Agreement processing under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code, and for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, respectively. The analysis in the jurisdictional delineation resulted in 10.78 acres of wetland Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) and 15.60 acres of Waters of the State within the survey area. The delineation concluded that the project would impact 0.87 acres of WoUS and 2.12 acres of Waters of the State. Since there are areas within the Project area subject to USACE and CDFW jurisdiction, RWQCB jurisdiction in this case is coincident with USACE jurisdiction for purposes of the Section 401 water quality certification.

The Project is subject to the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). An MSHCP consistency analysis has been prepared for the Project since the Project cannot avoid all impacts to riparian/riverine areas, a Determination of Biologically Superior or Equivalent Preservation (DBESP) analysis is required to mitigate for any impacts. At the minimum, compensation for riparian/riverine impacts in the DBESP will include off -site participation in an in -lieu fee program, and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for habitat creation. Mitigation in the DBESP will be equivalent or superior to that which would occur if impacts to the riparian/riverine resources were avoided. The Project will be reviewed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), who manages the MSHCP. Compensatory mitigation is anticipated to be required by the USACE, the CDFW, the RWQCB, and for MSHCP consistency to offset the loss of jurisdictional waters and riparian/riverine habitat.

The City of Temecula requires the project to develop and implement two separate plans to control water quality, The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The SWPPP and WQMP will both identify the potential pollutants associated with construction of the project and the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction to control, reduce, or eliminate these pollutants in storm water runoff. These actions will be taken both during construction of the project and the duration or life of the project.

To efficiently and effectively comply with both the City of Temecula's requirements for

Executive Summary
.............................
water quality control, two documents are being prepared for this Project:
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) — The SWPPP will include treatment BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with the construction of the Project. The SWPPP will include a description of the post construction BMPs identified in the WQMP for the Project. Some of the construction phase BMPs for the Project include:
o Scheduling
o Streambank Stabilization
o Wind Erosion Controls
o Storm Drain Inlet Protection
o Gravel Bag Berm
o Gravel Bag Check Dams
o Sediment Sweeping and Vacuuming
o Material and Waste Handling and Storage
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) — The WQMP is a post -construction plan for managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff that flows from the Project after construction is completed and the Project is operational. The WQMP will describe the site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented and maintained throughout the life of Project to prevent and minimize water pollution that can be caused by stormwater runoff. The WQMP includes the following three major categories of BMPs:
o Site Design BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development strategies) — are Project features that are designed or incorporated into a project to minimize the increase in stormwater runoff from the developed project site. Examples of Site Design BMPs include the use of porous pavement or pavers, minimizing the use of impervious pavement areas, directing roof drains to landscaped areas, disconnecting impervious areas, and conserving natural areas, etc., to allow water to percolate into the ground.
o Source Control BMPs — Activities or structures aimed at eliminating or minimizing contact between pollutant sources and stormwater/urban runoff.

Examples of Source Control BMPs include education, contractor training, storm drain markings, sweeping, litter collection, canopies over fueling islands, and awnings or tarps to cover materials stored outdoors. These BMPs help keep water from carrying pollutants to storm drain systems and then to Murrieta Creek. o Treatment Control BMPs — Engineered devices or systems incorporated into the project's drainage system to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff before the runoff leaves the project site. Examples of Treatment Control BMPs include vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, detention/retention basins, catch basin filters, and vortex separators. These devices help remove potential pollutants from stormwater runoff prior to leaving site and entering storm drain systems and then to Murrieta Creek.
iv

Executive Summary
.............................

The Post -Construction BMPs for the Project may include:
o Education for Property Owners
o Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance
o Street Sweeping
o MS4 Stenciling and Signage
o Channel and Slope Protection
Collectively, the BMPs described in the SWPPP and/or the WQMP are expected to mitigate the discharge of pollutants associated with the construction, use, operation, and maintenance of the Project to levels that are less than significant.

Table of Contents
.........................

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. ii Tableof Contents............................................................................................................ vii Listof Figures................................................................................................................... ix Listof Tables.................................................................................................................... ix Listof Appendices............................................................................................................ ix

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................I

1.1 Approach to Water Quality Assessment..............................................................1

1.2 Project Description................................................................................................I

1.2.1 No Project Alternative......................................................................................4

1.2.2 Build Alternative................................................................................................4

2. REGULATORY SETTING........................................................................................8

2.1 Federal Laws and Requirements..........................................................................8

2.2 State Laws and Requirements..............................................................................9

2.3 Regional and Local Requirements.....................................................................12

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................12

3.1 General Environmental Setting..........................................................................12

3.1.1 Population and Land Use.................................................................................13

3.1.2 Topography......................................................................................................13

3.1.3 Hydrology........................................................................................................14

3.1.3.1 Regional Hydrology......................................................................................14

3.1.3.2 Local Hydrology...........................................................................................15

3.1.3.2.1 Precipitation and Climate.....................................................................15

3.1.3.2.2 Surface W.............................................................................................16

3.1.3.2.3 Floodplains...........................................................................................16

3.1.3.2.4 Municipal Supply.................................................................................16

3.1.3.3 Groundwater Hydrology............................................................................16

3.1.4 Geology/Soils...................................................................................................17

3.1.4.1 Soil Erosion Potential................................................................................17

3.1.5 Biological Communities..................................................................................17

3.1.5.1 Aquatic Habitat..........................................................................................17

3.1.5.1.1 Special Status Species..........................................................................17

3.1.5.1.2 Stream/Riparian Habitats.....................................................................17

3.1.5.1.3 Wetlands..............................................................................................18

3.1.5.1.4 Fish Passage.........................................................................................18

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...............................................................18

4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................18

4.2 Potential Impacts to Water Quality...................................................................18

4.2.1 Anticipated Changes to the Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic vii
W QAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project PW-16-05

Table of Contents
.........................

Environment.....................................................................................................19

4.2.1.1 Substrate.....................................................................................................19

4.2.1.2 Currents, Circulation or Drainage Patterns................................................19

4.2.1.3 Suspended Particulates (Turbidity)............................................................19

4.2.1.4 Oil, Grease and Chemical Pollutants.........................................................19

4.2.1.5 Temperature, Oxygen Depletion and Other Parameters ............................20

4.2.1.6 Flood Control Functions............................................................................20

4.2.1.7 Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers.............................................................20

4.2.1.8 Erosion and Accretion Patterns..................................................................20

4.2.1.9 Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater.................................................................20

4.2.1.10 Baseflow....................................................................................................20

4.2.2 Anticipated
Changes to the Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment..................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2.1
Special Aquatic Sites.................................................................................20

4.2.2.2 Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms.........................................21

4.2.2.2.1 Fish Passage (Beneficial Uses)............................................................21

4.2.2.3 Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................................21

4.2.2.3.1 Wildlife Passage (Beneficial Uses)......................................................21

4.2.2.4 Endangered or Threatened Species............................................................21

4.2.2.5 Invasive Species.........................................................................................21

4.2.3 Anticipated
Changes to the Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment.....................................................................................................22

4.2.3.1 Existing and Potential Water Supplies; Water Conservation ....................22

4.2.3.2 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries.......................................................22

4.2.3.3 Other Water Related Recreation................................................................22

4.2.3.4 Aesthetics of the Aquatic Ecosystem.........................................................22

4.2.3.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, etc........................................................22

4.2.3.6 Traffic/Transportation Patterns..................................................................22

4.2.3.7 Energy Consumption or Generation..........................................................23

4.2.3.8 Navigation..................................................................................................23

4.2.3.9 Safety.........................................................................................................23

4.2.4 Temporary Impacts to Water Quality..............................................................23

4.2.4.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................................23

4.2.4.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek ........... 23 4.2.4.3
Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment ..........................23

4.2.5 Long -Term Impacts During Operation and Maintenance................................23

4.2.5.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................................23

4.2.5.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek ........... 23 4.3 Impact
Assessment Methodology.......................................................................24

4.4 Alternative -Specific Impact Analysis.................................................................24

4.5 Cumulative
Impacts.............................................................................................25

5. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES............................................25

6. REFERENCES...........................................................................................................26 viii
WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project PW-16-05

Table of Contents
.........................

6.1 Works Cited..........................................................................................................27

6.2 Preparer(s) Qualifications...................................................................................27 List of Figures
Figure1 Project Vicinity..................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Typical Section of Ultimate Overland Drive...................................................6 Figure 3 Typical Section of Proposed Overland Drive..................................................6 Figure4 Project Location.................................................................................................7 Figure5 Hydrology Map...............................................................................................14 List of Tables
Table 1-1 Population Projections for the State of California......................................13 List of Appendices
Appendix A National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette.................................................29 ix
W QAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Approach to Water Quality Assessment
The purpose of the Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) is to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to provide information for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. The document includes a discussion of the proposed project, the general environmental setting of the project area, and the regulatory framework with respect to water quality; it also provides data on surface water and groundwater resources within the project area and the water quality of these waters, describes water quality impairments and beneficial uses, and identifies potential water quality impactsibenefits associated with the proposed project, and recommends avoidance and/or minimization measures for potentially adverse impacts.

1.2 Project Description
Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula.

The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area:

1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek

2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists

3. Provide additional access points to the City's industrial park Project Need: Murrieta Creek bisects the City of Temecula west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and separates industrial park and open space areas in the western City limits from the rest of the City. Murrieta Creek is an important riparian resource within the City, which protects water quality, conveys stormwater, and contains important biological resources and habitats. In addition, the Creek is an important archaeological area with known and unknown archaeological sites. Therefore, there are limited creek crossings in the City.

A low-water crossing of Murrieta Creek currently exists at Via Montezuma, approximately 0.5 miles south of Overland Drive. The low-water crossing frequently closed in wet seasons is not a reliable route to cross the Creek during storm and flooding events, and the crossing is scheduled to be removed in the future by a separate channel improvements project. Therefore, there is a need for an additional all-weather creek crossing location for employees and residents to access the industrial and open space areas to the west of Murrieta Creek.

For delineations of the project features please refer to the figures presented below, subsequent to the narrative for this section. Figure 1 & 4 below present the project vicinity and location map along with the key features under evaluation for impacts as a result of this project. Figure 2 below presents the typical ultimate roadway section for Overland Drive that will tie into the proposed bridge. Figure 3 below presents the typical section of the proposed bridge that will continue overland drive over Murrieta Creek and tie into Avenida Alvarado.

WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction
Existing Conditions: The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado.

Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek and has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes.

An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately 0.3 miles north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 miles south.

Proposed Improvements: The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County.

The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 5-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6- foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing.

Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Traffic signals and street lights will be installed at the Overland Drive/ Commerce Centre Drive intersection as well. Traffic signals and street light will be installed at the overland drive/commerce center drive intersection as 2 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction
well. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping.

As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within the Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground for scour protection would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signal communication.

The project will also include the following additional improvements:

Railing Architectural treatment. The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments such as formliner textures to control graffiti.

Landscaping. Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive.

Right -of -Way Requirements: The right of way on the east side of the Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to raise of the Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways in private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed.

Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). A temporary construction easement at the northeast corner of the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West intersection may be required to reconstruct an ADA-compliant curb ramp.

Construction Traffic Controls: Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to maintaining vehicle and pedestrian and bicyclist access at all times. Temporary and short term access impact may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders.

A Risk Level Assessment was performed and from its findings, the project has a high receiving waters risk with a medium sediment risk leading to the combined risk of the project to be a Level 2.
3 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction

1.2.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would have this segment of the Murrieta Creek between Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado remain in its current state which would require traffic to continue to cross the creek using the Winchester Road Bridge approximately 0.3 miles north and the Montezuma low-water crossing approximately 0.5 miles south.

1.2.2 Build Alternative
The Build Alternative proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6- foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing.

The right of way on the east side of the Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to the raising of the Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways in private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). A temporary construction easement at the northeast corner of the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West intersection may be required to reconstruct an ADA-compliant curb ramp.

WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction
N
WF.
i
�t
-9y
c�
Wye
t4xgza Raao
��^�o C��if�rnia Road
6>
a
Site Location
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction
B1w 88' Minimum R`
ff
10' I T 10' 12' 12' eC 12' 12' 1r '
SECONDARY ARTERIAL (4 LANES UNDIVJDED )
igure 2: Typical Section of Ultimate Overland Drive (City of Temecula General Plan) q OVERLAND DRIVE
1'-9°
Conc BARRIER
TYPE 836
WITH TEXTURE 1
35'-9" 41'-2"
6'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 6'_0" 6'_2" 1' �ShIdF
� F �
�
�
�
�ShIdF�SW
F
PG
I

UTILITY UTILITY

OPENING OPENING

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

TYPICAL SECTION
0"

METAL RAILING
Typ
Conc BARRIER
TYPE 732SW

WITH TEXTURE
` CIPIPS Conc

BOX GIRDER
4'-0" 0 COLUMN
ON 6'-0" DRILLED
SHAFT, Typ

FG (EARTHEN

CHANNEL)
Figure 3: Typical Section of Proposed Overland Drive Bridge 6 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

1. Introduction
Figure 4: Project Location
WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

2. Regulatory Setting

2.1 Federal Laws and Requirements
Clean Water Act
In 1972 Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES permit. Known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA), Congress has amended it several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of stormwater from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit program. Important CWA sections are:

Sections 303 and 304 require states to promulgate water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.

Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity, which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. (Most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. See below).

Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency delegated to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) the implementation and administration of the NPDES program in California.

The SWRCB established nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The SWRCB enacts and enforces the Federal NPDES program and all water quality programs and regulations that cross Regional boundaries. The nine RWQCBs enact, administer and enforce all programs, including NPDES permitting, within their jurisdictional boundaries.

Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of stormwater from industrial, construction, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).
• Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S, including wetlands. This permit program is administered by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

The objective of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Individual. There are two types of General permits: Regional and Nationwide permits. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect.

Nationwide permits are issued to authorize a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects.

There are also two types of Individual permits: Standard Individual permit and Letter of Permission. Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of USACE's Individual permits. For Standard Individual permit, the s
WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA CFR 40 Part 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the U.S.

EPA in conjunction with USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), to the proposed discharge that would have less effects on waters of the U.S., and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. Per Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures have been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause "significant degradation" to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4.

2.2 State Laws and Requirements
Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
An LSA Agreement is a type of permit that includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. Common activities that are permitted by LSA Agreements include installation, repair, or maintenance of water diversions, culverts, stream crossings (e.g., bridges, rock fords), or any other modification of a lake or stream's bed, bank, or channel including extraction of material from them (i.e., sand, rock, or gravel) or deposition of material into them (CDFW).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for protecting and conserving fish and wildlife resources, and the habitats upon which they depend. The Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program reviews projects that would alter any river, stream, or lake and conditions projects to conserve existing fish and wildlife resources. Under Section 1602 of the CDFW, any project that may: Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other materials containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake will require a Lake and Streambed Alteration agreement. CDFW will review your notification and issue a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement when necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources (CFWD).

Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California's Porter -Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This Act requires a "Report of Waste Discharge" for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface and/or groundwater of the State. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the State. Waters of the State include more than just waters of the U.S., since groundwater and surface waters are not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it 9 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
prohibits discharges of "waste" as defined and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of "pollutant". Discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards as required by the CWA, and regulating discharges to protect beneficial uses of water bodies. Details regarding water quality standards in a project area are contained in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, Regional Boards designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions, and then set standards necessary to protect these uses. Consequently, the water quality standards developed for particular water body segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on such use. Water body segments that fail to meet standards for specific pollutants are included in a Statewide List in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a Regional Board determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or non -source point controls (NPDES permits or Waste Discharge Requirements), the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non -point, and natural) for a given watershed.

The SWRCB implemented the requirements of CWA Section 303(d) through Attachment IV of the Caltrans Statewide MS4, as it includes specific TMDLs for which Caltrans is the named stakeholder.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB adjudicates water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWCQBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of stormwater dischargers, including MS4s. The U.S. EPA defines an MS4 as "any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human -made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that are designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater." The SWRCB has identified the Department as an owner/operator of an MS4 pursuant to federal regulations. The Department's MS4 permit covers all Department rights -of -way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted.

Construction General Permit
Construction General Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002, SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, adopted on November 16, 2010) became effective on February 14, 2011 and was amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. The permit 10 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites which result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development.

For all projects subject to the CGP, the applicant is required to hire a Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Developer (QSD) to develop and implement an effective SWPPP. All Project Registration Documents, including the SWPPP, are required to be uploaded into the SWRCB's on-line Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), at least 30 days prior to construction.

Waivers from CGP coverage.

Projects that disturb over 1.0 acre but less than 5 acres of soil, may qualify for waiver of CGP coverage. This occurs whenever the R factor of the Watershed Erosion Estimate (=RxKxLS) in tons/acre is less than 5. Within this CGP formula, there is a factor related to when and where the construction will take place. This factor, the `R' factor, may be low, medium or high. When the R factor is below the numeric value of 5, projects can be waived from coverage under the CGP, and are instead covered by the Caltrans Statewide MS4.

In accordance with SWMP, a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) is necessary for construction of a Caltrans project not covered by the CGP.

Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre is subject to this CGP if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop a SWPPP, to implement soil erosion and pollution prevention control measures, and to obtain coverage under the CGP.

The CGP contains a risk -based permitting approach by establishing three levels of risk possible for a construction site. Risk levels are determined during the planning, design, and construction phases, and are based on project risk of generating sediments and receiving water risk of becoming impaired. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory stormwater runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and pre- and post - construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows.

Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the United States must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will be in compliance with State water quality standards.

The most common federal permit triggering 401 Certification is a CWA Section 404 permit, issued by USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before USACE issues a 404 permit.

In some cases the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project. As a result, the RWQCB may prescribe a set of requirements known as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the State Water Code (Porter -Cologne Act).

WDRs may specify the inclusion of additional project features, effluent limitations, 11 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges of a project.

2.3 Regional and Local Requirements
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
The proposed project lies within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 9). The San Diego RWQCB prepared the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (with amendments effective on or before May 17, 2016) to help manage and preserve the state's water quality and supply. The Basin Plan for the San Diego Region is a collection of water quality goals and policies, descriptions of conditions and discussions of solutions. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all surface and ground water in the region. The Basin Plan establishes an implementation plan describing the actions taken by the Regional Board and others that are necessary to meet the water quality standards identified in the Basin Plan. Known water quality problems are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, if they are known. Plans for improving water quality are included for bodies of water that do not meet the necessary quality standards.

Local Regulations
The City of Temecula is a named permittee on Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9- 2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (Regional Board) on November 18th, 2015. Some of the requirements of this order became effective January 7th, 2016, and many new requirements will not be in effect until after the Regional Board approves the Co-Permittees compliance documents.

In the interim, the previous Order No. 2010-0016 is referenced. These permits outline programs and requirements that the Member Agencies must implement to comply with State and Federal Water Quality laws and to protect receiving waters from pollution. These requirements include the creation and implementation of plans to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system and to our waterways, and annual report requirements.

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The City of Temecula is located in Riverside County, California, United States. The city is approximately 50 miles North of San Diego. According to the 2010 census, the population of Temecula was 100,097. The population was recorded as 57,716 per the 2000 census.

3.1 General Environmental Setting
• Temecula is located at 33.4936' N, 117.1484' W. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 37.28 square miles, 37.27 square miles of it is land and the other 0.012 square miles is water.
12 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

The City of Temecula receives about 12 inches of rain, on average, per year. The US average is 38 inches of rain per year. On average it snows 0 days out of the year in Temecula.

There are approximately 276 sunny days per year in Temecula. The July high is around 94 degrees and the January low is around 41 degrees.

Climatological data since 1999 for the City of Temecula includes the following:
i. On average the hottest month is August.
ii. The highest recorded temperature was 113.8°F (45.4°C) (2018). iii. On average the coldest month is December.
iv. The lowest recorded temperature was 22.9°F (-5.1 °C) (2007).

V. The average high temperature is 78.6°F (25.91C).
vi. The average low temperature is 51.1OF (10.6°C).

The project is located in the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin Number: 9-05)
• There are no known wellhead protection areas in the project site. • No 404(b)(1) water body is triggered for the Project.

3.1.1 Population and Land Use
Land use within the Region varies considerably. The region is experiencing and is expected to continue to experience population growth. Table 1-1 shows population projections for San Diego, Riverside, And Orange counties. The Population of Temecula was recorded as 114,327 in 2017. Land Use in the city varies from residential, commercial and office, light industrial, public/institutional, and open space areas. (Temecula General Plan & San Diego Region -The Basin Plan)
TABLE 1-1. POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND

SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, AND ORANGE COUNTIES
Location
Year 1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
San Diego County
2,421,233
2,677,059
2,915,692
3,143,155
3,373,422
0,618,554
Riverside County
1,195,400
1,493,559
1,771,276
2,076,538
2,402,389
2,759,172
Orange County
2,415,269
2,667,706
2,962,106
2,992,355
3,099,374
3,193,64
Total for California
29,777,448
32r958,921
36,214,622
39,194,830
42,179,903
45,344r961

3.1.2 Topography
The terrain of the project vicinity is relatively flat with an expected drop in elevation near the Murrieta Creek. The project will not impact the existing topography. 13 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

3.1.3 Hydrology

3.1.3.1 Regional Hydrology
The San Diego Region occurs within the Peninsula Range Physiographic Province of California. The Peninsula Range includes from north to south, the Santa Ana, Agua Tibia, Palomar, Volcan, Cuyamaca and Laguna mountains. This area exhibits gently dissecting western surface and a steep eastern slope and is separated by the West Colorado River area by abrupt fault scarps of marked relief.

The San Diego Region is divided into three separate areas, a coastal plain area, a central mountain valley area and an eastern mountain valley area. The coastal plain area consists of a series of wave cut benched that are covered by thin terrace deposits. This terraced surface has been dissected by passing streams draining to the sea, and the surface has been smoothed by erosion. The surface of this area ranges from sea level to about 1,200 feet and extends from the coast inland in a band of about 10 miles in width.

The central mountain valley area is characterized by ridges and intermontane basins that extend from the coastal plain, northeastward to the Elsinore fault zone. The surface of this area range in elevation from 500 to about 5,000 feet and are typically fault block origin modified form erosion. The floors of the intermontane valleys are generally underlain by moderate thickness of alluvium and residuum. Notable examples of this occur near El Cajon, Escondido and Ramona. At higher elevation plateau surfaces have been developed in the central mountain valley area. These occur at elevations from 2,000 to 6,000 feet near the Laguna Mountains, Santa Ysabel and Valley Center.

The eastern mountain valley area is characterized by relatively flat valleys which are structurally of block fault origin. Locally, the grabens contain thick sections of alluvial deposits. These valleys generally rise to the southeast from 1,000 feet elevations near Temecula to the rolling plateaus of Glenoak, Lewis and Reed Valleys which range from 3,000 to 3,500 feet in elevation. Surrounding mountains include the Red mountain, Cahuilla mountain and Bachelor mountain and have an elevation range from 4,000 to 7,500 feet. (San Diego Region -The Basin Plan).
14 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
-
I.EIi!lam
;R.A
OsMureta Cre rn mmnwareaseceo eawoaar
'`• Hyd.1 a Creek
H1'Gmlo9,e,
Figure 5: Hydrology Map

3.1.3.2 Local Hydrology

3.1.3.2.1 Precipitation and Climate
Riverside County's Climate is classified as a Semi -Arid Mediterranean Climate, characterized by mild hot and dry summers and mild winters that are relatively wet.

Temperatures average about 55 degrees in December to 80 degrees in August. The average annual rainfall at the project limits are approximately 10-13 inches with most of the rainfall occurring during November through February.
• City of Temecula gets approximately 12 inches of rain per year, while the US average is 38 inches. Temecula averages 0 inches of snow per year, while the US average is 28 inches. Temecula will have some kind of precipitation 31 days out of the year.
• On average, Temecula will have 276 sunny days per year, while the average in the US is 205 days. The January Low is 41 degrees Fahrenheit, while the July High is 94 degrees Fahrenheit. Temecula has a comfort rating of 73 out of 100 which indicates a comfortable year-round weather. The higher the comfort score rating the more comfortable the weather is year-round in that location; the US average comfort rating is 54 out of 100.
15 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

3.1.3.2.2 Surface Waters
The nearest major drainage course to the project site is the Murrieta Creek which flows within and adjacent to the project site.

3.1.3.2.3 Floodplains
According to FEMA Flood Map Number 06065C2720G, the project is located within in a regulatory flood plain and also mapped as Zone AE, which means that the area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event with Base Flood Elevations.

3.1.3.2.4 Municipal Supply
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is the main water purveyor for the City of Temecula. RCWD's water supply is obtained from the following primary water sources:

Local ground water from the Murrieta-Temecula Basin; 2) imported State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) through the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD); 3) recycled water from both the district and EMWD facilities. Annual water production for RCWD is around 66,100 acre-feet. (RCWD Water Facilities Master Plan).

3.1.3.3 Groundwater Hydrology
Rancho California Water District's (RCWD's) current service area represents 99,000 acres, and the District has 878 miles of water mains, 35 storage reservoirs, one surface reservoir (Lake Vail), 53 groundwater wells, and 36,759 service connections.

Approximately 109,000 people are served by RCWD.

RCWD relies on imported water from MWD to meet much of its water demands. MWD obtains its water from the Colorado River and Northern California, via the State Water Project (SWP). Both sources are over -allocated and water supplies can be significantly limited during dry weather years and droughts. Additionally, water quality and Endangered Species Act requirements in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Bay Delta (Bay - Delta) could reduce further MWD's SWP allocations. Water delivered to homes and businesses is a blend of groundwater (35%) and import water (65%).

Per RCWD's 2018 Water Quality Report, the water supplied generally falls below the Public Health Goal. Below is a list of know contaminants that exceed this goal (average data used):
• Inorganic Chemicals
o Arsenic
• Radionuclides
o Gross Alpha
o Uranium
16 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

Even though the above listed items exceed the PHG, they are still in compliance with State and Federal Regulation.

3.1.4 Geology/Soils
The US Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey for the project area shows the potential for three soil types in the area:
• Cf — Chino Silt Loam, drained, saline -alkali (high erosion potential) • GuB — Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (slight)
• GvB — Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes.

3.1.4.1 Soil Erosion Potential
Dependent on soil conditions, there could be the potential for erosion with the Chino Silt Loam. Grangeville has a low erosion potential in comparison. A preliminary geotechnical report will be completed during the early stages of the project and any erosion potential will be further noted.

3.1.5 Biological Communities

3.1.5.1 Aquatic Habitat

3.1.5.1.1 Special Status Species
The southern willow scrub and riparian scrub habitats in the project area provide habitat that is occupied by the federally -endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo belhi pusillus).

Minimization and avoidance measures will be developed for the project in conjunction with USFWS and CDFW to reduce or avoid potential impacts to this species.

Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1 species, has been observed on site. Smooth tarplant is a Criteria Area species covered by the MSHCP. Because the survey area is located outside an "Additional Survey Needs Area" for smooth tarplant as defined by the MSHCP, all impacts are considered mitigated with the City's participation in the MSHCP

3.1.5.1.2 Stream/Riparian Habitats
The project would impact riparian/riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP including Southern willow scrub, riparian scrub, and freshwater marsh riparian habitats. The project would be required to comply with any applicable land use and conservation requirements as a part of the MSHCP, which would reduce potential impacts to sensitive species and habitats. Since avoidance is not feasible based on the nature of the proposed project, an analysis supporting a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) will be prepared. The DBESP will outline a mitigation strategy to 17 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
provide riparian/riverine resources of equivalent or superior habitat value to those being impacted.

3.1.5.1.3 Wetlands
The project is located on a riverine (Murrieta Creek) resource that contains wetland habitat. (FWS national wetlands inventory). A wetland delineation and assessment will be prepared to establish the extents of jurisdictional resources within the project area. As described above, since avoidance is not feasible based on the nature of the proposed project an analysis supporting a DBESP will be prepared. The DBESP will outline a mitigation strategy to provide wetland resources of equivalent or superior habitat value to those being impacted.

3.1.5.1.4 Fish Passage
According to the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, California Fish Website, freshwater native fish species such as the Arroyo Chub, Coastal Rainbow Trout, and Southern California Steelhead can be found in the Murrieta Creek. Non-native fish species such as Black Bullhead, Black Crappie, Blue Catfish, White Catfish, Channel Catfish, Redear Sunfish, and Threadfin Shad can be found in Murrieta Creek.

The reach of Murrieta Creek where the project is located is typically dry or with intermittent water with little flow. It is not likely to find native fish within this reach. The proposed project will temporary impact the creek bed for the installation of erosion control features. However, the features will be installed flushed with the creek bed and would not impede the ability for fish to move through the area.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction
The Project will have a minimal adverse effect on stormwater quality because the impacts associated with the construction of the new bridge will be offset by the removal of existing buildings and the construction of new curbs, gutters, storm drains and utility facilities. Both during and after construction BMPs will be implemented and maintained to ensure local and regional stormwater runoff quality is improved.

4.2 Potential Impacts to Water Quality
It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project will increase impervious surface areas that could affect downstream water bodies. Construction of the project and the increase in runoff would potentially cause or contribute to water quality impacts and could have the 18 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
potential for adverse impacts. The following summarizes the impacts of the project and the introduction of pollutants into the environment with a particular focus on stormwater runoff.

4.2.1 Anticipated changes to the Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment

4.2.1.1 Substrate
Substrate, which for the purpose of this section, would pertain to habitats, refuges and nesting sites of aquatic life. During construction, the potential impacts would be associated with sedimentation (soil disturbance). Disturbed soils are susceptible to erosion, resulting in sediment transport.

The completed project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which could potentially increase stormwater runoff. Generally, roadway/bridge projects are associated with sediment, nutrients, nitrate discharges, litter and metals. Pollutants associated with the operation of the project also have the potential to impact areas on which organisms live and grow.

It is not anticipated that the construction or operational use of the project will cause a change in sedimentation of the receiving water bodies. Due to the area of the project, a very minor increase in runoff compared to the entire hydrologic area is anticipated. The proposed construction would be stabilized with Temporary Construction BMPs, and Post Construction BMPs would be put in place once the project is complete to mitigate concerns.

4.2.1.2 Currents, Circulation or Drainage Patterns
As per the existing condition, the Project will allow Murrieta Creek to flow unimpeded and provide adequate conveyance. The project will also allow the bridge and roadway flows to discharge to the Creek. It is anticipated that there will be no significant increase to the flow, volume, rate, depth or seasonal changes.

4.2.1.3 Suspended Particulates (Turbidity)
Sediment is likely to occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed projects; however, Temporary Construction BMPs and Post Construction BMPs would be implemented to mitigate this potential impact.

4.2.1.4 Oil, Grease and Chemical Pollutants
Generally, roadway/bridge projects are associated with oil, grease and chemicals due to the need to accommodate vehicular and non -vehicular traffic. The project will be replacing an existing low water crossing along via montezuma, so generally the pollutants will remain the same.
19 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

4.2.1.5 Temperature, Oxygen, Depletion and Other Parameters Not applicable; however, trash is always present at any time of this project type, regardless of landuse.

4.2.1.6 Flood Control Functions
The proposed bridge will provide adequate conveyance capacity for the 100-year flow in the Murrieta Creek. The project will include minimal drainage improvements within the creek. Activities will include minor re -grading of the creek near the bridge and construction of concrete slope protection and cutoff wall to protect the bridge abutments from scour.

4.2.1.7 Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers
Wetlands may serve as buffer zones, shielding upland areas from wave actions, storm damage and erosion, per 40 CFR 230.41. Other features of the design, such as Design Pollution Prevention BMPs would be implemented to minimize erosion due to storm damage.

4.2.1.8 Erosion and Accretion Patterns
The project is generally surrounded by a relatively flat area and which has pervious surfaces. Potential for erosion and accretion due to the construction of the project is unlikely and negligible.

4.2.1.9 Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater
During the construction of the bridge piers, should dewatering be necessary there may be impacts to the aquifer recharge or groundwater supply. Dewatering activities for excavations below the water table could result in the discharge of unsuitable and untreated water if discharged directly into the environment.

4.2.1.10 Baseflow
According to the Department of Water Resources, depth to groundwater in the area of the project range from 5 to 25 feet below ground surface. USGS monitors stream flow conditions for Murrieta Creek within the project area. Based on USGS data, base flow would have to be considered when conducting a Unit Hydrograph Analysis for a catchment, and changes in base flow are anticipated with implementation of the project.

4.2.2 Anticipated Changes to the Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment

4.2.2.1 Special aquatic sites
20 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

In addition to wetlands, special aquatic sites include sanctuaries and refuges, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes. See 40 CFR Subpart E § 230.40-45. According to the National Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, there are no refuges adjacent to the project site; therefore, there are no anticipated changes to any special aquatic sites.

4.2.2.2 Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms

4.2.2.2.1 Fish Passage (Beneficial Uses)
The reach of Murrieta Creek where the project is located is typically dry or with intermittent water with little flow. It is not likely to find native fish within this reach. The proposed project will temporary impact the creek bed for the installation of erosion control features. However, the features will be installed flushed with the creek bed and would not impede the ability for fish to move through the area.

4.2.2.3 Wildlife Habitat

4.2.2.3.1 Wildlife Passage (Beneficial Uses)
Murrieta Creek provides a wildlife movement corridor and is designated in the MSHCP as a Proposed Constrained Linkage. According to the MSHCP, the Murrieta Creek contains riparian habitat for the movement of yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia [Dendroica petechia]), yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens), and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). It also states that existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek must be maintained to support Pacific western pond turtle (Actinemys [Emys] marmorata) and arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) in this area. The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Road Bridge located immediately upstream of the survey area. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek under the new proposed bridge, assuming indirect effects of noise and lighting are minimized.

Therefore, following construction of the proposed bridge, wildlife would be expected continue to move along the creek as they currently do.

4.2.2.4 Endangered or Threatened Species
The proposed project area contains suitable habitat for the federally -endangered least Bell's vireo and this species has been observed on site. Minimization and avoidance measures will be developed for the project in conjunction with USFWS and CDFW to reduce or avoid potential impacts to this species.

4.2.2.5 Invasive Species
Seeds of invasive exotic plant species can be carried into a construction site within the mud on the tires of construction equipment. Construction Minimization Measures from Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP will be followed; these guidelines require the use of vehicle washing stations to minimize the spread of invasive species. 21 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

The proposed project does includes minimal landscaping along a trail near the bridge approach, however the project will not introduce invasive, non-native plant species that could degrade adjacent open space areas. Tamarix (Tamarix sp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) already occur throughout the proposed project area and throughout Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek already provides a source of water for invasive wildlife species, and is already occupied by the invasive bullfrog, which is known to prey upon native aquatic wildlife species. The proposed project would not create any conditions that would expand the distribution of the bullfrog or any other invasive plant or wildlife species.

4.2.3 Anticipated Changes to the Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment

4.2.3.1 Existing and Potential Water Supplies; Water Conservation The proposed project is not sited in a location used by a local water district for existing or potential water supplies, or water conservation; therefore, no changes to existing water supplies, potential water supplies, or water conservation are anticipated.

4.2.3.2 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries
No known commercial or recreational fishing is permitted (or occurs) in the receiving water body within the proposed project boundary; therefore, no changes are anticipated.

4.2.3.3 Other Water Related Recreation
There are no impacts to existing water related recreation within the project boundary.

4.2.3.4 Aesthetics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
The proposed project would have direct permanent changes during construction to the aesthetics of the aquatic ecosystem through the disturbance and/or removal of existing riparian vegetation. After the proposed project is constructed, the remaining riparian vegetation would not be impacted by operation of the proposed project.

4.2.3.5 Parks, National and Historic Monuments, National Seashores, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, etc.

There are no impacts to Parks, National and Historic Monuments, National Seashores, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, etc. due to the project.

4.2.3.6 Traffic/Transportation Patterns
During the construction there would be no impacts to Traffic/Transportation patterns as there currently is no crossing at Overland Drive and Murrieta Creek. Post construction, vehicles will utilize this corridor to reroute from nearby Winchester Road and Via 22 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................

Montezuma. Once completed, the Via Montezuma low water crossing will be eliminated, shifting traffic to the newly constructed bridge.

4.2.3.7 Energy Consumption of Generation
No energy consumption or generation uses in the project boundary would be impacted by the proposed project (during and post construction).

4.2.3.8 Navigation
Navigation would not be impacted by the proposed project.

4.2.3.9 Safety
Construction of the proposed project may cause changes to human safety within the project boundaries; however, after construction of the proposed project no changes to safety would occur based on current information.

4.2.4 Temporary Impacts to Water Quality

4.2.4.1 No Build Alternative
If the No Build Alternative was implemented there would be no impacts to water quality.

4.2.4.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek During the construction of the proposed project, there is a potential to contribute pollutants to the receiving water body. These pollutants would include sediment and silt from ground disturbances, and chemical pollutants associated with the construction equipment and materials that are brought onto the project site. Silt and sediment can carry pollutants and well as impact plant production, obscure food sources, habitats, refuges, and nesting sites.

In addition, equipment access, along with construction workers will have impacts to the receiving water body in the project location.

4.2.5 Long-term Impacts During Operation and Maintenance

4.2.5.1 No Build Alternative
If the No Build Alternative was implemented there would be no new impacts; however, the existing low Water Crossing at Via Montezuma allows for oil, grease, fuel, metal and chemicals to enter the creek since vehicular traffic crosses at the creek bottom.

4.2.5.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek Operation of the proposed project will have the potential to impact the receiving water body due to the increase in impervious surface area, which would result in stormwater 23 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

4. Environmental Consequences
..............................................
runoff. Potential pollutants associated with the operation of transportation facilities include: sediment from erosion, nutrients (i.e. phosphorus and nitrogen), mineralized organic matter in soils, nitrite discharges (atmospheric and vehicular), litter and metals.

4.3 Impact Assessment Methodology
The proposed project was assessed for the potential impacts to Murrieta Creek. Construction of the bridge could have potential impacts; however, the removal of the low water crossing at Via Montezuma would reduce the impacts that currently happen at that low water crossing and through the implementation of Temporary and Permanent BMPs reduce the impacts of that crossing.

The proposed project will pose the same potential pollutants during the construction as it will in the post -construction phase. The project is not rare, with the construction of a bridge and road and utility improvements to the surrounding area.

4.4 Cumulative Impacts
There will be very little impervious area added to the watershed since the bridge will ultimately replace the existing low water crossing at Via Montezuma. In comparison the bridge and roadway improvements are diminutive in comparison to the overall area of the watershed.

Other cumulative impacts such as silt and sediment, litter, nutrients and metals will be mitigated through the use of Temporary and Permanent BMPs on the project site. 24 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
..........................................................

5. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES
WQ-1
The project will comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) Permit Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9- 2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (Regional Board) on November 18th, 2015.

WQ-2
The project will comply with the Construction General Permit by preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address all construction related activities and equipment, as well as materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate Risk Level. The SWPPP will identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and include BMPs to control the pollutants, such as sediment control, catch basin inlet protection, construction materials management and non -storm water BMPs.

WQ -3:

The types of activities allowed within the Project will be limited to and in accordance with the City of Temecula codes, regulations and zoning ordinances. Activities such as staging or stockpiling construction materials or wastes in areas where they can be discharged into storm drains will be prohibited. Activities associated with street maintenance, which can discharge pollutants into Murrieta Creek will be prohibited. Vehicle maintenance and washing will be prohibited since it is not a feature of the project or associated with Project activities.

WQ-4:

Design Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented such as preservation of existing vegetation, slope/ surface protection systems (permanent soil stabilization), concentrated flow conveyance systems such as ditches, berms, dikes and swales, over side drains, flared end sections, and outlet protection/ velocity dissipation devices.

WQ-5:

All proposed slopes with slope gradient of 2:1 or flatter will be planted with deep rooted, drought tolerant erosion protection vegetation native to the area. Slopes steeper than 2:1 gradient will be lined with concrete for erosion protection and slope stability.

WQ-6:

If dewatering is required, Construction site dewatering must comply with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2015-0013, NPDES No. CAG919003) and any subsequent updates to the permit at the time of Construction. This permit addresses temporary dewatering operation during construction. Dewatering BMPs must be used to control sediment and pollutants, and the discharges must comply with the WDRs issued by the San Diego RWQCB. 25 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
..........................................................

6. REFERENCES
Caltrans Division of Design Stormwater homepage for guidance and tools (Project Risk Level, Estimating for CGP, Erosion Prediction software, etc.):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/desiwAsd/index.html
Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis Stormwater Homepage:
http://www.dot.ca . og v/hq/env/stormwater/
Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Volume I • For wetlands, hydromorphic method and water assessment information, see Chapter 15 - Waters of the U.S. and the State:
http://www . dot. ca. gov/ser/vol 1 /sec3/natural/ch 15wetland/ch l 5wetland.htm • For hydraulic studies and floodplain encroachment information, see Chapter 17 - Floodplains: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/voll/sec3/special/chI7flood/chgpI7.htm • For Coastal Zone permits information, see Volume 5 - Coastal Zone:
hqp:// www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol5/vol5.htm
• For Wild and Scenic Rivers information, see Chapter 19 - Wild and Scenic Rivers:
hqp:// www.dot.ca.gov/ser/voll/sec3/special/chl 9wsrivers/chgp 19.htm Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/hsd/ppdg/PPDG-Final-2017-07.pdf Caltrans Stormwater Quality Practice Guidelines:
hqp:// www.dot.ca . og v/hq/env/stormwater/special/newsegM// pdfs/mans eg ment_ar rwp/CTSW- RT-02-009.pdf
Caltrans Water Quality Planning Tool: http://www.water-programs.com/wgpt.htm Regional Water Quality Control Board website and Basin Plans:
hqp:// www.swrcb.ca.gov/plans policies/
State Water Resources Control Board Storm Water Program, 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit:
hqp:// www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml State Water Resources Control Board Watershed Management:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water issues/programs/watershed/ United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency Section 404(b)(1) guidelines:
hqp:// www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/40cfrPart230.pdf
26 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
..........................................................

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey:
hLtp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/gpp/HomePage.

6.1 Works Cited
Climate in Temecula, California:
bt_t2s:// www.beslplaces.net/climate/city/califomia/temecula FEMA Flood Map Service:
hi tps://msc.fema.goy/portal/search?AddressQuery=tmecula#searchresultsanchor Rancho California Water District — Water Facilities Master Plan:
hM2s:// www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenterNiew/I 802/2015-Water-Facilities-Master-Plan Temecula, California All -Time Records, Archive, and Climate Information:
hiLtps://weathercurrents.com/temecula/Archive.do
Temecula General Plan:
https://temeculaca.gov/345/General-Plan
The San Diego Region — The Basin Plan:
hlt2s:// www.waterboards.ca . og v/rwgcb9/water issues/programs/basin plan/index.html United States Census Bureau:
hi tps:// www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/temeculacitycalifomia,US/PST045218 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - National Wetlands Inventory:
hM2s:// www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mgpper.html
California Department of Water Resources
https://water.ca.gov
USGS Water Data for the Nation
hlt2s://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
Riverside County Watershed Protection
http : //rc fl o o d. o r _ /g_np de s/
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
hlt2s:// www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation
27 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
..........................................................

6.2 Preparer(s) Qualifications
Steve Latino, P.E., T.E.

Mr. Latino holds a BSCE and has 15+ years in Civil Engineering experience including public and private sector experience. Mr. Latino has been involved with numerous federally and state funded projects that have gone through the local assistance process. Mr. Latino holds a bachelor's of science degree in Civil Engineering from Purdue University.

Engineering Resources of Southern California
1861 W. Redlands Blvd. BLDG. 7B
Redlands, CA 92373
Craig Brudin, QSP, CESSWI
Mr. Brudin brings 6 years of specialized education and training in the Environmental Field.

Mr. Brudin holds a Bachelor's in Environmental Policy and Management and Business Management Studies from the University of Redlands.

Engineering Resources of Southern California
1861 W. Redlands Blvd. BLDG. 7B
Redlands, CA 92373
Travis Moffatt
B.A. Biology
Almost two years working in Engineering
Engineering Resources of Southern California
1861 W. Redlands Blvd. BLDG. 7B
Redlands, CA 92373
28 WQAR —
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05

APPENDIXA

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
Legend
�= FEMA 9
33°31'25.13"N
i — I .U'000
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A. V. A99
SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AD, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
�" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
)THEIR AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone x
FLOOD HAZARD F',d Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x
Q Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o
GENERAL — — —' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17•5 Water Surface Elevation
eo- — — Coastal Transect
---513----- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
-- --- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER _ Profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available N
No Digital Data Available + _
MAP PANELS Unmapped V'
Q The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2019 at 6:44:05 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMettet FEMA
33'31'11.61"N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Legend

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A. V. A99

SPECIAL FLOOD
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

HAZARD AREAS
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
�" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone x
FLOOD HAZARD F'I Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x
Q Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o
GENERAL — — —' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES i i i i i i i Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17•5 Water Surface Elevation
eo- — — Coastal Transect
---513----- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
-- --- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER _ Profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available N
No Digital Data Available + _
MAP PANELS Unmapped V'
Q The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2019 at 1:43:14 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and _ time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time.
n
N This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
33°30'49.08"N
i cci I .U,000
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
�
Le = FEMA _end 9

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A. V. A99
SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile zone x
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard zone x
�" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
ITHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. zone x
FLOOD HAZARD F lI Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x
Q Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o
GENERAL — — —' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES i i i i i i i Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17•5 Water Surface Elevation
eo- — — Coastal Transect
— 513----- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
-- --- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER _ Profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available N
No Digital Data Available + _
MAP PANELS Unmapped V'
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2019 at 1:22:59 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Appendix G
Noise Study Report (Rincon Inc., Dec 2020)

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive NSR
Noise Study Report
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek) City of Temecula, California
District 8, County of Riverside
Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543); City Project No. PW16-05 December 2020

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please contact the City of Temecula at (951) 240-4225 or Caltrans District 8 California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice) or 711.

Noise Study Report
Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive
(Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek)
City of Temecula, California
District 8, County of Riverside
Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543); City Project No. PW16-05 December 2020
Prepared By: W '4;� Date: December 2, 2020
William Maddux, Senior Environmental Specialist
Phone Number (760) 518-9444
Company Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Approved By: ;9�del� Date: December 9, 2020
Concurred By:

Nino Abad, Associate Civil Engineer
Phone Number (951) 308-6385
Citv of Temecula
Sean Yeung, PE,
Senior Environmental Engineer
Caltrans, District 8, Local Assistance
Date:

This page intentionally left blank.

Summary
The purpose of this Noise Study Report (NSR) is to evaluate noise impacts and abatement under the requirements of Title 23, Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise." 23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and federal -aid highway projects.

According to 23 CFR 772.3, all highway projects that are developed in conformance with this regulation are deemed to be in conformance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise standards.

The City of Temecula, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes the construction of a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula.

The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area:

1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek

2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists

3. Provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. The project area is primarily commercial and industrial land uses; however, the Calvary Church, a place of worship, is located approximately 215 feet to the north of proposed improvements. The terrain in the project area is relatively flat and does not have large topographic features that would shield land uses adjacent to the project alignment.

Based on field surveys, the existing hourly equivalent noise levels (Leq) east of Murrieta Creek ranged from 60 to 62 A -weighted decibels (cIBA). West of Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, existing noise levels ranged from 72 to 73 dBA Leq. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report i

Summary
..............................................................................................................................................

A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project alignment. The following land uses were identified in the project area:
• Places of worship: Activity Categories C and D
• Commercial and light industrial land uses: Activity Category F Land uses in the project area were grouped into four lettered analysis areas, i.e. Areas A through D. Each of these analysis areas is considered to be acoustically equivalent.

The traffic noise modeling results indicate that traffic noise levels at the church in Area A are predicted to be in the range of 61 to 63 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is predicted to be up to 7 dB. Because the predicted noise levels in the design -year would not approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion at the Calvary Church (Categories C and D) or result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area A.

The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels n Area B are predicted to be in the range of 57 to 65 dBA Leq in the design -year, and that the increase in noise will be up to 7 dB in the design -year. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in Area B.

The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 48 to 70 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 2 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area.

The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area D will be 60 to 72 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 0 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report ii

Summary
.............................................................................................................................................. would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area.

Because the church has an interior noise abatement criterion in addition to the exterior criterion, interior noise must be considered at the church as well. From Table 6 in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, the building noise reduction factor for standard construction with ordinary windows closed is 20 dB.

The interior noise level in the church in the design -year is therefore predicted to be 41 dBA Leq(h). Because this predicted design -year noise level does not exceed the interior NAC of 52 dBA Leq(h), no interior traffic noise impacts are predicted at the church.

No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14.8-02.

Construction noise would be short-term and intermittent. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report iii

Summary
..............................................................................................................................................

This page intentionally left blank.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report iv

Table of Contents
Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................1

1.1. Purpose of the Noise Study Report.........................................................1

1.2. Project Purpose and Need......................................................................1 Chapter 2. Project Description........................................................................3

2.1. Existing Conditions................................................................................. 3

2.1.1. Proposed Improvements..............................................................3

2.1.2. Right -of -Way Requirements.........................................................8

2.1.3. Construction Traffic Controls........................................................ 8

2.2. No-Build..................................................................................................8 Chapter 3. Fundamentals of Traffic Noise ...................................................... 9

3.1. Sound, Noise, and Acoustics.................................................................. 9

3.2. Frequency...............................................................................................9

3.3. Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels ..................................................... 9 3.4.

Addition of Decibels..............................................................................10

3.5. A -Weighted Decibels............................................................................10

3.6. Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels.....................................11

3.7. Noise Descriptors.................................................................................12

3.8. Sound Propagation...............................................................................13

3.8.1. Geometric Spreading................................................................. 13 3.8.2. Ground Absorption..................................................................... 13 3.8.3. Atmospheric Effects................................................................... 13 3.8.4. Shielding by Natural or Human -Made Features ......................... 14 Chapter 4. Federal Regulations and State Policies.......................................15

4.1. Federal Regulations..............................................................................15

4.1.1. 23 CFR 772............................................................................... 15

4.1.2. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway
Construction and Reconstruction Projects ................................. 16

4.2. State Regulations and Policies.............................................................17

4.2.1. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)............................. 17

4.2.2. Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code ......... 18 Chapter 5. Study Methods and Procedures..................................................19

5.1. Methods for Identifying Land Uses and Selecting Noise Measurement and Modeling Receiver Locations..................................19

5.2. Field Measurement Procedures............................................................19 ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report v

Table of Contents
................................................................................................................................................ .

5.2.1. Short-term Measurements......................................................... 20

5.3. Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methods...............................................22

5.3.1. Physical Parameters.................................................................. 22

5.3.2. Vehicle Traffic Parameters......................................................... 22

5.4. Methods for Identifying Traffic Noise Impacts and Consideration of Abatement............................................................................................ 23 Chapter 6. Existing Noise Environment........................................................ 25

6.1. Existing and Permitted Land Uses ........................................................ 25

6.2. Ambient Noise Environment.................................................................31

6.3. Ambient Noise Measurements.............................................................. 31

6.3.1. Short-term Monitoring................................................................ 31

6.4. Noise Model Validation/Calibration....................................................... 32 Chapter 7. Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement33

7.1. Future Noise Environment and Impacts................................................33

7.1.1. Area A........................................................................................ 35 7.1.2. Area B........................................................................................ 35 7.1.3. Area C....................................................................................... 35 7.1.4. Area D....................................................................................... 35 7.2. Preliminary Noise Abatement Analysis ................................................. 36 Chapter 8. Construction Noise...................................................................... 37 Chapter 9. References.................................................................................41 List of Figures
Figure 1
Regional Location Map.........................................................................4 Figure 2
Project Vicinity Map.............................................................................. 5 Figure3
Project Alignment.................................................................................. 7 Figure 4
Noise Measurement Locations............................................................21 Figure 5
Project Overview Map......................................................................... 26 Figure 6
Impact Area A Receivers....................................................................27 Figure 7
Impact Area B Receivers....................................................................28 Figure 8
Impact Area C Receivers....................................................................29 Figure 9
Impact Area D Receivers.................................................................... 30 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report vi

Table of Contents
............................................................................................................................................. .

List of Tables
Table 1 Typical A -Weighted Noise Levels........................................................11 Table 2 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772).........17 Table 3 Summary of Short -Term Noise Level Measurements .......................... 20 Table 4 Summary of Modeled Vehicle Speeds and Volumes ...........................23 Table 5 Traffic Counts during Noise Measurements ........................................ 31 Table 6 Summary of Noise Modeling............................................................... 34 Table 7 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................... 38 List of Appendices
Appendix ATraffic Data
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report vii

Table of Contents
..............................................................................................................................................

This page intentionally left blank.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report viii

List of Abbreviated Terms
..............................................................................................................................................

List of Abbreviated Terms
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB
Decibels
dBA
A -Weighted Decibel
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
Hz
Hertz
kHz
Kilohertz
Ldn
Day -Night Level
Leq
Equivalent Sound Level
Leq(h)
Equivalent Sound Level over one hour
Lmax
Maximum Sound Level
LOS
Level of Service
Lxx
Percentile -Exceeded Sound Level
mPa
micro -Pascals
mph
miles per hour
NAC
noise abatement criteria
NADR
Noise Abatement Decision Report
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NSR
Noise Study Report
Protocol
Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects SPL
sound pressure level
TeNS
Caltrans' Technical Noise Supplement
TNM 2.5
FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.S
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report ix

List of Abbreviated Terms
..............................................................................................................................................

This page intentionally left blank.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report x

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of the Noise Study Report
The purpose of this NSR is to evaluate noise impacts and abatement under the requirements of Title 23, Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise." 23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and Federal -aid highway projects. According to 23 CFR 772.3, all highway projects that are developed in conformance with this regulation are deemed to be in conformance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise standards. Compliance with 23 CFR 772 provides compliance with the noise impact assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects (Protocol) (Caltrans 2011) provides Caltrans policy for implementing 23 CFR 772 in California. The Protocol outlines the requirements for preparing noise study reports (NSR). Noise impacts associated with this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are evaluated separately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1.2. Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula.

The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area:

1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek

2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists

3. Provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park A low-water crossing of Murrieta Creek currently exists at Via Montezuma, approximately 0.5 miles south of Overland Drive. The low-water crossing is frequently closed in wet seasons and is not a reliable route to cross the Creek during storm and ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 1

Chapter 1 Introduction
.............................................................................................................................................. flooding events. The crossing is scheduled to be removed in the future by a separate channel improvements project. Therefore, there is a need for an additional all-weather creek crossing location for employees and residents to access the industrial and open space areas to the west of Murrieta Creek.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 2

Chapter 2. Project Description

2.1. Existing Conditions
The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. See Figure 1 for the project location on a regional map and Figure 2 for a Vicinity Map.

Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek and has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes.

An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately

0.3 mile north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 mile south.

2.1.1. Proposed Improvements
The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 3

Chapter 2 Project Description
................................................................................................................................................ .

Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Lake
Elsinore Canyon Lake Menifee
Lakeland
74 Village a
Scott M
J o
Wildomar `yo
eo�� ClintonK°,thRd �� French Valley s 2
f Lake Skinner
Recreation Area
Cleveland urrieta n°"
National P`
Forest RO ei Rd
PX
a a
J FP P, Jy plO rtf C.

J y s
a P
Te°a'u R fat Sa;. -
c
�P
Temecula
a�
a
%r.

Marine CorpsBase Camp
Sq.4",Rq P
e -
Pendletoonn-10-A-rai st' 0
Pendleton
3 Fallbrook
76 Re ci•°Rd � �-
?o
0 2.5 5 Miles a
I I I
imagery provided by Esn and its licensors O 2019.

Project Location - N
Federal Project No. A
BR-NBIL(543) N
14 Lancaster
0 Palmdale
Yctonrille
Santa Clarita
Angeles
Simi
National
Valley
Forest
Twentynine
Palms
.osAngeles
W Ontario
Joshua Tree
Riverside GC
Cathedral National
Anaheim Corona
City Park
Santa Ana
Indio
Oceanside
v
San Diego
rli�a�a
M e x i c c
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 4

Chapter 2 Project Description
................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2020. .................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 5

Chapter 2 Project Description
.............................................................................................................................................. through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders would serve as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing.

The proposed project alignment is shown in Figure 3.

Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Traffic signals and street lights would be installed at the Overland Drive/ Commerce Center Drive intersection as well. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping.

As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within the Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground for scour protection would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signal communication. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 6

Chapter 2 Project Description
...............................................................................................................................................

Figure 3 Project Alignment
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 7

Chapter 2 Project Description
..............................................................................................................................................

The project will also include the following additional improvements:
• Railing Architectural treatment. The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments such as formliner textures to control graffiti.
• Landscaping. Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive.

2.1.2. Right -of -Way Requirements
The right of way on the east side of the Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to raise of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways in private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The TCE for grading in the channel is to be acquired through an encroachment permit from RCFC&WCD. Permanent and temporary construction easements in four private properties at the easterly side of the Creek may be required to construct storm drains, retaining wall, and the bridge approach embankment.

2.1.3. Construction Traffic Controls
Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to maintaining vehicle and pedestrian and bicyclist access at all times. Temporary and short term access impact may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders.

2.2. No -Build
Under the No -Build Alternative, no bridge would be constructed in the project area. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 8

Chapter 3. Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
The following is a brief discussion of fundamental traffic noise concepts. For a detailed discussion, please refer to Caltrans' Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) (Caltrans 2013), a technical supplement to the Protocol that is available on Caltrans Web site ( https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-ally.pdf).

3.1. Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing organ, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound.

In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receptor determine the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receptor. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.

3.2. Frequency
Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low -frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz (kHz), or thousands of Hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

3.3. Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro -Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this huge range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 9

Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
.............................................................................................................................................. describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB). The threshold of hearing for young people is about 0 dB, which corresponds to 20 mPa.

3.4. Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB —rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dB louder than one source.

3.5. A -Weighted Decibels
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise.

The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.

Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the SPL in that range. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000-8,000 Hz, and perceive sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude in higher or lower frequencies. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an "A -weighted" sound level (expressed in units of dBA) can be computed based on this information.

The A -weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A - scale sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special problems (e.g., B-, C-, and D-scales), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with highway -traffic noise. Noise levels for traffic ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 10

Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
................................................................................................................................................ . noise reports are typically reported in terms of A -weighted decibels or dBA. Table 1 describes typical A -weighted noise levels for various noise sources.

Table 1 Typical A -Weighted Noise Levels
— 110 — Rock band
Jet fly -over at 1000 feet
—100—
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
—90—
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph
Food blender at 3 feet
— 80 —
Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet
— 70 —
Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area
Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet
— 60 —
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime
_50—
Dishwasher next room
Quiet urban nighttime
— 40 —
Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban nighttime
— 30 —
Library
Quiet rural nighttime
Bedroom at night, concert hall (background)
—20—
Broadcast/recording studio
—10—
Lowest threshold of human hearing
— 0 —
Lowest threshold of human hearing
Source: Caltrans2013.

3.6. Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
As discussed above, doubling sound energy results in a 3-dB increase in sound.

However, given a sound level change measured with precise instrumentation, the subjective human perception of a doubling of loudness will usually be different than what is measured.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1-dB changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single - frequency ("pure -tone") signals in the midfrequency (1,000 Hz-8,000 Hz) range. In .................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 11

Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
................................................................................................................................................. typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible.

However, it is widely accepted that people are able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dB increase in sound, would generally be perceived as barely detectable.

3.7. Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some fluctuations are minor, but some are substantial. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, but others are random. Some noise levels fluctuate rapidly, but others slowly. Some noise levels vary widely, but others are relatively constant. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time -varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors most commonly used in traffic noise analysis.
• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time -varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. The 1-hour A -weighted equivalent sound level (Leq[h]) is the energy average of A -weighted sound levels occurring during a one -hour period, and is the basis for noise abatement criteria (NAC) used by Caltrans and FHWA.
• Percentile -Exceeded Sound Level (Lxx): Lxx represents the sound level exceeded for a given percentage of a specified period (e.g., Lio is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time, and L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time). • Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period.
• Day -Night Level (Ld„): Ldn is the energy average of A -weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to A -weighted sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): Similar to Ldn, CNEL is the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to A -weighted sound levels occurring during the ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 12

Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
.............................................................................................................................................. nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and a 5-dB penalty applied to the A -weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.

3.8. Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

3.8.1. Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 decibels for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path, and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 decibels for each doubling of distance from a line source.

3.8.2. Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective -wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance.

This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water,), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground -attenuation value of 1.5 decibels per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance.

3.8.3. Atmospheric Effects
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 13

Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
..............................................................................................................................................

Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) from the highway due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects.

3.8.4. Shielding by Natural or Human -Made Features
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human -made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receptor specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receptor will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction. Vegetation between the highway and receptor is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 14

Chapter 4. Federal Regulations and State
Policies
This report focuses on the requirements of 23 CFR 772, as discussed below.

4.1. Federal Regulations

4.1.1. 23 CFR 772
23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and Federal -aid highway projects. Under 23 CFR 772.7, projects are categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III projects.
• FHWA defines a Type I project as a proposed federal or federal -aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway. The following projects are also considered to be Type I projects:
• The addition of a through -traffic lane(s). This includes the addition of a through - traffic lane that functions as a high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, high - occupancy toll (HOT) lane, bus lane, or truck climbing lane, • The addition of an auxiliary lane, except for when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane,
• The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange,
• Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through traffic lane or an auxiliary lane,
• The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride -share lot, or toll plaza.

If a project is determined to be a Type I project under this definition, the entire project area as defined in the environmental document is a Type I project.

A Type II project is a noise barrier retrofit project that involves no changes to highway capacity or alignment. A Type III project is a project that does not meet the ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 15

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
.............................................................................................................................................. classifications of a Type I or Type II project. Type III projects do not require a noise analysis.

Under 23 CFR 772.11, noise abatement must be considered for Type I projects if the project is predicted to result in a traffic noise impact. In such cases, 23 CFR 772 requires that the project sponsor "consider" noise abatement before adoption of the final NEPA document. This process involves identification of noise abatement measures that are reasonable, feasible, and likely to be incorporated into the project, and of noise impacts for which no apparent solution is available.

Traffic noise impacts, as defined in 23 CFR 772.5, occur when the predicted noise level in the design -year approaches or exceeds the NAC specified in 23 CFR 772, or a predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level (a "substantial" noise increase). 23 CFR 772 does not specifically define the terms "substantial increase" or "approach"; these criteria are defined in the Protocol, as described below.

Table 2 summarizes NAC corresponding to various land use activity categories. Activity categories and related traffic noise impacts are determined based on the actual or permitted land use in a given area.

4.1.2. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects
The Protocol specifies the policies, procedures, and practices to be used by agencies that sponsor new construction or reconstruction of federal or Federal -aid highway projects. The Protocol defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with project implementation exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA or more. The Protocol also states that a sound level is considered to approach an NAC level when the sound level is within 1 dB of the NAC identified in 23 CFR 772 (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to approach the NAC of 67 dBA, but 65 dBA is not).

The Technical Noise Supplement to the Protocol provides detailed technical guidance for the evaluation of highway traffic noise. This includes field measurement methods, noise modeling methods, and report preparation guidance. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 16

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
..............................................................................................................................................

Table 2 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772) A 57
Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.

B2 67
Exterior Residential.
c2 67
Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers,
hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public
meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional
structures, radio studios, recording studios,
recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools,
television studios, trails, and trail crossings.

D 52
Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures,
radio studios, recording studios, schools, and
television studios.

E 72
Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not
included in A—D or F.

F
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services,
industrial, logging, maintenance facilities,
manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities,
shipyards, utilities (water resources, water
treatment, electrical), and warehousing.

G
Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
'The Leq(h) activity criteria values
are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All values
are A -weighted decibels (dBA).
2 Includes undeveloped lands
permitted for this activity category.

4.2. State Regulations and Policies

4.2.1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Noise analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may be required regardless of whether or not the project is a Type I project. The CEQA noise analysis is completely independent of the 23 CFR 772 analysis done for NEPA. Under CEQA, the baseline noise level is compared to the build noise level. The assessment entails looking at the setting of the noise impact and then how large or perceptible any noise increase would be in the given area. Key considerations include: the uniqueness of the setting, ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 17

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
.............................................................................................................................................. the sensitive nature of the noise receptors, the magnitude of the noise increase, the number of residences affected, and the absolute noise level The significance of noise impacts under CEQA are addressed in the environmental document rather than the NSR. Even though the NSR (or noise technical memorandum) does not specifically evaluate the significance of noise impacts under CEQA, it must contain the technical information that is needed to make that determination in the environmental document.

4.2.2. Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code relates to the noise effects of a proposed freeway project on public and private elementary and secondary schools.

Under this code, a noise impact occurs if, as a result of a proposed freeway project, noise levels exceed 52 dBA-Leq(h) in the interior of public or private elementary or secondary classrooms, libraries, multipurpose rooms, or spaces. This requirement does not replace the "approach or exceed" NAC criterion for FHWA Activity Category E for classroom interiors, but it is a requirement that must be addressed in addition to the requirements of 23 CFR 772.

If a project results in a noise impact under this code, noise abatement must be provided to reduce classroom noise to a level that is at or below 52 dBA-Leq(h). If the noise levels generated from freeway and roadway sources exceed 52 dBA-Leq(h) prior to the construction of the proposed freeway project, then noise abatement must be provided to reduce the noise to the level that existed prior to construction of the project. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 18

Chapter 5. Study Methods and Procedures

5.1. Methods for Identifying Land Uses and Selecting Noise Measurement and Modeling Receiver Locations
A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project. Existing land uses in the project area were categorized by land use type and Activity Category as defined in Table 2, and the extent of frequent human use. As stated in the Protocol, noise abatement is only considered where frequent human use occurs and where a lowered noise level would be of benefit. Although all land uses are evaluated in this analysis, the focus is on locations of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. However, based on the surrounding land uses, there are no locations with defined outdoor activity areas.

The geometry of the project relative to nearby existing and planned land uses was also identified. In general, nearby existing and planned land uses are slightly below the grade of the proposed bridge alignment.

Noise level measurements were taken at each major developed area within the project vicinity to determine the ambient noise levels in the project area. Short-term measurement locations were selected to identify ambient noise levels at locations primarily affected by the project and verify site conditions.

The representative areas share similar acoustical characteristics. Primary characteristics include the geometric relationship with the roadway (i.e. distance to the roadway and orientation of the roadway) and topographic profile between these locations and roadways.

5.2. Field Measurement Procedures
A field noise study was conducted in accordance with recommended procedures in TeNS. The following is a summary of the procedures used to collect short-term sound level data.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 19

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
..............................................................................................................................................

5.2.1. Short-term Measurements
Short-term monitoring was conducted at four locations on Wednesday, June 17, 2020, using an Extech 407780A Type 2 sound level meter (serial number 160507863). The calibration of the meter was checked before and after the measurement using an Extech 407744 professional acoustic calibrator (serial number H373147). Measurements were taken over a 20-minute period at each site. Short-term monitoring was conducted along the alignment. The short-term measurement locations are identified in Figure 4. A summary of noise measurements are provided in Table 3.

Table 3 Summary of Short -Term Noise Level Measurements 1 27525 Enterprise 10:00 —10:20 a.m. 50 feet from Enterprise 58.2 54.4 76.3 Circle West Circle West
2 27462 Enterprise 10:30 —10:50 a.m. 50 feet from Enterprise 60.1 57.6 81.2 Circle West Circle West
3 27495 Diaz Road 12:30 —12:50 p.m. 50 feet from Diaz Road 70.1 56.9 83.4 4 41976 Avenida 1:00 —1:20 p.m. 60 feet from Diaz Road 69.8 57.1 85.6 Alvarado
See Figure 4 for Noise Measurement Locations.
1 The equivalent noise level (Leq) is defined as the single steady A -weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level).

During the short-term measurements, field staff attended each meter. Minute -to - minute Leq values collected during the measurement period (typically 20 minutes in duration) were logged automatically, and dominant noise sources observed during each measurement period were also identified and logged. Using this approach, those minutes when traffic noise was observed to be a dominant contributor to noise levels at a given measurement location could be distinguished from one -minute noise levels where other nontraffic noise sources (such as parking lot activities and industrial equipment) contributed substantially to existing noise levels.

Temperature, wind speed, and humidity were recorded manually during the short-term monitoring session using a Kestrel 3000 Pocket Weather Meter. During the short-term measurements, average wind speeds ranged from 0.7 to 3.1 miles per hour (mph). ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 20

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
...............................................................................................................................................

Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 21

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
..............................................................................................................................................

Temperatures ranged from 30-41 degrees Celsius (86-105 degrees Fahrenheit), with relative humidity from 15-29 percent.

During short-term noise measurements, traffic on the adjacent roadway segments were classified and counted. Vehicles were classified as automobiles, medium -duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, or buses. An automobile was defined as a vehicle with two axles and four tires that is designed primarily to carry passengers. Small passenger vans and pick-up trucks were included in the automobile category. Medium -duty trucks included all cargo vehicles with two axles and six tires. Heavy-duty trucks included all vehicles with three or more axles. The posted speed limit on Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado is 35 miles per hour (MPH); 50 MPH on Diaz Road, and 25 MPH on Enterprise Circle West.

5.3. Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methods
Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version

2.5 (TNM 2.5). TNM 2.5 is a computer model based on two FHWA reports: FHWA-PD-96- 009 and FHWA-PD-96-010 (FHWA 2004a, 2004b). Key inputs to TNM 2.5 were the locations of roadways, traffic mix and speed, shielding features (e.g., topography and buildings), noise barriers, ground type, and receptors. Three-dimensional representations of these inputs were developed using computer -aided design drawings, aerials, and topographic contours provided by Project Design Consultants.

5.3.1. Physical Parameters
Existing topographic contours were based on the topographic survey for the proposed project. Topographic data for receiver locations was estimated based on available terrain data from project plans: Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project No. PW 16-05, March 26, 2010. The project alignment and profile were based on the project plans.

5.3.2. Vehicle Traffic Parameters
Traffic noise was evaluated under existing conditions, and design -year conditions with the project. Traffic noise was evaluated under existing and design -year conditions with the project. Traffic parameters include vehicle speeds, peak hour traffic volumes, and vehicle classification mix. Loudest -hour traffic volumes on local roadways were modeled ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 22

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
.............................................................................................................................................. as 10 percent of the total average daily trips. Modeled hourly traffic volumes and speeds are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of Modeled Vehicle Speeds and Volumes
Avenida Alvarado
Overland Drive
Diaz Road
Enterprise Circle West
DNE = Does not exist
Source: SCE 2019.

West of Diaz Rd.

Jefferson Ave. to
Commerce Center Dr.

Commerce Center Dr.
to Enterprise Circle W.

Enterprise Circle W.
to Diaz Rd.

Winchester Rd. to
Overland Dr.

Overland Dr. to
Via Montezuma
Rider Way to
Overland Dr.

Overland Dr. to
Commerce Center Dr.
35 2,001
2,521
2,521
35 2,977
3,751
9,636
35 6,959
8,768
14,653
35 DNE
DNE
7,600
50 14,335
18,062
21,221
50 12,665
15,945
15,945
25 4,066
5,165
5,275
25 1,154
1,516
1,538
The vehicle classification mix for local roadways was based on Caltrans' Traffic Census Program truck traffic data for Interstate 15 (1-15), which is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the proposed project alignment. These truck volume counts indicate a traffic mix of 93.09 percent automobiles and 6.91 percent trucks (Caltrans 2018). Trucks with two or three axles were modeled as medium trucks and trucks with four or more axles were modeled as heavy trucks, thus, the 6.91 percent trucks was further broken down to a mix of 2.58 percent medium -duty trucks and 4.33 percent heavy-duty trucks (Caltrans 2018).

5.4. Methods for Identifying Traffic Noise Impacts and
Consideration of Abatement
Traffic noise impacts are considered to occur at receptor locations where predicted noise levels would be 12 dB or greater than existing ambient noise levels, or where predicted noise levels approach or exceed the NAC for the applicable activity category. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 23

Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures
..............................................................................................................................................

Where traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement must be considered for reasonableness and feasibility as required by 23 CFR 772 and the Protocol.

According to the Protocol, abatement measures are considered acoustically feasible if a minimum noise reduction of 5 dB at impacted receptor locations is predicted with implementation of the abatement measures. In addition, barriers should be designed to intercept the line -of -sight from the exhaust stack of a truck to the first tier of receptors, as required by the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100. Other factors that affect feasibility include topography, access requirements for driveways and ramps, presence of local cross streets, utility conflicts, other noise sources in the area, and safety considerations.

The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by the following three factors:
• The noise reduction design goal.
• The cost of noise abatement.
• The viewpoints of benefited receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors).

The Caltrans' acoustical design goal is that a barrier must be predicted to provide at least 7 dB of noise reduction at one benefited receptor. This design goal applies to any receptor and is not limited to impacted receptors.

The Protocol defines the procedure for assessing reasonableness of noise barriers from a cost perspective. Based on 2019 construction costs, an allowance of $107,000 is provided for each benefited receptor (i.e., receptors that receive at least 5 dB of noise reduction from a noise barrier). The total allowance for each barrier is calculated by multiplying the number of benefited receptors by $107,000. If the estimated construction cost of a barrier is less than the total calculated allowance for the barrier, the barrier is considered reasonable from a cost perspective. The viewpoints of benefits receptors are determined by a survey that is typically conducted after completion of the NSR. The process for conducting the survey is described in detail in the Protocol.

This NSR assesses potential traffic noise impacts. If necessary, the feasibility and reasonableness of noise abatement will be reported in the Noise Abatement Decision Report.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 24

Chapter 6. Existing Noise Environment

6.1. Existing and Permitted Land Uses
A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project alignment. The following land uses were identified in the project area:
• Places of worship: Activity Categories C and D
• Commercial and light industrial land uses: Activity Category F Although all developed land uses are evaluated in this analysis, noise abatement is only considered for areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, this impact analysis focuses on locations with defined outdoor activity areas.

Figure 5 shows the project overview map delineating Areas A-D and the location of the Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley (Chapel). Land uses in the project area have been grouped into a series of lettered analysis areas that are identified in Figure 6 though Figure 9. Each of these analysis areas is considered to be acoustically equivalent.

Area A: Area A is located on the northwest side of Overland Drive, east of Murrieta Creek, and north of the proposed project alignment. The Chapel (Activity Categories C and D), is located approximately 215 feet from the proposed bridge. This area is generally flat. There are no manmade or topographical features that shield the use from the local roadways in this area. In addition, based on the site evaluation there were no identifiable exterior areas of frequent human use. All other land uses in Area A are service commercial businesses or light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use.

Area B: Area B is located on the southeast side of Overland Drive, east of Murrieta Creek, and east of the proposed bridge. The area includes service commercial businesses or light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 25

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Figure 5 Project Overview Map
&1
1 �
Gi
1\
Project Boundary
LProject Improvements
O Church Location
0 200 400 Nt
I
Feet N
magery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors D 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 26

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Figure 6 Impact Area A Receivers
'i
• 4,i' O .1.
♦ i
� � a
� 1
Project Boundary J ,-
/ J
OReceiver ? !
0 40 80 N
I i I n
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsah Bing and its licensors 0 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 27

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Figure 7 Impact Area B Receivers
U,
7 �-
Project Boundary !�� 6 • :�
Project Improvements `• `�
OReceiver
0 5o sap N 5
I i I a
Feet
inaaery provided by Microsoft Bina and its licensors O 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 28

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Figure 8 Impact Area C Receivers
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 29

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Figure 9 Impact Area D Receivers
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 30

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
..............................................................................................................................................

Area C: Area C is located on the northwest side of Avenida Alvarado, west of Murrieta Creek, and west of the proposed bridge. The area includes agricultural lands (Activity Category F). The area includes light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use.

Area D: Area D is located on the southeast side of Avenida Alvarado, west of Murrieta Creek, and south of the proposed bridge. The area includes light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use.

6.2. Ambient Noise Environment
The project site is surrounded by existing service commercial and light industrial development with a place of worship. Noise sources associated with adjacent land uses include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, landscape maintenance machinery, pumps, and heavy equipment. Additional traffic noise is associated with existing roads such as 1-15 and Winchester Road.

6.3. Ambient Noise Measurements
The existing noise environment in the project area is characterized below based on short-term noise monitoring that was conducted.

6.3.1. Short-term Monitoring
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, short-term monitoring was conducted at four locations on Wednesday, June 17, 2020. Table 3 summarizes the results of the short-term noise monitoring conducted in the project area. Table 5 summarizes traffic counts taken during short-term noise measurements, which were used to validate the noise model at existing land uses.

Table 5 Traffic Counts during Noise Measurements
1 Enterprise Circle West 10 2 0
2 Enterprise Circle West 25 1 0
3 Diaz Road 115 4 2
4 Avenida Alvarado 15 2 1
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 31

Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment
..............................................................................................................................................

6.4. Noise Model Validation/Calibration
Noise measurements near highways or other transportation corridors are routinely used to validate and, if necessary, calibrate the project -specific TNM model by comparing calculated noise levels with actual (measured) noise levels. Model validation is performed by modeling traffic volumes observed during each noise measurement and comparing the measured and modeled noise levels. Model calibration is performed when an environmental condition that cannot be accounted for in the model is identified (e.g., a wooden fence with gaps or thick vegetation). The TNM has only been validated at distances within 500 feet of the highway. Project -specific TNM model validation and calibration may only be performed based on actual (measured) noise levels within 500 feet of the highway. Additionally, model calibrations are generally only recommended if the site conditions (i.e. highway alignment and profile) are not expected to change significantly. As the project is a new bridge, model calibration/validation would not be appropriate and is not applied in this analysis. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 32

Chapter 7. Future Noise Environment,
Impacts, and Considered
Abatement
Table 6 summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design - year conditions with and without the project. Predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project are compared to existing conditions and to design -year no -project conditions. The comparison to existing conditions is included in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 CFR 772. The comparison to no -project conditions indicates the direct effect of the project.

Figures 5 through 8 show modeled receiver locations. As shown in Table 6, traffic noise levels at modeled receivers range from 46 to 71 dBA Leq for existing conditions and range from 48 to 72 dBA Leq for design -year conditions.

Table 6 shows estimated ambient noise levels for existing conditions and design -year conditions. As stated in the TeNS, modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel before comparisons are made. In some cases, this can result in relative changes that may not appear intuitive. An example would be a comparison between calculated sound levels of 64.4 and 64.5 dBA. The difference between these two values is 0.1 dB.

However, after rounding, the difference is reported as 1 dB.

7.1. Future Noise Environment and Impacts
Table 6 summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design - year conditions with and without the project. Detailed traffic tables are provided in Appendix A. Predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project are compared to existing conditions and to design -year no -project conditions. The comparison to existing conditions is included in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 CFR 772. The comparison to no -project conditions indicates the direct effect of the project.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 33

Chapter 7 Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Table 6 Summary of Noise Modeling
1 A
SC
F
1 27479 Enterprise Circle W.
54 56
61 7
5 None
2 Pow
C
1 27452 Enterprise Circle W.
58 59
60 2
1 None
3 SC
F
1 27495 Commerce Center Dr.
58 59
63 5
4 None
4 SC
F
1 27496 Commerce Center Dr.
59 60
62 3
2 None
5 B
SC
F
1 27531 Commerce Center Dr.
56 57
63 IIU
6 None
6 SC
F
1 27515 Commerce Center Dr.
58 58
60 2
2 None
7 SC
F
1 27511 Commerce Center Dr.
61 62
65 4
3 None
8 SC
F
1 27516 Commerce Center Dr.
54 55
57 3
2 None
9 C
Ind
F
1 42030 Avenida Alvarado
46 47
48 2
1 None
10 Ind
F
1 41976 Avenida Alvarado
68 69
69 1
0 None
11 Ind
F
1 27461 Diaz Rd.
68 69
70 2
1 None
12 D
Ind
F
1 42011 Avenida Alvarado
59 60
60 1
0 None
13 Ind
F
1 43015 Black Deer Loop
71 72
72 1
0 None
14 Ind
F
1 43020 Black Deer Loop
71 72
72 1
0 None
NAC = noise abatement criteria; dB(A) = A -weighted decibels; Leq(1) = equivalent sound level at one hour; Ind = Industrial; SC = Service Commercial; PoW = Places of Worship ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 34

Chapter 7 Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement ..............................................................................................................................................

7.1.1. Area A
The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate that traffic noise levels at residences in Area A are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 63 dBA Leq in the design - year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is predicted to be up to 7 dB. Because the predicted noise levels in the design -year are not predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion at the Calvary Church (Categories C and D) or result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area A.

7.1.2. Area B
The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate traffic noise levels at residences in Area B are predicted to be in the range of 57 to 65 dBA Leq in the design -year, and that the increase in noise will be up to 7 dB in the design -year. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in Area B.

7.1.3. Area C
The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 48 to 70 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 2 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area.

7.1.4. Area D
The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 60 to 72 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 0 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 35

Chapter 7 Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement ..............................................................................................................................................

Because the church has an interior noise abatement criterion in addition to the exterior criterion, interior noise must be considered at the church as well. From Table 6 in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, the building noise reduction factor for standard construction with ordinary windows closed is 20 dB.

The interior noise level in the church in the design -year is therefore predicted to be 40 dBA Leq(h). Because this predicted design -year noise level does not exceed the interior NAC of 52 dBA Leq(h), no interior traffic noise impacts are predicted at the church.

7.2. Preliminary Noise Abatement Analysis
Noise abatement is considered where noise impacts are predicted in areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. According to 23 CFR 772(13)(c) and 772(15)(c), federal funding may be used for the following abatement measures:
• Construction of noise barriers, including acquisition of property rights, either within or outside the highway right-of-way.
• Traffic management measures including, but not limited to, traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time -use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane designations. • Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments.
• Acquisition of real property or interests therein (predominantly unimproved property) to serve as a buffer zone to preempt development which would be adversely impacted by traffic noise.
• Noise insulation of certain Activity Categories C and D land use facilities.

Post -installation maintenance and operational costs for noise insulation are not eligible for Federal -aid funding.

No traffic noise impacts are predicted for Areas A, B, C, or D. Accordingly, noise abatement is not considered further.
................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 36

Chapter 8. Construction Noise
Construction noise would be associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment used for clearing and grading, trenching and installing underground utilities, spreading and compacting materials, and paving. In addition, drilled piles would be required in Murrieta Creek for the installation of piles.

Construction equipment with heavy-duty diesel engines typically generate maximum noise levels from 80 to 90 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet (FHWA 2006). Table 7 summarizes typical construction equipment noise levels. Equipment goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for non -equipment tasks, such as measurement. Thus, average hourly noise levels would be less than maximum noise levels. Typical noise levels from earthworks activities reach 82 dB(A) Leq(1)at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously.

Maximum noise levels would occur when the loudest construction equipment is nearest to a noise sensitive receiver. Due to the linear nature of roadway construction, noise levels would be intermittent and the intensity of construction activities in a given area varies substantially.

Based on previous experience, construction activities would progress at a rate of approximately 100 feet per day and would include an active work area of approximately 300 feet. Due to the length of the active work area, 300 feet, when the active work area is directly adjacent to a given receiver, construction activities throughout the day would be an average distance of 150 feet along an active portion of the alignment from the receiver. For example, the average distance from construction equipment to a receiver that is 50 feet from the centerline of alignment would be 158 feet.

Construction along the proposed alignment would be characterized by hard site attenuation rate of 6 dB(A) per doubling of distance. This analysis conservatively assumes no attenuation from barriers and topography. The nearest receivers are approximately 50 feet from the road (e.g., Overland Drive). Thus, when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously on the proposed alignment, noise levels would attenuate to roughly 72 dB(A) Leg(1) at the nearest receivers. ................................................................................................................................................

Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 37

Chapter 8 Construction Noise
..............................................................................................................................................

Table 7 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Auger Drill Rig
85 20%
Backhoe
80 40%
Blasting
94 1%
Chain Saw
85 20%
Clam Shovel
93 20%
Compactor (ground)
80 20%
Compressor (air)
80 40%
Concrete Mixer Truck
85 40%
Concrete Pump
82 20%
Concrete Saw
90 20%
Crane (mobile or stationary)
85 20%
Dozer
85 40%
Dump Truck
84 40%
Excavator
85 40%
Front End Loader
80 40%
Generator (25 kilovolt amps or less)
70 50%
Generator (more than 25 kilovolt amps)
82 50%
Grader
85 40%
Hydra Break Ram
90 10%
Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop)
95 20%
In situ Soil Sampling Rig
84 20%
Jackhammer
85 20%
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
90 20%
Paver
85 50%
Pneumatic Tools
85 50%
Pumps
77 50%
Rock Drill
85 20%
Roller
74 40%
Scraper
85 40%
Tractor
84 40%
Vacuum Excavator (vac -truck)
85 40%
Vibratory Concrete Mixer
80 20%
Vibratory Pile Driver
95 20%
dB(A) = A -weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum sound level Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006
................................................................................................................................................