Loading...
PC23-596RESOLUTION PC 23-596 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS OF NORMANDY ROAD (CIP 22-08) LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY, BETWEEN BEREA ROAD AND LA LADERA ROAD. WHEREAS, the City of Menifee City Council approved Capital Improvement Project No. 22-08 (CIP 22-08) in the Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 as a Priority 1 Project; and WHEREAS, CIP 22-08 proposes pedestrian improvements on Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road (the proposed "project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study ("IS") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") have been prepared to analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, between May 12, 2023, and June 12, 2023, the thirty-(30)-day public review period for the Draft IS/MND took effect, which was publicly noticed by a publication in a newspaper of general circulation, notice to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries, related agencies and government agencies; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Normandy Road pedestrian improvements project, CIP 22-08, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 300 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/MND is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City; and WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the draft IS/MND which would require re -circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee makes the following Findings: Section 1: The Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the IS/MND, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 2: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") and a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, will assure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. IS/MND for Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Page 2 Section 3: The Planning Commission further finds that the adoption of the MND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. Section 4: The MND, all documents referenced in the MND, and the record of proceedings on which the Planning Commission's decision is based are located at City of Menifee City Hall at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, and the custodian of record of proceedings is the City of Menifee City Clerk. Section 5: The City of Menifee Planning Commission adopts an MND for the project including, but not limited to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, as attached to the MND. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 14th day of June 2023: Attest: Rachel Valencia, Acting Deputy City Clerk Approved as to form: Thai a , Assistant City Attorney G%TY Op. CITY OF MENIFEE MENIFEE CEQA Environmental Checklist Form 00 1. Project title: Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Menifee, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 3. Contact person and phone number: Diego Guillen, PE, Associate Engineer, 951-672-6777 4. Project location: The Project site is generally located west of Interstate (1-) 215, south of State Route (SR-) 74, and north and east of 1-15 in the City of Menifee. The Project site is located on the north side of Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road. A. Total Project Area: 0.39 acres Residential Acres: 0 Lots:0 Units: 0 Projected No. of Residents: 0 Commercial Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0 Office Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0 Industrial Acres: 0 Lots: 0 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0 Other Acres (Office/Retail): 0 Lots: 0 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: 0 Est. No. of Employees: 0 B. Assessor's Parcel No: N/A — Project within City of Menifee Public Right -of -Way C. Map: Thomas Brothers Riverside County Street Guide 2008 Page 867, Grid H-2 & J-2. D. Section 32, Township 5S & Range 3W of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. E. Longitude: 330 41' 6" N Latitude: 117' 13' 12" W 5. Project Applicant/Owners: City of Menifee, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 Representative: Diego Guillen, PE, Associate Engineer, 951-672-6777 6. General Plan Designation: N/A — Project within City of Menifee Public Right -of -Way 7. Existing Zoning: N/A — Project within City of Menifee Public Right -of -Way 8 Description of Project: The Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project ("Project") proposes to construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side of Normandy Road. The Project would include the demolition and grading of existing substrate, the construction of a pedestrian walkway, the installation of a pedestrian handrail and footing, site stabilization, striping of roadways, and final erosion mitigation. The pedestrian trail would be approximately 1,433 linear feet abutting the northern edge of pavement of Normandy Road and would 10 feet wide. The Project would provide headwall improvements for the existing stormwater infrastructure that allows for drainage of an existing stormwater drainage channel. The trail would be constructed with asphalt concrete material and match grade with the existing Normandy Road. A striping buffer would be provided between the west bound travel lane of Normandy Road and the 10-foot-wide pedestrian trail and would consist W1362-Menifee_(N)_CA; -- 1250593 1 of road reflectors, 8-inch and 6-inch white lines, and 24-inch-tall flexible delineators at 20-foot intervals. The Project also involves storm drain work. At present, there is one 24-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and five 36-inch CMPs crossing beneath Normandy Road in a north -south direction. The Project would remove three inches (minimum) from the northerly ends of the existing CMPs. Concrete collars would be placed to join the existing CMPs with new CMPs. The estimated length of extension for the 24-inch CMP is eight linear feet and 26 linear feet collectively for the remaining five 36-inch CMPs. A straight headwall would be placed at the end of the new CMPs and riprap (either quarry stone or broken concrete) would be placed between the headwall and existing right-of-way line. Site Preparation/Phasing The Project site is relatively flat and has been previously disturbed with Normandy Road and its associated shoulder improvements, including the existing storm drains. The Project proposes 415 cubic yards of cut, 18 cubic yards of fill, for a net of 397 cubic yards of export of material. Grading is anticipated to last approximately 3 weeks. Overall construction is anticipated to be completed within 3 months, with operation in 2023. It is currently not anticipated that phased construction will be necessary, in the event that phased construction is pursued, overall construction time would increase. Access and Circulation No vehicular access to the site will be provided. Due to the nature of the Project, no vehicles would be either allowed on -site or able to be on -site. Primary access would be via pedestrian traffic and would be provided along the northern edge of Normandy Road. Additionally, the Salt Creek Trail would connect to the Project on the western portion of the Project site. Regional access to the Project site would be provided via Interstate 215 (1-215). The nearest public access parking would be available approximately 1,000 FT to the east of the Project at the existing Spirit Park. The Project would saw cut and tie into the existing northern edge of Normandy Road and improve the shoulder. The Project would not provide half -width or full -width improvements for Normandy Road. Should the City Engineer and City Public Works department deem it necessary for additional roadway improvements to be made, then the Project would accommodate those identified improvements. Normandy Road is classified as a "Collector" road and as a Class III Bike Route per the City of Menifee's general plan, generally consisting of one travel lane in each direction, curb and gutter, and a six-foot sidewalk. Other Site Improvements and Amenities In addition to circulation, access, and parking infrastructure, the Project would remove and replace all existing vegetation along the northern shoulder of Normandy Road. The Project would construct a pedestrian cable handrail along the northern portion of the Project site to protect pedestrians from potential falls into the existing storm water drainage channel. Infrastructure, Utilities, and Public Services On -site infrastructure would include the 10-foot pedestrian trail, a pedestrian cable handrail, and drainage facilities. Storm water flows would sheet flow to the north across the Project site into the existing storm water drainage channel being ultimately discharged to Lake Elsinore to the southwest of the Project site. The following public services are available to the Project: • Fire Protection Services (City of Menifee through contract with the Riverside County Fire Department); • Police Protection Services (City of Menifee Police Department); May 2023 Page 2 • Public Schools (Menifee Union School District and Perris Union School District) • Library Services (Riverside County Library System); and • City Administrative Services (City of Menifee). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting: The Project site is currently disturbed with infrastructure related to the existing Normandy Road, including the roadway, roadway shoulder, storm water infrastructure, and any remaining native/non-native vegetation. The Project site is located within and adjacent to the flow of the Salt Creek. The Project would utilize existing infrastructure where available. The Project generally slopes at an approximate 2 percent grade to the north as a result of improvements related to Normandy Road, elevations range from 1,405 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and 1,401 feet amsl. Vegetation on the subject site has been disturbed, both historically and recently. For the most part, native vegetation was removed during construction of Normandy Road and has been maintained by mowing and vegetation removal as part of typical operations and maintenance of Normandy Road by the City Public Works Department. Land uses in the surrounding area varies between roadway rights -of -way, residential, and commercial uses. Surroundina Land Uses Direction General Plan Designation City of Menifee Public Right Zoning District of Menifee Public Right Existing Land I. Project Site Normandy Road of Way of Way of Residential, multi North 2.1 — 5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R) Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) trail, and storm Recreation (OS-R) Open Space Recreation (OS-R) water drainage channel Residential and South Audie Murphy Ranch SP Audie Murphy Ranch SP storm water drainage channe Self -storage and Economic Development Corridor — Economic Development Corridor — East Newport Road (EDC-NR) Newport Road (EDC-NR) residential Audie Murphy Ranch SP Audie Murphy Ranch SP Residential West Audie Murphy Ranch SP Audie Murphy Ranch SP 2.1 — 5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R) Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) Sources: City of Menifee. 2022. General Plan Land Use Map. https://www cityofinenifee us/DocumenlCenlerNtew/11043/General-F Land -Use -Map --- December-2021 (accessed October 2022); City of Menifee. 2022. Zoning htlps dwww.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/11042/7onino-Mai---Februarv-2022 (accessed October 20221 10 Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Based on the current Project design concept, other permits necessary to realize the proposal will likely include, but are not limited to, the following: • Stormwater management and associated permitting will be required consistent with the provisions of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. • Permitting required under Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1602 Notification of Lake or Streambed Agreement May 2023 Page 3 Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map T. r � prcn�o�y� • t, :,C� t, � J I« r c „w N9l,s U 4w Iry 1 � II1 ai o •% tr Ora apt eo � d � v Re IV. •t • U o Cl Montpom•ry•YVaY Wlnfer,G� • y �y F•i G.N. Sun City r' t A - Etstn•�r t Yvildi,111:11 MI I I11-1.1 i OM .0 �; Y ram_ t' r ' A �+' v � —•'-1 • III"'• •��• � �� Legend Rl' � Project Site / ;y�i fff •" Source ELMT Consuling 2022 EXHIBIT 1: Project Vicinity Map ON �/Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Not to scale KimleylMorn May 2023 Page 4 if LL K N m_ x x W V a .O L a 42 c a E a 0 4 c 0 a b Q b r3 b�b, O I W rn co EL Cl) N O N f0 2 7i 1331 tl3Mo133S IOMOC 3NIl HOlVW 1 1 1 I adoa lj3l a3MO133S 00 OO+OZ •3NIl HJ1VW I I 1 L T� i E Y N 2 V N i � O Z C U Q) Q- C iv (0 C N o Q1 41v v y r 2- F: O o a C �v �L ^a c O €$Ail d W Z M N O N m m ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population and Housing Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less than Significant" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Energy ® Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑Transportation ® Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental factors checked below (x) would have "No Impact" by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality El Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ® Population and Housing ® Public Services ® Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance May 2023 Page 7 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Cl I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 71 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director May 2023 Page 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. State CEQA Guidelines §15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. May 2023 Page 9 Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Si No I. AESTHETICS Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the pro ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the ❑ ❑ ❑ project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Sources: Menifee General Plan (GP) Exhibit C-8, "Scenic Highways"; Menifee GP Draft EIR; State of California, Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map; City of Menifee at a Glance. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal C-6: Scenic highway corridors that are preserved and protected from change which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to the designated routes. Policy C-6.1: Design developments within designated scenic highway corridors to balance the objectives of maintaining scenic resources with accommodating compatible land uses. Policy C-6.2: Work with federal, state, and county agencies, and citizen groups to ensure compatible development withing scenic corridors. Policy C-6.3: Utilize design and land development strategies to gradually transition graded road slopes into a natural configuration consistent with the topography of the areas within scenic highway corridors. Policy C-6.4: Incorporate riding, hiking, and bicycle trails and other compatible public recreational facilities within scenic corridors. Policy C-6.5: Ensure that the design and appearance of new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs, or grading within eligible county scenic highway corridors are compatible with the surrounding scenic setting or environment. Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. May 2023 Page 10 Policy OSC-1.4: Enhance the natural environment and viewsheds through park design and site selection while preserving sensitive biological, cultural, and historic resources. Goal OSC-2: A comprehensive network of hiking, biking, and equestrian recreation trails that do not negatively impact the natural environment or cultural resources. Policy OSC-2.2: Locate and regulate recreational trails so that they do not negatively impact the city's sensitive habitat, wildlife, natural landforms, and cultural resources. Goal CD-4: Recognize, preserve, and enhance the aesthetic value of the City's enhanced landscape corridors and scenic corridors. Policy CD-4.1: Create unifying streetscape elements for enhanced landscape streets, including coordinated streetlights, landscaping, public signage, street furniture, and hardscaping. Policy CD-4.2: Design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture. Goal CD-6: Attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community. Policy CD-6.5: Limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact La) No Impact. Under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public's benefit. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). Menifee's natural mountainous setting is critical to its overall visual character and provides scenic vistas for the community. Topography and a lack of dense vegetation or urban development offer scenic views throughout the City, including to and from hillside areas. Scenic features include gently sloping alluvial fans, rugged mountains and steep slopes, mountain peaks and ridges, rounded hills with boulder outcrops, farmland, and open space. Scenic vistas provide views of these features from public spaces. Many scenic resources are outside the City limits and beyond the Project area boundary. Scenic views from Menifee include: the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east, the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. The Canyon Lake Reservoir is adjacent to the City's western boundary and approximately 2.75 miles west of the Project site. The East Bay branch of the Canyon Lake Reservoir is approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the Project site. The Project site is already developed and regularly maintained. The site does not alter or block the view of a scenic vista. The Project site is within the City's public right-of-way and is at -grade. The Project would construct infrastructure similar to existing improvements within the public right-of-way (at -grade pedestrian path with similar visual characteristics as the abutting Normandy Road) and would not consist of any structures, signs, or posts that are taller than any existing electrical transmission lines, road signage, traffic signals, or other nearby improvements. The Project would have very few improvements that could block sight lines to scenic vistas, any improvements that would have height to them would consist of posts and poles. As such, the Project would have no impact on scenic resources. Impact Lb) No Impact. While the Project is not adjacent to an officially designated state scenic highway, it is located approximately 4.6 miles east of an eligible State Scenic Highway (1-15) as identified by the May 2023 Page 11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System Map.' The only eligible State Scenic Highway within the City of Menifee is State Route (SR-) 74, approximately 4.9 miles to the northeast of the Project site. As the Project site is not within a scenic corridor of a State Scenic Highway, or an eligible State Scenic Highway, the Project would have no impact with respect to this resource area. Impact I.c) No Impact. Public Resources Code § 21071 defines an urbanized area as: a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: 1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons; 2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. According to the City of Menifee, the 2020 population of Menifee was 97,093, and therefore does not meet criterion a-1.2 However, the City of Menifee is contiguous with the City of Murrieta, which had a 2020 population of 116,781.3 Therefore, their populations combined equal at least 100,000 persons; meeting criterion a-2. This discussion will analyze whether or not the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As the Project site is located within the City's public right-of-way, there is no zoning ordinance that would specifically apply to the Project. As such, the Project would comply with all applicable codes and regulations within the City that relate to scenic resources and quality. The Project would not conflict with development standards related to roadway improvements and public facilities. The Project's construction -related activities would result in short-term impacts to the area's visual character and quality. Construction activities would require the use of equipment and storage of materials within or adjacent to the Project site. However, construction is temporary and would not result in any long-term impacts. Operationally, the Project would not conflict with any regulations related to scenic quality as the Project would be minimally visually invasive and directly abut Normandy Road. The scenic quality and character of the Project would be nearly identical to that of Normandy Road, with the exception of reflectors and 24-inch flexible delineators to protect users of the Project. As such, the Project would not conflict with any regulations related to scenic quality and there would be no impact. Impact I.d) No Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). The Project does not propose to install any light sources; however, the Project would install reflectors between Normandy Road and the 10-foot pedestrian trail. These reflectors would potentially disrupt nighttime views in the area; however, the observer would be required to be utilizing or providing a light source for the reflector to cause any effects. The use of the observer's light source would potentially cause more of an impact on nighttime views in the area than the reflectors would. Additionally, the purpose of the reflectors is to provide for safe navigation and maneuvering for motorists at night and to protect users of the 10-foot pedestrian trail from vehicular traffic along Normandy Road. As the reflectors would require others to utilize light sources and not innately be a light source, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ' California Department of Transportation. ND. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d8O7c46cc8e8O57116flaacaa (accessed October 2021). City of Menifee. ND. City of Menifee at a Glance. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/5519/Menifee-At-A-Glance (accessed October 2022) 3 City of Murrieta 2020. Murrieta Community Profile Snapshot. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4417/Murrieta-Snapshot- March-2021-PDF !,_ (accessed October 2022) May 2023 Page 12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No RESOURCES: Impact Mitigation Incorporated m Impact p Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Proiect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ❑ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? } c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in Government Code §51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion ❑ of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ❑ Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? �Emftm 0 ❑x Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR; California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-6: High -value agricultural lands available for long-term agricultural production in limited areas of the City. Policy OSC-6.1: Protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural acres transition to more developed land uses. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact Il.a) No Impact. The Project site lies within the City Public right -of way and would only be developed with public serving infrastructure. The California Department of Conservation's (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder designates the land north of the Proiect site as "Other Land," south May 2023 Page 13 of the Project site as "Farmland of Local Importance," and east and west as "Urban and Built-up Land."' The Project site is located along the east -west border of the "Other Land" and "Farmland of Local Importance designated areas. The majority of Project improvements would be along the northern edge of Normandy Road and would not directly impact any lands designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" to the south. "Urban and Built-up Land" is defined as land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. "Other Land" is defined as land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. "Farmland of Local Importance" is defined as land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. While the land south of the Project site is designated as "Farmland of Local Importance," the land is within the Audie Murphy Ranch Specific Plan and consists of Planning Areas 35 and 41. These planning areas are dedicated to residential development and for flood pla in/floodway/ri pa rian areas and would not be developed with agricultural uses. Therefore, the Project's impacts concerning farmland conversion would have no impact. Impacts Il.b-d) No Impact. The Project site is part of the City's public right-of-way and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use or forestland; therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or forestland, or a Williamson Act contract. As the Project site is not located within an area zoned for forestry industry, it would not convert forest land. Impact Il.e) No Impact. Surrounding land uses include a self -storage site and residential uses to the east; residential uses, recreational uses, and a stormwater drainage channel to the north; residential uses and a stormwater drainage channel to the south; and residential uses to the west. No parcels are zoned or designated for agricultural or forestry resources. Forest lands are not present in the area surrounding the Project site. According to the GP and aerial imagery, the Project site and surrounding land is not currently used for agricultural uses. The Project would not divide any agricultural parcels or impede access to any agricultural parcels. Therefore, the Project would not cause indirect conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. " California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps conservation ca gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 14 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No III. AIR QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Droiect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR; Quail Hills Residential Development Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter. Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Policy OSC-9.2: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses. Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source. Policy OSC-9.4: Support the Riverside County Regional Air Quality Task Force, the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan to reduce air pollution at the regional level. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact Ill.a-d) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would generate exhaust from equipment and vehicle trips and fugitive dust from ground -disturbing activities, however emissions would be short-term and only exist throughout the duration of construction. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 3 months. Construction equipment utilized during construction would be required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations related to emissions standards including but not limited to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and City GP Goals and Policies. Some measures included in these plans include idling limits to diesel -fueled and gasoline -fueled equipment and emissions standards. May 2023 Page 15 Due to the limited scope of the Project, it is not anticipated that air quality emissions related to the Project construction would result in any significant impacts or exceed significance thresholds defined by the SCAQMD. A review of an approximately 44-acre project within the City showed that unmitigated construction emissions for this larger project are under SCAQMD thresholds; it stands to reason that the Project, which proposes disturbance of approximately 0.39 acres, would have lesser impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during construction.5 The Project would similarly not cause substantial pollutant concentration for nearby residential uses to the east and west as emissions would be minimal due to the scope of the Project. Furthermore, the Project does not propose the development of infrastructure that would require the use of materials that are known to cause adverse effects. Asphaltic paving may cause nuisance odors; however, this would be temporary and would only occur during paving operations for the Project. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The Project would not have any operational emissions of criteria air pollutants throughout normal operations as the Project does not propose any uses that have direct or indirect emissions. Routine maintenance activities would potentially emit criteria air pollutants, such as landscaping, striping, and asphalt patching. These operational emissions would be consistent with emissions related to the transport of people and equipment on the City's circulation network and the maintenance of the City's circulation network. The certified City GP EIR would have analyzed and considered the build out of the City's circulation network, which includes pedestrian and multi -use trails such as the Project. Further, as the Project is a pedestrian and multi -use trail that would connect currently discontinuous pedestrian and multi -use facilities, the Project would encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and potentially reduce the number of vehicles that would be operating within the City. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 5 City of Menifee. 2022 Quail Hills Residential Development Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Table 1. https.Ilcityofinenifee us/DocumentCenter/View/16017/Quail-Hills-TTM37692-Residential-Development-Project-Draft-ISMND. Accessed October 2022 May 2023 Page 16 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑O ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP Draft EIR; Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Approved June 7, 2003; Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis (ELMT Consulting, July 2022), Appendix A; Jurisdictional Delineation (ELMT Consulting, July 2022), Appendix B; Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report (DBESP) (ELMT Consulting, November 2022), Appendix C. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-8: Protected biological resources, especially sensitive and special status wildlife species and their natural habitats. Policy OSC-8.1: Work to implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority. May 2023 Page 17 Policy OSC-8.2: Support local and regional efforts to evaluate, acquire, and protect natural habitats for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species occurring in and around the City. Policy OSC-8.3: Partner with non-profit agencies at the local, regional, state, and federal level to fulfill the obligations of the MSHCP to preserve and protect significant biological resources. Policy OSC-8.4: Identify and inventory existing natural resources in the City of Menifee. Policy OSC-8.5: Recognize the impacts new development will have on the City's natural resources and identify ways to reduce these impacts. Policy OSC-8.7: Manage the recreational use of the City's unimproved open space areas for compatibility with sensitive biological resources as well as MSHCP Conservation Areas. Policy OSC-8.8: Implement and follow MSHCP goals and policies when making discretionary actions pursuant to Section 13 of the Implementing Agreement. Vegetation Due to existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on the Project site. The site consists of modified soil that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that were once present on the Project site. Native plant species adjacent to the site would not be impacted by the Project. No native plant communities would be impacted from implementation of the Project. The Project site supports one (1) plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports one (1) land cover type that would be classified as disturbed. The majority of the site is void of plant species but does contain some nonnative grasses on and adjacent to the site such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), canary grass (Phalaris canariensis), and mouse barely (Hordeum murinum). Additional common plant species observed adjacent to the site include Mediterranean mustad (Hirschfeldia incana), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesi►), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Wildlife Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the Project site. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. Fish The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status fish species as potentially occurring within the Project site. Further, no fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent. Amphibians The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status amphibian species as potentially occurring within the Project site. Further, no amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur. Reptiles The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status reptilian species as potentially occurring within the Project site. The site provides a limited amount of habitat for reptile species adapted to a high dearee of human disturbance. No reptilian species were observed during the field investigation. May 2023 Page 18 Birds The Project site provides limited foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance, but Salt Creek north and south of the Project site provide suitable habitat suitable for foraging and nesting. Bird species detected during the field survey include Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). Mammals The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status mammalian species as potentially occurring within the Project site. The site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. No mammalian species were detected during the field investigation. Jurisdictional Delineation A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance (refer to Exhibit 3, Jurisdictional Areas of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report in Appendix B). Salt Creek, within the Project footprint, flows under Normandy Avenue via one 24-inch culvert and five 36-inch culverts. There is loose riprap that borders the headwall of the culverts. No surface water was present within Salt Creek during the site visit; however, evidence of an ordinary high-water mark was observed via scour, changes in substrate, and shelving. In general, Salt Creek, within the Project footprint, only conveys surface flow in direct response to precipitation or urban runoff and does not support riparian vegetation. Salt Creek primarily consists of loose/sandy substrate with dense stands of primarily non-native vegetation within the Project footprint. Where vegetated, the drainages supported short -podded mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), white sweet clover (Mililotus alba), and may weed (Anthemis cotula). These plant species are common plant species, and none are threatened, endangered, or have special status in California. Analysis of Proiect Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact IV.a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Special -Status Plant Species According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society, 17 special -status plant species have been recorded in the Romoland quadrangle, in which the Project site is situated. No special -status plants were observed on the Project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined no special -status plant species have potential to occur on -site due to the lack of native habitats and routine on -site disturbances and all are presumed absent. Special -Status Wildlife Species According to the CNDDB, 48 special -status wildlife species have been reported in the Romoland quadrangle. No special -status wildlife species were observed on the Project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on - site habitats, it was estimated that the Project site has a moderate potential to provide foraging habitat for Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi►); and a low potential to support foraging habitat for sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great egret (Areea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), Califonria horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). It was further determined that the Project site does not have potential to support any of the other special -status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent. The riparian vegetation south of the Project site has the potential to support least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). May 2023 Page 19 With the exception of Bell's vireo, none of the aforementioned special -status wildlife species are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. In order to ensure impacts to these avian species do not occur from implementation of the Project, a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to special -status avian species will be less than significant and mitigation would be required, refer to MM 13I0-1 below. Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan The MSHCP covers 146 species, 38 of which require additional surveys if the Project occurs in the specific survey area for a species. The Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map outlines, on a parcel -by -parcel basis, those properties which require habitat assessments and focused surveys. The Project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.s Burrowing Owl Under the MSHCP burrowing owl is considered an adequately conserved covered species that may still require focused surveys in certain areas as designated in Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. The Project site occurs within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and a habitat assessment was conducted for the species to ensure compliance with MSHCP guidelines for the species in accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions. Despite a systematic search of the Project site, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Portions of the Project site are vegetated with a variety of low -growing plant species that allow for minimal line -of -sight observation favored by burrowing owls. Further, no small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Further, the Project site does not provide suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non -natural substrates that could be used as burrow surrogates. Additionally, there are tall trees south of the drainage culvert and utility poles that provide perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Based on this information, and as a result of current and historic on -site disturbances, and surrounding development, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur on - site, and no focused surveys are recommended. Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. However, out of an abundance of caution a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities and as described in MM BIO-2. Fairy Shrimp One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographical depression that is not subject to flowing waters. These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2021) of the Project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the Project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the Project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. From this review of historic aerial photographs and observations during the field investigations, it can be concluded that there is no indication of vernal pools or suitable fairy shrimp habitat occurring within the Project site. e City of Menifee 2013. Exhibit OSC-8: MSHCP Survey Areas. https://www.cityofineni fee us/DocumentCenter/View/1089/ExhibitOSC- 8_MSHCP_SurveyAreas_HD0913?bidld= Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 20 Species Not Covered by the Western Riverside MSHCP No non-MSHCP covered special status wildlife species were observed on the Project site. Impacts to non-MSHCP covered special status wildlife species would not be considered significant with the implementation of minimization and avoidance measures proposed in conjunction with other nesting and/or migratory bird species. Therefore, compliance with MM BIO-1, which requires a preconstruction survey to identify presence of nesting birds and raptors, would reduce potential impacts to non -covered species to less than significant. Nesting Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provisions, it is unlawful "by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill' any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The term "take" is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect" any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. In addition, the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) extends protection to non -migratory birds identified as resident game birds (CFGC § 3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of -prey) (CFGC § 3503). The project site would not support nesting bird species as the Project study area does not contain suitable nesting habitat. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact to nesting migratory birds with the implementation of MM BIO-1. CRITICAL HABITAT The Project is not located within federally designated critical habitat. Therefore, no impact to critical habitat would occur. Impacts IV.b-c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. RIPARIAN HABITATS AND JURISDICTIONAL WATERS Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Salt Creek, within the Project footprint, would be considered riparian/riverine habitat under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. As such, impacts to riparian/riverine habitat were evaluated with the preparation of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP, Appendix C) which addresses and evaluates the replacement of lost functions of habitats in regard to the listed species. One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters. These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates, and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures. Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to,which certain plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp. May 2023 Page 21 The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with listed and special -status plant species: clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. The specific clay soils known to be associated with listed and special -status species within the MSHCP plan area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville series soils, whereas Traver -Domino Willows association includes saline -alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas of the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Without the appropriate soils to create the restrictive impermeable layer, none of the special -status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools can occur on the project site. None of these soils have been documented within the project site. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2021) of the project site did not provide visual evidence of astatic or vernal pool conditions within the project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. Based on the historical aerial review, existing human disturbances, and current hydrologic regimes of the project site, it can be concluded that the project site lacks astatic conditions, and, therefore, would not provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat. Fairy shrimp require astatic conditions and a complete drying of occupied ponds so that the fairy shrimp cysts will not rot. As a result, none of the sensitive plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools are expected to occur on the project site. Sensitive plant and wildlife species associated with vernal pools and clay soils, including fairy shrimp, are presumed absent from the project site. The on -site drainage collectively performs the following functions within the local area of the watershed: regulation of nuisance flows, energy dissipation, nutrient cycling, retention of particulates, nutrient/particulate uptake from off -site, upstream development, and connectivity with similar habitat upstream. In its current state, Salt Creek can be considered to have limited resource value to local and migratory wildlife since is generally disturbed on the project site, and only receives flows from and conveys immediate flows from developed areas. Salt Creek, within the project footprint, will be considered riparian/riverine habitat under the MSHCP. As previously stated, the Project site does not contain vernal pools or suitable habitat for fairy shrimp, there would be no impacts related to vernal pools. However, the Project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.02-acre (15 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat within Salt Creek. As such, MM 13I0-3 would be followed, which would offset the impacts through the purchase of mitigation credits. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates deposition of fill material into waters of the U.S. (WOUS) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) regulates impacts to WOUS under Section 401 of the CWA and to waters of the State (WOS) under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The area is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USACE, and RWQCB. A single ephemeral drainage feature (Salk Creek) was observed within the boundaries of the Project site during the field delineation. The onsite drainage possesses hydrologic nexus to downstream waters of the U.S., and therefore, would fall under the regulatory authority of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Because impacts to Salt Creek would occur from Project implementation, the following would be required: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: The USACE regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into WOUS, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Due to impacts to Salt Creek, it would be necessary for the Applicant (the City) to acquire a CWA Section 404 permit prior to impacts occurring within USACE jurisdictional areas. Since the Project would result in the loss of less than 0.5 acres of USACE jurisdiction (non -wetland waters), it is anticipated that the Project can be authorized via a Nationwide Permit (NWP). May 2023 Page 22 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: The RWQCB regulates discharges to surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB's jurisdiction extends to all WOS and WOUS, including wetlands. Because impacts to Salt Creek would occur, for a USACE Section 404 permit to be approved, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB would be required. The RWQCB also requires a Section 401 Certification Application Fee, which is dependent on the amount and type of impacts (i.e., acreage, linear feet, and project type). California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow or alter the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated biological resources) of a river or stream. Salt Creek within the Project site would be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Therefore, it would be necessary for the Applicant (the City) to acquire a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to impacts occurring within CDFW jurisdictional areas. With the acquisition of the above detailed permits and compliance with the applicable codes and regulations, Project -related impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be less than significant with the implementation of MM 13I0-3. Impact IVA) Less Than Significant Impact. Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. The Project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage by the MSHCP. However, Salt Creek provides local wildlife movement through the area. The Project would primarily be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and or developed and is not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Temporary impacts to wildlife movement during construction may occur, but there would be no permanent or long-term impacts to wildlife movement. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Impact IV.e) No Impact. The Project site is previously disturbed and lacks vegetation onsite. There are no trees on -site that are considered Heritage Trees as defined in the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (MMC § 9.86.110). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur in this regard. Impact IV.f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No wildlife species that are Covered Species and Adequately Conserved by the MSHCP were detected within the Project site during the habitat assessment and focused surveys. The Project would not directly affect any relevant MSHCP- covered plant and animal species for which surveys can sometimes be required or special mitigation arranged. Payment of MSHCP and Stephens' kangaroo rat fees is intended to offset habitat losses for animals such as Stephens' kangaroo rat, coyote, and foraging bird species that might utilize the Project site. The impacts that might occur on -site are what the MSHCP anticipated in areas not situated in Criteria Area Cells (i.e., potential future MSHCP Reserve lands). Impacts are primarily offset through MSHCP fee payment and Stephens' kangaroo rat fee payment. Overall, the Project would not conflict with the relevant provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard with implementation of MMS 13I0-1 and 13I0-2, and Standard Conditions of Approval COA-131O-1 throuah COA-131O-4. May 2023 Page 23 Mitigation Measures: BIO-1 Prior to vegetation clearance, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre -construction nesting bird survey in accordance with the following: a) The final walkover survey shall be conducted no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work; b) If pre -construction surveys indicate that bird nests are not present or are inactive, or if potential habitat is unoccupied, no further mitigation is required; c) If active nesting birds are found during the surveys, a species -specific no -disturbance buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist around active nests until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged (i.e., no longer reliant upon the nest). d) It is recommended that close coordination between the City of Menifee and the consulting qualified biologist occur to consider vegetation clearance outside of the normal bird nesting season (usually February 15 — September 15) to avoid impacts to nesting birds which would potentially violate the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It should be noted that bird nesting season is increasingly less -definitive for some year-round resident species such as hummingbirds and raptors. Further, ground -dwelling birds such as burrowing owls, can be affected nearly any time of the year if present. It is therefore advisable to conduct a preconstruction bird survey no matter the time of year. e) Removal of vegetation necessitates installation of appropriate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan "SWPPP" measures, particularly if development subsequent to grading is not undertaken immediately, therefore careful timing of the Project schedule and implementation measures is necessary to avoid water quality impacts. 13I0-2: The Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a 30-day pre -construction survey for Burrowing Owl. The results of the single one -day survey would be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. If Burrowing Owl are not detected during the pre - construction survey, no further mitigation is required. If Burrowing Owl are detected during the pre -construction survey, the Project Applicant and a qualified consulting biologist will be required to prepare and submit for approval a Burrowing Owl relocation program. B1O-3: Mitigation for the loss of 0.02-acre (15 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat within Salt Creek will occur offsite through the purchase of mitigation credits through the Riverpark Mitigation Bank or other approved bank, or combination thereof, at a ratio of 1:1. The City will be responsible for the purchase of mitigation credits to compensate for impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA-13I0-1: In accordance with City of Menifee requirements, the developer of the site shall make the appropriate mitigation fee payment into the Stephens' kangaroo rat fee payment program for conservation of Stephens' kangaroo rat -occupied habitats in order to offset the loss of potentially suitable Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat on -site through project implementation. COA-BIO-2: In accordance with City of Menifee requirements, the developer of the site shall make the appropriate MSHCP mitigation fee payment that will contribute to conservation and management of conservation land for all MSHCP-covered organisms. COA-13I0-3: In accordance with MSCHP provisions limiting the use of exotic and invasive plant species, the Project's landscape plan shall exclude invasive species such as, but not limited to crimson fountain grass (Cenchrus setaceus), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), giant reed (Arundo donax), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Eucalyptus, Acacia shrubs and groundcovers (Acacia sp.) and other ornamental landscape elements on the list of exotic May 2023 Page 24 invasive plans listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.4 which have the potential to spread into adjoining or nearby areas and watersheds. COA-BIO-4: The City shall implement dust control and all other project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") measures during grading and construction required by the City of Menifee. May 2023 Page 25 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial ad significance of a historic to § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial ad significance of an arcl pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human rem interred outside of forma verse change in the al resource pursuant ❑ ❑ ❑ verse change in the iaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ ains, including those ❑ ❑ O ❑ l cemeteries? Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP Draft EIR; Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D). Applicable General Plan Policies: GoalOSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources that are protected and integrated into the City's built environment. Policy OSC-5.1: Preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulations or policies which may be adopted by the city to implement this goal and associated policies. Policy OSC-5.3: Preserve sacred sites identified in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes whose ancestral territories are within the city, such as Native American burial locations, by avoiding activities that would negatively impact the sites, while maintaining the confidentiality of the location and nature of the sacred site. Policy OSC-5.4: Establish clear and responsible policies and best practices to identify, evaluate, and protect previously unknown archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, following applicable CEQA and NEPA procedures and in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes who have ancestral lands within the city. Policy OSC-5.5: Develop clear policies regarding the preservation and avoidance of cultural resources located withing the city, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes who have ancestral lands within the city. Policy OSC-5.6: Develop strong government -to -government relationships and consultation protocols with the appropriate Native American tribes with ancestral territories within the city in order to ensure better identification, protection and preservation of cultural resources, while also developing appropriate educational programs, with tribal participation, for Menifee residents. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact V.a) No Impact. The Project site is heavily disturbed and consists of the existing Normandy Road and associated improvements. The City GP EIR identifies several eligible or designated historic resources, though are located within the Project site.' According to aerial photography, there are no existing structures present on -site. The City GP does not designate the area or the Project site as a significant historical site. According to the Phase I Cultural Assessment prepared for the Project, five (5) 7 City of Menifee. 2013 Menlfee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; Table 5.5-1. https://www cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/1105/Ch-05-05-CUL?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 26 cultural resources assessments were previously prepared that assessed portions of the Project site for cultural resources. Additionally, the assessment noted there were 33 cultural resources previously recorded within the vicinity of the Project site, though no cultural or historic resources were previously identified within the Project boundaries. During the cultural resources field survey completed for the Project, one potentially prehistoric flake of andesite shatter in disturbed sediment was identified within the Project boundaries. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, this isolate is not eligible for the National Register or the California Register and as such is not considered a "historical resource" under CEQA. No other cultural resources were identified during the field survey. As there are no structures, or City designated or eligible historical resources located within the Project site, Project implementation would result in no impact to historical resources. Impact V.b) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Project site has been heavily disturbed with the existing Normandy Road and associated improvements, which would have included excavation and grading operations during construction. As such, it is unlikely that archaeological resources would be encountered on the Project site. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, no significant archaeological resources were identified during site surveys and the Project site generally has a low sensitivity for significant buried resources. However, there is a possibility for resources to be discovered inadvertently. As such Standards Conditions of Approval COA-CUL-3 through COA-CUL-8 would further minimize impacts and include provisions related to the inadvertent finding of archaeological resources on -site during excavation or other ground disturbing activities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigations would be required. Impact V.c) Less Than Significant Impact. No formal cemeteries are on or near the Project site. Most Native American human remains are found in association with prehistoric archaeological sites. Given the very low potential for the project's ground -disturbing activities to encounter archaeological remains, human remains to be potentially encountered are considered low. Notwithstanding, if previously unknown human remains are discovered during the Project's ground -disturbing activities, a substantial adverse change in the significance of such a resource could occur. Standard Conditions of Approval COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-2 are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation to a less than significant level. COA-CUL-1 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered the contractor is required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 7050.5, who must then determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she must contact the NAHC. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of the aforementioned Standard Conditions. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code (PRC) § 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the Most Likely Descendant (MILD). The MILD shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation with the landowner concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC § 5097.98. Thus, compliance with the above -referenced state laws will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA-CUL-1 Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code § 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If May 2023 Page 27 the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC § 5097.98. COA-CUL-2 Non -Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). COA-CUL-3 Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). a) All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. b) At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources- c) Grading or further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors, if needed. d) Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non -Disclosure of Reburial Condition. e) If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. f) Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights May 2023 Page 28 available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council. COA-CUL-4 Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department: i. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letterfrom the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. COA-CUL-5 Prior to Grading Permit Issuance Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. May 2023 Page 29 In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the definition in Assembly Bill (AB) 52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code § 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB 52. Details in the Plan shall include: a. Project grading and development scheduling; b. The Project archeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors, and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis; c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. COA-CUL-6 Native American Monitoring (Pechanga). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above - mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. COA-CUL-7 Native American Monitoring (Rincon). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above - mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. COA-CUL-8 Prior to Final Occupancy. Archeology Report -Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre -grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are May 2023 Page 30 adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s). May 2023 Page 31 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No VI. ENERGY Significant SiMitigationgnificant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary 0 0 0 consumption of energy resources, during construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for 0 0 0 renewable energy or energy efficiency? Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Siqnificance: Impact Vl.a-b): Less Than Significant Impact. California Code Title 24, Part 6 (also referred to as the California Energy Code), was promulgated by the California Energy Commission in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy consumption. To these ends, the California Energy Code provides energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. California's building efficiency standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The 2019 Standards for building construction, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, improved upon the former 2016 Standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption in the SCAB and across the State of California. For example, the 2019 Title 24 standards will require solar photovoltaic systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting requirements for nonresidential buildings. However, the Project does not propose the installation or construction of infrastructure that require electricity or other forms of energy sources. The newest edition of the California Building Standards is the 2022 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2023. Construction of the Project would require minimal use of electricity, as electric -powered hand -tools would be the primary source of electrical demand for construction activities. The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and nominal; therefore, Project construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Construction of the Project is not anticipated to necessitate the use of natural gas. Fuels used during construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline to operate construction equipment. During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas -powered or diesel -powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity -powered equipment. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. May 2023 Page 32 The Project would not connect to any public utility service systems and would have no impacts related to operations of the Project. Overall, a less than significant impact would occur due to construction - related energy demands. May 2023 Page 33 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ❑ ❑ O ❑ on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ F ❑ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind ❑ ❑ 1 O ❑ erosion and blowsand, either on or off -site? g) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ x� ❑ geological feature? Sources: Menifee GP Exhibits S-1, "Fault Map," S-2, "Slope Distribution," S-3, "Liquefaction and Landslides," and S-4, "Geologic Map"; Menifee GP Draft EIR; Riverside County General Plan Figure S-8, "Wind Erosion Susceptibility Areas." Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-2: A community that has used engineering solutions to reduce or eliminate the potential for injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social May 2023 Page 34 disruption caused by geologic hazards such as slope instability; compressible, collapsible, expansive or corrosive soils; and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. Policy S-2.1: Require all new developments to mitigate the geologic hazards that have the potential to impact habitable structures and other improvements. Policy S-2.3: Minimize grading and modifications to the natural topography to prevent the potential for man -induced slope failures. Analysis of Proiect Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact Vll.a.i) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located in southern California, which is a seismically active region and as a result, significant ground shaking would likely impact the site within the design life of the Project. The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated by northwest -trending faults associated with the San Andreas Fault system, which accommodates for most of the right lateral movement associated with the relative motion between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. Known active faults within this system include the Newport -Inglewood, Whittier - Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Faults. Faults within a close proximity to the Project site have not moved in the Holocene or late Pleistocene according to the General Plan fault map. The nearest fault to the Project site is the Wildomar Fault, a part of the Elsinore Fault Zone, and is located approximately 6.35 miles southwest of the Project site." The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.9 As such, the potential for surface rupture to adversely impact the proposed structures is very low to remote. Therefore, the Project would not have substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Impact Vll.a.ii-iv) Less than Significant Impact. While the site is in a seismically active region, no active or potentially active faults are presently known to exist at this site, as shown on the Menifee GP Fault Map Exhibit S-1.10 Although the site is likely to experience ground shaking during the life of the development due to its regional location. According to the City GP, a portion of the Project site is located within an area where local geologic or groundwater conditions suggest a potential for liquefaction.11 Compliance with the MCC and standard engineering practices, would reduce the potential for liquefaction to a less than significant level. According to the City GP, the Project site is not located in an area that has slopes greater than 20 degrees, and as such the potential for landslides would be minimal. 12.13 Impact Vll.c-d) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated in Response Vll.a.ii-iv, the Project would have a low likelihood of landslides or liquefaction. The soils present on -site generally consist of Very Young Wash Deposits (Qw), Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof), Very Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qvof), and Very Old Channel Deposits (Qvoa).14 Very young deposits (Qw) tend to have low expansion potential, poor slope stability, high permeability, and are highly susceptible to erosion, while old deposits (Qof, Qvof. Qvoa) tend to have low expansion potential, good slope stability, moderate erosion potential, e California Geologic Survey. ND. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed October 2022. 9 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2022. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/explore?location=33.733503%2C-117.189301%2C11.54 Accessed October 2022. 10 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-1: Fault Map. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/l028/S-1_FaultMap_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed August 2022. " City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-3. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1030/S- 3_LiquefactionandLandslides_HD0913?bidld=. Access October 2022. 12 Ibid. 13 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-2. https://www cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1029/S- 2_SlopeDistribution_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. 14 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-4. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1031/S- 4_GeologicMap_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 35 variable permeability, and is suitable for fill material.15 Due to the nature of the surrounding area as a drainage channel, there would be a higher than typical groundwater recharge in the immediate vicinity of the Project when compared to other portions of the City without adjacent waterways. Due to the availability of groundwater recharge from surface flows of water, the risk of subsidence would be low. The portion of the Project site in which Qw soils are found is located at the existing stormwater drainpipes that bisect the Project. The Project would improve the headwall of the stormwater drainpipes with structural riprap (large stones and rocks) and improve the existing drainage infrastructure. This added structural material would lessen impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the Menifee Building and Safety Department and Engineering/Public Works Department would review construction plans for compliance with the MMC. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, and the established regulatory framework (i.e., MMC), the Project's potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving geologic and seismic hazards, and unstable conditions, would be less than significant. Impact VII.b) Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. The Project site would undergo a brief demolition and grading period and construction would last approximately 3 months. During construction, the project would be subject to compliance with erosion and sediment control measures and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit); see Response X.a. MMC § 15.01.015(B)(1) specifies that any person performing construction work in the City shall comply with the provisions of MMC Chapter 15.01 and control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The Director of Public Works would identify the best management practices (BMP) that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and the manner of implementation. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (NPDES and MMC), the Project's potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant with periodic maintenance and good drainage and no mitigation is required. Impact VII.e) No Impact. The Project does not propose a use or amenity that would require the use of septic systems or connection to the public sanitary sewer network. The Project would not provide public or private restrooms. As such, there would be no impact related to this topical area. Impact VIIJ) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area designated as having moderate susceptibility to wind erosion.16 The Project may be exposed to wind along the Salt Creek as there are no structures or other developments. While the Project may be exposed to these winds it is not anticipated that high winds or blowing sand would have substantial impacts on Project -related improvements due to routine maintenance that would occur on the Project site during operations. Project implementation would cover currently exposed soils with asphalt pavements, further reducing potential impacts related to windblown dust or sand within the Project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impact VII.g) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Menifee's General Plan, the majority of the City is assigned as a high paleontological sensitivity. According to the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment, the geologic units underlying the project area are mapped primarily as mixed alluvial deposits from the Holocene and Pleistocene epoch, with the easternmost end of the project extending into units of Cretaceous gabbro and diorite. Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. Given that the excavation of soils would be minimal and limited to 15 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; Figure 5 6-4. https://www cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1106/Ch-05-06-GEO?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. 15 Riverside County. 2016. Figure S-8 Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map. https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/content/gp/chapterO6.html#List_1_8. Accessed September 2022. May 2023 Page 36 heavily disturbed areas, there is very low potential to encounter fossils. However, the Project would adhere to COA-GEO-1, which provides provisions for the inadvertent paleontological find, and would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA-GEO-1: Inadvertent Paleontological Find. Should fossil remains be encountered during site development: 1) All site earthmoving shall be ceased in the area of where the fossil remains are encountered. Earthmoving activities may be diverted to other areas of the site. 2) The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the County of Riverside. 3) The paleontologist shall determine the significance of the encountered fossil remains. 4) Paleontological monitoring of earthmoving activities will continue thereafter on an as -needed basis by the paleontologist during all earthmoving activities that may expose sensitive strata. Earthmoving activities in areas of the project area where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but not otherwise disturbed will not be monitored. The supervising paleontologist will have the authority to reduce monitoring once he/she determines the probability of encountering any additional fossils has dropped below an acceptable level. 5) If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the paleontologist is not onsite, these activities will be diverted around the fossil site and the paleontologist called to the site immediately to recover the remains. 6) Any recovered fossil remains will be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains then will be curated (assigned and labeled with museum* repository fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued, and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data will be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum repository catalogs and computerized databases) at the museum repository by a laboratory technician. The remains will then be accessioned into the museum* repository fossil collection, where they will be permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators. *The City of Menifee must be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material prior to being curated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 37 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No Vill. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant mpact Mitigation Significant mpact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1 Source: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design. Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. Policy OSC-10.1: Align the City's local GHG reduction targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG reduction target of AB 32. Policy OSC-10.2: Align the City's long-term GHG reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. Policy OSC-10.4: Consider impacts to climate change as a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects. Existinq Setting: Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Global climate change (GCC) refers to changes in average meteorological conditions on earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global warming, a related concept, is the observed increase in average temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N20, CHa, NF3, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth's atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth's atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth's average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (OF) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature. The potential effects of global climate change May 2023 Page 38 may include rising surface temperatures, loss in snowpack, sea -level rise, more extreme heat days per year, and more drought years. CO2 is an odorless, colorless natural GHG. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic (human -caused) sources of CO2 are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, wood, butane, propane, etc. CHa is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. N2O, also known as laughing gas, is a colorless GHG. Some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to the atmospheric load of GHGs. HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (whose production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol) for automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. SFs is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SFs is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. NF3 is a colorless gas with a distinctly moldy odor. NF3 is used in industrial processes and is produced in the manufacturing of semiconductors, Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels, types of solar panels, and chemical lasers. Events and activities, such as the industrial revolution and the increased combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, coal, etc.), have heavily contributed to the increase in atmospheric levels of GHGs. An air quality analysis of GHGs is a much different analysis than the analysis of criteria pollutants for the following reasons. For criteria pollutants significance thresholds are based on daily emissions because attainment or non -attainment is based on daily exceedances of applicable ambient air quality standards. Further, several ambient air quality standards are based on relatively short-term exposure effects on human health, e.g., one -hour and eight -hour. Since the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 100 years, for example, the effects of GHGs are longer term, affecting global climate over a relatively long timeframe. As a result, the SCAQMD's current position is to evaluate GHG effects over a longer timeframe than a single day. According to available information, the statewide inventory of CO2 equivalent emissions in the state is as follows: • 1990 GHG emissions were estimated to equal 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (AB 32 2020 target); 2000 GHG emissions were estimated to equal 463 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (an average 8% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base); • 2010 GHG emissions were estimated to equal 450 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (an average 5% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base); and • 2020 GHG emissions were estimated to equal 545 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, under a business as usual scenario (BAU) (an average 21.7% reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base). The state has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S-3-05. The state has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown above, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impacts Vlll.a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would include the development of a multi- use pedestrian path along the northern edge of Normandy Road. During construction, there would be a short-term impact related to GHG emissions. These emissions would be as a result of the use of diesel - fueled heavy and off -road equipment that would be utilized. These GHG emissions would occur over the 3 months that construction is currently anticipated to last. Since the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 100 years, for example, the effects of GHGs are lonqer term, affecting qlobal climate over May 2023 Page 39 a relatively long timeframe. As a result, the SCAQMD's current position is to evaluate GHG effects over a longer timeframe, typically 30 years. As such, any short-term construction emissions associated with the Project would be amortized over a considerably longer timeframe, resulting in a minimized impact related to construction based GHG emissions. Further, all equipment utilized would be required to adhere to idling regulations which prevents idling for more than 5 minutes. Impacts related to GHG emissions for construction would be less than significant. Operationally, there are no uses proposed that would directly or indirectly cause operational emissions for the Project as the Project would not connect to public utilities or directly generate transportation related emissions on a daily basis. There would be occasional operational emissions related to the routine maintenance of the Project, however this would be limited to one to two vehicles at any given time. Due to the size of the Project, it is unlikely that routine maintenance of the Project would be at a frequency such that significant emissions would be generated. Impacts related to GHG emissions for operations would be less than significant. Impacts VIII. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee has not yet adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan. However, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan to identify statewide strategies to achieve the GHG reduction targets of AB 32, and SCAG adopted the 2020 RTP/SCS to achieve local passenger vehicle per capita GHG reduction targets of SIB 375. CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Consistency Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero -emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil -fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. Under the scoping plan, when a local jurisdiction, such as the City, is the lead agency there are actions the City can make to ensure compliance with the Scoping Plan to achieve the State's climate goals. This includes the codification of specific measures in the municipal code. The Project would comply with the MMC, for example, MMC § 9.210.030 sets performance standards for construction equipment, including preventing idling for long periods of time. SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS The RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The Project proposes the construction of a pedestrian trail that would connect two areas of the City. Currently there is no pedestrian or multi -use trail connection in the portion of the City that the Project is situated. The Project would improve connectivity and encourage the use of non -motor vehicle use within the City. As such, it would meet the goals and vision of the RTP/SCS. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required May 2023 Page 40 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No MATERIALS Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ death involving wildland fires? Sources: Menifee GP, Exhibit S-6, "High Fire Hazard Areas," Exhibit S-7, "Critical Facilities, and Exhibit S-9 "Evacuation Routes"; Menifee GP Draft EIR; State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control, EnviroStor Database; State of California, Department of Toxics Substances Control, Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites database; Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Compatibility Plans; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CAL FIRE) California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. Policy S-4.9: Ensure all new development and/or redevelopment within the SRA will comply with all provisions of Title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing May 2023 Page 41 with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations) for SRAs and VHFHSZs. Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials contamination. Policy S-5.2 Ensure that the fire department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Goal S-6: A City that responds and recovers in an effective and timely manner from natural disasters such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes, and as a result is not impacted by civil unrest that may occur following a natural disaster. Policy S-6.1 Continuously review, update, and implement emergency preparedness, response, and recovery plans that make the best use of the City- and county -specific emergency management resources available. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impacts IX.a) No Impact. A typical project that could result in a significant hazard to the public includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses that require such materials for operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. As the Project is a pedestrian and multi -use trail, there would be no operational transportation, use, or disposal of any hazardous wastes. During Project operations, no significant hazardous materials would be present under normal conditions. Regular operation and maintenance of the Project would not result in significant impacts involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. Additionally, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites (Cortese List) compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and therefore would not release known hazardous materials due to ground -disturbing activities." Both the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulate the transport of hazardous waste and material, including transport via highway. The U.S. EPA administers permitting, tracking, reporting, and operations requirements established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The DOT regulates the transportation of hazardous materials through enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. This act includes requirements for container design and labeling, as well as for driver training. The established regulations are intended to track and manage the safe interstate transportation of hazardous materials and waste. Additionally, State and local agencies enforce the application of these acts and coordinate safety and mitigation responses in the case that accidents involving hazardous materials occur. The Project does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances. Project construction activities may include refueling and minor maintenance of construction equipment on -site, which could lead to minor fuel and oil spills. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction would occur in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, including California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requirements. It is anticipated that a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials " Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor. 2021. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. https://www envirostor dtsc ca gov/public/map/?myaddress=menifee Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 42 and wastes would occur that are typical of construction projects; however the use of these materials would be short-term and limited to the duration of construction. As such, there would be no impact. Impact IX.b) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response IX.a above. The Project would not require the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials on site, and as such, there would be no impact related to operational use of the Project. During construction, there is opportunity for an accidental release of hazardous materials, such as diesel or gasoline fuels used during re -fueling. As part of the NPDES General Permit requirements, the Project would be required to obtain and maintain a spill kit on - site. In the event of an accidental discharge, the spill kit would be utilized to adsorb and absorb spilled fuel. The Project would be required to comply with the MMC and all other applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations regarding the handling of hazardous materials. With adherence to existing regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; impacts would be less than significant. Impact IX.c) No Impact. Based on aerial imagery and maps of the Project area, there are no schools within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site is Taawila Elementary School and is located approximately 0.35 miles to the southeast of the Project site. The Project would be required to adhere to all applicable Federal, State, and regional regulations regarding the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no impact regarding hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impact IX.d) No Impact. Government Code § 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List is maintained by the DTSC. A review of the Cortese list, has revealed that there are no active Cortese sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the Project site. Two school investigations were completed within the vicinity of the Project site. These school investigations are listed as "Proposed Middle School No. 4 (60002752)" and "Menifee Proposed Elementary School No. 14 (60002286)". Neither of these sites require additional action. As there are no active Cortese list sites on or near the Project site, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required. Impact IX.e) No Impact. The following airports/airstrips are located nearest the Project site: • March Air Reserve Base approximately 12.34 miles north of the Project site. Perris Valley Airport at 2091 Goetz Road, Perris CA 92570 approximately 3 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport/public use airport. Additionally, the project site is not within the Airport Influence Area Boundary for Perris Valley Airport or the March Air Reserve Base.18 Therefore, the Project would result in no impact regarding airport /airstrip -related safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Impact IX.f) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Menifee collaborates with local and regional emergency service organizations and personnel to conduct simulated emergency response exercises throughout the year. The City of Menifee and Menifee Police Department routinely coordinate with Riverside County/CAL Fire, Riverside County Emergency Management Department, and the local utility providers to discuss methods and response plans for various emergency scenarios that could potentially present themselves within the region. Additionally, the City makes available to resident's downloadable resources such as storm and emergency preparedness information via its website: https://www.cityofinenifee.us/418/Storm-and-Emergency-Preparedness. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via Normandy Road along the length of the Project. In the case of an emergency, 18 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2021. Current Compatibility Plans. http://www.rcaluc org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 43 service vehicles would be able to access the Project site via Normandy Road at any point of the Project site. Therefore, impacts to an emergency response plan would be less than significant. During construction of the Project, a minimum of one travel lane of Normandy Road would be required to be closed. Construction staging on Normandy Road would allow for continued access along the roadway and would be coordinated with the City and services to ensure adequate coverage of emergency services by the City. Operationally, the Project does not propose any operations that would inhibit the use of public roadways such that access would be restricted. Furthermore, according to the Safety Element of the City's General Plan, Normandy Road is not designated as an emergency evacuation route.19 Therefore, impacts to an emergency response plan and emergency evacuation routes would be less than significant. Impact IX.g) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as identified on CAL FIRE's Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer and Menifee GP Exhibit S-6, High Fire Hazard Areas. 20,21 The Project site is located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA). SRA's are areas in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. Conversely, according to CAL FIRE's Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area mapper, the Project site is not located in an SRA or VHFHSZ.22 The Project does not propose the construction of any structures. As such, no structures would be exposed to a significant risk due to wildfires. Further, due to the nature of the Project as a public use facility within the right-of-way, it would assist in the use of Normandy Road as a fire break. The Project would be maintained by the routine removal of dead vegetation that increases the severity and risk of wildfires. The Project would be subject to compliance with the CCR Title 24 Parts 2 and 9 — Fire Codes and California PRC §§ 4290-4299 and General Code § 51178. The Project would also be subject to compliance with regulations pertaining to fire protection, including MMC Chapter 8.20, Fire Code. Further, it is the City's goal (Goal S-4) for a community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. To this end, the Project would be subject to compliance with the following City policies: • Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. • Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. • Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical response services in the City of Menifee. The Project site is approximately equidistant to two RCFD fire stations: The RCFD Menifee Lakes Station located approximately 4 miles to the east; and the RCFD Canyon Hills Fire Station approximately 4 miles southwest of the Proiect site. Additionally, the Quail Valley Fire 19 City of Menifee. 2021. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-9: Evacuation Routes. https://www cityofinenifee us/DocumentCenterNiew/14711/Evacaution-Routes. Accessed October 2022. 21 CAL FIRE 2021. FRAP FHSZ Viewer. https://egis fire ca gov/FHSZ/ Accessed October 2022 21 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-6 High Fire Hazard Areas. https://www cityofinenifee us/DocumentCenterNiew/1033/S- 6_HighFireHazardAreas_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed September 2022. zx CAL FIRE. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area mapper https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/appstwebappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1d2b9947bea1d4269997e86553 . Accessed March 2023. May 2023 Page 44 Station, located approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the Project site, would serve the Project site during emergencies. In coordination with the RCFD and CAL FIRE, the RCFD would evaluate the Project to determine the necessary fire prevention features. Following compliance with the established local and state regulatory framework discussed above, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Miticiation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 45 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise ❑ ❑ FX-1 ❑ substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede ❑ ❑ ❑ x sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: 1 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ or off -site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ result in flooding on- or off -site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ release of pollutants due to inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable ❑ ❑ ❑ groundwater management plan? Sources: Menifee GP Safety Element Exhibit S-5, "Flood Hazards," Menifee GP Draft EIR; California Department of Water Resources, Dam Breach Inundation Web Publisher. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-3: A community that is minimally disrupted by flooding and inundation hazards. Policy S-3.1: Require that all new developments and redevelopments in areas susceptible to flooding (such as the 100-year floodplain and areas known to the City to flood during intense or prolonged rainfall events) incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards. Policy S-3.2: Reduce flood hazards in developed areas known to flood. May 2023 Page 46 Policy S-3.4: Develop floodplains as parks, nature trails, equestrian parks, golf courses, or other types of recreational facilities or joint -use facilities that can withstand periodic inundation wherever feasible. Goal OSC-7: A reliable and safe water supply that effectively meets current and future user demands. Policy OSC-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a means of preserving water resources. Policy OSC-7.9: Ensure that high -quality potable water resources continue to be available by managing stormwater runoff, wellhead protection, and other sources of pollutants. Policy OSC-7.10: Preserve natural floodplains, including Salt Creek, Ethanac Wash, Paloma Wash, and Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate water percolation, replenishment of the natural aquifer, proper drainage, and prevention of flood damage. Analysis of Proiect Effect and Determination of Siqnificance: Impacts Ka, X.c (i) — X.c (III), X.e) Less Than Significant Impact. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION The Project's construction -related activities would include excavation, grading, and trenching, which would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. Construction -related erosion effects would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program's Construction General Permit. Construction activity subject to this General Permit includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1.0 acre. While the Project would not disturb an area greater than 1.0 acre, it would not be subject to this General Permit, the Project would still employ BMPs to limit erosion. Additionally, the Project design and construction plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the MMC and all other applicable codes and regulations. For example, MMC Chapter 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff, addresses stormwater and runoff pollution control and is intended to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged to WOUS. MMC § 15.01.015(B)(1) specifies that any person performing construction work in the City shall comply with the provisions of MMC Chapter 15.01 and control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The Director of Public Works would identify the BMP's that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMP's implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 would be required when requested by the Director of Public Works. Further, the Project proposes hardscapes throughout a large portion of the Project site, which would be stabilizing soils and contain them onsite as compared to the current undeveloped condition. Following compliance with MMC requirements, the Project's construction -related activities would not violate water quality or waste discharge requirements. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required. LONG-TERM OPERATIONS Urban stormwater runoff is covered under the municipal permit for Riverside County, the NPDES MS4 Permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 within the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) (CAS618033, Order No. R8-2010-0033). The City of Menifee is a Co-Permittee (Discharger) under the MS4 Permit. Each Co-Permittee is required to ensure that an appropriate Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is prepared for "New Development" (and "Significant Redevelopment") projects for which a map or permit for discretionary approval is sought. The New Development category includes new developments that create 10,000 SF or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire Proiect site) including commercial and mixed -use May 2023 Page 47 development requiring a Final Map, among other types of projects. The Project would not create more than 10,000 SF of impervious surface area; as such, a WQMP was not prepared. Surface drainage from the Project site would sheet flow across the Project site to the north and discharge into the Salt Creek. Following compliance with the existing water quality regulatory framework (i.e., MMC), Project operations would not violate water quality or waste discharge requirements. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. Impact X.b) No Impact. The Project would not connect to public utility service systems, including water. As such, there would be no demand for water utilities that may source water from groundwater or other aquifers. Additionally, the Project would marginally increase the impervious surface area of the Normandy Road right-of-way, storm water flows would sheet flow across the Project site to the north in accordance with the existing hydrologic profile of the Project site. The Project would not disturb the ability for groundwater recharge to take effect and no impact would occur. Impact X.c (iv)) No Impact. The Project proposes the improvement of existing storm water infrastructure that are deficient and unable to accommodate the 100-year storm event flows. As the Project would improve the infrastructure to allow for the 100-year storm, there would be no impact. Impact X.d) Less Than Significant Impact. Flood hazards for the City include dam inundation in the event of a catastrophic failure, such as seismically induced dam failure. The California Division of Dam Safety monitors the structural safety of dams that are greater than 25 feet high or have more than 50 acre-feet of storage capacity. Parts of Menifee are within existing dam inundation areas for three dams at Diamond Valley Lake, one dam at Canyon Lake, and one at Lake Perris Reservoir.23 Diamond Valley Lake is located approximately 8.85 miles east of the Project site, Canyon Lake is located approximately 3.15 miles southwest of the Project site, and Perris Reservoir is located approximately 11.25 miles north of the Project site. The Project site is located in Zone AE.24 Zone AE corresponds to the 100-year flood areas, as determined by detailed hydraulic analyses, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). In most cases, base flood elevations are shown at selected intervals. Flood insurance is required; however, the Project does not propose structures or development of lots for sale. The Project is located within the City's public right-of-way. Additionally, the project site is located approximately 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Given the distance from the coast and the previously mentioned dams, the potential for inundation by a large catastrophic tsunami is extremely low. The design and construction of the dams for earthquake resistance, in combination with continued monitoring by the California Division of Dam Safety reduces risks of dam failure due to earthquakes. Dam inundation impacts would be less than significant. No steep slopes are in the Project vicinity; therefore, the risk of mudflow is insignificant. Therefore, potential impact concerning release of pollutants due to inundation from flood, tsunami, or seiche are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 23 California Department of Water Resources. 2021. Dam Breach Inundation Web Publisher. https://fmds.water ca gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. Accessed October 2022. 24 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-5 Flood Hazards. https://www.cityofinenifee us/DocumentCenter/View/l032/S- 5 Flood Hazards HD0913?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 48 Potentially SiLess Than Less with Less Than No XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ FRI b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Sources: Menifee GP, Menifee GP EIR. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal LU-1: Land uses and building types that result in a community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a diversity of options for where they can live, work, shop, and recreate within Menifee. Policy LU-1.5: Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate, that reduce reliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal transportation opportunities. Policy LU-1.6: Coordinate land use, infrastructure, and transportation planning and analysis with regional, county, and other local agencies to further regional and subregional goals for jobs -housing balance. Policy LU-1.7: Ensure neighborhood amenities and public facilities (natural open space areas, parks, libraries, schools, trails, etc.) are distributed equitably throughout the city. Policy LU-1.8: Ensure new development is carefully designed to avoid or incorporate natural features, including washes, creeks, and hillsides. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact XI.a) No Impact. An example of a Project that has the potential to divide an established community includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The Project proposes the development of a pedestrian and multi -use trail along the existing Normandy Road. The Project site is already developed with an existing roadway. Given the Project's nature, scope, and location, the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required. Impact XI.b) No Impact. The Project site is located within the City public right-of-way and as such is not subject to zoning ordinances or general plan land use designations. However, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable measures laid out in the MMC and the City's standard drawings for public infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with all applicable measures in the MMC. Additionally, given that the General Plan EIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development of the Project site assuming the build -out of the City's circulation network, this Project would not create any new or greater environmental impacts than those identified in the Menifee GP EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 49 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XII. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated 1 Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? i• 0 0 0 Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP Exhibit OSC-3: Mineral Resource Zones; and California Department of Conservation's Mines Online. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.4: Require that any future mining activities be in compliance with the State Mining Reclamation Act, federal and state environmental regulations, and local ordinances. Policy OSC-4.5: Limit the impacts of mining operations on the City's natural open space, biological and scenic resources, and any adjacent land uses. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Siqnificance: Impact Xll.a-b) No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires classification of land into MRZs according to the known or inferred mineral potential of the area. Under SMARA, areas are categorized into MRZs as follows: MRZ-1 Areas where the available geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits or a minimal likelihood of significant mineral deposits. MRZ-2 Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits or that there is a likelihood of significant mineral deposits. However, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. MRZ-3 Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are inferred to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. MRZ-4 Areas where there is not enough information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral deposits. The closest mining facilities to the Project site is the Bundy Canyon Pit, approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest of the Project site, which is an open pit mine with sand and gravel as the primary prod uct.25 The Project site is located in a regional SMARA Mineral Land Classification. The Project site is located within MRZ-3.26 The City GP does not designate the area within the vicinity of the Project site as land suitable for mining operations. Furthermore, the Project site is located within the City public right-of-way where mining operations would not occur. Implementation of the Project would not deplete mineral deposits or involve mining activities. Furthermore, the Project site is not located in an area identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site and is not a mining area. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 25 California Department of Conservation 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservationca gov/mol/index.html. Accessed September 2022. 25 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-3 Mineral Resource Zones. https://www.cityof menifee us/DocumentCenterNiew/l084/ExhibitOSC- 3 Mineral Resource Zones HD0913?bid Id=. Accessed March 2021. May 2023 Page 50 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XIII. NOISE Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? n Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP Draft EIR; MCC; Menifee GP Draft EIR, Exhibit 5.12-3, "Airport Noise Contours"; Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Current Compatibility Reports for March Air Reserve Base and Perris Valley Airport; FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual; Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal N-1: Noise -sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure. Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications. Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes. Policy N-1.7. Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors: Stationary Source Noise Standards Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 Leq (10 minute) 45 Leq (10 minute) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute) Policy N-1.8: Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses. Consider federal, state, and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review. Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. May 2023 Page 51 Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impacts Xlll.a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION In general, the City is most impacted by noise originating from motor vehicle traffic on highways and major arterial roadways. Portions of the City, and the Project site, are subject to higher noise levels associated with motor vehicle and railways traffic along 1-215, SR-74, and the San Jacinto Branch of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway. Project construction would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities within the immediate vicinity of the Project site, however, pursuant to Menifee MC Section 8.01.010, construction would be permitted only Monday through Saturday, except on nationally recognized holidays, from 6:30am to 7:00pm. Additionally, the impacts related to construction would be short term and would not persist following the conclusion of construction and would not result in significant impacts. During construction, there would be short-term increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Project. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. No buildings exist within a 30-foot radius of the Project site. The nearest buildings to the center of the Project site are located approximately 475 feet to the southeast. Therefore, construction of the Project is not anticipated to result in building damage. In addition, these temporarily increased levels of vibration could impact sensitive land uses near to the Project site, such as residential communities to the east and west. Human annoyance is evaluated in vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration velocity level in decibel scale) and occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Table 6-3 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual identifies 80 VdB as the threshold of annoyance for residential uses. Refer to the table below for a list of typical construction equipment and the vibration generated by the equipment. The use of a vibratory roller would generate the largest amount of vibration for any construction that would potentially occur on site. Equipment PPV' at 25 ft, in/sec Approximate L„23 at 25 ft Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 1.518 112 Typical 0.644 104 Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 0.734 105 Typical 0.17 93 Clam Shovel Drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydromill (slurry wall) In soil 0.008 66 In rock 0.017 75 Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson Drilling 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual; Table 7-4 1 — Peak Particle Velocity: The peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform 2 — L,,: Vibration velocity level 3 — RMS velocity in decibels, VdB re 1 micro-in/sec May 2023 Page 52 For the purposes of noise and vibrational analysis, measurements to potential sensitive receptors are measured from the center of the Project site. This is due to construction activities not being constrained to a single location on the Project site but rather occurs across the entirety of the Project site. Measuring distances from the center of the Project site allows for an averaged value and even distribution of sources for noise and vibration impacts. As previously stated, nearest residential land uses, occupied or vacant, are located approximately 475 feet to the southeast of the center of the Project site. Utilizing the formula for vibrational attenuation, the vibrations felt at the sensitive receptors can be calculated.27 Assuming vibratory rollers would be the most vibrationally intensive equipment used during construction, vibrational velocity felt at sensitive residential receptors 475 feet away from the center of the Project site would be approximately 56 VdB.28 According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Section 5.5, the incidence of complaints falls rapidly with vibrational velocity levels decreasing below 72 VdB. Therefore, the calculated values of construction generated vibrational velocities felt at sensitive receptors would be below the threshold of 80 VdB where annoyance is most common. Impacts would be less than significant with regard to this topical area. LONG-TERM OPERATIONS There would be very few routine operations that would raise the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project that would provide long-term impacts. Generally, on -site activities would be limited to service vehicles maneuvering on -site or adjacent for routine operation and maintenance of the pedestrian and multi -use trail. Additionally, Project operations would not consist of activities that would produce excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels inconsistent with what is typical for the status quo and ambient noise sources within the City. As such, long-term operational impacts of the Project related to increasing of ambient noise levels and groundborne vibrations would be less than significant. Impact Xlll.c) No Impact. The following airports/airstrips are located nearest the Project site: • March Air Reserve Base approximately 12.34 miles north of the Project site. • Perris Valley Airport at 2091 Goetz Road, Perris CA 92570 approximately 3 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is not within the Airport Influence Area Boundary or noise contours for Perris Valley Airport or the March Air Reserve Base.21,30 The runway for March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport is located approximately 12.35 miles north of the Project site. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations. The Project site is not within 2.0 miles of any other public airport/public-use airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport/airstrip-related noise levels. As such, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 27 Lv,distance — Lv,25feet — 30lo910 (zsfeer), where D — distance to vibrational source in feet Source: FTA, Noise and Vibration Manual, 2006. Page 12-11. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. https://www transit dot gov/sites/fta.dot gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta- report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed October 2022. 29 Lv,1— 94 VdB — 30lo (471 feet) = 56 VdB ,700feet — 910 21 feet / 29 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2021. Current Compatibility Plans for French Valley Airport, March Air Reserve Base, and Perris Valley Airport. http://www rcaluc org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan. Accessed October 2022. 3° City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.12: Noise, Figure 5.12-3: Airport Noise Contours. https1/www cityoftnenifee us/DocumentCenterNiew/l112/Ch-05-12-N?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 53 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR. ■C Analysis of Proiect Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact XIV.a-b) No Impact. The Project does not propose the construction of residential structures that would increase the number of dwelling units in the City, nor does the Project proposes the construction of commercial or industrial land uses that would increase the employment demand within the City. The Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth within the City. While the Project would increase the connectivity of the community, the pedestrian and multi -use trail would be constructed alongside an existing roadway network and would not increase access to developable land that was previously inaccessible. Additionally, the Project does not propose improvements or construction that would directly impact existing residential uses or would cause additional housing or population growth. Further, the Project is not located immediately adjacent to residential uses. The Project is currently heavily disturbed with the existing Normandy Road. As such, there would be no impact related to these topical areas. No mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 54 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. Policy S-4.9: Ensure all new development and/or redevelopment within the SRA will comply with all provisions of Title 14, CCR, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Article 3 (commencing with Section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations) for SRAs and VHFHSZs. Policy S-4.18: The City shall evaluate all redevelopment as well as new development after a large fire event to ensure development will comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code. The City and Fire Department will continue to coordinate with State, regional, and local agencies on emergency management and on fire risk reduction planning. Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high -quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. Policy OSC-1.7: Ensure that parks and recreational facilities are well -maintained by the responsible agency. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impacts XV.a-e) No Impact. The Project proposes the development of a pedestrian and multi -use trail and would not increase the number of dwelling units or jobs available within the City. Further, the Project site has been heavily disturbed by the existing Normandy Road and would exist within its right-of-way. All services that serve Normandy Road would serve the Project. The Project would not significantly bring new residents to the general area and the use of parks and other facilities has been accounted for in the General Plan. The Project would not increase the demand of such services and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitiaation is reauired. May 2023 Page 55 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XVI. RECREATION Significant Impact p Mitigation Significant Impact p Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities FRI such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources: Menifee GP and Menifee GP Draft EIR. Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high -quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. Policy OSC-1.1: Provide parks and recreational programs to meet the varied needs of community residents, including children, youth, adults, seniors, and persons with disabilities, and make these facilities and services easily accessible and affordable to all users. Policy OSC-1.2: Require a minimum of five acres of public open space to be provided for every 1,000 City residents. Policy OSC-1.3: Locate and distribute parks and recreational facilities throughout the community so that most residents are within walking distance (1-half mile) of a public open space. Policy OSC-1.4: Enhance the natural environment and viewsheds through park design and site selection while preserving sensitive biological, cultural, and historic resources. Policy OCS-1.7: Ensure that parks and recreational facilities are well -maintained by the responsible agency. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact XVI.a-b) No Impact. The Project would not generate population such that their use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities would result in substantial physical deterioration of a park facility or accelerate deterioration of said facility. Furthermore, as the Project consists of the development of a pedestrian and multi -use trail is a recreational amenity that would connect existing parks and trails together, including Salt Creek Trail, Silver Star Park, and Spirit Park. The Project would encourage the further use of recreational facilities within the City. This connectivity, while encouraging use, would not directly generate population growth such that the existing recreational facilities would be overutilized. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 56 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XVII. TRANSPORTATION significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, ❑x subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emeraencv access? n i 0 Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP EIR; Menifee GP "Exhibit C-4: Bikeways" Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal C-2: A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized travel throughout the City of Menifee. Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to: • Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. • Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. • Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. • Be maintained in accordance with best practices. Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on -street bike lanes as our primary paths of citywide travel and explore the shared use of low -speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe to do so. Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points. Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights -of -way and other potential options. Analysis of Proiect Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact XVll.a) No Impact. The Project site is currently designated as a Class III bike route within the City.31 A Class III bike route consists of a designated bike route where cyclists would share travel lanes with automobiles and other vehicles. The Project would construct a separated pedestrian and multi -use trail that would separate pedestrians, cyclists, and other user from travel lanes of Normandy Road. The 31 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit C-4. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/1021/C-4- Bikeways_HD0913?bidld= Accessed October 2022 May 2023 Page 57 trail would be separated from Normandy Road by striping and flexible delineators. These improvements would be made in excess of the standards for Class III bike routes. Additionally, the Project would connect currently discontinuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the City, furthering the City's goal of creating a community that encourages nonmotorized vehicle traffic. The Project would not construct any improvements that would disrupt access to transit, roadways, or other circulation network elements. As such, there would be no impact. Impacts XVII.b) No Impact. The Project does not propose a land use that would allow vehicular access and would not generate daily trips. The Project does not propose to construct infrastructure that would support motor vehicles and would therefore not generate any vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Additionally, the Project would connect currently discontinuous pedestrian and multi -use facilities. This would improve the Project vicinity's access to these facilities and would potentially reduce the number of daily trips and VMT. Project implementation would have no impact and no mitigation is necessary. Impact XVII.c) No Impact. The Project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on -site, such as farm equipment. The Project would not provide vehicular access to the Project site. The Project would be accessed via pedestrian or multi -use trail users, such as bicycles. The anticipated on -site and off -site roadway improvements would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. All on -site and site -adjacent improvements would be constructed as approved by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. The Project would not construct obstacles that would disrupt sight distances or sight lines along Normandy Road and would comply with all applicable City of Menifee sight distance standards. Therefore, no impact would occur. Impact XVII.d) Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the site would be provided along Normandy Road. Pedestrian access is proposed via existing connections on the eastern and western portion of the Project site. The Project would not alter Normandy Road such that emergency services would not be able to access the Project site or adjacent properties. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with all RCFD access requirements. Project impacts concerning emergency access would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 58 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ❑ ❑ ❑ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP Draft EIR. Applicable General Plan Policies: GoalOSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources that are protected and integrated into the City's built environment. Policy OSC-5.1: Preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulations or policies which may be adopted by the city to implement this goal and associated policies. Policy OSC-5.3: Preserve sacred sites identified in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes whose ancestral territories are within the city, such as Native American burial locations, by avoiding activities that would negatively impact the sites, while maintaining the confidentiality of the location and nature of the sacred site. Policy OSC-5.4: Establish clear and responsible policies and best practices to identify, evaluate, and protect previously unknown archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, following applicable CEQA and NEPA procedures and in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes who have ancestral lands within the city. Policy OSC-5.5: Develop clear policies regarding the preservation and avoidance of cultural resources located within the city, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes who have ancestral lands within the city. Policy OSC-5.6: Develop strong government -to -government relationships and consultation protocols with the appropriate Native American tribes with ancestral territories within the city in order to ensure better identification, protection and preservation of cultural resources, while also developing appropriate educational programs, with tribal participation, for Menifee residents. May 2023 Page 59 Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact XVlll.a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. AB 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) may result in a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to a TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends § 5097.94 and adds §§ 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California PRC, relating to Native Americans. Based on the City's prior experience with and written request from potentially interested Tribes, AB 52 Notices were sent to the following four (4) Tribes: • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians; • Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians; and • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. As of the date of this Admin Draft IS/MND the following consultation with the above listed Tribes has occurred: Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians: Nicole A. Raslich responded to requests for consultation letters on October 26, 2022, indicating that the Project site is outside of the Tribe's Traditional Use Area and would defer to other tribes in the area. Consultation is concluded with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians as of December 1, 2022. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians: On October 3, 2022, the City of Menifee held a quarterly meeting with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pechanga). During this meeting, Pechanga indicated that the Project site is located within a Tribal Cultural Place. The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project is a part of 'Ataaxum (Luiseno) territory, and therefore the Tribe's aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of cultural features associated with religious practice and an extensive artifact record in the vicinity of the Project. This culturally sensitive area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this area as well as our extensive history with the City and other projects within the area. Ebru Ozdil stated that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) should be followed, and the Project would comply with this regulation. Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA would be required due to federal permit requirements. Additionally, Pechanga requested that the City's standard conditions of approval should be included within the environmental document. Furthermore, Pechanga indicated that the Project site has a high possibility of human remains to be present on -site. On December 15, 2022, Juan Ochoa wrote to the City of Menifee via e-mail notifying the City of their formal request to begin consultation under AB52. Pechanga asserted that the Project site is located within a traditional cultural property. Virtual meetings were held with Pechanga on January 27, 2023, and April 12, 2023, to further discuss the Project. Pechanga deemed the City's standard cultural resources COAs were acceptable and requested that a COA be added for Phase IV report for monitoring, by which the City has obliged (added as COA-CUL-8 Prior to Final Occupancy). Consultation with Pechanga is ongoing. May 2023 Page 60 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians: During normal quarterly meetings with the Tribes, the City of Menifee indicated its desire to open Tribal Consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (Rincon). On December 2, 2022, Cheryl Madrigal sent an e-mail to the City on behalf of Rincon and formally requested consultation. Rincon indicated that the Project site or portions of the Project site are within a traditional use area. A virtual meeting was held with Rincon on March 16, 2023, to further discuss the Project. Rincon requested mapping materials (confidential in nature therefore further details are not provided), by which the City obliged. Consultation with Rincon is ongoing. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians: The City has reached out to Soboba and notified them of the Project. No comments have been received as of the date of this IS/MND. Consultation is ongoing. Based on consultation with local tribes, Standard Conditions of Approval COA-CUL-1 through COA- CUL-8 would ensure that any impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Overall, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard with implementation of COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8 as identified in Section V, above. May 2023 Page 61 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact Mitigation impact Impact p Incorporated p Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? ❑ 1 ❑ o o o � o d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of ❑ local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and management and reduction statutes regulations related to solid waste? C local and ❑ ❑ Sources: Menifee GP; Menifee GP Draft EIR. o I o �C ❑ 0 I 7'� Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal LU-3: A full range of public utilities and related services that provide for the immediate and long-term needs of the community. Policy LU-3.3: Coordinate public infrastructure improvements through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-3.5: Facilitate the shared use of right-of-way, transmission corridors, and other appropriate measures to minimize the visual impact of utilities infrastructure throughout Menifee. Goal OSC-7: A reliable and safe water supply that effectively meets current and future user demands. Policy OSC-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a means of preserving water resources. Policy OSC-7A Encourage the use of reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public landscaped areas, and other feasible applications as service becomes available from the Eastern Municipal Water District. May 2023 Page 62 Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impact XIX.a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of a pedestrian and multi -use trail along the norther edge of the existing Normandy Road and would connect previously discontinuous pedestrian and multi -use facilities. The Project does not propose connecting to any existing or proposed utilities service systems and as such would not impact electrical, natural gas, telecommunications, water, or wastewater systems within the City. However, the Project would improve the existing storm drainpipes that bisect the Project site and reinforce the headwall that exists on the northern side of the culvert. The Project would improve the existing stormwater infrastructure within the City right-of-way and would not require further downstream improvements. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Impact XIX.b-e) No Impact. As previously stated, the Project would not connect or be served by existing or proposed utility service systems and as such would not impact electrical, natural gas, telecommunications, water, or wastewater systems within the City. As such, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 63 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No XX. WILDFIRE Significant gn gn Mitigation Significant Sign gn Impact ImpactIncorporated Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the roiect: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose 0 project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel, breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or 0 other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Sources: Menifee GP, Menifee GP Exhibit S-6, "High Fire Hazard Areas," and Menifee GP Exhibit S-7, "Critical Facilities;" Menifee GP Draft EIR; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CAL FIRE) FHSZ Viewer. Appiicabie General Plan Policies: Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. The City will continue to coordinate with the Riverside County Fire Department, for Interagency coordination, to respond to emergency calls in Menifee and to provide training and ongoing programs for public education. Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. Policy S-4.5: Coordinate with CalFire to ensure that Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapping is up to date. Policy S-4.9: Ensure all new development and/or redevelopment within the SRA will comply with all provisions of Title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations) for SRA's and VHFHSZs. May 2023 Page 64 Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Impacts XX.a — XX b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response IX.g. Impact XX.c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would improve the public right-of-way of Normandy Road. During operations of the Project regular and routine maintenance would occur such as the clearing of dead vegetation, mowing of shoulders, and general maintenance. The Project would improve Normandy Road's ability to serve as a fire break in an area that is designated within a VHFHSZ. While the Project would potentially increase fire safety as it relates to wildfire risks, the Project vicinity has an increased risk for wildfire, as such, impacts would be less than significant. Impact XX.d) No Impact. Refer to Response VII.a.ii-iv, and Response VII.c-d. The Project site is heavily disturbed with the existing Normandy Road and is relatively flat. As shown on the GP Landslides Map, Exhibit S-3, the Project is not located in a landslide prone zone or in an unstable soil area. As such, the potential for slope failure and landslides in the event of a fire would be negligible. Following site grading, major slopes and retaining walls are not expected. As such, risks associated with slope instability are considered "low." Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. May 2023 Page 65 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Significant Impact p Incorporated Impact n 191 401 L Findings of Fact: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout the analyses contained in this Initial Study, the Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or result in significant impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., local, state, and federal regulations), Project conditions of approval, and the recommended mitigation measures. As concluded in Section IV, the Project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal following compliance with the recommended mitigation measures. As concluded in Section V, the Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The City hereby finds that impacts concerning degradation of the environment and biological and cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation and COAs incorporated. b) Does the project have impacts that ar individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a projei are considerable when viewed in connectic with the effects of past projects, the effects i other current projects, and the effects c probable future projects)? 0 Findings of Fact: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would result in significant impacts unless mitigated for the following environmental issues: biological resources. A Mitigation Program has been prepared for this environmental issue areas to reduce impacts to less than significant. City standard conditions of approval would also be imposed upon the Project. Other development projects within the City would also be subject to these requirements, as appropriate. All other project impacts were determined either to have no impact or to be less than significant following compliance with the established regulatory framework, without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the Project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the Project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the City hereby finds that the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 2023 Page 66 C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑ ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Findings of Fact: Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis of the Project's impacts in the responses to items I thru XX above, there is no indication that the Project would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there would be a variety of temporary adverse construction - related effects (e.g., air quality and noise), these would be less than significant. Long-term effects include potentially reduced vehicular traffic. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects would be less than significant. Generally, the Project's environmental effects would be less than significant. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 2023 Page 67 XXII. REFERENCES California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/ClFF/. Accessed October 2022. California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.htm1. Accessed September 2022. California Department of Transportation. ND. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caItrans.maps.arcg is.com/apps/webappviewer/index. htmI?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8O57116f 1aacaa (accessed October 2021). California Department of Water Resources. 2021. Dam Breach Inundation Web Publisher. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype v2. Accessed October 2022. CAL FIRE. 2021. FRAP FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed October 2022. CAL FIRE. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Mapper. https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1 d2b9947bea1 d4269997e86553. Accessed March 2023. California Geologic Survey. ND. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed October 2022. California Geological Survey (CGS). 2022. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: A/quist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731 d3245ed9f53/explore?location=33.733503%2 C-117.189301 %2C11.54 Accessed October 2022. n:a.. ..t a A.. ..:t.. .. K Ir% 1-4....F AA--;F-a t .. ('�'a .+ e �Ity vI mend cc. rvv. vrty vt tvtcttucc at a vtattic. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/5519/Menifee-At-A-Glance (accessed October 2022) City of Menifee. 2022. Quail Hills Residential Development Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; Table 1. https.//cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16017/Quail-Hills-TTM37692- Residential-Development-Project-Draft-ISMND. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit C-4. https://www.cityofinenifee. us/DocumentCenterNiew/1021 /C-4-Bikeways_HD0913?bid Id=. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-3 Mineral Resource Zones. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 084/ExhibitOSC- 3 Mineral Resource Zones HD0913?bidld=. Accessed March 2021. City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-8: MSHCP Survey Areas. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 089/ExhibitOSC- 8_MSHCP_SurveyAreas HD0913?bidld= Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-1: Fault Map. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 028/S-1_FaultMap_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed August 2022. May 2023 Page 68 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-2. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/1029/S-2_SlopeDistribution_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-3. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 030/S- 3_LiquefactionandLandslides HD0913?bidld=. Access October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-4. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 031 /S-4_Geolog icMap_H D0913?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-5 Flood Hazards. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l032/S-5_FloodHazards HD0913?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-6 High Fire Hazard Areas. https://www.cityofinenifee. us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 033/S- 6_HighFireHazardAreas_HD0913?bidld=. Accessed September 2022. City of Menifee. 2021. Menifee General Plan; Exhibit S-9: Evacuation Routes. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l4711/Evacaution-Routes. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; Table 5.5-1. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l105/Ch-05-05-CUL?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; Figure 5.6-4. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l 106/Ch-05-06-GEO?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.12: Noise, Figure 5.12-3: Airport Noise Contours. https://www.cityofinenifee.us/DocumentCenterNiew/l112/Ch-05-12-N?bidld=. Accessed October 2022. City of Murrieta. 2020. Murrieta Community Profile Snapshot. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/4417/Murrieta-Snapshot-March-2021- PDF?bidld= (accessed October 2022). Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor. 2021. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=menifee. Accessed October 2022. ELMT Consulting. 2022. Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. ELMT Consulting. 2022. Jurisdictional Delineation for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/l 18131 /transit-noise- and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 69 Riverside County. 2016. Figure S-8 Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map. https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/content/gp/chapter06.htmI#List_1_8. Accessed September 2022. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2021. Current Compatibility Plans. http://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan. Accessed October 2022. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2021. Current Compatibility Plans for French Valley Airport, March Air Reserve Base, and Perris Valley Airport. http://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New- Compatibility-Plan. Accessed October 2022. May 2023 Page 70 Appendix A Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis A= ELMT CONSULTING July 15, 2022 KIMLEY-HORN Attention: Meghan Karadimos 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420 Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California Introduction This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting's (ELMT) habitat assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) consistency analysis for the proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The field investigation was conducted by biologists Travis J. McGill and Rachael A. Lyons on June 16, 2022 to document baseline conditions and assess the potential for special -status 1 plant and wildlife species to occur within the proposed project site that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. Special attention was given to the suitability of the on -site habitat to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and several other special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other electronic databases as potentially occurring on or within the general vicinity of the project site. In addition, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map was queried to determine if the MSHCP identifies any potential survey requirements for the project. Further, the project site was reviewed against the MSHCP to determine if the site is located within any MSHCP areas including Criteria Cells (core habitat and wildlife movement corridors) or areas proposed for conservation. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map query and review of the MSHCP, it was determined that the project site is located within the Sun City/ Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP, but is not located within any designated Criteria Cells or conservations areas. Project Location The project site is generally located west of Interstate 215, south State Route 74, and north and east of Interstate 15 in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on the Romoland quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the north side of Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-2 in Attachment A. I As used in this report, "special -status" refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally, State, and MSHCP listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank; wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species; and specially protected natural vegetation communities as designated by the CDFW. 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 J714) 716-5050 www. ELMTConsulting.com July 15, 2022 Page 2 The site has approximately 1,427 linear feet of street frontage along the north side of Normandy Road and is bounded to the north by Salt Creek. The site is approximately 638 feet west of Berea Road and 490 feet east of La Ladera Road. Immediately east of the project site lies mixed -use development and to the west, residential development. To the south across Normandy Road lies undeveloped, vacant land. Project Description The project proposes to construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side of Normandy Road. This project will involve the demolition and grading of existing substrate, the construction of a pedestrian walkway, the installation of a pedestrian handrail and footing, and final erosion mitigation. Methodology Literature Review The first step in determining if a project is consistent with the above listed sections of the MSHCP is to conduct a literature review and records search for special -status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special -status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project were determined through a query of the CDFWs CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special -status species published by CDFW, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings, and species covered within the MSHCP and associated technical documents. All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project site were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred on the project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special -status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special -status and non -special -status biological resources, as well as the following resources: • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program "My Waters" data layers • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1984-2021); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Surveyz; • USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); • Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan; • Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map; and • 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement E L. M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis na < „N' July 15, 2022 Page 3 The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special -status species and determine the distance from the project. habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, biologists Travis J. McGill and Rachael A. Lyons initially inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the project site on June 16, 2022. Plant communities identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects through the plant communities and along boundaries between plant communities. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field survey. All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed during the field survey and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests, and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on -site plant communities, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted. Soil Series Assessment On -site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field survey using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for Western Riverside Area, California. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the project site has undergone. Plant Communities Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography. The plant communities were delineated on an aerial photograph, classified in accordance with those described in the MSHCP, and then digitized into GIS Arcview. The Arcview application was used to compute the area of each plant community in acres. Plants Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less -familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement ��)L3J ELM Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis (�j lJL_V1 t_OfJ',1i111Nt- July 15, 2022 Page 4 Wildli e Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey included The Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names in this report (first reference only). Jurisdictional Drainazes and Wetlands Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue -line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land -use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program "My Waters" data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the project site. Topopraph5 and Soils The project site is relatively flat with no areas of topographic relief on the road shoulder of Normandy Road. On -site elevation varies slightly but generally lies at an approximate elevation of 1,404 feet above mean sea level. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Domino silt loam and saline -alkali soil. Soils on -site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., development). Existing Site Condition At present, the site is located on the north side of Normandy Road with vacant land beyond associated with Salt Creek; to the east and west by residential development; and Salt Creek to the south. The site terrain is composed of loose gravel which gives way to a roadside ditch, and Salt Creek beyond. Vegetation Due to existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on the project site. The site consists of modified soil that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbance. T These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that were once present on the project site. Native plant species adjacent to the site will not likely be impacted by the project. Refer to Attachment C, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs. No native plant communities will be impacted from implementation of the proposed project. The project site supports one (1) plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports one (1) land cover type that would be classified as disturbed (refer to Exhibit 3, Vegetation). The majority of Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement L�►J�aJ ELM T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis I �J LLI (C)ra _,I II I IFq( July 15, 2022 Page 5 the site is void of plant species but does contain some nonnative grasses on and adjacent to the site such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), canary grass (Phalaris canariensis), and mouse barely (Hordeum murinum). Additional common plant species observed adjacent to the site include Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Wildlife Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the project site. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. Fish The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status fish species as potentially occurring within the project site. Further, no fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent. Amphibians The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status amphibian species as potentially occurring within the project site. Further, no amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur. Reptiles The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status reptilian species as potentially occurring within the project site. The site provides a limited amount of habitat for reptile species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. No reptilian species were observed during the field investigation. Birds The project site provides limited foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance, but Salt Creek north and south of the project site provide suitable habitat suitable for foraging and nesting. Bird species detected during the field survey include Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). Mammals The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status mammalian species as potentially occurring within the project site. The site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. No mammalian species were detected during the field investigation. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement d L M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis July 15, 2022 Page 6 Nesting Birds and Raptors No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted during breeding season. Although subjected to routine disturbance, the ornamental vegetation found off -site along site boundaries has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that area adapted to urban environments. Additionally, the disturbed portions of the site have to potential to support ground - nesting birds such as killdeer. No raptors are expected to nest on -site due to lack of suitable nesting opportunities. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31 st, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Migratory Corridors and Linkages Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. The project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage by the MSHCP. However, Salt Creek provides local wildlife movement through the area. The project will primarily be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and or developed and is not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Temporary impacts to wildlife movement during construction may occur, but there will be no permanent or long-term impacts to wildlife movement. Jurisdictional Areas There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into "waters of the United States" pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Salt Creek will be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. If any impacts to Salt Creek will occur within the proposed project footprint, regulatory approvals will need to be prepared and processed with the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement 1•141 E E M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis R* UX141,i ii i roil, July 15, 2022 Page 7 Special -Status Biological Resources The CNDDB was queried for reported locations of special -status plant and wildlife species as well as natural communities of special concern in the Romoland USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Only one quadrangle was used due to the proximity of the site to quadrangle boundaries and regional topography. A search of published records within this quadrangle was conducted using the CNDDB Rarefind 5 online software and the CDFW BIOS database and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California that supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants in the vicinity of the project site. The habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special -status plant and wildlife species. The literature search identified seventeen (17) special -status plant species, forty-eight (48) special -status wildlife species, and two (2) special -status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Romoland quadrangle. Special -status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. SpecialStalus Plants According to the CNDDB and CNPS, seventeen (17) special -status plant species have been recorded in the Romoland quadrangle. No special -status plants were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined no special -status plant species have potential to occur on -site due to the lack of native habitats and routine on -site disturbances and all are presumed absent. ,Special -Status Wildlife According to the CNDDB, forty-eight (48) special -status wildlife species have been reported in the Romoland quadrangle. No special -status wildlife species were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined that the project site has a moderate potential to provide foraging habitat for Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii); and a low potential to support foraging habitat for sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), Califonria horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and burrowing owl. It was further determined that the project site does not have potential to support any of the other special -status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent. The riparian vegetation south of the project site has the potential to support least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). With the exception of least Bell's vireo, none of the aforementioned special -status wildlife species are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. In order to ensure impacts to these avian species do not occur from implementation of the proposed project, a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to special -status avian species will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement I�J n �/ n T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis I July 15, 2022 Page 8 Special -Status Plant Communities The CNDDB lists two (2) special -status habitats as being identified within the Romoland quadrangle: Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. No CDFW special -status plant communities occur within the boundaries of the project site. Critical Habitat Under the federal Endangered Species Act, "Critical Habitat" is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the Corps). If a there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS. The project site is not located with federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the site for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) and 4.34 miles southeast of the site for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat will not occur as a result of the proposed project and consultation with the USFWS will not be required for implementation of the proposed project. Western Riverside County MSHCP The project site is located within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan of the MSHCP, but is not located within any designated Criteria Cells (refer to Exhibit 7, MSHCP Criteria Area, in Attachment A). The project site is located within designated road right-of-way and is not located within any MSHCP designated species survey areas. • Amphibian Not in an amphibian survey area • Burrowing Owls Not in a burrowing owl survey area • Criteria Area Species Not in a criteria area species survey area • Mammals Not in a mammal survey area • Narrow Endemic Plants Not in a narrow endemic plant survey area The City of Menifee is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the project is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity in the MSHCP, under Section 7.3.1, Public and Private Development Consistent with MSHCP Criteria, public and private development within the Criteria Area that is determined to be consistent with the Criteria is considered a Covered Activity. As such, to achieve coverage, the project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP: Normandy Road Pedestrian ImprovementELM T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis July 15, 2022 Page 9 Since the City is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the project is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity under Section 7.1 of the MSHCP, public and private development that are outside of Criteria Areas and Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands are permitted under the MSHCP, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply to area outside of Criteria Areas. As such, to achieve coverage, the project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP: • The policies for the protection of species associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pools as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP; • The policies for the protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP; • Guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface intended to address indirect effects associated with locating Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area as detailed in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP; • The requirements for conducting additional surveys as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP; and • A Habitat Evaluation Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) as set forth in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP. Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools The MSHCP requires that an assessment be completed if impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools could occur from construction of the proposed project. According to the MSHCP, the documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. Riparian/Riverine Areas As identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, riparian/riverine areas are defined as areas dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or are dependent upon nearby freshwater, or areas with freshwater flowing during all or a portion of the year. Conservation of these areas is intended to protect habitat that is essential to a number of listed or special -status water -dependent fish, amphibian, avian, and plant species. If impacts to riparian/riverine habitat cannot be avoided, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) must be developed to address the replacement of lost functions of habitats in regard to the listed species. This assessment is independent from considerations given to "waters of the U.S." and "waters of the State" under the CWA and the California Fish and Game Code. A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Salt Creek, within the project footprint, would be considered riparian/riverine habitat under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Any impacts to this area will require a DBESP to be prepared to address the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the proposed project. Vernal Pools One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement ��� r q Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis C � �/ � ©© s-()rI 1111IN( July 15, 2022 Page 10 evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters. These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology is made on a case -by -case basis. Such determinations should be considered the length of time the areas exhibit upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. The seasonal hydrology of vernal pools provides for a unique environment, which supports plants and invertebrates specifically adapted to a regime of winter inundation, followed by an extended period when the pool soils are dry. Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures. Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to which certain plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp. The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with listed and special -status plant species; clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. The specific clay soils known to be associated with listed and special -status species within the MSHCP plan area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville series soils, whereas Traver -Domino Willows association includes saline -alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas of the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Without the appropriate soils to create the impermeable restrictive layer, none of the special -status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools can occur on the project site. The project site has been mapped within Domino soils, but road improvements associated with the development of Normandy Road have eliminated or heavily disturbed the historic soils within the project footprint. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2021) of the project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. From this review of historic aerial photographs and observations during the field investigations, it can be concluded that there is no indication of vernal pools or suitable fairy shrimp habitat occurring within the proposed project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Narrotis, Endemic Plant Species Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species, states that the MSHCP database does not provide sufficient detail to determine the extent of the presence/distribution of Narrow Endemic Plant Species within the MSHCP Plan Area. Additional surveys may be needed to gatherinformationto Normandy Road Pedestrian ImprovementL M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis �� C-Ur11_,i.!i unit, July 15, 2022 Page 11 determine the presence/absence of these species to ensure that appropriate conservation of these species occurs. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map query and review of the MSHCP, it was determined that the project site is not located within the designated survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Through the field investigation, it was determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species listed under Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, and, therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. No additional surveys or analysis is required. Additional Survey Needs and Procedures In accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in order to achieve coverage for these species. The query of the RCA MSHCP Information Map and review of the MSHCP determined that the project site is not located within the designated survey area for burrowing owl as depicted in Figure 6-4 within Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Further, the project site is not located within any other MSHCP designated species survey areas. Since burrowing owl are known to occur within Salt Creek, a burrowing owl suitability assessment was conducted. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl is currently designated as a California Species of Special Concern. The burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of and and semi -arid environments with level to gently -sloping areas characterized by open vegetation and bare ground. The western burrowing owl (A.c. hypugaea), which occurs throughout the western United States including California, rarely digs its own burrows and is instead dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (i.e., California ground squirrels, coyotes, and badgers) whose burrows are often used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand -pipes, and dry culverts. They also require low growth or open vegetation allowing line -of -sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage and watch for predators. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from the beginning of February through the end of August. Under the MSHCP burrowing owl is considered an adequately conserved covered species that may still require focused surveys in certain areas as designated in Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. The project site occurs within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and a habitat assessment was conducted for the species to ensure compliance with MSHCP guidelines for the species. In accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (2006), survey protocol consists of two steps, Step I — Habitat Assessment and Step Il — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls. The following section describes the methodology followed during the burrowing owl habitat assessment conducted for this project. • Step I — Habitat Assessment: Step 1 of the MSHCP habitat assessment for burrowing owl consists of a walking survey to determine if suitable habitat is present onsite. The habitat assessment was conducted on June 16, 2022. Upon arrival at the project site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to establish owl presence. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement �lr� Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis ELM T�JI July 15, 2022 Page 12 All suitable areas of the project site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat in western Riverside County include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, wood debris piles, openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the project site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. In addition to surveying the entire Project Site all bordering natural habitats located immediately adjacent to the Project Site were assessed. Results from the habitat assessment indicate that suitable resources for burrowing owl are present throughout the Project Site. Accordingly, if suitable habitat is documented onsite or within adjacent habitats, both Step II, focused surveys and the 30-day preconstruction surveys are required in order to comply with the MSHCP guidelines. • Step 11 — Locating Burrows and BUrrowinc; Owls: Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl - as part of the MSHCP protocol, which is described below under Part A, Focused Burrow Survey. The MSHCP protocol indicates that no more than 100 acres should be surveyed per day/per biologist. O Part A — Focused Burrow Survey: A systematic survey for burrows, including burrowing owl sign, was conducted by walking across all suitable habitats mapped within the project site on June 16, 2022. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart, and owing to the terrain, often much smaller. Transect routes were also adjusted to account for topography and in general ground surface visibility. Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owls were surveyed for suitable burrows, consisting of natural and non -natural substrates in areas with low, open vegetation. All burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, white -wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non - natural substrates, were thoroughly examined for signs of presence. Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Portions of the project site are vegetated with a variety of low -growing plant species that allow for minimal line -of -sight observation favored by burrowing owls. Further, no small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Further, the project site does not provide suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non -natural substrates that could be used as burrow surrogates. Additionally, the site is surrounded by tall trees and poles that provide Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement 1#iC-] 1 n n Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis L I �/ 4 c_0rT_.i ii 11r1J1" July 15, 2022 Page 13 perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Based on this information, and as a result of current and historic on -site disturbances, and surrounding development, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur on -site and no focused surveys are recommended. Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. However, out of an abundance of caution a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. UrbunlWildlands Interface Guidelines Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface, is intended to address indirect effects associated with development in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are intended to ensure that indirect project -related impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized. The project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to any Criteria Cells, corridors, or linkages, however, the project site is located immediately adjacent to MSHCP mapped Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) Land. As a result, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines, as discussed below, will be incorporated into the project to ensure that indirect project -related impacts, including drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized. Drainage The project's stormwater should be directed away from the P/QP Lands to the north, and away from Salt Creek. These measures will assure that the project stormwater discharges are no greater in volume and velocity than current undeveloped conditions and that the water leaving the site complies with all applicable water quality standards. No drainage/runoff from the site shall flow into P/QP Lands or Salt Creek. Toxics According to the MSHCP, measures shall be incorporated to ensure that application of chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. During the construction of the project, construction activities have the potential to cause release of toxics that could impact P/QP Lands. To address these potential short-term impacts, the project is required to stage construction operations as far away from mapped P/QP Lands and Salt Creek to the maximum extent feasible. Lighting The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase lighting and glare. However, if light sources are installed, they should be designed with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground and the developed areas and have a zero -side angle cut off to the horizon. Nosie Under the MSHCP, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The proposed project is a pedestrian trail and will not increase noise levels beyond ambient noise. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement L�JLJ ELM T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis (� IDY 4 i �PJ`.i ii IRIS, July 15, 2022 Page 14 Invasive Plant Species No landscaping is proposed as part of the project. Barriers Barriers would restrict direct access to the adjacent P/QP Land from the project site by unauthorized public access. Under the MSHCP, suitable barriers include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. A barrier should be placed within the boundaries of the development and will be outside of the confines of the mapped P/QP Land. Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the adjacent P/QP Land or Salt Creek. No manufactured slopes are anticipated to be constructed within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Should manufactured slopes be necessary, they will be kept within the boundaries of the development footprint and not encroach into the P/QP Lands. Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Separate from the consistency review against the policies of the MSHCP, Riverside County established a boundary in 1996 for protecting the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), a federally endangered and state threatened species. The Stephens' kangaroo rat is protected under the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (County Ordinance No. 663.10; SKR HCP). As described in the MSHCP Implementation Agreement, a Section 10(a) Permit, and California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorization were issued to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) for the Long -Term SKR HCP and was approved by the USFWS and CDFW in August 1990 (RCHCA 1996). Relevant terms of the SKR HCP have been incorporated into the MSHCP and its Implementation Agreement. The SKR HCP will continue to be implemented as a separate HCP; however, to provide the greatest conservation for the largest number of Covered Species, the Core Reserves established by the SKR HCP are managed as part of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with the SKR HCP. Actions shall not be taken as part of the implementation of the SKR HCP that will significantly affect other Covered Species. Take of Stephens' kangaroo rat outside of the boundaries but within the MSHCP area is authorized under the MSHCP and the associated permits. The project site is located within the Mitigation Fee Area of the SKR HCP. Therefore, the applicant will be required to pay the SKR HCP Mitigation Fee prior to development of the project site. Conclusion Based on the literature review and field survey, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat because none exists within the area. A single jurisdictional drainage, Salt Creek, was observed on the project site during the field investigation. Any impacts to this feature will require regulatory approvals to be obtained by the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. In addition, a DBESP will need to be prepared under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP for impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the recommendations provided below and listed in the Urban/Wildlands Interface Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement A11*1 [__ L I n ,r T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis I v July 15, 2022 Page 15 Guidelines above, and payment of the SKR HCP mitigation fee and MSHCP mitigation fee, development of the project site is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Recommendations Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Compliance Vegetation within and surrounding the project site has the potential to provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites and favorable conditions for avian nesting that could be impacted by construction activities associated with the project. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered "take" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. If construction occurs between February l st and August 31 ", a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no -disturbance buffer. The size of the no -disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur. Burrowing Owl Pre -Construction Clearance Survey A 30-day pre -construction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls, in accordance Objectives 6 of the Species Account for the Burrowing Owl included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Regulatory Approvals and DBESP Any impacts to Salt Creek will require regulatory approvals to be prepared and processed with the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. Additionally, a DBESP will need to be prepared to address the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the proposed project. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement f E LI M 7 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis July 15, 2022 Page 16 Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or imckill(i�.eltntconsultinkcoiiI or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or true i�,mcsill a-clnuconsultinL,.c<nn should you have any questions. Sincerely. Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director Attachments: A. Project Exhibits B. Site Plan C. Site Phofogruhhs Travis J. McGill Director Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement ELM Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis on CONK Attachment A Project Exhibits Sun City Nake Elsinor* • wildomar hill rI i eta PbdonRds � e oonrei ex � � � E v � Winler6lr w Abntpomery•Way � �, • s Q Roclunq Mo Q r �ntRd COY ,^,� a O6 $ • Nllch R•dr a Gteep ��yd �M C1 Camoncne ,�� Oerby NIO Or Wet�n 7re111n Legend Project Site �•q F IL M TA ©<<I , W � v v ` C. 0 V' r of t a o _ .I . •' @J . • .� e % V 0 0.25 0.5 NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Miles Regional Vicinity Source: USA Topographic Map, Riverside County Exhibit 1 c z +' w Lu U) w +- o U Of .� 0- 2 O z n U) Lu w w a 0 r z 0 z - J 1 � M 0 F+ L U W -� 3755 3757 M 337607- .ram s, 3851 3955 K•. �, - •ii V,e • 1� t��-Z�. T � .vIM j��iC.�.��1 r �� i..� rt�•'` .� I' �+_-�t., ♦�`•�. �� J/ _ Il i•� *•'y`s�I�LLM1S`��(�;J 1. •,���jlt�tif ',t.� wl. ,,}'•'u':✓;� {�, jal t,r' tJ� � t,•,s,r,. 1' �~;� h*. k�.r-t 1 � J � lt�'�'1�5.71iG. ��S ,� � . �:''� y n •5:\.. •t ��J.yy �� 1. 4 ryt a t�•1 •fir'' ,�I�/ �. �'T. [, �� ��•'l. .� a S � Ict,• {,. .< - r _ (: ��; .l � *ail `\1 `Z^ �l.S•�.�� • 7 7 i y � •yam_♦ .' � • ' + � st • ~ Ncwi ri•t•Rn t ♦;.b Q 4559R,•r„•dcaryonRa • �, A ':! �, 1�* , .4656 �R••rw��1�� c- it � \7 '� �'� lf� � _ v j1 •c �i•.' . 48849� rAvcmk, •A y y.n L Y 1�Legend Y✓ • -Project i 4946 ' .4951 -4k Public/Public-Quasi Conserved Lands kJ 5045 5049 5046 MIK7, Attachment B Site Plan R. J 8 £1 ow - �o <w _ a m Z - a rl o F s 3 rao vi v / Z W 02 w O 0 �a� CU2Q 0� z~ w 0 a— 5 a Z 0 a 0 J 0 w I N ag 0 a_ _ww U w v G o 0 p F- a m a a o T z z awK E a= _ Em,91 wm H MA s y: T. z3 3w�N - xVm JZ6 roV r LL r G �axp - - G 4io�a0za - w. kw� aV-w-w, - p mGVmiO �oJY _ WErVy��Nw V¢ wZ d w o05 a i �W �arcV �wp �nrc¢azo w _ V� m�zwWz3 rc� wV - �z �NV mf3a uwiLL - �V - o.o o—o _ 3 _ - _ - - z�m 4- w�cr-i - _ - - - i3� ---Qo3mz� �p _ � a�VazwQ6V VV i� � VJZVrmmm w�E �w V w r3 - u�uti�aNOwzprw - - -_xi? w3 i�a oUU3pJQ?�Q=V a€om Z3rc _ wo - - - ap z€m W - - - oF?iWa?oNinoz . z �zor w rc3r z 'z x o�U - �E¢ - a o3 S. rc Zdp - w Z� z3 Od 1'f3�V za O _ o�o _ o -_ F�rc wp3 Y VaaFZ �• m� a€��� oF- - i.�� _J�z �ow ohmN3 o ks 3E 4 - - - - = --z wN ■q3� •�� I1 U1 V a vwi �n _ - - ��w 4 FazrcWmOwwrVO oa - -w�za ��or - - - µ - - - Vw¢ w�oViZ`� E V w r�JV-z� wrc VOz V LL rZ �`mNwZ�x QzE�ZVW V gova m�4 ��w_ ��� �3wo�nacairc��u�o3����rc� owi�omwUm'ow� aV'maU ___ �a� P. �yi J N _o mo -WE < -pSU aF�azo �LLo- Q VOF ou�a�nroazo F _ - ',Hn-xVV�� auZri^� oilw ` ® U �SzoY - Q�F _ €ap rz' - =W LLl aa�ruaoaona mwa-aw}aunts m m !Ae �'c<.��9a Y$$gg5 a����Noo3orrao�r�oo�o��on�m�mw�ara frw��<� o - n � a oo31a naz=s�=v vw wa cz-[w� w3nno Sl-lO-BBZZdIJ pw IY w• OMI 1! j1 AIPY'[A/��►�IY•t. VOM W4 ftOY'TW �1�W1�/V'�1+w�/tiw 1Z� o c� Xv 1 4Q u, �6 xy , sa3•liYti--- J �o � v, 9 J !�J <}0503 g zJ Q�' OO OO OO OO OOO OO �®®CI®®® � g 4 3 4 � F9FzR � V Fa _ 0 o ��8HIS10— O00 z o j i i i 1 1 1 1 O 1 � Z • 1 v i 1 V r. h ! t1 — �Iw o � • m 1 �_ I f _ 75� ■ I �i14 v I r, 1 ttQ 41 . i—i — it . O dM .r.—�cl•�1-- •-N WAws- Attachment C Site Photographs Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 1: From the eastern end of the project site looking west. Photograph 2: From the middle of the eastern half of the project site looking west. ©© f_Ovv'I 11 IIIT Attachment C - Site Photographs Photograph 3: Looking east along the project footprint from the eastern half of the project site, Photograph 4: Looking at the western end of the project site. ['I�AI ELM T ny FT] � . 1PJ' •4 n I If if Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 5: Disturbed area on the western end of the project site. 67 ■ �,SfOV RED Photograph 6: Looking at the connection of the pedestrian walkway on the western end of the project site. Ev]*''* F L M T h• l j 4�vANN m tjtv�-�- *47 .., h Appendix B Jurisdictional Delineation R�ICONS � E LNG July 15, 2022 KIMLEY-HORN Attention: Meghan Karadimos 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420 Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California Introduction ELMT Consulting (ELMT) conducted a Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters for the proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. This delineation was prepared in order to document the jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Regional Board), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The fieldwork for this delineation was conducted on September June 16, 2022. This report explains the methodology utilized throughout the course of the delineation, defines the jurisdictional authority of the regulatory agencies, and documents the findings made by ELMT. This report presents ELMT's determination of jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance provided by the regulatory agencies. Proiect Location The project site is generally located west of Interstate 215, south State Route 74, and north and east of Interstate 15 in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on the Romoland quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the north side of Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-2 in Attachment A. The site has approximately 1,427 linear feet of street frontage along the north side of Normandy Road and is bounded to the north by Salt Creek. The site is approximately 638 feet west of Berea Road and 490 feet east of La Ladera Road. Immediately east of the project site lies mixed -use development and to the west, residential development. To the south across Normandy Road lies undeveloped, vacant land. Proiect Description The project proposes to construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side of Normandy Road. This project will involve the demolition and grading of existing substrate, the construction of a pedestrian walkway, the installation of a pedestrian handrail and footing, and final erosion mitigation. 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 1 (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com July 15, 2022 Page 2 Methodology ELMT field staff conducted a thorough review of relevant literature and materials in order to preliminarily identify potential jurisdictional features occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, a field investigation was conducted to verify existing conditions and document the extent of jurisdictional features within the boundaries of the project site. Literature Review Prior to conducting the field visit, a review of relevant literature and materials was conducted in order to preliminarily identify potential jurisdictional features occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the following resources were reviewed prior to conducting the field investigation: - CDFW's A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (2010); - Corps Arid West Regional Supplement (Version 2.0) to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (2008); - Corps Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States" (2020) - Corps Arid West Regional Wetland Plant List (2016); - Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map; - Google Earth Aerials (1985 — 2020); - State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material to Waters of the State (2021) - United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Custom Soil Resource Report for Southwestern San Bernardino County; - USDA NRCS Hydric Soils List of California; - United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory; and - Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. Field Invcsti al' ELMT biologists Travis J. McGill and Rachael A. Lyons surveyed the project site on June 16, 2022 t verify existing conditions and document the extent of jurisdictional features (e.g., wetlands, streambed, and riparian vegetation) within the boundaries of the project site. While in the field, jurisdictional areas and associated plant communities were mapped onto a base map at a scale of 1" = 50' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as guidelines. Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field, and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants were identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual. Data points were obtained with a Garmin Map 62 Global Positioning System and used to record and identify jurisdictional boundaries, soils samples, and photograph locations. This data was then transferred via USB port as a .shp file and added to the project's jurisdictional map. The jurisdictional map and associated acreage amounts were prepared and quantified in ESRI ArcMap Version 10. ELMT carefully assessed the site for depressions, inundation, presence of hydrophytic vegetation, staining, cracked soil, ponding, and indicators of active surface flow and corresponding physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of �W E L M T *rV-1 GONSHHING July 15, 2022 Page 3 terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris. Suspected jurisdictional areas were checked for the presence of definable channels, soils, and hydrology. Site Conditions The project is located in the San Jacinto Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 18070202), which is part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed (Santa Ana and San Jacinto River Watersheds). The San Jacinto River Watershed encompasses approximately 770 square miles and extends from the San Jacinto Mountains in the north and east to Lake Elsinore in the west. The majority of the watershed falls within Riverside County; however, the western boundary extends into a small undeveloped portion of Orange County. Elevations range from less than 1,250 feet above mean sea level at Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,400 to 1,700 feet on the valley floor to 10,834 feet at Mount San Jacinto in the San Jacinto Mountains. The Box Springs Mountains are located in the northwest, the San Jacinto Mountains in the north and east, and the Santa Ana Mountains in the southwest. Generally, the watershed can be divided into three distinct geomorphic regions: the San Jacinto Mountain Block, the Perris Block, and the Elsinore Trough. The San Jacinto Mountain Block includes granitic mountains characterized by shallow and stony soils. The Perris Block consists of relatively stable crystalline rock covered in deep alluvium derived from the San Jacinto Mountains. Southwest of the Perris Block is the Elsinore Trough, which is bounded on three sides by faults and the Elsinore Mountains. The project site is relatively flat with no areas of topographic relief on the road shoulder of Normandy Road. On -site elevation varies slightly but generally lies at an approximate elevation of 1,404 feet above mean sea level. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Domino silt loam and saline - alkali soil. Soils on -site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., development). Based on the NRCS Hydric Soils List of California this soils is listed as hydric. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory maps to determine if any blueline streams or riverine resources have been documented within or immediate surrounding the project site. Based on this review, a single freshwater emergent wetland resource has been mapped on the project site. Refer to Attachment D, Documentation. Drainage Features A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance (refer to Exhibit 3, Jurisdictional Areas). Salt Creek, within the project footprint, flows under Normandy Avenue via 5 24-inch culverts. There is loose riprap that borders the headwall of the culverts. No surface water was present within Salt Creek during the site visit; however, evidence of an OHWM was observed via scour, changes in substrate, shelving. In general, Salt Creek, within the project footprint, only conveys surface flow in direct response to precipitation or urban runoff, and does not support riparian vegetation. Salt Creek primarily consists of loose/sandy substrate with dense stands of primarily non-native vegetation within the project footprint. minimal vegetation. Where vegetated, the drainages supported short -podded n- E L M f aor-ONSi 1 1111 July 15, 2022 Page 4 mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), white sweet clover (Mililotus alba), and may weed (Anthemis cotula). These plant species are common plant species, and none are threatened, endangered, or have special status in California. Findings There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge and/or fill materials into "waters of the United States" pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and associated plant communities pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. United Slates A ritzy Corps oEnigineers Salt Creek then flows west into Canyon Lake west of the project site. Water from Canyon Lake flows west through a dam and into Lake Elsinore. From Lake Elsinore, water flows out to Temescal Wash, which is ultimately tributary to the Santa Ana River (Relatively Permanent Water) and the Pacific Ocean (Traditional Navigable Water). Therefore, Salt Creek would qualify as waters of the United States and fall under the regulatory authority of the Corps. Federal Wetlands In order to qualify as wetland, a feature must exhibit all three wetland parameters (i.e., vegetation, soils, and hydrology) described in the Corps Arid West Regional Supplement. Based on the results of the field investigation, the soils were rocky and sandy with no ponding water and, it was determined that the basin would not support hydric soil conditions. Therefore, no areas on the project site met all three wetland parameters. Rcr,ilionul lVater ()urlilt' Control Bwird No isolated or Rapanos conditions were observed within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, the RWQCB jurisdictional limit follows that of the Corps. Based on the State Policy for Water Quality Control, Salt Creek exhibits characteristics consistent with the Regional Board's methodology and would be considered jurisdictional waters of the State. State Wetlands Under the State Water Resources Control Board Sate Wetland Definition, an area is a wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area's vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that no areas within the project site meet the State Wetland Definition. Therefore, no state wetland features exist within the project site. E EMT nOCONSI i! 1ItJ1 . July 15, 2022 Page 5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife The onsite drainage feature exhibits characteristics consistent with CDFW's methodology and would be considered CDFW streambed. Conclusion and Recommendations A single ephemeral drainage feature (Salk Creek) was observed within the boundaries of the project site during the field delineation. The onsite drainage possesses hydrologic nexus to downstream waters of the United States, and therefore, will fall under the regulatory authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Board, and CDFW. If impacts to Salt Creek occur from project implementation, the following will be required: United States Army Corps of Engineers The Corps regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. If any impacts occur to Salt Creek, it will be necessary for the Applicant to acquire a CWA Section 404 permit prior to impacts occurring within Corps jurisdictional areas. Since the project will likely result in the loss of less than 1/2-acre of Corps jurisdiction (non -wetland waters), it is anticipated that the proposed project can be authorized via a Nationwide Permit (NWP). Regional Water Quality Control Board The Regional Board regulates discharges to surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Regional Board's jurisdiction extends to all waters of the State and U.S., including wetlands. If any impacts to Salt Creek occur, for a Corps Section 404 permit to be approved, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Board will be required. The Regional Board also requires a Section 401 Certification Application Fee, which is dependent on the amount and type of impacts (i.e., acreage, linear feet, and project type). Cah>brnia Department of Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow or alter the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated biological resources) of a river or stream. Salt Creek within the project site will be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant to acquire a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to impacts occurring within CDFW jurisdictional areas. Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or uncl),ill(ct)elmtconsultin .coiii or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travisntci,,ill a)elnucimsultinc.com should you have any questions or require further information. !'�"j� E L M I jDO r-,)f\ls, ; July 15, 2022 Page 6 Sincerely, Thomas I McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director Attachments: A. Project Exhibits B. Site Plan C. Site Photographs D. Documentation Travis I McGill Director 0o E L�MT Attachment A Project Exhibits v�P •Y1 �1. - e r .ot m a r1. o�trp cd' g o a y g peslry Dl � 0� VA A Reserve C:1°i Lepon Cl Monppomery•Way WrntsnGu -r Y C o eM d �bmantMe Gce • Ne ���\(� r s � a"• �. err!— $ '� "' �c1• Avenida ? '> Juro 3t �`ir �3itverwood Ln Lak e El sinor* -7 PROJ_E_CT LOCATION W ildomar Murrieta R&=m & 4 & � i 1400 1 o. 14 lb Legend _ri�"�{, Project Site I• •;\ n I a c —rr • �-fsr�� 0 0.25 0.5 NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS M �k I Regional Vicinity Source: USA Topographic Map, Riverside County Exhibit 1 N vJ � X +� W -1 r El Attachment B Site Plan VJ Z W QW O � 5 z L C�Q O� Z~ W 0 LU o 3�so _ OV _- _ 3 0. u _ N - Z zo ON pF O r - w ¢ w6 w - - Z W w N O - - N�U Sao O d m a -O O x mod Z - - - V U Ins u0 Uu N o p ¢s� 3 '¢p N _ 5 ta] p_ ow Q - - o�o - r�lo pl �2 w�3 -'mo 3a� w3ry ¢mwwn ��n vl a¢ w mrc zVryoz�m ¢mwwn�mu ¢ >w an _Zo z o z a3 m3 FFTw _mF Im m wuuN..�6— Zp o. u o -R - =NdUmm 3 x'rc5' W ¢3zTM p i rX az-uu 2 a - w pwr¢3 - ~o � p ON Z ¢N WWo 'z of rcu VOp¢ Or o05 ¢ NW f,a a s- - - - o-'z 9,- �xz - - - - m3 z - �wi p"U - 3 - Zn €O rr¢g¢im�p�maZ u rc� o�w �wov�iOWW w - �m? ¢�¢ _ O�woz�J wu o� �Owow r - n3 -w pzz r Qa.a5 PXX IZ� _ - -� - who �Om w1LL - ao'wSa _O �p rca - U vJJi� D�az _o z�aKwp�V p�FmwwU�T U O� 2�p�¢�� r�T mm Fpx wwkpup oaS�r �zo U ¢�o - Ogg p Z a3pOaazV-F�n gg:, �, i3 w woz�ZUp¢z ¢o��o5. - ¢ <fi m r� a�F_wc-'iQ p3mJ��0o 'pro wow?psw paw - -- U=z gmp _ O i N Z h n O H d � z F o no o o w w a u n � dl in N N - o Q�FJ - iN m' �Om3 300m �m 0. N IS o�oo �dmu`o'mw;� o= aw izO%1b5! <p pg P��poiPam aFo p Aso-mFm¢¢o allo =F�o a W u�o�s a 3rclwwQ w=�zrccrio ��wozjr-wizowx u �-mUzm¢aErcowoaE¢�w <�o - ZOm <p D. wi¢ r� - zo� m Ipno�O�Y O In zp _0 ITn;�� iw OQ - m< Om I�T w ? z�O O-ao 0 O�zzwOU - z3�Om_--m0¢mz� p 'n_ z z z NarNz Oz.r ra Zm Zap IQ j� S�iw F<wE��r�o� _ ¢m OHd U IMpz�O r Qp0 - Omrop m. m Q�ja ��vUpi oFyTjF ww¢ONN oQzz msi¢iEz w Oa zoF¢ wQaFi a ✓Iz�wJ w wrw WzwmKdmJ w Ho"aO--o�m x > ¢ 3TF EN mO NK��i _ < Fajwow =_omoWo��wz w _ -H..w <ZN V ¢<a u¢oap�<oo� a-"n3s.a�� 6 7 __ .13 pp So I z. ul �000000000®mono®® ,eR d 5 5 t: 4 o p w•=� w w s o o 1-1ElL^ICl0oaaoO o •a - UE a� a 0 W � Y O K > N - r a � -ol z LL 1 I 1 • O 1 Z 1 � I 1 1 � •1 1 • v` 1 W � k 1 3� 1 I I ,roc a +.— mw-w- m"ti w.w •w- 4•'i.�M`l•�. r �i�X�••� Attachment C Site Photographs Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 1: From the eastern end of the project site looking west. Photograph 2: From the middle of the eastern half of the project site looking west. WCJ E L M T Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 3: Looking east along the project footprint from the eastern half of the project site. Photograph 4: Looking at the western end of the project site. W-�®ELMT ©® IN, 11 1IN( Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 5: Disturbed area on the western end of the project site. Photograph 6: Looking at the connection of the pedestrian walkway on the western end of the project site. Rf©ELM T E I1 111,,1 . Attachment D National Wetlands Inventory v 52 a 6 0 L ? E gN C C C O Z L C ? N b U) p N � U N (� V 7 p e a N f n F c > � ra a)E O {0 'i T yw Z O Yam ID a 0 NM. t D N E d F- M y 3 W _ C L' N C O A 3 C rn y c E d 3 n a 0 of W C Yl N � W N C N � E.v w C y Z W A H U) ❑[-1❑ a c m c m E o o w LL a- 3 3 3 L L L cow N a) a) Q1 2 2 LL LL LL ❑ ❑ ❑ N N O N N of C cc a) m a 3 c a a> o 3: a> a) •cc c •c m m a a c c m m a) a) c c •c •c m m 7 7 N y w w ❑❑ Appendix C Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation_ Report Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Permittee Name City of Menifee 29844 Huan Road Menifee, California 92586 Consultant Name ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2201 N. Grand Avenue 410098 Santa Ana, California 92711 November 2022 DBESP Report Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Project Area..............................................................................................................................................2 2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................................................2 2.3 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................2 3 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2)........................................................................4 3.1 Methods.....................................................................................................................................................4 3.2 Results/Impacts........................................................................................................................................5 3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency..................................................................................................................6 3.3.1 Direct Effects....................................................................................................................................6 3.3.2 Indirect Effects..................................................................................................................................6 4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (SECTION 6.3.2)........................................................................... 10 4.1 Burrowing Owl.....................................................................................................................................10 4.1.1 Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 Results/Impacts........................................... .......... .......................................................... 11 4.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency..........................................................................................................12 5 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................. 13 APPENDIX Appendix A Project Exhibits Appendix B Site Plan Appendix C Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix D Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters DBESP Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains the results of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) analysis to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for impacts to riparian/riverine resources. The proposed project would construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side of Normandy Road in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California One (1) drainage feature, Salt Creek, occurs within the boundaries of the proposed pedestrian trail, that possesses a hydrologic nexus to downstream waters of the United States. A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road. Salt Creek, within the project footprint, flows under Normandy Avenue via one 24-inch culvert and five 36-inch culverts. In general, Salt Creek, within the project footprint, only conveys surface flow in direct response to precipitation or urban runoff, and does not support riparian vegetation. Approximately 0.02-acre (15 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat was mapped within the proposed project site. The riparian/riverine habitat is synonymous with the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional streambed. The proposed project design will result in permanent impacts of 0.02-acre (15 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat within Salt Creek. The applicant proposes to mitigate offsite through the purchase of mitigation credits through the Riverpark Mitigation Bank and/or other approved bank, or combination thereof at an agreed upon ratio of 1:1. The applicant will be responsible for the purchase of mitigation credits to compensate for impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. If no credits are available at an approved mitigation bank, the applicant will mitigate impacts through the enhancement of riparian habitat and upland buffer habitat at a ratio of 2:1 within City owned parcels south of the project site on the western bank of Salt Creek. The applicant will be responsible for the enhancement of riparian habitat and upland buffer habitat to compensate for impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. The above actions would result in a net increase in the function and ecological value of riparian/riverine habitat within the region by preserving/enhancing high quality habitat along the San Jacinto River within the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. DBESP Report 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Project Area The project site is generally located west of Interstate 215, south State Route 74, and north and east of Interstate 15 in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on the Romoland quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the north side of Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-2 in Appendix A. 2.2 Project Description The project proposes to construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side ofNormandy Road. This project will involve the demolition and grading of existing substrate, the construction of a pedestrian walkway, the installation of a pedestrian handrail and footing, and final erosion mitigation. The project also includes the extension of the existing culverts. 2.3 Existing Conditions At present, the site is located on the north side of Normandy Road with vacant land beyond associated with Salt Creek; to the east and west by residential development; and Salt Creek to the south. The site terrain is composed of loose gravel which gives way to a roadside ditch, and Salt Creek beyond. Vegetation Due to existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on the project site. The site consists of modified soil that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbance. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that were once present on the project site. Native plant species adjacent to the site will not likely be impacted by the project. Refer to Attachment C, Site Phot(,gruphs, for representative site photographs. No native plant communities will be impacted from implementation of the proposed project. The project site supports one (1) plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports one (1) land cover type that would be classified as disturbed. The majority of the site is void of plant species but does contain some nonnative grasses on and adjacent to the site such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), canary grass (Phalaris canariensis), and mouse barely (Hordeum murinum). Additional common plant species observed adjacent to the site include Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). DBESP Report Jurisdictional Resources Salt Creek A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance (refer to Exhibit 3, Jurisdictional Areas). Salt Creek, within the project footprint, flows under Normandy Avenue via one 24-inch culvert and five 36-inch culverts. There is loose riprap that borders the headwall of the culverts. No surface water was present within Salt Creek during the site visit; however, evidence of an OHWM was observed via scour, changes in substrate, and shelving. In general, Salt Creek, within the project footprint, only conveys surface flow in direct response to precipitation or urban runoff, and does not support riparian vegetation. Salt Creek, within the project footprint, consists of loose/sandy substrate with dense stands of primarily non-native vegetation within the project footprint. Where vegetated, the drainages supported short -podded mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), white sweet clover (Mililotus alba), and may weed (Anthemis cotula). These plant species are common plant species, and none are threatened, endangered, or have special status in California. DBESP Report 3 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2) 3.1 Methods Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, identifies Riparian/Riverine resources as lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from nearby fresh water sources, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Riverine habitat includes all wetlands and deep -water habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or continuously containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link between the two bodies of standing water. Riverine habitat is bounded on the landward side by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, mosses, or lichens. In braided streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. Springs discharging into a channel are considered part of the riverine habitat. The term riparian is used to define the type of wildlife habitat found along the banks of a river, stream, lake or other body of water. Riparian habitats are ecologically diverse and can be found in many types of environments including grasslands, wetlands and forests. Based on the results of a Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report (ELMT, 2021) prepared under a separate cover, one (1) drainage feature, Salt Creek, was observed on the project site. This feature will be considered riparian/riverine habitat under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The extent of the riparian/riverine habitat on the project site is synonymous with the jurisdiction of CDFW. The habitat associated with Salt Creek within the project footprint is heavily degraded and primarily supports non- native grasses that does not provide suitable habitat for any of the riparian obligate species listed under the MSHCP that may occur within the regional vicinity, including the State- and federally -listed as endangered least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [LBVI]), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), or yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). As a result, no focused surveys were conducted or recommended, and no impacts to this species will occur from project implementation. Vernal Pools One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters. These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology is made on a case -by -case basis. Such determinations should be considered the length of time the areas exhibit upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. The seasonal hydrology of vernal pools provides for a unique environment, which supports plants and invertebrates 4 DBESP Report specifically adapted to a regime of winter inundation, followed by an extended period when the pool soils are dry. Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures. Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to which certain plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp. The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with listed and special -status plant species: clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. The specific clay soils known to be associated with listed and special -status species within the MSHCP plan area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville series soils, whereas Traver -Domino Willows association includes saline -alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas of the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Without the appropriate soils to create the impermeable restrictive layer, none of the special -status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools can occur on the project site. None of these soils have been documented within the project site. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2021) of the project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. Based on the historical aerial review, existing human disturbances, and current hydrologic regimes of the project site, it can be concluded that the project site lacks astatic conditions, and, therefore, would not provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat. Fairy shrimp require astatic conditions and a complete drying of occupied ponds so that the fairy shrimp cysts will not rot. As a result, none of the sensitive plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools are expected to occur on the project site. Sensitive plant and wildlife species associated with vernal pools and clay soils, including fairy shrimp, are presumed absent from the project site. 3.2 Results/Impacts The on -site drainage collectively perform the following functions within the local area of the watershed: regulation of nuisance flows, energy dissipation, nutrient cycling, retention of particulates, nutrient/particulate uptake from off -site, upstream development, and connectivity with similar habitat upstream. In its current state, Salt Creek can be considered to have limited resource value to local and migratory wildlife since is generally disturbed on the project site, and only receives flows from and conveys immediate flows from developed areas. Salt Creek, within the project footprint, will be considered riparian/riverine habitat under the MSHCP. 5 DBESP Report The proposed project will result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.02-acre (15 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat within Salt Creek. Table 1: Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Habitat Jurisdictional Feature Riparian/Riverine Habitat On -Site Jurisdiction Acreage (Linear Feet) Jurisdictional Impacts Acreage (Linear Feet) Salt Creek 0.02 (15) 0.02 (15) TOTAL 0.02 (15) 0.02 (15) 3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency 3.3.1 Direct Effects Mitigation for the loss of 0.02-acre (15 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat within Salt Creek will be mitigated offsite through the purchase of mitigation credits through the Riverpark Mitigation Bank or other approved bank at a ratio of 1:1; the Bank has both rehabilitation and re-establishment credits. The applicant will be responsible for the purchase of 0.02 acre of mitigation credits (depending on the smallest size of credit that can be purchased). If no credits are available at an approved mitigation bank, the applicant will mitigate impacts through the enhancement of riparian habitat and upland buffer habitat at a ratio of 2:1 (0.04 acre) within City owned parcels south of the project site on the western bank of Salt Creek (refer to Exhibit d in Appendix A). The applicant will be responsible for the enhancement of riparian habitat and upland buffer habitat to compensate for impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. • The enhancement and long-term management of 0.04-acre of riparian/riverine habitat and adjacent upland buffer habitat adjacent to Salt Creek. This area currently contains limited riparian habitat, but would be enhanced to include riparian plant species (i.e., mulefat, etc.) and native upland plant species (i.e., California buckwheat). The upland buffer area would reduce edge effects from the surrounding development to the riparian/riverine habitat within Salt Creek. • Implementation of the minimization measures described in Section 3.3.2 will ensure that all indirect project -related impacts to riparian/riverine habitat, including that which may result from fugitive dust, toxics, invasive plant species, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. 3.3.2 Indirect Effects The following minimization measures have been incorporated into the project design to ensure that all indirect project -related impacts to riparian/riverine habitat, including impacts from fugitive dust, toxics, DBESP Report invasive plant species, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Fugitive Dust During soil excavation, grading, or other subsurface disturbance within 100 feet of conserved riparian/riverine habitat onsite, the construction superintendent shall supervise provision and maintenance of all standard dust control best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions, including but not limited to the following actions: • Water any exposed soil areas a minimum of twice per day, or as allowed under any imposed drought restrictions. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional water shall be applied at a frequency to be determined by the on -site construction superintendent. • Pave, periodically water, or apply chemical stabilizer to construction access/egress points. • Minimize the amount of area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations at all times. • Operate all vehicles on graded areas at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. • Cover all stockpiles that will not be utilized within three days with plastic or equivalent material, to be determined by the on -site construction superintendent, or spray them with a non -toxic chemical stabilizer. Runoff - Toxics To address potential short-term impacts to water quality from construction runoff that may carry storm water pollutants downstream, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (S WPPP) shall be implemented by the construction contractor as required by the California General Construction Storm Water Permit pursuant to State Water Quality Control Board and Regional Board regulations. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs related to the control of toxic substances, including construction fuels, oils, and other liquids. These BMPs will be implemented by the Applicant's contractor prior to the start of any ground clearing activity, shall be subject to periodic inspections by the City and the project's hydrological consultant, and shall be maintained throughout the construction period and remain in place until all landscape and permanent BMPs are in place. BMPs shall be monitored and repaired if necessary to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. Permittee shall prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono -filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within and adjacent to CDFW jurisdictional areas. DBESP Report • All fiber roles', straw waddles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the project site shall be free of non-native plant materials. • Permittee shall comply with all litter and pollution laws. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees shall also obey these laws and it shall be the responsibility of Permittee to ensure compliance. • Permittee shall not allow water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading, aggregate washing, or other activities to enter a lake, streambed, or flowing stream or be placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows. • Spoil sites shall not be located within a lake, streambed, or flowing stream or locations that may be subjected to high storm flows, where spoil shall be washed back into a lake, streambed, or flowing stream where it will impact streambed habitat and aquatic or riparian vegetation. • Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint, or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to fish and wildlife resources resulting from project related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the State. These materials, placed within or where they may enter a lake, streambed, or flowing stream by Permittee or any party working under contract or with the permission of Permittee, shall be removed immediately. • No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near any lake, streambed, or flowing stream where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas under any flow. No broken concrete, cement, debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products, or other organic or earthen material from any construction or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into waters of the State. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the edge of any lake, streambed, or flowing stream. Accidental Encroachments During Construction The following measures shall also be incorporated into the construction documents and specifications, and implemented by the contractor, to avoid potential construction -related impacts to conserved riparian/riverine habitat outside of the approved disturbance limits: • Construction worker training shall be provided by a qualified biologist at the first pre -construction meeting; • Exclusionary fencing and signs shall be erected near the top of slope adjacent to conserved riparian/riverine habitat to prevent accidental/unauthorized intrusions during construction; • No equipment shall be operated in areas of flowing water; ' Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh shall be made of loose -weave mesh that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other products without welded weaves. Non -welded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread. DBESP Report Construction access and staging areas for storage of materials and heavy equipment, and for fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of construction vehicles or equipment, shall be prohibited within 20 feet from the top of slope adjacent to conserved riparian/riverine habitat; and A qualified biologist shall be onsite during initial clearing/grubbing, grading, and/or construction activities within the riparian/riverine habitat that will be impacted within the onsite drainage features, or within 100 feet of the habitat to be avoided, and shall periodically monitor these activities to ensure they do not exceed the fenced construction limits. Post -Construction Human Disturbances The project shall incorporate special edge treatments designed to minimize edge effects by providing a safe transition between developed areas and conserved riparian/riverine habitat, and which would be compatible with project operation and the protection and sustainability of conserved areas. Special edge treatments shall include native landscaping on manufactured slopes within the conserved areas and fencing/signage near the top of slope adjacent to conserved areas to prevent unauthorized public access, vandalism, illegal dumping, and other adverse human disturbances. DBESP Report 4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (SECTION 6.3.2) 4.1 Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl is currently designated as a California Species of Special Concern. The burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of and and semi -arid environments with level to gently -sloping areas characterized by open vegetation and bare ground. The western burrowing owl (A.c. hypugaea), which occurs throughout the western United States including California, rarely digs its own burrows and is instead dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (i.e., California ground squirrels, coyotes, and badgers) whose burrows are often used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand -pipes, and dry culverts. They also require low growth or open vegetation allowing line -of -sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage and watch for predators. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from the beginning of February through the end of August. 4.1.1 Methods Under the MSHCP burrowing owl is considered an adequately conserved covered species that may still require focused surveys in certain areas as designated in Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. The project site occurs within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and a habitat assessment was conducted for the species to ensure compliance with MSHCP guidelines for the species. In accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (2006), survey protocol consists of two steps, Step I — Habitat Assessment and Step II — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls. The following section describes the methodology followed during the burrowing owl habitat assessment conducted for this project. Step I — Habitat Assessment: Step 1 of the MSHCP habitat assessment for burrowing owl consists of a walking survey to determine if suitable habitat is present onsite. The habitat assessment was conducted on June 16, 2022. Upon arrival at the project site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to establish owl presence. All suitable areas of the project site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat in western Riverside County include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, wood debris piles, openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. 10 DBESP Report According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the project site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. In addition to surveying the entire Project Site all bordering natural habitats located immediately adjacent to the Project Site were assessed. Results from the habitat assessment indicate that suitable resources for burrowing owl are present throughout the Project Site. Accordingly, if suitable habitat is documented onsite or within adjacent habitats, both Step Il, focused surveys and the 30-day preconstruction surveys are required in order to comply with the MSHCP guidelines. • Step IT — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls: Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl - as part of the MSHCP protocol, which is described below under Part A, Focused Burrow Survey. The MSHCP protocol indicates that no more than 100 acres should be surveyed per day/per biologist. o Part A — Focused Burrow Survey: A systematic survey for burrows, including burrowing owl sign, was conducted by walking across all suitable habitats mapped within the project site on June 16, 2022. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart, and owing to the terrain, often much smaller. Transect routes were also adjusted to account for topography and in general ground surface visibility. Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owls were surveyed for suitable burrows, consisting of natural and non -natural substrates in areas with low, open vegetation. All burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, white -wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Potentially suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non -natural substrates, were thoroughly examined for signs of presence. 4.1.2 Results/Impacts Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Portions of the project site are vegetated with a variety of low -growing plant species that allow for minimal line -of -sight observation favored by burrowing owls. However, no small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Additionally, the site supports and is bordered by tall trees and power poles that provide perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys are not recommended. IE DBESP Report 4.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency 4.1.3.1 Direct Effects Based on the information provided above, and as a result of current and historic onsite disturbances, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur onsite, and no focused surveys are recommended. Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. However, out of an abundance of caution a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure no direct effects to burrowing owl occur form project implementation. Pre -Construction Burrowing Owl Survey A 30-day pre -construction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies and the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and will need to coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground -disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre -construction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrow owl is frnmd, the same coordination described above will he necessary. 4.1.3.2 Indirect Effects With implementation of a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey, no indirect effects to burrowing owl are expected to occur. IN DBESP Report 5 REFERENCES Google, Inc. 2021. Google Earth Pro version 7.3.4.8248. Build date 7/16/2021. ELMT Consulting Inc. 2022. Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project. ELMT Consulting Inc. 2022. Jurisdictional Delineation for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project. Riverside County. 2003 (June). Final Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Available online at hup://ww\\.rcip.0r_0/. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Protocol Revision 2000. Sacramento, California: USFWS. https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/S W WFlycatcher.2000. protocol.pdf USFWS. 2001. Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19, 2001. Sacramento, California: USFWS. https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/Recovery_Permitting/birds/least bells vireo/ LeastBellsVireo_SurveyGuidelines 20010119.pdf USFWS. 2015. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow -Billed Cuckoo. Prepared by M. Halterman, M.J. Johnson, J.A. Holmes, and S.A. Laymon. Sacramento, California: USFWS. April 2015. 1at%%+v.k%,S.gov/south%vest/es/IhOuunents/lZ21.;S/YBCl1_ SurveyProtocol_FINAL. DRAFT 2 2Apr2015.pdI' 13 Appendix A Project Exhibits Legend Project Site n 0.25 oo NORMANDYROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ` 'F| Vl � � ' ' z }' 2� > U 0 w .� a 2 O z d w w a ❑ 0 z 0 z z 0 F E N ,� 5Z w Ll; c Lo O +• �a N zz � z U) no Yw ,a 0 O r z z i 0 z z F Lit Appendix B Site Plan VJ Z w 02 w OD co ry O z CU � Q O w Z (q 0 li 3o - rc - - 3 1. ooq oU - o, aZ - Om �w �a lo I- zm o <w z a I11 - U Z - EmN w in wWp m p Z 0 - - ❑ a ❑ o _ 7p _ = o dl w� tt p €'o � - no i a N y s Sao v p � N o FN 0 3: z — �(v zr o05 ¢N� n OG _ maw mSo �X VNu - o�LL n w3o �� amNonzo - 3 vw Fo -wa8o< PT E ifl pog 5- - -a z5 ¢� U a�ow N o o%. c3K w- �V - - jy_ - rc3a��norc i¢zwr rc zdp - �z0 Z€ Q;SWu,mw y3oV�Uz p32 3w LLorz u�r oho m - N3w wa=N �o =who w1w o �� Owi4 o�V 11 03� Is VZO-oOjmZo��-¢S�o��¢� o - _ aU ¢�o.�am".RUo95 0.0. w��¢rcFms`�xf ON. _��Wbo ��z MMb�m w�su �aam¢w IL 0 Q J o o B� m w -� W F ¢mww8� w a ^a x fo cn�w Z w w � ' zo _p[jjoo 3¢aaw m3z>�V� rind Oa �uou Z w s ' Z iO a U d LL 1 p W Y a a zrcz i - a ol w3 s o w 3 o�_m� -o R o Po EL a~¢Oao z 9 m os C p or'•^LL o��ma�czrtV oa -p 3j?N�O'�zON - aFoO- � .26� Hw-aN3mOE a 3rcFw - Ou ��zN¢nnnOaOnN¢w Pz z,o 13 o. pp, j=om - wQ o - o) z3Wom U x oaFO -rcFm �_ .o z3¢ O� - _w3paFawS��r w ¢m ¢O Qu 2�ONr0 �f _Q-0 Z - - WQ¢FN w FAQ r 3 <NtmF F. _ o O - - MW oz w�ooTwo d a�w zo�o FoauaN N Nm�rUp01a On nw Nmr�s¢mot�arc¢�v¢ircOOQO 0 V U ia_6 G �zZ ipp I , g a a � I 1 .. I 1 . _ — t[Ol ll i �W 'f20[� awin �wl�aY-LO-t%t�M'4' S v ► 00 5P 3HS 33S Zi "3NI'1 HO v LVIAI 4K! ; u el 1 1 1 i v4u.at i tl Y Wo / �� I OfCt OoI.Y R•w 0:-4 I 1 Q� Et R w b.•n � — I I L61� S s 0007F�JF �, h M h M M ery .t r uuw. rra .e i _rg 1331 83MOI 33S 00'5L+ZZ :3NIl HOIVW 1 t•1 •� )ou I i I I n -�E 1 ) ! O!O vip W K I 1 yy] 1' 1 Al J •I 1 • I 1 , )0..1 cK I I • ,rp)W. �� I I 10•Cr I �+ II 0 � i mu •� 1 • lit, ` I Y} ► 1 TJm , 1 •AI � )at 1 ■ p OK � .• i u ec w•i �V I i t I I i.(iNCNb) I — - almv MI "Wrl w 0 Y m N Epp N f0 N i io m N 0 Ml �.•., a + n faf UI N awi 1� I 1 � I I 1 ue C 133HS 33S 00 9L+ZZ :3NIl HO1VW Z 0 E 3 x W J a. ow o O �1 F 1T1 a:n vsal o ' r.bwllr U .�.. p ✓� Z IN IYIIi+MI •0//1� V/ S f� a T 0 LLI i �jMJC ( { 6 3 V R 0 �— } U) T- a S s. r w 7 - } 1 Z }.. p Z 4�. 111110] 1 N i wra.alevl8 � 3ar^ 'tr fi � J T nn.Ir.7 w 1-. r t vtLMM 0H m ,.. a towcrr.t�•�..t »wm, n..., �_�..,*+. ,. s. ....-..,....... S..r .a•tnwrw .mww«.� :.k� ....:.w�..;:":�•,; JaNn H01M I I+ I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I ' I II1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I i I I � 1 ( 1 1 I 11i I I mew oa�o��U =eeo� s RAW E�Fiato ma M O lost 1: 1M go S V1 ":aw m", RI Rol h w �;�ow owwo; a w a J I 1 1 I 1 t o oa 3" of F=s �Nit�gawp z ws gwa < 1£1 - m�mm���'€N� - F wm < us FL �d oho �J o3 rill oil 2 a s w� mil o�go ao 0 il p£o 66 !t g F 1 1 <3olo m�< II1 O it 15 qa - - p pgo x - a c� IN No ao � ak � a -o i�6 <` ., zo oY� E"IJo z oil s " Hdi, m: €9 aa I ; gel HEM NJ Iddn 33S MnHD1HW .n—oiw 2EOZ I! M MW 'tt0t It M vAv11 Win) .n pfL.Wnwi, .NOv) [\va. ww+... i (�.. vvD q..:w r.w., v4 vv vr.vY u-Lh..avy ,H\v.a1.y J1-1D-if/i> ..� Y.(\lwwl..vnNM M 1 r � rloJ�lt!-� � si ; ���7 •�• � ' Air °° �' � �a p� s in n 3 ' ,f' 1�; `• III• ■:1 - � '_'.k^1 it 6 1 o 4a'4 !a•\,L N.ww tlA ,t .+.14N wlnar.�<.N+�..�...J.a��....ir.r..r..�f.�r..n-If..ir.-.w..r4h+1«r.at/\�Jiy �l 'Y1-1Yfe. llj qJW .iw. .r�'\�.._..+.o .... M.An 1331 NWOl 33S 00 OO+OZ 3NI1 HOlVW 1 ' 1 vll 1 1 11 I 1 ,1 I I 1 I' 1 11 I II , II 1 1 I I II I 1 I 1 I� I 1 1 II I I II , ' II II I 1 I, I� 1' I IIIII I I� i- I >z , I O I '1 IZ 11 I 1 1 I � , 1 1 1 1 � I II i I I 1 11 I ,1 I I I 11 I ' II I I I I I I' I li 1 1 aVON VN30Vl+Vl ' 33S -I 1 1331 N3MOl 00'00+OZ :3NI1 HOlVIN Appendix C Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ELCONS�MT July 15, 2022 KIMLEY-HORN Attention: Meghan Karadimos 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420 Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California Introduction This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting's (ELMT) habitat assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) consistency analysis for the proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The field investigation was conducted by biologists Travis J. McGill and Rachael A. Lyons on June 16, 2022 to document baseline conditions and assess the potential for special -status t plant and wildlife species to occur within the proposed project site that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. Special attention was given to the suitability of the on -site habitat to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and several other special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other electronic databases as potentially occurring on or within the general vicinity of the project site. In addition, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map was queried to determine if the MSHCP identifies any potential survey requirements for the project. Further, the project site was reviewed against the MSHCP to determine if the site is located within any MSHCP areas including Criteria Cells (core habitat and wildlife movement corridors) or areas proposed for conservation. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map query and review of the MSHCP, it was determined that the project site is located within the Sun City/ Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP, but is not located within any designated Criteria Cells or conservations areas. Project Location The project site is generally located west of Interstate 215, south State Route 74, and north and east of Interstate 15 in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on the Romoland quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the north side of Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-2 in Attachment A. 1 As used in this report, "special -status" refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally, State, and MSHCP listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank; wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species; and specially protected natural vegetation communities as designated by the CDFW. 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 1 (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com July 15, 2022 Page 2 The site has approximately 1,427 linear feet of street frontage along the north side of Normandy Road and is bounded to the north by Salt Creek. The site is approximately 638 feet west of Berea Road and 490 feet east of La Ladera Road. Immediately east of the project site lies mixed -use development and to the west, residential development. To the south across Normandy Road lies undeveloped, vacant land. Project Description The project proposes to construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side ofNormandy Road. This project will involve the demolition and grading of existing substrate, the construction of a pedestrian walkway, the installation of a pedestrian handrail and footing, and final erosion mitigation. Methodology Literature Review The first step in determining if a project is consistent with the above listed sections of the MSHCP is to conduct a literature review and records search for special -status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special -status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project were determined through a query of the CDFWs CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special -status species published by CDFW, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings, and species covered within the MSHCP and associated technical documents. All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project site were reviewed to understated existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred on the project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special -status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special -status and non -special -status biological resources, as well as the following resources: • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program "My Waters" data layers • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1984-2021); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Survey2; • USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); • Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan; • Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map; and • 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. 2 A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement � Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Al*©* ELM T �_ON,�)111N(, July 15, 2022 Page 3 The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special -status species and determine the distance from the proj ect. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, biologists Travis J. McGill and Rachael A. Lyons initially inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the project site on June 16, 2022. Plant communities identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects through the plant communities and along boundaries between plant communities. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field survey. All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed during the field survey and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests, and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on -site plant communities, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted. Soil Series Assessment On -site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field survey using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for Western Riverside Area, California. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the project site has undergone. Plant Communities Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography. The plant communities were delineated on an aerial photograph, classified in accordance with those described in the MSHCP, and then digitized into GIS Arcview. The Arcview application was used to compute the area of each plant community in acres. Plants Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less -familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement n Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis — I �/ I �. c iPd' I If i it l. July 15, 2022 Page 4 Wildli e Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey included The Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names in this report (first reference only). Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue -line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land -use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program "My Waters" data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the project site. Toweraahy and Soils The project site is relatively flat with no areas of topographic relief on the road shoulder of Normandy Road. On -site elevation varies slightly but generally lies at an approximate elevation of 1,404 feet above mean sea level. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Domino silt loam and saline -alkali soil. Soils on -site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., development). Existine Site Condition At present, the site is located on the north side of Normandy Road with vacant land beyond associated with Salt Creek; to the east and west by residential development; and Salt Creek to the south. The site terrain is composed of loose gravel which gives way to a roadside ditch, and Salt Creek beyond. Vegetation Due to existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on the project site. The site consists of modified soil that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbance. T These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that were once present on the project site. Native plant species adjacent to the site will not likely be impacted by the project. Refer to Attachment C, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs. No native plant communities will be impacted from implementation of the proposed project. The project site supports one (1) plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports one (1) land cover type that would be classified as disturbed (refer to Exhibit 3, Vegetation). The majority of Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement EL n n T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis L I �/ f_Or%]:,� it I Irif July 15, 2022 Page 5 the site is void of plant species but does contain some nonnative grasses on and adjacent to the site such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), canary grass (Phalaris canariensis), and mouse barely (Hordeum murinum). Additional common plant species observed adjacent to the site include Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Wildlife Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the project site. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. Fish The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status fish species as potentially occurring within the project site. Further, no fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent. t 1nphibiuns The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status amphibian species as potentially occurring within the project site. Further, no amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur. Rg tiles The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status reptilian species as potentially occurring within the project site. The site provides a limited amount of habitat for reptile species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. No reptilian species were observed during the field investigation. Birds The project site provides limited foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance, but Salt Creek north and south of the project site provide suitable habitat suitable for foraging and nesting. Bird species detected during the field survey include Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). Mammah The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status mammalian species as potentially occurring within the project site. The site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. No mammalian species were detected during the field investigation. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement EL n n Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis L I �/ �® C=UN'M 11 11r11( , July 15, 2022 Page 6 Nesting lairds and Raptors No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted during breeding season. Although subjected to routine disturbance, the ornamental vegetation found off -site along site boundaries has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that area adapted to urban environments. Additionally, the disturbed portions of the site have to potential to support ground - nesting birds such as killdeer. No raptors are expected to nest on -site due to lack of suitable nesting opportunities. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31 st, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Migratory Corridors and Linkages Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. The project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage by the MSHCP. However, Salt Creek provides local wildlife movement through the area. The project will primarily be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and or developed and is not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Temporary impacts to wildlife movement during construction may occur, but there will be no permanent or long-term impacts to wildlife movement. Jurisdictional Areas There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into "waters of the United States" pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Salt Creek will be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. If any impacts to Salt Creek will occur within the proposed project footprint, regulatory approvals will need to be prepared and processed with the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement * ELM T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis ®[_.1 C(MI-,I0 1lfll[ July 15, 2022 Page 7 Special -Status Biological Resources The CNDDB was queried for reported locations of special -status plant and wildlife species as well as natural communities of special concern in the Romoland USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Only one quadrangle was used due to the proximity of the site to quadrangle boundaries and regional topography. A search of published records within this quadrangle was conducted using the CNDDB Rarefind 5 online software and the CDFW BIOS database and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California that supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants in the vicinity of the project site. The habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special -status plant and wildlife species. The literature search identified seventeen (17) special -status plant species, forty-eight (48) special -status wildlife species, and two (2) special -status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Romoland quadrangle. Special -status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Speciul-.Status Plums According to the CNDDB and CNPS, seventeen (17) special -status plant species have been recorded in the Romoland quadrangle. No special -status plants were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined no special -status plant species have potential to occur on -site due to the lack of native habitats and routine on -site disturbances and all are presumed absent. 11fPecial-2,;1unts WildlilL, According to the CNDDB, forty-eight (48) special -status wildlife species have been reported in the Romoland quadrangle. No special -status wildlife species were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined that the project site has a moderate potential to provide foraging habitat for Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii); and a low potential to support foraging habitat for sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), Califonria horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and burrowing owl. It was further determined that the project site does not have potential to support any of the other special -status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent. The riparian vegetation south of the project site has the potential to support least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). With the exception of least Bell's vireo, none of the aforementioned special -status wildlife species are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. In order to ensure impacts to these avian species do not occur from implementation of the proposed project, a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to special -status avian species will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement©E L. M Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis ©� CUrill July 15, 2022 Page 8 Special-Stalus 1'lanl Communities The CNDDB lists two (2) special -status habitats as being identified within the Romoland quadrangle: Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. No CDFW special -status plant communities occur within the boundaries of the project site. Critical Habitat Under the federal Endangered Species Act, "Critical Habitat" is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the Corps). If a there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS. The project site is not located with federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the site for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) and 4.34 miles southeast of the site for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat will not occur as a result of the proposed project and consultation with the USFWS will not be required for implementation of the proposed project. Western Riverside County MSHCP The project site is located within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan of the MSHCP, but is not located within any designated Criteria Cells (refer to Exhibit 7, MSHCP Criteria Area, in Attachment A). The project site is located within designated road right-of-way and is not located within any MSHCP designated species survey areas. • Amphibian Not in an amphibian survey area • Burrowing Owls Not in a burrowing owl survey area • Criteria Area Species Not in a criteria area species survey area • Mammals Not in a mammal survey area • Narrow Endemic Plants Not in a narrow endemic plant survey area The City of Menifee is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the project is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity in the MSHCP, under Section 7.3.1, Public and Private Development Consistent with MSHCP Criteria, public and private development within the Criteria Area that is determined to be consistent with the Criteria is considered a Covered Activity. As such, to achieve coverage, the project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP: Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement r q T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis C � �/ *® III INIC, July 15, 2022 Page 9 Since the City is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the project is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity under Section 7.1 of the MSHCP, public and private development that are outside of Criteria Areas and Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands are permitted under the MSHCP, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply to area outside of Criteria Areas. As such, to achieve coverage, the project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP: • The policies for the protection of species associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pools as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP; • The policies for the protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP; • Guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface intended to address indirect effects associated with locating Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area as detailed in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP; • The requirements for conducting additional surveys as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP; and • A Habitat Evaluation Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) as set forth in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP. Rinarian/Riverine Areas and Vernal fools The MSHCP requires that an assessment be completed if impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools could occur from construction of the proposed project. According to the MSHCP, the documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. Riparian/Riverine Areas As identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, riparian/riverine areas are defined as areas dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or are dependent upon nearby freshwater, or areas with freshwater flowing during all or a portion of the year. Conservation of these areas is intended to protect habitat that is essential to a number of listed or special -status water -dependent fish, amphibian, avian, and plant species. If impacts to riparian/riverine habitat cannot be avoided, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) must be developed to address the replacement of lost functions of habitats in regard to the listed species. This assessment is independent from considerations given to "waters of the U.S." and "waters of the State" under the CWA and the California Fish and Game Code. A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Salt Creek, within the project footprint, would be considered riparian/riverine habitat under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Any impacts to this area will require a DBESP to be prepared to address the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the proposed project. Vernal Pools One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement •-4 E L M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis nn July 15, 2022 Page 10 evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters. These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology is made on a case -by -case basis. Such determinations should be considered the length of time the areas exhibit upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. The seasonal hydrology of vernal pools provides for a unique environment, which supports plants and invertebrates specifically adapted to a regime of winter inundation, followed by an extended period when the pool soils are dry. Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures. Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to which certain plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp. The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with listed and special -status plant species; clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. The specific clay soils known to be associated with listed and special -status species within the MSHCP plan area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville series soils, whereas Traver -Domino Willows association includes saline -alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas of the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Without the appropriate soils to create the impermeable restrictive layer, none of the special -status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools can occur on the project site. The project site has been mapped within Domino soils, but road improvements associated with the development of Normandy Road have eliminated or heavily disturbed the historic soils within the project footprint. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2021) of the project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. From this review of historic aerial photographs and observations during the field investigations, it can be concluded that there is no indication of vernal pools or suitable fairy shrimp habitat occurring within the proposed project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Narrow Endemic Plaw Species Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species, states that the MSHCP database does not provide sufficient detail to determine the extent of the presence/distribution of Narrow Endemic Plant Species within the MSHCP Plan Area. Additional surveys may be needed to gather information to Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement q Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis l - r` � �/ July 15, 2022 Page 11 determine the presence/absence of these species to ensure that appropriate conservation of these species occurs. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map query and review of the MSHCP, it was determined that the project site is not located within the designated survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Through the field investigation, it was determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species listed under Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, and, therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. No additional surveys or analysis is required. Additional Survey Needs and Procedures In accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in order to achieve coverage for these species. The query of the RCA MSHCP Information Map and review of the MSHCP determined that the project site is not located within the designated survey area for burrowing owl as depicted in Figure 6-4 within Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Further, the project site is not located within any other MSHCP designated species survey areas. Since burrowing owl are known to occur within Salt Creek, a burrowing owl suitability assessment was conducted. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl is currently designated as a California Species of Special Concern. The burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of and and semi -arid environments with level to gently -sloping areas characterized by open vegetation and bare ground. The western burrowing owl (A.c. hypugaea), which occurs throughout the western United States including California, rarely digs its own burrows and is instead dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (i.e., California ground squirrels, coyotes, and badgers) whose burrows are often used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand -pipes, and dry culverts. They also require low growth or open vegetation allowing line -of -sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage and watch for predators. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from the beginning of February through the end of August. Under the MSHCP burrowing owl is considered an adequately conserved covered species that may still require focused surveys in certain areas as designated in Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. The project site occurs within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and a habitat assessment was conducted for the species to ensure compliance with MSHCP guidelines for the species. In accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (2006), survey protocol consists of two steps, Step I — Habitat Assessment and Step II — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls. The following section describes the methodology followed during the burrowing owl habitat assessment conducted for this project. • Step I — Habitat Assessment: Step 1 of the MSHCP habitat assessment for burrowing owl consists of a walking survey to determine if suitable habitat is present onsite. The habitat assessment was conducted on June 16, 2022. Upon arrival at the project site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to establish owl presence. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement r n n T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis C I �/ July 15, 2022 Page 12 All suitable areas of the project site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat in western Riverside County include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, wood debris piles, openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the project site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. In addition to surveying the entire Project Site all bordering natural habitats located immediately adjacent to the Project Site were assessed. Results from the habitat assessment indicate that suitable resources for burrowing owl are present throughout the Project Site. Accordingly, if suitable habitat is documented onsite or within adjacent habitats, both Step II, focused surveys and the 30-day preconstruction surveys are required in order to comply with the MSHCP guidelines. • Step I I — Locating Burrows and Burrowing, Owls: Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl - as part of the MSHCP protocol, which is described below under Part A, Focused Burrow Survey. The MSHCP protocol indicates that no more than 100 acres should be surveyed per day/per biologist. O Part A — Focused Burrow Survev: A systematic survey for burrows, including burrowing owl sign, was conducted by walking across all suitable habitats mapped within the project site on June 16, 2022. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart, and owing to the terrain, often much smaller. Transect routes were also adjusted to account for topography and in general ground surface visibility. Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owls were surveyed for suitable burrows, consisting of natural and non -natural substrates in areas with low, open vegetation. All burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, white -wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non - natural substrates, were thoroughly examined for signs of presence. Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Portions of the project site are vegetated with a variety of low -growing plant species that allow for minimal line -of -sight observation favored by burrowing owls. Further, no small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Further, the project site does not provide suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non -natural substrates that could be used as burrow surrogates. Additionally, the site is surrounded by tall trees and poles that provide Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement !���J E E M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis n� myny I �r�•J�.r ii iir,lr, July 15, 2022 Page 13 perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Based on this information, and as a result of current and historic on -site disturbances, and surrounding development, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur on -site and no focused surveys are recommended. Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. However, out of an abundance of caution a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. Urhun./;Vildlunds htterfuce Guidelines Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface, is intended to address indirect effects associated with development in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are intended to ensure that indirect project -related impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized. The project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to any Criteria Cells, corridors, or linkages, however, the project site is located immediately adjacent to MSHCP mapped Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) Land. As a result, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines, as discussed below, will be incorporated into the project to ensure that indirect project -related impacts, including drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized. Drainage The project's stormwater should be directed away from the P/QP Lands to the north, and away from Salt Creek. These measures will assure that the project stormwater discharges are no greater in volume and velocity than current undeveloped conditions and that the water leaving the site complies with all applicable water quality standards. No drainage/runoff from the site shall flow into P/QP Lands or Salt Creek. Toxics According to the MSHCP, measures shall be incorporated to ensure that application of chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. During the construction of the project, construction activities have the potential to cause release of toxics that could impact P/QP Lands. To address these potential short-term impacts, the project is required to stage construction operations as far away from mapped P/QP Lands and Salt Creek to the maximum extent feasible. Lighting The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase lighting and glare. However, if light sources are installed, they should be designed with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground and the developed areas and have a zero -side angle cut off to the horizon. Nosie Under the MSHCP, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The proposed project is a pedestrian trail and will not increase noise levels beyond ambient noise. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement �J ELM T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis : July 15, 2022 Page 14 Invasive Plant Species No landscaping is proposed as part of the project. Barriers Barriers would restrict direct access to the adjacent P/QP Land from the project site by unauthorized public access. Under the MSHCP, suitable barriers include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. A barrier should be placed within the boundaries of the development and will be outside of the confines of the mapped P/QP Land. Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the adjacent P/QP Land or Salt Creek. No manufactured slopes are anticipated to be constructed within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Should manufactured slopes be necessary, they will be kept within the boundaries of the development footprint and not encroach into the P/QP Lands. Stephen's Kangaroo Nat [labitat Conservation Plan Separate from the consistency review against the policies of the MSHCP, Riverside County established a boundary in 1996 for protecting the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), a federally endangered and state threatened species. The Stephens' kangaroo rat is protected under the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (County Ordinance No. 663.10; SKR HCP). As described in the MSHCP Implementation Agreement, a Section 10(a) Permit, and California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorization were issued to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) for the Long -Term SKR HCP and was approved by the USFWS and CDFW in August 1990 (RCHCA 1996). Relevant terms of the SKR HCP have been incorporated into the MSHCP and its Implementation Agreement. The SKR HCP will continue to be implemented as a separate HCP; however, to provide the greatest conservation for the largest number of Covered Species, the Core Reserves established by the SKR HCP are managed as part of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with the SKR HCP. Actions shall not be taken as part of the implementation of the SKR HCP that will significantly affect other Covered Species. Take of Stephens' kangaroo rat outside of the boundaries but within the MSHCP area is authorized under the MSHCP and the associated permits. The project site is located within the Mitigation Fee Area of the SKR HCP. Therefore, the applicant will be required to pay the SKR HCP Mitigation Fee prior to development of the project site. Conclusion Based on the literature review and field survey, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat because none exists within the area. A single jurisdictional drainage, Salt Creek, was observed on the project site during the field investigation. Any impacts to this feature will require regulatory approvals to be obtained by the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. In addition, a DBESP will need to be prepared under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP for impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the recommendations provided below and listed in the Urban/Wildlands Interface Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement ���L3' L M T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis EVIFTI cJ)PI11,I )i i iru July 15, 2022 Page 15 Guidelines above, and payment of the SKR HCP mitigation fee and MSHCP mitigation fee, development of the project site is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Recommendations Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Compliance Vegetation within and surrounding the project site has the potential to provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites and favorable conditions for avian nesting that could be impacted by construction activities associated with the project. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered "take" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. If construction occurs between February 1" and August 31 ", a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no -disturbance buffer. The size of the no -disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur. Burrowing Owl Pre -Construction Clearance Survey A 30-day pre -construction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls, in accordance Objectives 6 of the Species Account for the Burrowing Owl included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Regulatory Approvals and DBESP Any impacts to Salt Creek will require regulatory approvals to be prepared and processed with the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW. Additionally, a DBESP will need to be prepared to address the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the proposed project. Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement ��►]U L C r I n �/ I ^ T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis I �LLI CC.)fdS� n uric, July 15, 2022 Page 16 Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or uncgiIIk1)elmtConsultin�'_COIII or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travismcgiII a,ClIII tconsulting,.COIII should you have any questions. Sincerely. Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director Attachments: A. Project Exhibits B. Site Plan C. Site Photographs Travis J. McGill Director Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvement h W ELM T Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis nyy tOrvSui_tiniG Attachment A Project Exhibits P-IIi;- •/ W tun City — a F-Isinor • P,ltin i--t , r . qv,��(t \ ? '• • r} - - - — - (711 \ � s d � • r • al VC Legend _ Project Site `� r • • •\ d •� •` ' '~ ` .mac.• ��.. _ .k 0 0.25 0.5 NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS FI M 1 Miles Regional Vicinity Source: USA Topographic Map. Riverside County Exhibit 1 m cn U x E J NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS CI --MT o.z5 05 'Miles MSHCP Criteria Area Source: USATopographic Map, Riverside County Exhibit 4 Attachment B Site Plan 0;o o Y d w z _ e o F U LL � o O O W O ¢ ¢ u a ol vi aLL _ lo €w k oo u IToo- o "a o GLL=_ L zc ;o o zSi ¢3rco?w¢Vwwit 20 lz"UaW S="aa�owoa _Ab aL03 xom ffi o UEUFzi _ _ �OLL rcQi t�i z� oG�o€�Jy a ^30" w - >o to3¢w iz -z J - H -om - o�a0� Faz3tt oUo3pf�?wZ��W~o FaW u...< _ pFNFQO �a"In Ow �zJ W u m�Faw�O - M 2Ew�aW��V¢3 - - o - 03a a i �` win i _ �w wz �¢ J -�s4 saz�4w��o as< e a a--- I ovdd 1 I I II. 1 � - I ,I I �;I I I I I I � I I I I I ! I 'I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I; .I I I ' I I' I II I ' I � li II 3 o �I I � I I � I I o I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I _ I I I II I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I. I I I I I I I I I 1 I ayoz, vdlo n vl L. —_-J � R M _ _ _ va.'u •7.i' �� A 3 � Y <g h _ b o c 1z i 000000000®�®1g10®� i ii kill 3L •� j I I d. t� 4 fkx- � r fill, 8 1 r - L-' Ti 1 , I I I i I r 5 oa adgR - S¢ p o a b p 98 3N ��000r�a0000 � 1 1 o 1� I 1lwlft: - of 1 r� I P � 1 1 1 = i amu+: Attachment C Site Photographs Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 1: From the eastern end of the project site looking west. Photograph 2: From the middle of the eastern half of the project site looking west. 1wi'=1 L L M T FYINI-I (_ON`J"I I lr"](, Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 3: Looking cast along the project footprint from the eastern half of the project site. Photograph 4: Looking at the western end of the project site. M 6-, A -In F I M ©I - Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 5: Disturbed area on the western end of the project site. h� a t - ' Photograph 6: Looking at the connection of the pedestrian walkway on the western end of the project site. i'ILAI L L M T PY1 1 4Irt .11, 1DIt. Attachment C — Site Photograph 7: Looking at the culverts that convey flows from Salt Creek under Normandy Road. The culverts are just off the road shoulder. Photograph 8: Another view of the culverts and vegetation in front of the culverts. *91 E LMT (I® CON_ I_II I Appendix D Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters F A -151 ELMT � July 15, 2022 KIMLEY-HORN Attention: Meghan Karadimos 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420 Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation for the Proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project Located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California Introduction ELMT Consulting (ELMT) conducted a Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters for the proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project located in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. This delineation was prepared in order to document the jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Regional Board), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The fieldwork for this delineation was conducted on September June 16, 2022. This report explains the methodology utilized throughout the course of the delineation, defines the jurisdictional authority of the regulatory agencies, and documents the findings made by ELMT. This report presents ELMT's determination of jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance provided by the regulatory agencies. Project Location The project site is generally located west of Interstate 215, south State Route 74, and north and east of Interstate 15 in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on the Romoland quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the north side of Normandy Road between Berea Road and La Ladera Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-2 in Attachment A. The site has approximately 1,427 linear feet of street frontage along the north side of Normandy Road and is bounded to the north by Salt Creek. The site is approximately 638 feet west of Berea Road and 490 feet east of La Ladera Road. Immediately east of the project site lies mixed -use development and to the west, residential development. To the south across Normandy Road lies undeveloped, vacant land. Proicct Description The project proposes to construct a pedestrian trail extending from existing sidewalks from the west and east along the north side of Normandy Road. This project will involve the demolition and grading of existing substrate, the construction of a pedestrian walkway, the installation of a pedestrian handrail and footing, and final erosion mitivation. 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 1 (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsultine.com July 15, 2022 Page 2 Methodology ELMT field staff conducted a thorough review of relevant literature and materials in order to preliminarily identify potential jurisdictional features occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, a field investigation was conducted to verify existing conditions and document the extent of jurisdictional features within the boundaries of the project site. Literature Review Prior to conducting the field visit, a review of relevant literature and materials was conducted in order to preliminarily identify potential jurisdictional features occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the following resources were reviewed prior to conducting the field investigation: - CDFW's A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (2010); - Corps Arid West Regional Supplement (Version 2.0) to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (2008); - Corps Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States" (2020) - Corps Arid West Regional Wetland Plant List (2016); - Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map; - Google Earth Aerials (1985 — 2020); - State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material to Waters of the State (2021) - United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Custom Soil Resource Report for Southwestern San Bernardino County; - USDA NRCS Hydric Soils List of California; - United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory; and - Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. Field Investi pay, lion ELMT biologists Travis J. McGill and Rachael A. Lyons surveyed the project site on June 16, 2022 t verify existing conditions and document the extent of jurisdictional features (e.g., wetlands, streambed, and riparian vegetation) within the boundaries of the project site. While in the field, jurisdictional areas and associated plant communities were mapped onto a base map at a scale of 1" = 50' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as guidelines. Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field, and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants were identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual. Data points were obtained with a Garmin Map 62 Global Positioning System and used to record and identify jurisdictional boundaries, soils samples, and photograph locations. This data was then transferred via USB port as a .slip file and added to the project's jurisdictional map. The jurisdictional map and associated acreage amounts were prepared and quantified in ESRI ArcMap Version 10. ELMT carefully assessed the site for depressions, inundation, presence of hydrophytic vegetation, staining, cracked soil, ponding, and indicators of active surface flow and corresponding physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of oo E NS LMT July 15, 2022 Page 3 terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris. Suspected jurisdictional areas were checked for the presence of definable channels, soils, and hydrology. Site Conditions The project is located in the San Jacinto Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 18070202), which is part of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed (Santa Ana and San Jacinto River Watersheds). The San Jacinto River Watershed encompasses approximately 770 square miles and extends from the San Jacinto Mountains in the north and east to Lake Elsinore in the west. The majority of the watershed falls within Riverside County; however, the western boundary extends into a small undeveloped portion of Orange County. Elevations range from less than 1,250 feet above mean sea level at Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,400 to 1,700 feet on the valley floor to 10,834 feet at Mount San Jacinto in the San Jacinto Mountains. The Box Springs Mountains are located in the northwest, the San Jacinto Mountains in the north and east, and the Santa Ana Mountains in the southwest. Generally, the watershed can be divided into three distinct geomorphic regions: the San Jacinto Mountain Block, the Perris Block, and the Elsinore Trough. The San Jacinto Mountain Block includes granitic mountains characterized by shallow and stony soils. The Perris Block consists of relatively stable crystalline rock covered in deep alluvium derived from the San Jacinto Mountains. Southwest of the Perris Block is the Elsinore Trough, which is bounded on three sides by faults and the Elsinore Mountains. The project site is relatively flat with no areas of topographic relief on the road shoulder of Normandy Road. On -site elevation varies slightly but generally lies at an approximate elevation of 1,404 feet above mean sea level. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Domino silt loam and saline - alkali soil. Soils on -site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., development). Based on the NRCS Hydric Soils List of California this soils is listed as hydric. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory maps to determine if any blueline streams or riverine resources have been documented within or immediate surrounding the project site. Based on this review, a single freshwater emergent wetland resource has been mapped on the project site. Refer to Attachment D, Documentation. Drainage Features A small portion of Salt Creek, where flows are conveyed under Normandy Road, occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance (refer to Exhibit 3, Jurisdictional Areas). Salt Creek, within the project footprint, flows under Normandy Avenue via one 24-inch culvert and five 36-inch culverts. There is loose riprap that borders the headwall of the culverts. No surface water was present within Salt Creek during the site visit; however, evidence of an OHWM was observed via scour, changes in substrate, shelving. In general, Salt Creek, within the project footprint, only conveys surface flow in direct response to precipitation or urban runoff, and does not support riparian vegetation. Salt Creek primarily consists of loose/sandy substrate with dense stands of primarily non-native vegetation within the project footprint. minimal vegetation. Where vegetated, the drainages supported short -podded *5� E EMT ®O CONSM FING July 15, 2022 Page 4 mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), white sweet clover (Mililotus alba), and may weed (Anthemis cotula). These plant species are common plant species, and none are threatened, endangered, or have special status in California. Findings There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge and/or fill materials into "waters of the United States" pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and associated plant communities pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. United States Army Cot:as oiEngineers Salt Creek then flows west into Canyon Lake west of the project site. Water from Canyon Lake flows west through a dam and into Lake Elsinore. From Lake Elsinore, water flows out to Temescal Wash, which is ultimately tributary to the Santa Ana River (Relatively Permanent Water) and the Pacific Ocean (Traditional Navigable Water). Therefore, Salt Creek would qualify as waters of the United States and fall under the regulatory authority of the Corps. Federal Wetlands In order to qualify as wetland, a feature must exhibit all three wetland parameters (i.e., vegetation, soils, and hydrology) described in the Corps Arid West Regional Supplement. Based on the results of the field investigation, the soils were rocky and sandy with no ponding water and, it was determined that the basin would not support hydric soil conditions. Therefore, no areas on the project site met all three wetland parameters. Regional Water Quality Control Bourd No isolated or Rapanos conditions were observed within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, the RWQCB jurisdictional limit follows that of the Corps. Based on the State Policy for Water Quality Control, Salt Creek exhibits characteristics consistent with the Regional Board's methodology and would be considered jurisdictional waters of the State. State Wetlands Under the State Water Resources Control Board Sate Wetland Definition, an area is a wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area's vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that no areas within the project site meet the State Wetland Definition. Therefore, no state wetland features exist within the project site. 0EA:l E LMT as CONSUI IING July 15, 2022 Page 5 California Department 0l1,'ish and Mldlife The onsite drainage feature exhibits characteristics consistent with CDFW's methodology and would be considered CDFW streambed. Conclusion and Recommendations A single ephemeral drainage feature (Salk Creek) was observed within the boundaries of the project site during the field delineation. The onsite drainage possesses hydrologic nexus to downstream waters of the United States, and therefore, will fall under the regulatory authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Board, and CDFW. If impacts to Salt Creek occur from project implementation, the following will be required: United Slates Army Corps of Engineers The Corps regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. If any impacts occur to Salt Creek, it will be necessary for the Applicant to acquire a CWA Section 404 permit prior to impacts occurring within Corps jurisdictional areas. Since the project will likely result in the loss of less than '/z-acre of Corps jurisdiction (non -wetland waters), it is anticipated that the proposed project can be authorized via a Nationwide Permit (NWP). Regional Water Quality Control Board The Regional Board regulates discharges to surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Regional Board's jurisdiction extends to all waters of the State and U.S., including wetlands. If any impacts to Salt Creek occur, for a Corps Section 404 permit to be approved, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Board will be required. The Regional Board also requires a Section 401 Certification Application Fee, which is dependent on the amount and type of impacts (i.e., acreage, linear feet, and project type). Culi/ornia Department of l-ash and Wi&M Pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow or alter the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated biological resources) of a river or stream. Salt Creek within the project site will be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant to acquire a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to impacts occurring within CDFW jurisdictional areas. Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or 1meKillnelmtconsultina.com or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travismckill(t)elmtconsultin- c )ii1 should you have any questions or require further information. *0 E LMT aO CONSULTING July 15, 2022 Page 6 Sincerely. Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director Attachments: A. Project Exhibits B. Site Plan C. Site Photographs D. Documentation Travis J. McGill Director o�g ELMT L*O CONSI h IIN(, Attachment A Project Exhibits Legend Project Site ` ,I 0 0.25 05 NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS E L MT m Miles Regional Vicinity Source: USA Topographic Map, Riverside County Exhibit 1 N vJ n X +--� W F CI Attachment B Site Plan VJ Z 02 Qw\ o ' `� ^ I- 0 z G 02< O� Z (q W A0 Ii l< zo o -3o --- _ V 4 Zo � m� OF V Nam. Vw uU u 2 -O 1-- Y _O� N W 3 Sao o _ r ^ ❑ P-1 n 1'J • t o IS, I. A N F rc s urn FF�Nae'.�3 -SSA asa x m um¢x�wN� Q zo 3aa o�Ut O_ �w 3 xFrc�¢ pizJ�pG .v�aoauu 0 w s N - ru N 0 Ila.. a � U F � p w w N 5 w w p o o a N F 2 W �p �pm3 U�9p - o�Ji z IIn3 �m oa�o&�N ¢3¢ �wZ¢�urc� pu Fl~/IUZVIQ w �n I f Q b z N z p� - 3�arc3 op y - uEo�zzwr - - - w�` oNor _ �minrcrc¢zo _N m�Zwwzw rcN Z 2 5- -o r _ -o _ ¢z}UzZ� ow < 2— o-,'VEX asaYZW i 4 m z-�rm3 Jrc U;o Paz OV wrm =FwN �� O�rcow�po INS F pN�Q�ppppJz? p afCzn- u T a rc`=p��> waa3 S. F�rc u3 s - - z°vwsmaFZFF ortaawQ« z �• 53V A3w - izzttwrc w �ww�a wwz� i pr o o z - - - �' = A - o �o�� °3 '08-4'5o3woa _ - �3so�o �w - op�aUz p �p a = _ < a o<« <--od o «< _ w Fm rya ^ ppNp e�m m m _ Arta �•�. Mw m["a�i-i�G"citi=r-wud�ri..� +wima ti+i �+:+�'."rvw�i w� w �i"+d� � w. .��ar �wv� � G 3BFx� �Jy 1t.9V1___ go � < z 1� 1� ii j a FQ �8a� is p pp��o�o a � •z � _ 6 �eG$i�aa �Idler a 000600®006 1 / I gig L`„ o I �li s a a� /7yG � wax yy 1¢Ol %QOO O • OCIOOO 1 Io M M I Z 1 'h • _ .J� I I 1 , a a ` 1 0 1 • � s 1 1 r I � 1 � I I fJK Ir .Ir I..w rl MM h W d" Attachment C Site Photographs Attachment C—Site Photographs Photograph 1: From the eastern end of the project site looking west. Photograph 2: From the middle of the eastern half of the project site looking west. *91 E LMT w1_LI `_OrJ',I )I I IPJf Auachment i—Siie Photograph 3: Looking east along the project footprint from the eastern half of the project site. Pp, IL Am z 'r Photograph 4: Looking at the western end of the project site. Al 4-1 F I, M Attachment C — Site Photographs Photograph 5: Disturbed area on the western end of the project site. Photograph 6: Looking at the connection of the pedestrian walkway on the western end of the project site. i1l4-1 F I M -1 nn Attachment C—Site Photographs Photograph 7: Looking at the culverts that convey flows from Salt Creek under Normandy Road. The culverts are just off the road shoulder. Photograph S: Another view of the culverts and vegetation in front of the culverts. oaCCjfV,-,I1I 11AIfa Attachment D National Wetlands Inventory mm L �"ood �� a ? j L y E p d m O Z m S m V L V C c m nCnf' C LT D U) d m v 7 p 12 c F[2 m E g m a m 0 C Vdy o m 3 a m Z3 c w a m m a I a$ t IS idE=P3 ~ L N 3'y N p c c 3 caom C m _ 3 a 0 d N c N C N m m m 0 c E °�_vm N Z y U) A F U) a% C Y t m O w ®❑❑ c m a c m � L U) (D a) � N U E O O Lu LL a a) a) w m m m 3 3 3 L L t LL LL LL ❑ ❑ il 0 N H C �4) a) m v 3 c n (D -- (D a) a) c c •c •c m m c c m m a) a) c •cc •c > > (n w w LU ❑❑ Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project City of Menifee, Riverside County, California BCRCONSULTING LLC February 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project City of Menifee, Riverside County, California Prepared on behalf of: Kari Cano Kimley-Horn 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420 Riverside, California 92501 Prepared for: The City of Menifee 29844 Haun Road Menifee, California 92586 Prepared by: David Brunzell, M.A., RPA Principal Investigator BCR Consulting LLC Claremont, California 91711 Project No. KIM2222 Sites Recorded: KIM2222-1-1 Keywords: Intensive Linear Survey of Approximately .5-Mile USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Romoland (1979), California Sections 5/32 of Townships 5/6 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian BCRCONSULTING LLC February 28, 2023 FEBRUARY 2E. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE MANAGEMENT SUMMARY BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project (the project) located in the City of Menifee (City), Riverside County, California. Tasks completed for the scope of work include a cultural resources records search, an intensive - level pedestrian cultural resources survey, a Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission, Tribal Scoping, and a Paleontological Overview. These tasks were performed in fulfillment of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside conducted the cultural resources records search. The records search revealed that 21 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of 33 cultural resources within the research radius. Of the previous studies five have assessed portions of the project site for cultural resources, and no cultural resources have been previously identified within the project boundaries. During the field survey, BCR Consulting and participating Native American personnel identified one potentially prehistoric flake of andesite shatter in disturbed sediment within the project site boundaries. This isolated artifact has been temporarily designated KIM2222-1-1. Isolates are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and as such are not considered "historic properties" under Section 106 of the NHPA and are not considered "historical resources" (i.e. are not significant) under CEQA. As a result, this item does not warrant any further consideration. No other cultural resources (including historic -period architectural resources, other potential prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic - period archaeological resources) were identified within the project site boundaries. The project site has been subject to mechanical excavation, grading, and other disturbances from the construction of Normandy Road, culverts and flood control measures installed underneath Normandy Road, utilities installed beneath the culverts, and adjacent residential and commercial development. These factors confer low sensitivity for significant buried resources within the project site boundaries. However, while the current study has not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the project boundaries, there are many prehistoric sites in the area with significance to local Native American entities and ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Furthermore, communications with representatives of Pechanga Band of Indians have indicated that the project occupies a portion of a Traditional Cultural Property. Therefore, prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist would have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities include: FEBRUARY 28, 2022 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE • prehistoric flaked -stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates; • groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks; • human remains; • historic -period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects; • historic -period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements. Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary. BCR Consulting sent notifications to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians to discern whether either group was aware of resources within the project site boundaries. Representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians accompanied BCR Consulting archaeologists during the pedestrian field survey. During a conference call with representatives from the City, Kimley Horn, and BCR Consulting, representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians indicated that the project site occupies a portion of a Traditional Cultural Property and as such should receive special consideration during the consultation process. The results of tribal correspondence are provided in Appendix A. According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would "directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource". The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix B has recommended that: The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped primarily as mixed alluvial deposits from the Holocene and Pleistocene epoch, with the easternmost end of the project extending into units of Cretaceous gabbro and diorite (Morton, Bovard, and Morton 2003). Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius; however, WSC does have localities in similarly mapped localities across Southern California. Any fossil specimen from the Normandy Road Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units, and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the study area. If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE ICULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. iv FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENTSUMMARY................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT AND UNDERTAKING/PROJECT......................................1 REGULATORY SETTING...............................................................................................1 PERSONNEL..................................................................................................................7 NATURALSETTING.............................................................................................................7 GEOLOGY......................................................................................................................7 HYDROLOGY.................................................................................................................8 VEGETATION.................................................................................................................8 CULTURALSETTING...........................................................................................................8 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT..............................................................................................8 ETHNOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................10 HISTORY......................................................................................................................11 METHODS..........................................................................................................................13 RESEARCH..................................................................................................................14 FIELDSURVEY............................................................................................................14 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................14 RESEARCH..................................................................................................................14 FIELDSURVEY............................................................................................................16 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................16 CERTIFICATION................................................................................................................ 18 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................19 APPENDICES A: NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH AND TRIBAL SCOPING B: PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW C: PHOTOGRAPHS D: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY E: DPR 523 FORMS FIGURES 1: Project Location Site..................................................................................................2 TABLES A: Cultural Resource Studies.......................................................................................14 B: Cultural Resources Summary ..................................................................................14 v FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE ICULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE INTRODUCTION BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project (the project) located in the City of Menifee (City), Riverside County, California. The project site comprises a segment of Normandy Road along the boundary dividing Section 5 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West from Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, in the City of Menifee. The project site is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Romoland, Califomia (1979) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT AND UNDERTAKING/PROJECT The APE consists of areas in which effects/impacts from a proposed undertaking or project to potential historic properties/historical resources could occur. The undertaking, or project, includes the removal of existing corrugated metal pipe, steel plate, concrete curb and gutter, and associated materials, and the construction of a pedestrian trail, and installation of pedestrian cable railing, storm drain lines, headwall, and signage within a 2200-foot segment of Normandy Road. Excavation will occur in disturbed sediments above existing utility installations. Above ground vertical limits will not exceed approximately eight feet for signage. The total area of disturbance will equal approximately 0.39 acres. Regulatory Setting National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, establishes the federal policy of protecting important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage during federal project planning. All federal or federally assisted projects requiring action pursuant to Section 102 of NEPA must take into account the effects on cultural resources. According to the NEPA regulations, in considering whether an action may "significantly affect the quality of the human environment," an agency must consider, among other things, unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] § 1508.27[b][3]) and the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). NEPA regulations also require that, to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft Environmental Impacts Statements (EISs) concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). When Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA are integrated, project actions that cause adverse effects under Section 106 are usually considered to be significant under NEPA. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NHPA establishes the federal government policy on historic preservation and the programs, including the National Register, through which this policy is implemented. Under the NHPA, significant cultural resources (referred to as historic properties) include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or determined eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. • / SUIT ci - ti 29 Coll Project Location • i• il.i _ .......... 1 ✓ of 1/! P41, 0 p / • �.trY� • • �� 1 I Vicinity Map - •; Puri° Project Location f + �/s g anla ��ii11 aryarilaTh� ch0S•• �] 0 0.25 0.5 1 tQiiel wimeita• Kilometers ources: Esri, HERE, Garmin. 0 10 20 S. Intermap, 0 0.5 t Mlles EMENTP,NRCan,Esri Miles ..� c Project Location Sde Figure 1 BCRLNSULINC. LLC Norm andy Road Project Kimley-Horn "•'�•"• rdef--- ESRI; dSGS Quad R—I nd, Califmo f I9791 FEBRUARY 26, 2023 PHASE ICULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE Historic properties also include resources determined to be National Historic Landmarks. National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting United States heritage. A property is considered historically significant if it meets one of the National Register criteria and retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its significance. This act also established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent agency responsible for implementing Section 106 of NHPA by developing procedures to protect cultural resources included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. Regulations are published in 36 C.F.R. Parts 60, 63, and 800. National Historic Preservation Act Implementing Regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations § 800). Section 106 of the NHPA requires that effects on historic properties be taken into consideration in any federal undertaking. The process has five steps: (1) initiating the Section 106 process, (2) identifying historic properties, (3) assessing adverse effects, (4) resolving adverse effects, and (5) implementing stipulations in an agreement document. The implementing regulations for Section 106 are at 36 C.F.R. Part 800. Section 106 affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as well as other consulting parties, a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect historic properties. SHPOs administer the national historic preservation program at the state level, review National Register nominations, maintain data on historic properties that have been identified but not yet nominated, and consult with federal agencies during Section 106 review. National Register of Historic Places Eligibility (Section 106). Eligibility for the National Register rests on two factors: significance and integrity. In order to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, a property must meet one or more of the significance criteria listed below (36 C.F.R. § 60.4) and retain integrity: • Criterion A —Association with "events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history." • Criterion B—Association with "the lives of persons significant in our past." • Criterion C—Resources "that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction." • Criterion D—Resources "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory." Historically, most —but not all —archaeological resources were only evaluated under Criterion D. However, this approach is considered somewhat limited and all applicable criteria should be thoroughly considered and documented. The National Register bulletin entitled How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in order for a property to qualify for listing in the National Register, it must meet at least one of the National Register criteria by: (1) being associated with an important historic context, and (2) retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance (National Park Service 1997). The historic context of a resource will define the theme(s), geographical 3 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE limits, and period of significance by which to evaluate a resource's significance (National Park Service 1997:7). Generally, cultural properties must be 50 years of age or more to be eligible for listing in the National Register. According to the National Park Service (1997:2), "properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible" unless such properties are "of exceptional importance." In addition to being significant under one or more of these criteria, National Register eligibility (as well as California Register eligibility, as described below) requires that a resource retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Integrity is evaluated through consideration of characteristics that existed during a resource's period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of seven elements: • Location —The place where the resource was constructed • Design —The combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the resource • Setting —The physical environment of the resource, including the landscape and spatial relationship of the buildings • Materials —The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the resource • Workmanship —The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history • Feeling —The resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time • Association —The direct link between an important historic event or person and a resource The NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native American tribe to be eligible for National Register inclusion (Section 101(d)(6)(A)). Additionally, a broader range of traditional cultural properties is also considered and may be eligible for or listed in the National Register. Traditional cultural properties are places associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community's history and that may be eligible because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of living communities that are rooted in that community's history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. In the National Register programs, culture is understood to mean the traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community, be it an Indian tribe, a local ethnic group, or the nation as a whole (Parker and King 1998). NHPA Section 106 Native American Consultation. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires tribal consultation in all steps of the process when a federal agency project or effort may affect historic properties that are either located on tribal lands, or when any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization attaches religious or cultural significance to the historic property, regardless of the property's location (U.S. General Services Administration 2022). 4 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state's public agencies (California Code of Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, "A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)). State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) • Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code § 5020.1(k)) • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)) A historical resource consists of "Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California... Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources" (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)). The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource. Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one of more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for Designation: 5 FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource's period of significance to "obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources." (CCR 4852 [d][2]). Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the "historic -period") will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Tribal Cultural Resources. California Assembly Bill 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. As stated in Section 11 of AB 52, the act applies only to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 establishes "tribal cultural resources" (TCRs) as a new category of resources under CEQA. As defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074, TCRs are "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe" that are either: (1) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register; included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), if supported by substantial evidence and taking into account the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. A "historical resource" as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a "unique archaeological resource" as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), or a "nonunique archaeological resource" as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(h) may also be TCRs. AB 52 further establishes a new consultation process with California Native American tribes for proposed projects in geographic areas that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with that tribe. Per Public Resources Code Section 21073, "California Native American tribe" includes federally and non -federally recognized tribes on the NAHC contact list. Subject to certain prerequisites, AB 52 requires, among other things, that a lead agency consult with the geographically affiliated tribe before the release of an environmental review document for a proposed project regarding project alternatives, recommended mitigation measures, or potential significant effects, if the tribe so requests in writing. If the tribe and the lead agency FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE agree upon mitigation measures during their consultation, these mitigation measures must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21084.2, and 21084.3). Since the City will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address comments as necessary. BCR Consulting sent letters to local Tribes listed by the NAHC to discern whether tribes were aware of resources within the project site boundaries. The results of this correspondence is provided in Appendix A. Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by professional paleontologists from the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix B. Personnel David Brunzell, M.A., RPA, acted as Principal Investigator and compiled the technical report with contributions from Staff Archaeologist Doug Kazmier, B.A. BCR Consulting Archaeological Field Director Joseph Orozco, M.A., RPA, and BCR Consulting Staff Historian George Brentner, B.A. conducted the field survey with Pechanga Band of Indians Representative Julio Marquez, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Representative Jesse Resvoloso. Eastern Information Center (EIC) staff completed the records -search. The Native American Heritage Commission completed the Sacred Lands File search. The Western Science Center completed the paleontological overview. NATURAL SETTING Geology The project site occupies a portion of California's Peninsular Range geologic province that encompasses western Riverside County. Crystalline rocks in the area include gabbro and granodiorite of the southern California batholith. These resistant rocks weather to form dark or light colored, boulder -covered conical buttes and hills. They are granitic and have intruded and metamorphosed to locally form gneissic and schistose rocks (Rogers 1965). The crystalline rocks in the area are covered by Older Pleistocene alluvium (Kennedy 1977) that, in turn, is covered by a thin horizon of Holocene soils and recent stream sediments in channels (Morton 2003; Rogers 1965). Pedogenic carbonate (caliche or hardpan) is a depositional product associated with the Holocene soils and invades the Pleistocene sediments. The southern tip of the Northern Peninsular Range has a number of igneous rocks utilized by Native Americans for food (particularly seed) processing (see Brunzell 7 FEBRUARY 20. I023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 2007). These include granodiorites, quartz monzonites, and breccias, which are found locally. Metamorphosed sedimentary rocks, such as metamorphosed quartzite, are also found near the project site. Olivine basalt and andesite containing phenocrysts have also been locally utilized for the prehistoric manufacture of chipped stone tools (ibid.). Hydrology The region is characterized by a semi -arid climate, with dry, hot summers, and moderate winters. Rainfall ranges from 12 to 16 inches annually (Beck and Haase 1974). Precipitation usually occurs in the form of winter rain, with occasional monsoonal showers in late summer. The nearest water source is Salt Creek which flows from southwest to northeast through the project site. Elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1,404 to 1,418 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As such, it is characterized as lower Sonoran Life Zone, represented in cismontane valleys and low -mountain slopes (Jaeger and Smith 1971). Vegetation Coastal sage scrub plant community dominates the local vegetation. Signature plant species within the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat includes black sage (Salvia mellifera), California brittlebush (Encelia califomica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemesia califomica), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diverilobum), purple sage (Salvia leucophyla), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), sugar bush (Rhus ovate), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), coastal century plant (Agave shawl►), coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera), Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera), many -stemmed liveforever (Dudleya multicaulis), our Lord's candle (Yucca whipplei), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.) (Williams et al. 2008:118-119). Signature animal species within Coastal Sage Scrub habitat include the kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), orange throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperthrus), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvilli►), brown -headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica), California quail (Callipepla califomica), and San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunnecapillus sandiegensis) (Williams et al. 2008:118-120). For details on prehistoric (particularly Luiseno) local use of plant and animal species, see Lightfoot and Parrish (2009), Bean and Shipek (1978:552), and Oxendine (1983:19-29). Sparkman (1908) and Bean and Saubel (1972) have listed the harvesting and processing methods and seasons for edible plants that grow in the above described communities and others). CULTURAL SETTING Prehistoric Context Two primary regional syntheses are commonly utilized in the archaeological literature for southern California. The first was advanced by Wallace in 1955, and defines four cultural horizons, each with characteristic local variations: Early Man Horizon, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Employing a more ecological approach, Warren (1986) 0 FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE defined five periods in southern California prehistory: Lake Mojave, Pinto, Gypsum, Saratoga Springs, and Protohistoric. Warren viewed cultural continuity and change in terms of various significant environmental shifts, defining the cultural ecological approach for archaeological research of the California deserts and coast. Many changes in settlement patterns and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, beginning with the gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, the desiccation of the desert lakes during the early Holocene, the short return to pluvial conditions during the middle Holocene, and the general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals, that continue to this day (Warren 1986). Paleoindian (12,000 to 10,000 BP) and Lake Mojave (10,000 to 7000 BP) Periods. Climatic warming characterizes the transition from the Paleoindian Period to the Lake Mojave Period. This transition also marks the end of Pleistocene Epoch and ushers in the Holocene. The Paleoindian Period has been loosely defined by isolated fluted (such as Clovis) projectile points, dated by their association with similar artifacts discovered in -situ in the Great Plains (Sutton 1996:227-228). Some fluted bifaces have been associated with fossil remains of Rancholabrean mammals approximately dated to ca. 13,300-10,800 BP near China Lake in the northern Mojave Desert. The Lake Mojave Period has been associated with cultural adaptations to moist conditions, and resource allocation pointing to more lacustrine environments than previously (Bedwell 1973). Artifacts that characterize this period include stemmed points, flake and core scrapers, choppers, hammerstones, and crescents (Warren and Crabtree 1986:184). Projectile points associated with the period include the Silver Lake and Lake Mojave styles. Lake Mojave sites commonly occur on shorelines of Pleistocene lakes and streams where geological surfaces of that epoch have been identified (Basgall and Hall 1994:69). Pinto Period (7000 to 4000 BP). The Pinto Period has been largely characterized by desiccation of the southern California region. As formerly rich lacustrine environments began to disappear, the artifact record reveals more sporadic occupation of the drier regions, indicating occupants' recession into the cooler fringes (Warren 1986). Pinto Period sites are rare and are characterized by surface manifestations that usually lack significant in - situ remains. Artifacts from this era include Pinto projectile points and a flake industry similar to the Lake Mojave tool complex (Warren 1986), though use of Pinto projectile points as an index artifact for the era has been disputed (see Schroth 1994). Milling stones have also occasionally been associated with sites of this period (Warren 1986). Gypsum Period. (4000 to 1500 BP). A temporary return to moister conditions during the Gypsum Period is postulated to have encouraged technological diversification afforded by the abundance of resources available (Warren 1986:419-420; Warren and Crabtree 1986:189). Lacustrine environments reappear and begin to be exploited during this era (Shutter 1961, 1968). Concurrently a more diverse artifact assemblage reflects intensified reliance on plant resources. The new artifacts include milling stones, mortars, pestles, and a proliferation of Humboldt Concave Base, Gypsum Cave, Elko Eared, and Elko Corner - notched dart points (Warren 1986; Warren and Crabtree 1986). Other artifacts include leaf - shaped projectile points, rectangular -based knives, drills, large scraper planes, choppers, hammerstones, shaft straighteners, incised stone pendants, and drilled slate tubes. The bow and arrow appears around 1500 BP, evidenced by the presence of a smaller type of 9 FEBRUARY 25. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE projectile point, the Rose Spring point (Rogers 1939; Schroeder 1953, 1961; Shutler 1961; Yohe 1992). Saratoga Springs Period (1500 to 800 BP). During the Saratoga Springs Period regional cultural diversifications of Gypsum Period developments are evident. Influences from PatayanNuman assemblages are apparent in the southern inland areas, and include buff and brown wares often associated with Cottonwood and Desert Side -notched projectile points (Warren 1986:423). Obsidian becomes more commonly used throughout southern California and characteristic artifacts of the period include milling stones, mortars, pestles, ceramics, and ornamental and ritual objects. More structured settlement patterns are evidenced by large villages, and three types of identifiable archaeological sites (major habitation, temporary camps, and processing stations) emerge (McGuire and Hall 1988). Diversity of resource exploitation continues to expand, indicating a much more generalized, somewhat less mobile subsistence strategy. Shoshonean Period (800 BP to Contact). The Shoshonean period is the first to benefit from contact -era ethnography and is subject to its inherent biases. Interviews of living informants allowed anthropologists to match artifact assemblages and particular traditions with linguistic groups, and plot them geographically (see Kroeber 1925; Gifford 1918; Strong 1929). During the Shoshonean Period continued diversification of site assemblages, and reduced Anasazi influence both coincide with the expansion of Numic (Uto-Aztecan language family) speakers across the Great Basin, Takic (Uto-Aztecan language family) speakers into southern California, and the Hopi across the Southwest (Sutton 1996). Hunting and gathering continued to diversify, and the diagnostic arrow points include desert side -notch and cottonwood triangular. Ceramics continue to proliferate, though are more common in southeastern Riverside County during this period (Warren and Crabtree 1986). Trade routes have become well established between coastal and inland groups. Ethnography The Project site is situated within the traditional boundaries of the Luiseno (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925), and is peripheral to the Cahuilla area. Each of these groups belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily of languages (Bean and Shipek 1978:550). Like other Native American groups in southern California, they practiced semi -nomadic hunter - gatherer subsistence strategies and commonly exploited seasonably available plant and animal resources. Spanish missionaries were the first outsiders to encounter these groups during the late 18th century. Luiseno. Typically, the native culture groups in southern California are named after nearby Spanish missions, and such is the case for this population. For instance, the term "Luiseno" is applied to the natives inhabiting the region within the "ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Mission San Luis Rey ... [and who shared] an ancestral relationship which is evident in their cosmogony, and oral tradition, common language, and reciprocal relationship in ceremonies" (Oxendine 1983:8). The first written accounts of the Luiseno are attributed to the mission fathers; later documentation was produced by Sparkman (1908), Oxendine (1983) and others. Prior to Spanish occupation of California, the territory of the Luiseno extended along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek to the south, Aliso Creek to the northwest, and the Elsinore Valley and Palomar Mountain to the east. These territorial 10 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE boundaries were somewhat fluid and changed through time. They encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys and foothills, and mountain groves of oaks and evergreens (Bean and Shipek 1978:551). Cahuilla. The Cahuilla are generally divided into three groups: Desert Cahuilla, Mountain Cahuilla, and Western (or Pass) Cahuilla (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978). The term Western Cahuilla is preferred over Pass Cahuilla because this group is not confined to the San Gorgonio Pass area. The distinctions are believed to be primarily geographic, although linguistic and cultural differences may have existed to varying degrees (Strong 1929). Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of Southern California and the Cocopa- Maricopa Trail, a major prehistoric trade route, ran through it. The first written accounts of the Cahuilla are attributed to mission fathers; later documentation was by Strong (1929), Bright (1998), and others. History In southern California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). Spanish Period. The Spanish period (1769-1821) is represented by exploration of the region; establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Gabriel and San Luis Rey; and the introduction of livestock, agricultural goods, and European architecture and construction techniques. Spanish influence continued to some extent after 1821 due to the continued implementation of the mission system. Mexican Period. The Mexican period (1821-1848) began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican -American War (Cleland 1951). The Secularization Act of 1834 resulted in the transfer, through land grants (called ranchos) of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals. Sixteen ranchos were granted in Riverside County. At that time, cattle ranching was a more substantial business than agricultural activities, and trade in hides and tallow increased during the early portion of this period. Until the Gold Rush of 1849, livestock and horticulture dominated California's economy (Beattie and Beattie 1974). American Period. The American Period, 1848—Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849-1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861-1862, followed by a significant drought diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate 11 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE developments of the late 1911 century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits of the 20th century (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1951). Economic and ethnic diversification and growth have resulted in California's most visible 201r' century hallmarks. Prior to World War II agriculture, oil, tourism, railroad, and film industries all flourished, and while the great the Great Depression of the 1930s slowed (and in many cases stopped) growth, these all remained important throughout the century. The wartime economy helped alleviate many causes of the Great Depression, and the subsequent years saw further diversification in which the aerospace and electronics industries emerged. During World War II, many people had relocated to California in support of the military industrial complex, and a large number remained post-war in search of employment and to start families. The subsequent population boom coincided with the greatest economic growth in the history of the state, and accompanied large-scale land subdivision, construction of bedroom communities, and development of a comprehensive freeway system and a state system of higher education (Lavender 1972). These factors have all helped reshape California's landscape, economy, and material culture. Menifee. In 1880, Kentucky -born gold miner Luther Menifee Wilson discovered a substantial gold and quartz deposit eight miles south of Perris in what was then northern San Diego County, along present-day Murrieta Road. The discovery became widely known as the Menifee Quartz Lode, and it attracted many people to settle in the relatively barren region. The Menifee Mining District developed around the lode and subsequently included half a dozen mines. Wilson sold the mine to the Allen Gold Mining Company in 1889. A small, sparsely populated settlement associated with the mine became known as Menifee. By 1893, Menifee was made up of scattered farmsteads, a one -room schoolhouse, a general store that doubled as a post office, and a blacksmith shop. That same year, Menifee was also seriously considered to become the county seat of the newly formed Riverside County, receiving 459 votes among county delegates. A nearby 3,000-acre property was purchased by Charles Cooper and investors from the Los Angeles Farmers and Merchants Bank in 1891, which for several years thereafter was used as a game hunting reserve named Quail Valley. Mining activity soon died down in the area as it proved to be unprofitable and grain farming became the predominant industry. Menifee remained highly rural in character through the remainder of the nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth century, with a few local families owning vast acreages for ranches and dry farming. In the 1920s the Quail Valley property was sold to investors who developed the Lake Elsinore Lodge, an enclave of recreational and residential facilities that included a club house, tennis courts, equestrian stables, a restaurant, a small store, and a gas station. In the 1947, this resort community would be renamed the Quail Valley Country Club. The greater community developed slowly. Electricity became widely available in 1946 in the Menifee area, and telephone service arrived in 1958. Occupancy remained so low that residents had to petition municipal authorities for such luxuries, as Menifee's small population didn't initially qualify for service (The Californian 1992; Martin and Bouris 2006:7; Sullivan 2004). A catalyst for urban development arrived in the early 1960s, when Del Webb, a contractor and developer from Arizona, planned for a retirement residential community in the Menifee 12 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE ICULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE area called Sun City. After initially purchasing 14,000 acres of former ranch and farm lands for the development, Sun City was built on 1,200 acres with the remainder eventually being sold to future developers. The Sun City community was built as a four square -mile enclave complete with residences, retail stores, two golf courses, and two recreation centers. Soon after its completion and occupancy, it became its own Census Designated Place, separate from the unincorporated community of Menifee. Quail Valley, whose country club amenities were largely abandoned by the 1970s, was repurposed as a residential community adjacent to Menifee with many new residences and its own schools. Local development picked up more steam in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1989, a real estate development firm, the Lusk Company, constructed a nearly 2,000-acre residential community around a 45-acre artificial lake and golf course called Menifee Lakes. The development, which also featured country club facilities, drew more middle-class families to settle in the Menifee area. Accompanying the development of Menifee Lakes was the construction of new parks, schools, and commercial areas. The establishment of the Menifee Valley Campus of Mt. San Jacinto College in 1990 further bolstered commercial activity and residency in the area. By 2005, the formerly rural farming settlement of Menifee had been transformed into a suburban bedroom community of more than 27,000 people. As the local population grew, a movement for cityhood gained traction and the annexation of Sun City, Quail Valley, Romoland (a nearby ranching community developed in 1924), and other smaller communities on the peripheries of Menifee was contemplated. In June 2008, Menifee's residents voted with the local Chamber of Commerce to incorporate as Riverside County's twenty-sixth city. By October, the city was formally established and the surrounding communities had been incorporated into Menifee's city limits, bringing its total area to exceed fifty square miles and 70,000 residents. Today, the population has increased to approximately 102,527 residents (The California 1989; City of Menifee 2020; Los Angeles Times 1989; Love 2012; Martin and Bouris 2006:7; Menifee Buzz 2014; Sullivan 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2020). METHODS This work was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter 2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5. The pedestrian cultural resources survey is intended to locate and document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites, features, isolates, and historic -period buildings, that exceed 45 years in age within defined project boundaries. The project site was examined using 10 to 15 meter transect intervals. The study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within the given project boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the above - referenced regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will address potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks pursued to achieve that end include: Sacred Lands File search through the Native American Heritage Commission, and communications with recommended tribes and individuals; 13 FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE • Cultural resources records search through the Eastern Information Center (EIC) to review any previous studies conducted and the resulting cultural resources recorded within one half -mile of the project site boundaries; • Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire proposed project site. Research Records Search. Prior to fieldwork, a records search request was submitted to the EIC. The records search included a review of all prerecorded historic -period and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources surveys and excavation reports generated from projects located within one half -mile of the project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register, and documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures. Field Survey An intensive -level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on January 11, 2023. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart (opposite sides of Normandy Road) across 100 percent of the accessible project site. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project boundaries and all soil exposures were carefully examined for evidence of cultural resources. RESULTS Research Records Search. A cultural resource records search was conducted by the EIC at the University of California, Riverside. The records search revealed that 21 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of 33 cultural resources within the research radius. Of the previous studies five have assessed portions of the project site for cultural resources, and no cultural resources have been previously identified within the project boundaries. Tables A and B summarize the disposition of previous studies and cultural resources within one half -mile of the project site. A comprehensive records search bibliography is provided as Appendix D. Table A. Cultural Resource Studies Summary USGS 7.5-Minute Quad Previous Studies Romoland, California (1979) RI-378, 648, 1971 *, 2184, 2284, 2621, 2847, 3691, 4222, 4700*, 5826, 7427, 8179*, 9154, 9809, 9846, 10190*, 10191 *, 10536, 10537.10538 *Previously assessed a portion of the project site for cultural resources Table B. Cultural Resources Summary Primary No. I Period Approximate Distance from Project Site/Description P-33-1031 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile S/Prehistoric Habitation Site P-33-1034 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile S/Prehistoric Habitation Site P-33-3806 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile NE/Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature 14 FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE Primary No. Period Approximate Distance from Pro'ect Site/Description 0.5 Mile SE/Prehistoric 0.5 Mile S/Prehistoric Milling Feature, Lithic Scatter Historic -Period Foundation P-33-3937 Prehistoric/Historic P-33-3938 Prehistoric P-33-4224 Prehistoric/Historic 0.25 Mile E/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Milling Feature Historic -Period Privies/Dumps P-33-4225 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile E/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter P-33-8819 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile S/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter P-33-8820 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile S/Prehistoric Habitation Site P-33-8825 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile SE/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter 0.5 Mile S/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Historic -Period Foundation and Privies/Dumps P-33-8826 Prehistoric/Historic P-33-11505 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Habitation Site P-33-11506 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11507 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11508 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter. Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11513 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11514 Historic -Period 0.5 Mile SE/Historic-Period Dam P-33-11515 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11516 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter. Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11541 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile S/ Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11543 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile S/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter. Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-11546 Historic -Period 0.25 Mile E/Historic-Period Privies/Dump P-33-22547 Prehistoric No information availble P-33-11548 Prehistoric 0.10 Mile SW/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter P-33-15722 P-33-15723 Prehistoric Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/ Prehistoric Habitation Site 0.25 Mile SE/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-15724 Prehistoric/Historic 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Habitations Site Historic -Period Privies/Dump P-33-15725 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile SE/Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-15892 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile S/ Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-15893 Prehistoric 0.5 Mile S/ Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-15895 Prehistoric/Historic 0.25 Mile SE/ Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Bedrock Milling Feature P-33-15896 Prehistoric/Historic 0.5 Mile SW/Prehistoric Lithic Scatter P-33-15897 Prehistoric 0.25 Mile E/ Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature Additional Land Use Research. A review of aerial photos indicates that the entire survey area was previously subject to mechanical clearing, weed abatement, and agriculture between 1938 and 1978. Normandy Road is a modern paved roadway that crosses Salt Creek which flows under the road via five 24-inch culverts kept in place with loose riprap and a headwall (United States Department of Agriculture 1938, 1967, 1968). Predictive Modeling. Cultural resources recorded in this portion of Riverside County indicate that historic agricultural and residential developments are locally common. Additionally, prehistoric use of bedrock for milling stations and lithic scatters have also been identified in the general area. These resources are commonly associated with vegetal (particularly seed) processing, chipped stone tool manufacture, trade, and cooking. The records search and communications with Pechanga Band of Indians indicate long term prehistoric habitation of sites near the project alignment. As a result the field survey 15 FF BRIJA RY 20. 2023 PHASE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE emphasized careful inspection for artifacts and features associated with historic agricultural and residential use, prehistoric habitation, and suitable rock outcrops and soil exposures for the presence of related features and artifacts. Field Survey During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists carefully inspected the project site for evidence of cultural resources, using the methods described above. Representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians accompanied BCR Consulting archaeologists during the pedestrian field survey. Ground visibility averaged approximately 50 percent within the project site boundaries. Sediment included damp clay and sandy silt with sporadic levels of gravels and cobbles. The project site has been subject to comprehensive mechanical excavation, grading, and other disturbances from the construction of Normandy Road, culverts and flood control measures installed underneath Normandy Road, utilities installed beneath the culverts, and adjacent residential and commercial development. BCR Consulting and personnel and Native American representatives identified one potentially prehistoric flake of andesite shatter in disturbed sediment within the project site boundaries. This isolated artifact has been temporarily designated KIM2222-1-1 and is documented on Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms (Appendix E). Isolates are not eligible for the National Register or the California Register and as such are not considered "historic properties" under Section 106 of the NHPA and are not considered "historical resources" (i.e. are not significant) under CEQA. As a result, this item does not warrant any further consideration. No other cultural resources (including historic -period architectural resources, other potential prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic -period archaeological resources) were identified within the project site boundaries. RECOMMENDATIONS BCR Consulting conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Normandy Road Pedestrian Improvements Project, pursuant to CEQA. During the field survey, BCR Consulting personnel identified one potentially prehistoric flake of andesite shatter in disturbed sediment within the project site boundaries. This isolated artifact has been temporarily designated KIM2222-1-1. Isolates are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and as such are not considered "historic properties" under Section 106 of the NHPA and are not considered "historical resources" (i.e. are not significant) under CEQA. As a result, this item does not warrant any further consideration. No other cultural resources (including historic -period architectural resources, other potential prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic -period archaeological resources) were identified within the project site boundaries. The project site has been subject to mechanical excavation, grading, and other disturbances from the construction of Normandy Road, culverts and flood control measures installed underneath Normandy Road, utilities installed beneath the culverts, and adjacent residential and commercial development. These factors confer low sensitivity for significant buried resources within the project site boundaries. However, while the current study has not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the project boundaries, there are 16 FEBRUARY 28, 2020 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE many prehistoric sites in the area with significance to local Native American entities and ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Furthermore, communications with representatives of Pechanga Band of Indians have indicated that the project occupies a portion of a Traditional Cultural Property. Therefore, prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist would have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities include: • prehistoric flaked -stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates; • groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks; • human remains; • historic -period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects; • historic -period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements. Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary. BCR Consulting sent notifications to Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians to discern whether either group was aware of resources within the project site boundaries. Representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians accompanied BCR Consulting archaeologists during the pedestrian field survey. During a conference call with representatives from the City, Kimley Horn, and BCR Consulting, representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians indicated that the project site occupies a portion of a Traditional Cultural Property and as such should receive special consideration during the consultation process. The results of tribal correspondence are provided in Appendix A. According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would "directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource". The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix B has recommended that: The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped primarily as mixed alluvial deposits from the Holocene and Pleistocene epoch, with the easternmost end of the 17 FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE project extending into units of Cretaceous gabbro and diorite (Morton, Bovard, and Morton 2003). Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius; however, WSC does have localities in similarly mapped localities across Southern California. Any fossil specimen from the Normandy Road Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units, and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the study area. If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MILD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: February 28, 2023 David Brunzell Authorized Signature Printed Name County Registration Number: 154 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE REFERENCES Basgall, Mark E., and M.C. Hall 1994 Perspectives on the Early Holocene Archaeological Record of the Mojave Desert. In Kelso Conference Papers 1987-1992, edited by G.D. Everson and J.S. Schneider, pp. 63-81. California State University, Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 4. Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith 1978 Cahuilla. In California (pp 566-570), edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseno in California (pp. 550-563), edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John and Katherine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh. Malki Museum Press. Banning, California. Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie 1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino's First Century. Biobooks: Oakland. Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of Califomia. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press. Bedwell, S.F. 1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene. Bright, William 1998 California Place Names, The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. The Californian [Temecula, California] 1989 "First dwellers moved in at `new town' of Menifee." Online newspaper archive City of Menifee 2020 "History, History of Menifee Roads." Electronic Document. Accessed 11/30/20. https://cityofmenifee.us/85/History. Cleland, Robert Glass 1951 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills —Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library. Gifford, Edward W. 1918 Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of Califomia Publications in American Archaeology and Anthropology 14(22)155-219. 19 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith 1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Kennedy, M.P. 1977 Regency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California. CDMA Special Report 131. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. New York: Dover Publications. Lavender, David 1972 California: Land of New Beginnings. Harper and Row. New York. Lightfoot, Kent G. and Otis Parrish 2009 California Indians and Their Environment. University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, California] 1989 "Menifee Lakes Country Club considered a top attraction." Online newspaper archive (Newspaper.com). Accessed 12/1/20. Love, Carl 2012 "Preserving memories of Menifee's past." Press -Enterprise. Electronic Document. Accessed 11/30/20. https://www.pe.com/2012/01/07/preserving-memories-of- menifee8217s-past/. Martin, Elinor and Betty Bouris 2006 Images of America: Menifee Valley. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston McGuire, K.R., and M.C. Hall 1988 The Archaeology of Tiefort Basin, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Report Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Menifee Buzz 2014 "Menifee has a history." Electronic Document. Accessed 11/30/20. http://www. menifeebuzz.com/news/item/1035-menifee-has-a-history. Morton, Douglas M. 2003 Geologic Map of the Romoland 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. United States Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. Oxendine, Joan 1983 The Luiseno Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 20 FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE Riverside County Assessor 2022 Riverside County Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder. Electronic Database. Accessed 7/18/2022. https://ca-riverside-acr.publicaccessnow.com/Search.aspx?s=384130028 &pg=1 &g=-1 &moduleld=478 Rogers, M.J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. Rogers, T.H. 1965 Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, CDMG, Scale 1:250,000. Schroeder, Albert H. 1953 A Few Sites in Moapa Valley, Nevada. The Masterkey 27(1):18-24, (2):62-68 1961 The Archaeological Excavations at Willow Beach, AZ, 1950. Utah Anthro. Papers 50. Schroth, Adella Beverly 1994 The Pinto Point Controversy in the Western United States. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Riverside. Shutler, Richard, Jr. 1961 Lost City, Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nev. State Museum Anthropological Papers 5. 1968 The Great Basin Archaic. In Prehistory in the Western United States. Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):24-26. Edited by C. Irwin -Williams, Eastern New Mexico University. Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4). University of California, Berkeley. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1):1-358. Sullivan, Susan 2004 "Slow pace, fast growth in Menifee." Los Angeles Times. Electronic Document. Accessed 11/30/20. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-30-re- guide30-story.html. Sutton, Mark Q. 1996 The Current Status of Archaeological Research in the Mojave Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18(2):221-257. U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Quick Facts Menifee City, California. Electronic Document: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/menifeecitycalifornia. Accessed 11/20/22. 21 FEBRUARY 29. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE United States Department of Agriculture 1938 Aerial Photos of Riverside County. Electronic Document: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed multiple dates. 1967 Aerial Photographs of Riverside County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed multiple dates. 1968 Aerial Photographs of Riverside County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed multiple dates. U.S. Geological Survey 1979 Romoland, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map Wallace, William J. 1955 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity 28(2):172-180. Warren, Claude N. 1986 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. Moratto with contributions by D.A. Fredrickson, C. Raven, and C.N. Warren, pp. 339-430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Warren, Claude N., and R.H. Crabtree 1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d'Azevedo, pp.183-193. W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson 2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California. Yohe, Robert M., II 1992 A Reevaluation of Western Great Basin Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the Timing of the Introduction of the Bow and Arrow to Eastern California Based on New Excavations at the Rose Spring Site (CA-INY-372). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Riverside. 22 FEBRUARY 20, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE APPENDIX A NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH AND TRIBAL SCOPING CORRESPONDENCE CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseno VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumosh SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoon STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom_ Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION November 14, 2022 David Brunzell BCR Consulting, LLC Via Email to: bcrllc2008,alamail.com Re: Normandy Road (KIM2222) Project, Riverside County Dear Mr. Brunzell: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources COMMISSIONER in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential BuffyMcQuillen adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By Nomlaki contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of COMMISSIONER notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to Wayne Nelson Luiseno ensure project that the information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. Kumeyaay If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.aov. COMMISSIONER [Vacant] Sincerely. COMMISSIONER [Vacant] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Andrew Green Hitchcock Cultural Resources Analyst Miwok/Nisenon Attachment NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahcsnahc.ca.aov NAHC.ca.gov Page 1 of 1 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reid Milanovich, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6800 Fax: (760) 699-6919 laviles@aguacaliente.net Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Patricia Garcia -Plotkin, Director 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6907 Fax: (760) 699-6924 ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Amanda Vance, Chairperson 84-001 Avenue 54 Coachella, CA, 92236 Phone: (760) 398 - 4722 Fax: (760) 369-7161 hhaines@augustinetribe.com Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 11 /14/2022 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Cahuilla Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Irvine, CA, 92603 Phone: (949) 293 - 8522 kaamalam@gmail.com Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Cahuilla Matias Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno San Juan Capisttrano, CA, 92675 Phone: (949) 293 - 8522 kaamalam@gmail.com Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A Heidi Lucero, Chairperson Cahuilla 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675 Phone: (562) 879 - 2884 hllucerol 05@gmail.com Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla Indio, CA, 92203 Phone: (760) 342 - 2593 Fax: (760) 347-7880 jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov Cahuilla Band of Indians Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 U.S. Highway 371 Cahuilla Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 763 - 5549 Fax: (951) 763-2808 Chairman@cahuilla.net La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Norma Contreras, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Luiseno Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 Phone: (760) 742 - 3771 Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189 Phone: (760) 782 - 0711 Fax: (760) 782-0712 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Banning, CA, 92220 Serrano Phone: (951) 755 - 5110 Fax: (951) 755-5177 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Normandy Road (KIM2222) Project, Riverside County. PROJ-2022- 11/14/2022 11:04 AM 1 of 3 006691 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 11 /14/2022 Morongo Band of Mission Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indians Reservation Ann Brierty, THPO Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee Banning, CA, 92220 Serrano P.O. Box 1899 Quechan Phone: (951) 755 - 5259 Yuma, AZ, 85366 Fax: (951) 572-6004 Phone: (928) 750 - 2516 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov scottmanfred@yahoo.com Pala Band of Mission Indians Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Reservation Preservation Officer Jill McCormick, Historic PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Cupeno Preservation Officer Rd. Luiseno P.O. Box 1899 Quechan Pala, CA, 92059 Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (760) 891 - 3515 Phone: (760) 572 - 2423 Fax: (760) 742-3189 historicpreservation@quechantrib sgaughen@palatribe.com e.com Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Ramona Band of Cahuilla Temet Aguilar, Chairperson John Gomez, Environmental P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Coordinator Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 P. O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Phone: (760) 742 - 1289 Anza, CA, 92539 Fax: (760) 742-3422 Phone: (951) 763 - 4105 bennaecalac@aol.com Fax: (951) 763-4325 jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov Pechanga Band of Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Ramona Band of Cahu/lla Coordinator Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Temecula, CA, 92593 Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 770 - 6306 Phone: (951) 763 - 4105 Fax: (951) 506-9491 Fax: (951) 763-4325 pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov admin@ramona-nsn.gov Pechanga Band of Indians Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Mark Macarro, Chairperson Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno One Government Center Lane Luiseno Temecula, CA, 92593 Valley Center, CA, 92082 Phone: (951) 770 - 6000 Phone: (760) 749 - 1051 Fax: (951) 695-1778 Fax: (760) 749-5144 epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov bomazzetti@aol.com Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Luiseno Valley Center, CA, 92082 Phone: (760) 297 - 2635 crd@rincon-nsn.gov This list is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050 5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097 94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Normandy Road (KIM2222) Project, Riverside County. PRO]-2022- 11/14/2022 11:04 AM 2 of 3 006691 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 11 /14/2022 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 659 - 2700 Fax: (951) 659-2228 lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson P. O. Box 487 Cahuilla San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno Phone: (951) 654 - 5544 Fax: (951) 654-4198 ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 Cahuilla San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jntiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Cultural Committee, P.O. Box 1160 Cahuilla Thermal, CA, 92274 Phone: (760) 397 - 0300 Fax: (760) 397-8146 Cultural - Comm ittee@torresmarti nez- nsn.gov This list is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050 5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097 94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Normandy Road (KIM2222) Project, Riverside County PROJ-2022- 11/14/2022 11:04 AM 3 of 3 006691 Gmail - BCR Consulting/Invitation to survey https://mail.google. com/mail/u/0/?ik=bb8f3 96ba 1 &view--pt&search=a... Gmail Joseph Orozco <josephorozco513@gmail.com> BCR Consulting/Invitation to survey 5 messages Joseph Orozco <josephorozco513@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:46 PM To: eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov, JValdez@soboba-nsn.gov Hello, I am sending this email as an invitation to join two archaeological surveys which we will be conducting in the City of Menifee. Please let me know if you are interested and if so we can arrange a day and time which suits you. Details will be provided before the survey begins. Thanks again, Joseph Orozco Archaeological Field Director BCR Consulting LLC 909-525-7078 www.bcrconsulting.net Ebru Ozdil <eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov> Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 1:48 PM To: Joseph Orozco <josephorozco513@gmail.com> Cc: Molly Earp <mearp@pechanga-nsn.gov>, Tina Thompson Mendoza <tmendoza@pechanga-nsn.gov>, Juan Ochoa <jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov> Hi Joseph, Thank you for the notification. Can you please send us more information about both projects as well as locations. Menifee is highly sensitive and we most likely would like to join the survey. We can also prepare the work order pretty quickly for these surveys. Please note that I have included Molly, Juan and Tina to this email. Please make sure to include them in your email with the information so we can coordinate with you on the survey information as well as work order. Thank you Ebru T. Ozdil Cultural Analyst Pechanga Cultural Resources Department P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Office: (951) 770-6313 Fax: (951) 693-2314 1 of 4 11/18/2022, 12:45 PM Gmail - BCR Consulting/Invitation to survey https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bb8f396bal &vievrpt&search=a... Confidential Communication: This message, and any documents or files attached to it contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. Recipients should not file copies of this message and/or attachments with publicly accessible records. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent for the intended recipient, you have received this message and attachments in error, and any review, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by reply email or by telephone at (951) 770-6313, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them. [Quoted text hidden] Juan Ochoa <jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov> Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:51 PM To: Joseph Orozco <josephorozco513@gmail.com>, Ebru Ozdil <eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov> Cc: Molly Earp <mearp@pechanga-nsn.gov>, Tina Thompson Mendoza <tmendoza@pechanga-nsn.gov> Hello, Joseph, Please see below for the documentation and information needed to process the work order for the archaeological surveys. If needed, please send a separate email for the second survey work order request to avoid confusion: 1 Map of Project location 2. Legal Name of Project. 3. Scope of Work or Project description and location: 4 Project Assessor Parcel Number(s): 5 Legal name, address, and phone number of entity entering into agreement: 6. Name, title, phone, and e-mail of the contact person for the Project: 7. Name of Lead Agency: 8. Estimated start date: Once we have received and reviewed the requested materials, our legal department will forward a draft work order to your attention for review and approval. 2 of 4 11/18/2022, 12:45 PM Gmail - BCR Consulting/Invitation to survey https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ik=bb8f396bal &view=pt&search=a... Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best, Juan Ochoa, MLIS Assistant Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Pechanga Cultural Resources Department P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Office: (951)-770-6308 jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov [Quoted text hidden] Joseph Orozco <josephorozco513@gmail. com> To: Juan Ochoa <jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov> Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:18 AM Hello Juan, Looks like we have one more survey in the area. I will provide all the information you requested once the maps and project details are finalized. Would you like each project sent in separate emails to avoid any possible confusion? -Joe Orozco [Quoted text hidden] Juan Ochoa <jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov> To: Joseph Orozco <josephorozco513@gmail.com> Hi Joe, Yes that would be preferable. Thank you, Juan Ochoa, MLIS Assistant Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Pechanga Cultural Resources Department P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 8:13 AM 3 of 4 11/18/2022, 12:45 PM Gmail - BCR Consulting/Invitation to survey https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bb8f396bal&view--pt&search=a... Office: (951)-770-6308 jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov [Quoted text hidden] 4 of 4 11/18/2022, 12:45 PM Yahoo Mail - Normandy Road Project, Menifee https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/2/messages/ALrYQvE_eoYDY9RP-... Normandy Road Project, Menifee From: David Brunzell (david.brunzell@yahoo.com) To: eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov Cc: pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov; mearp@pechanga-nsn.gov; tmendoza@pechanga-nsn.gov; jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov Date: Friday, January 27, 2023 at 02:28 PM PST Hi Ebru, Nice talking with you today. Do you have any information about the Traditional Cultural Property (name/boundaries /etc.) that we should include in the cultural report? I understand these things are highly sensitive, but want to make sure we have everything addressed appropriately. Thanks! David Brunzell Principal Investigator/Archaeologist BCR Consulting LLC U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Member 505 West 8th Street Claremont, California 91711 909-525-7078 www.bcrconsuIting.net 1 of 1 1/27/2023, 3:21 PM FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE APPENDIX B PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW LP--O WESTERN SCIENCE CENTER October 251h, 2022 BCR Consulting, LLC Joseph Orozco 505 W. 811 St. Claremont, CA 91711 Dear Mr. Orozco, This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Normandy Road Project located in the city of Menifee, Riverside County, CA. The project site is located along Normandy Road between Audie Murphy Road and Berea Road on Township 6 South, Range 3 West, in Section 5 of the Romoland, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle. The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped primarily as mixed alluvial deposits from the Holocene and Pleistocene epoch, with the easternmost end of the project extending into units of Cretaceous gabbro and diorite (Morton, Bovard, and Morton 2003). Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius; however, WSC does have localities in similarly mapped localities across Southern California. Any fossil specimen from the Normandy Road Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units, and it is the recommendation of the Western Science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the study area. If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at bstoneburg@westerncentermuseum.org. Sincerely, 3 xr 'i OVA �ROV-Ar Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, MSc Collections Manager 2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ Western ScienceCenter. org Yltr:w�4'1I;7c"j�7fdII4c Gtr.z: i IN ,� • - is inL: t s� � - ,, . FEBRUARY 20, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 0 94° E (T) O 11 N 479426 372724317 m Photo 1: Overview from SW 0 73' NE (T) v I I N 479578 3727267 35 m Photo 2: Overview of Salt Creek on N side of Normandy Road FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 29985 Berea Rd, Menifee, CA 92584, US 0,102 1 ILI K Photo 3: Project Site Overview from NE corner FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 0 267° W (T) OO 11 N 479884 372725915 m Photo 4: Project Site Overview FEBRUARY 26, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 29910 Morning Breeze Dr, Menifee, CA 92584, USA 0 Photo 5: Possible Prehistoric Basalt Flake or Core Fragment (Isolate) FEBRUARY 2+. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE 0' • 295*W (T) OO 11 N 479711 3727263 t5 m A y .� 1SE �• r , .1rl� Photo 6: Possible Prehistoric Andesite Shatter FEBRUARY 28. 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE APPENDIX D RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY k G � -1 t: 0 a ■ � a 1 CD k k d§ §k § G § Cl) cn A( c n wo 1 ¥Ld m§ a a g ~ k k go §G 8 8 § dmcn mm m m ° ui �$$ 0co CST \ kk§ kd§ § § A�� cn�m cn Cl) u w 2 2 § ) \ 0 \ 0 0 « k LU Lu m �� ( ( �zo Ofz■ o-�M o-M f� ± EU)c FLU)= �) S w Ewcm w0) iƒk $ƒk %� a 2 /))c ) k/ k/d} a z » $ w u F- § �- �]v IL\3 >� ee 2§/ ?0 Boa IL §$/ < ofCLI §fƒ - <:3 k/R)}§/ > i m[§ We° /W§ §§/ U�� �=z ==w a�m-0 f�§§m±> 5�e �o (w \\§ 2§/ k\\) \)k )b\ ƒ%b §z- > kt°§$)\ 0 w() > @ k k\ 1) �/m) \��§( � \k\\ o =woo w�£Ai =®I-oeX� j/} k§§) )/ƒk \§§\ §§§\ \k] \;o 0w0 ' e o 5 D W &X §w ) \§£r\$§ \�rL50< §E§ 0 20< D U) mgm w w k\k/§\\ §\\ IL m mmm-j oo> c-5> w § 2 2 N §o Cl)CD LL to Go \ \ .)z �2 \ § k7 0 z> 0 k/Q. 0 3Pt \ / k G % ER ER) / d 0 O N 12 c 0 a 0 Q d _H J O 0. w 2 m o! mIn M CD Cl) O O O O 7� O O O O O M fM fM co Cl) Cl) Cl) M M N O cn m O O W N M Co _o O a00 O O O O N � cl m M M U W O N m OO CND co O O O O O O O m ccn Cl) ccn fm m Cl) c 0 t U w W CU J 7 J J Q a» U� U U� U LL o jai 00� O ZO 00D OU = ODU U �'W 000 OUP~ OU -1� w = cd M E oV LUX- WWW9 wIX Qa w -o t m� =wOf M:0< =w LL0 Q w Y m 0 v c ft w> W LU w Q 0 Of w U) Ir W = 0 U Q¢WX ¢of2U Qw of¢ a F-U LL LL LL o m0 wFz¢ O�Q W z QpU wzp >W IL Z— LL D LL it Q .2 �> w0wW mw ww�� ConLU JwUJa Z)in mU t-— WJUO w wU) —Z Qco�QZ Uw JW}} w moo (n�WLL w= U-U0 W� UOQU�cn JW QO~ o m o CO Qn�Q cn Q�7L) cnHw 0 z�wW UW- -0< Z W yQ ¢ J04 zU Q ¢ QcoLLO Lu LL Ups 0=)ZOQfoz W O�Q pJZUp c'n mm`"° Uw� JUG UOopv) �WU WLLgOv�n O-� Ogw a� °� C7UUz QZ Q W Uw QLLLL 0 wU wLL0 ia EQ OQZO ��OLL Ozj> wQ0 T-00W < LLLL =Zin o m o OLLU)U Ow¢ 0 0— - WU)Of �Z�ingp� VUQ ��w Lo EoMU U�O�n �Z}U 2pw�� �za� W�Q>p� aU ��W 0 y 0 m� c �HH� 2ooZ �d QIW-OLL �0Z�w Qw��cn0 �wZ Iw-wU c� c [2'o zw0� WHO z20wQ Dw0Q avU)� �D =Q0 Q�Z ¢cn WQF-U QF-cn2 ¢NU QF J3U UwmU ¢¢�U�O ar-U 2LL9 LL Z c W_ U Z W w LLI Z Y J J 0) a Q O Z Z >g Q > OU w O w wW U Q H Q W = ' J w E _LU U z w O¢w O `_° t U JQ HQ Y O J Q>J U 2 0Y Q m Y U m2 2 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn NO 07 V � O Nr` 0) ._M O't O NV Co 0 M CO r- f0 n r t` O M O1 OM O(OO N66m Nt M V Co MO v0) Oco I,- 00 O CO 00 Co N co N coo N CD M co CM CO co O LL O � O LL O LL O LL O L O L O LL O of . w m - W (D , of , of , W CO 0) m'E(D m'E00) m0) m'E4�i m� my ma m ❑� 0M� 0aa 0-0 0av ❑v 0a 0a 0 Q 'o Q: 'o Q 5,5 Q 'o Q� 'o Q 'o Q 'o Q 'o Q z> zcn> zcn> z> zcn> z> z> z> z N co co CV co M coN cco coo t0 N CN too D O O o O O o o O O O rn d p t O aL+ Q m } N O d N O J Z- O Q O d a w w 6 fO fA N N N P� r.- I- U) f0 f0 O O O M M Cl) N f0 W N N N rnI,-F- fO fn LO 000 C.) m m Cl) m m N f0 0 m N O Cl) M N O 0 N O Cl) m ` a Q U U N m U 06 ad m U m U m U N L C L L L C L C L C fn a) cn U fn N fn 0 (n N V LL V LL LL LL V LL V LL V N Cffi m run� m fC m N m (vn� M cn fn ma m Co ma ma ma C O - a1 Z 0 Q) L LL T f0 f�0 OOCD oC7fO m (ED E Q� m m m> 7n. 2 N N OOfT °BL 'a O'O- aL W OmU CL _r o)L)> C3mC OU p CC�a7 O mLg OU w L C m� Q) Q• U C tm N O O > w lCC a T NF-Q'� .O-1 h Ca O M 'cm w0� (D 'C C m� O` N Y V CL a) n Z o �°�� > >L (D Uio�� �m (D Noy �co rn orn �cc o��rn E o w� w d U a) aa) -6 co � � LL c o � o 6 C-4 y v O�' CCO N O a) I` > O N a)� O H U O a7 �foM N > a s a C O m J L 7 C LL `� m O m N �>>p a) U O L D L Q. U a U f0 y �C, mm m:Vm o�Eaai `off mom ocn m o� 2 rna fu afnMw mLL E o �„ m c E m' o 7 U w To L 1O � a N w T E L o 7 G m m o O y �Li a7 cty� !�- Sam N w UmNm Or m�u>>Z .� N�coLLm L �r- UH� aQ m� ULLU aL.mU ���� 0 �m�U afn L T T O O �YmQY F F Y = m cmi m ca fco m O C C m r mm NJ E m m E U m EY UC� E rn a E cn E fn E U O m m LL O LL w LL Oa LL LL LL C N _ m _ m U) m a7 m` C >OO J D U H > m Q C O m 7 m a C m m C m � M f0 n r W a0 N N N N N N N C L U N H co em+ O E o � ani cn o_ v 10 Goo Gwo fmn fmn U) rn rn 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a M V O_ fM N O N 0 N U m 0 N aD rn m IL Iti O a a d v 0 0 12 awi 0 0 0 d a 0 Q 0 a p U) 0 m L u IL C m o O m o rn0 rn0 r In r 10 co O O O O O O O as aE w a' R LO Oni 4M7 cnf coo Oni 0 Onf Oni n O r CO OrO N N r0 OD 000 O O O O O O r O O O EE N ca U O ca O U j, O ca d m —0 w a .. d o o d 2 5 a°�Q E a°�Q m m m 3 aoi E:1 Yin^ mom m0 L O 2 LL IL tL a L a a V. 0°�v ao ao tl m� 10 m �FF ¢ aci f0 u 0 LLi c �> cU �> c c� o m� Y w c 3 o f 3� o w m c�— cm c 'c m �= ¢d = o m o �(DCM '� Yam �> =Oaim =4 CO O w w D N � .. N m y CD 0 to m L 1° E rn L N V C O O w N 4i O w •y vOi zw w Ow �UQ w _V w U USE U CYo a)Z y�wa yg w w m T m Y .- COco� ._ T ¢ C_ C O O m m w 5.2 m 0 N O O 2.2 O7 O .2 O O CO 00 0 D U 02 C U U C a 0 U O w m d CO .w. m a) x mvm va m m O'D a-, v-i vm Y o Y dm Y E � mvm v� m E ci x r Co N O N O Co 10 O O L y Lo O O O N O O O LL7 O Lo 2 n u� w _ LO 0 0 Lo ON O LO O N O n co w a w n w rUr�) 01 ` co w O fA O t01 0 twto� O O w 00 00 00 w O co w O w co w O w 0 0¢ N¢ O O Q O¢ a' O¢ O¢ N Q O Q N O Ix LL O °' a C O of m O¢ N¢ O¢ N¢ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Q Q Q Q Q Q Q C)0 0 0 c a. a- ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¢ ¢ N f 0 N It N N N N N r N v N O O O r O O O O O O O O r O O O O as as a xa x x a s as a xa a ¢¢ ¢¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¢ ¢¢ ¢ U U 0 U U U U C.7 U U U 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C - O O O O V 0 O O O O O O O V O N Mn N N 'C - N 'C N w N N Vl 'r N L L L L w O N 2 O :E O :E :E :E :E :EO N N L N N Nl w 2 N N N LA `7 a` a` a` am 'x a` Q. a a M a` M a a2 co _ _ 00 a a2 m U) 05 m � d c � U X L & U 7 D w (D V c '5 o � ¢' a I IL 00 0 m O O M O O O O Q Q U U v v, M O O co O O M Cl IL a aN aaQaa2 Oin 0 iiico iin N � O C aD (D L_ L_ d a� L_ L 00 0 0 Cl) m N m M a O O O O O O Q Q Q U U U n M co v Cl) N M M CV O O O M M M d a a U n ft cr ¢ cn a� a� L_ L_ 0 0 Lo N N V O O Q U Lo rn N r e CO O O M M a a N 07 n a U) d L_ 0 (O Lo N co O O Q U O N co m O O m M a f0 co O O EE Q U U) N co co O O m cm a ro d L_ 0 2 N co co coo to co O O O O Q Q U U ro Lo N O � Lo O O I? C? IL 0- 2 IL N O LP e Cl) N O N rn N U W M O o rn a Cl) rn o O nj 47 V ai of n n n n Cl) n nrn N v v N o 0o 0 ao o 0— n 0 n 0 n 0 n o N Q Q' U c w m ad 06 ca ca m ad ca ca m m E E E E E E E E E E m m� N cn cn cn cn O cn m m m LL y m 15 m min m m li LL ti Li d u: Li ii Li m LL a> E d a? :� E m Li 'c m 0 C C C C J C C C C Q. J C E5 a c •U .m. N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m cn 1p mY 0ul Z_ m m N m— ~UU (n V ice` U mU `m L: V1 N cn w CD M N N y ai w 0; 0 CDO w d to E- N N C E w 7 Vl 7 cn 7 M 7 w F 7 L to 7 wT fn 7 0 7 U) _d 7 .0 ❑ a y a w UJ CDN 'O V C a)�p O y 7 y O J d C N 7 N f0 N C M y CO m m m E m an d m m m e Y 3 m Q L c Co v� vm yr 3 <° v� 3— 3-5 g F c� c� c� Cj ci ci ci ci ci 0 fO m O N NQ O w O N O 0 NQ O M Nm O w O t wt/� NQ O t 0V� NQ O t rtnI� CN 0 NN of O t0t� O O) � Nmr O� w N>� O N �p NQcn O N jp Qcn NQ NQ NQ N�2 W NQ CIA O Q Q O O c c O O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N N N CO N v N v N N N N V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U U U U f) U U U U U U V U U c O c O O O V O O O c O O O O O c O O O O Mn L Mn L Mn L N L O V1 L N L Vl L Mn L N L Mn L N L L L L N N N i N d N N N d HN N a` a a IL ' x a a a a x a a a a a = a` a� U Fn in in in in in in cn in in in cn in in in in O) O fD n Go O N v LO co n N Cl) 10 co (D fD to w n n n n n (M O W O co co co co Go CD W co co co co co co co m fD W fD O co W co 00 co aD 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 O > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a a ¢ a ¢ a a a a a a ¢ a ¢ a U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 1- coO C7 O O O 1- co N cq N LO O O a UO N I,-r- N rl cn LO LO UO LO LO � � p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Cl) Cl) M cn Cl) co M M M M M M M M Cl) M N cm M cm M M cm M fM eM c? cm cm M MC? cm CM a 0- a a cL a d a a a a a a Q. a a a FEBRUARY 28, 2023 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT NORMANDY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX E DPR 523 FORMS V N Z {= iN X W W O U 0 .C) 0 z d V) IN W W a ❑ a 0 Of 0 z 00 00 0 z STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF MENIFEE ) I, Rachel Valencia, Acting Deputy City Clerk of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the foregoing Planning Commission Resolution No. PC23-596 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 141h day of June, 2023 by the following vote: Ayes: Diederich, Long, Madrid, Thomas, LaDue Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None rfl f I 1, 1 4' 1& W� chel Valencia Acting Deputy City Clerk